20071905 Ver 1_Application_20071109

e„a STAiFd~
~-~
~.~ Ln
a.,...'Vs''
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'T1V~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. William Wescott
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Sirs:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
November 6, 2007 O n
Mr. Stephen Lane
Division of Coastal Management
N. C. Dept. of Env. & Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application, CAMA Major Development Permit
Application, and Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization Request for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 8 over Tranters Creek on SR 1403 and SR 1567, in
Beaufort and Pitt Counties. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1403(4), State Project No.
8.2150801, TIP No. B-4020. Debit $400.00 from WBS Element 33387.1.1
Please find enclosed the CAMA Major Permit (MP) forms, Preconstruction Notification (PCN), adjacent
riparian landowner return receipts, NCDWQ Stormwater Permit, on-site restoration plan, permit
drawings, and half-size plan sheets for the above referenced project. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was
completed for this project on August 18, 2006 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are
available upon request. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
existing Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403 and SR 1567 over Tranters Creek in Beaufort and Pitt Counties. The
project involves replacement of the existing bridge structure with a 440-foot cored slab bridge at
approximately the same location using a temporary work bridge for construction. Bridge substructure
will consist of 12-inch HP piles for the end bents, and for the other bents we will use 24-inch steel pipe
piles. The existing bridge navigational clearance will be maintained. The approach roadway will consist
of a 24-foot travel way providing for two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders including 4-foot
paved shoulders. There will be no permanent impacts to Tranters Creek and 0.37-acre of permanent
impacts to adjacent wetlands. Traffic will be detoured off-site, on 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 Tranters Creek [DWQ Index #28-103].
Neither Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped
watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project study
area. Tranters Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild
and Scenic River. Additionally, Tranters 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.
©~
fC'~1`~
0~~, I
~T D I' '
F,~ • ~ ~ `
~N~SgN~ Tq~ '/Irl j %~'~
k3,~,~^
4(f
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET -
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORCa RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Permanent Impacts: Wetlands adjacent to Tranters Creek will be impacted by the proposed project.
Construction of the proposed project will result in permanent impacts to riverine wetlands, including 0.22
acre of fill in 404 wetlands due to roadway fill and 0.15-acre of excavation in 404 wetlands for the
reconstruction of the roadside ditch. (see permit drawings).
Temporarypacts: There will be a temporary work bridge located on the northeast portion of the
project resulting in less than 0.01 acre of temporary impacts to surface waters. Also, this project will
result in 0.08 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.
Utility Impacts: There will be no impacts to jurisdictional resources due to utilities. The proposed
underground power and telephone lines will be relocated using directional bore.
Hand Clearin¢: There will be 0.31 acre of hand clearing in wetlands.
Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules: This project lies within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin; therefore, the
regulations pertaining to the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules will apply. There are 3,943 square feet of impacts
to Zone 1 and 3,113 square feet of impacts in Zone 2. Of these impacts, 6,426 square feet are considered
allowable due to bridge construction and 630 square feet are allowable due to roadway construction. 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.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge superstructure consists of a steel plank floor on I-beams. The substructure consists
of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The bridge will be removed and piles will be pulled piece-by-
piece without dropping components into Waters of the United States during construction. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed to avoid any temporary fill
from entering Waters of the United States.
Federally Protected Species
As of May 10, 2007 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists eight federally protected species for
Beaufort and Pitt Counties (Table 1). A Biological Conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" was reached for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the West Indian Manatee
(Trichechus manatus). A copy of the USFWS concurrence letter is attached. The remaining of the
federally protected species of Beaufort and Pitt Counties has biological conclusions of "No Effect".
Table 1. Federally protected species of Beaufort and Pitt CounNec:
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion County
Le idochel s kem ii Kem 's ridle sea turtle E No No Effect B
Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee E Yes MANLTAA B/P
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded wood ecker E No No Effect B/P
Canis ru us Red wolf EXP N/A N/A B
Lysimachia as erulae olia Rou h-leaved loosestrife E Yes No Effect B
Elli do steinstansana Tar Rivers in mussel E No No Effect P
Aesch nomene vir inica Sensitive 'ointvetch T Yes No Effect B
NCDOT TIP B-4020 Page 2 of 4

Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from the Endangered
Species Act. A Biological Conclusion is no longer necessary for this species. The bald eagle is
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Accordingly, bald eagle occurrences and
nesting habitat were surveyed. The most recent survey, on April 26, 2006, found no individuals or
nesting sites within 660 feet of the project limits. This project will therefore have no adverse effects on
the bald eagle.
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:
• Use of an off-site detour during construction
• Construction of a 132-foot longer bridge
• Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented
• No in-water work will occur from February 15 to September 30, as requested by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries, as
Tranters Creek is designated as a Primary Nursery Area
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized during demolition of the existing
bridge and construction of the new bridge due to the designation of Tranters Creek as a Primary
Nursery Area
• The Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee• Precautionary Measures for
Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters will be implemented during construction.
• There will be no deck drains on the proposed bridge
• Fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio
Mitigation
The proposed project will have permanent impacts to wetlands totaling 0.37 acre due fill and excavation.
NCDOT is proposing on-site mitigation totaling 0.14 acre. See the attached Restoration Plan detailing
the on-site proposal. The rest of the 0.23 acre of impacts will be covered by surplus mitigation within the
same cataloging unit (shown on the attached debit ledger).
Project Schedule
The review date for this project is April 1, 2008 and the Let Date is May 20, 2008.
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 a Nationwide Permit 23 authorize these activities. 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 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701 and 3688 will apply to this
project. NCDOT is providing five copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their approval. NCDOT received a
stormwater permit (SW7070417), dated June 20, 2007, from NCDWQ (attached).
NCDOT T/P 8-4010 Page 3 of 4

CAMA: NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area Management Act
Major Development Permit. The landowner receipts are provided with this permit application.
Authorization to debit the $400 Permit Application Fee from WBS Element 33388.1.1 is hereby given.
Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Authorization: NCDOT requests that the NC Division of Water
Quality review this application and issue a written approval for aTar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer
Authorization.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http:~%www.ncdot.or T/~doly`preconstruct/pe/neu~'permit.html.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Mr. Chris Manley at
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely
`. ~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
W/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment:
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Programming & TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Stephen W. Kirby, PDEA
Ms. Leilani Paugh, NEU
Mr. Randy Griffin, NEU
NCDOT TlP 8-4020 page q o fq

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(u any parucuiar item is not applicable to ttus 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: NW 23 & 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~orv J. Thorpe Ph.D. Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:~919) 733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
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 maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 8
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4020
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Beaufort/Pitt Nearest Town: Washington
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The project is located at
Tranters Creek (Bridge No. 8) on SR 1403/SR 1567. Tranters Creek is the line between
Beaufort and Pitt County
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): 35.5631 °N -77.0865 °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: Existing conditions contain the roadway and bridge to cross
Tranters Creek. General land use is forests agriculture and residental
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Page 2 of 8

The existing Bridge No.8 will be removed without dropping any components in the water.
The new bridge will be built using a temporary workpad and will be 132 ft. longer. Road and
bridge construction equipment will be used such as cranes earth moving equipment and
road surface equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace the existing 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.Jurisdictional Determination Action ID 200411716 (date: 12/28/04
expiration date: 12/28/20091, State Stormwater Permit No. SW7070417
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be permanent
impacts due to the replacement of Bridge No 8 The permanent impacts are the result of fill
and excavation in the wetland for the road material and the roadside ditch.
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 flooding.
Wetland Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact Type of Wetland

(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 permanent fill forested yes abuting 0.22
1 excavation forested yes abuting 0.15
1 temporary Fill Forested yes abuting 0.08

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.45
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 5.5
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet Area of
Impact
acres)
N/A

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

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

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

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

Impact
(acres
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nroiect:
Stream Im act (acres): N/A
Wetland Im act (acres): 0.45
O en Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.45
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): N/A
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): 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.
Use of an off-site detour during construction• Construction of a 132-foot longer bridge• Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented• No in-water work will
occur from February 15 to September 30 as requested by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries as Tranters Creek is
designated as a Primary Nursery Area• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized
during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge due to the
designation of Tranters Creek as a Primary Nursery Area• The Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts
to the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North
Carolina Waters will be implemented during construction • There will be no deck drains on the
proposed bridge; Fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3.1 ratio
Page 5 of 8

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that maybe appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
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.
Please see the restoration plan and drawings for mitigation details
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/wro/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
Page 6 of 8

Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? 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* I ~~^Impaat'«, I Multiplier I Required
1 3943 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
2 3113 1.5 N/A
Total I 7056 I I N/A
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
Page 7 of S

f.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.See Stormwater Permit attached
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
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).
See the Permit Application Cover Letter
oti p ~o- zz-v
A~plicant/Agent's Signature v i t Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

®CM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Maior Development Permit
Gast revises 12127/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
North Carolina Department Of Transportation Project Name (if applicable)
B-4020
Applicant 1: First Name
Gregory MI
J. Last Name
Thorpe
Applicant 2: First Name MI Last Name
if additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
1598 Mail Service Center PO Box City
Raleigh State
NC
ZIP
27699 Country
USA Phone No.
919 - 715 - 1334 ext. FAX No.
919 - 715 - 5501
Street Address (~f different from above) City State ZIP
Email
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
AgenU Contractor 1: First Name MI Last Name
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name MI Last Name
Mailing Address PO Box City State
ZIP Phone No. 1
-
- ext. Phone No. 2
- - eM.
FAX No. Contractor #
Street Address (d different from above) City State Zlp
Email
<Form continues on back>
252-8t)8-28Q8 .. 1-888-4RCOAS7 „ wwuv.nccc+astatmanagement>net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple) Street Address State Rd. #
Beaufort Pitt SR 1403 (Beaufort) / SR 1567 (Pitt) County Line SR 1403/SR 1567
Subdivision Name City State Zip
N/A Washington NC -
Phone No. Lot No.(s) (rf many, attach additional page with list)
N/A - - ext. N/A, ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Tar-Pamlico Tranters Creek
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade? d. Name the Gosest major water body to the proposed project site.
j$jNatural ^Manmade ^Unknown Tar River
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
^Yes ®No work falls within.
N/A
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.) b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
275' within RNV limits N/A
c. Size of individual lot(s) d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A, NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list) 11.0' ^NHW or ®NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Cypress-gum swamp and Disturbed/Maintained (containing various grasses and weeds) are the vegetative communities on
site.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Bridge No.8 and SR 1403 / SR 1567 for travel
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Residential, forestry, and City of Washington Boat Launch Facility
h. How does local government zone the tract? i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
N/A (Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
^Yes ^No j$jNA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? Yes No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. Yes No NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ^Yes ®No ^NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ^Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ®Yes ^No
(Attach documentation, if available)
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCQAST :. www.nccoastaimanagement,net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
N/A
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
See stormwater management permit
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? Commercial Public/Govemment
^Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
Replacement of the existing bridge over Tranters Creek.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
The existing Bridge No.8 will be removed without dropping anything in the water. The new bridge will be built using a
temporary workpad and will be 132 ft. longer. Road and bridge construction equipment will be used such as cranes, earth
moving equipment, and road surface equipment.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Construction of a new bridge and roadway.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? Both
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 1.1 ^Sq.Ft or ®Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ^Yes ^No ^NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Offsite and Roadway stormwater runoff
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ®Yes ^No ^NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ®Yes ^No ^NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? Yes No ^NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
6. Additionallnformation
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) - (1) are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
252-848-2848 ., 1-888-4RCOAST .: wwvv.nccaastaimanagement.net

' Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims Utle to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name Fletcher Family Properties
Phone No.
Address 6870 Clark's Neck Road, Washington, NC 27889
Name City of Washington
Phone No.
Address 102 East Second Street, Washington, NC 27889
Name Eric S. Raub
Phone No.
Address 6879 Clark's Neck Road, Washington, NC 27889
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
State Stomtwater Permit, No. SW7070417, NCDWQ, June 20, 2007
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
~ 7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date ~(~•Z-Z' ~ ~ Print Name ~/ ~-~ ~.V~j~-
Signature ('T
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
pDCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Inforrnation ®DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
^DCM MP-3 Upland Development
252-808=2$08 .. 1-~8$8-4RCAAS'f' :. www,nccoastatr»anager»ent.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5)
^DCM MP-4 Structures Information
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
252-8U$-2$Q$ ., 1-$8$.4I2COAST .. vuww.n~coastalmanagement.net

FNS ACM MF5
BRIDGES and CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
1. BRIDGES ^This section not applicable
a. is the proposed bridge: b. Water body to be crossed by bridge:
^Commercial ®Public/Govemment ^Private/Community Tranters Creek
c. Type of bridge (construction material): d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at NLW or NWL:
This will be a cored slab bridge, and substructure will 18.6'
consist of 12-inch HP piles for the end bents, and for the
other bents we will use 24-inch steel pipe piles, which
will be driven into position.
e. (i) Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? ®Yes ^No f.
If yes,
(ii) Length of existing bridge: 306'
(iii) Width of existing bridge: 30.8'
(iv) Navigation clearance underneath existing bridge: 8_5'
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be removed?
(Explain) Existing bridge, piers, and abutments will
be removed.
9~ Length of proposed bridge: 440 ft.
i. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow/? ^Yes ®No
If yes, explain:
(i) Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert? ^Yes ®No
tf yes,
(ii) Length of existing culvert:
(iii) Width of existing culvert:
(iv) Height of the top of the existing culvert above the NHW or
NWL:
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be removed?
(Explain)
h• Width of proposed bridge: 36'
j. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by reducing or
increasing the existing navigable opening? ®Yes ^No
If yes, explain:
k• Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge: 9_7' I. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard concerning their
approval? ®Yes ^No
If yes, explain: See Letter in the CE
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing no navigable n. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands: 6.5 ft.
waters? ^Yes ®No
If yes, explain:
2. CULVERTS ®This section not applicable
a• Number of culverts proposed: N/A b. Water body in which the culvert is to be placed:
c. Type of culvert (construction material):
< Fonm continues on back>
5~-8Q8-808 :: 1-888-~iRCO,AS'r :: wwwnccoa.stalmanaaement.net revised: 'Idt26106

~~rrm DCM MP-5 (Bridges and Culverts, Page 2 of 4}
d. (i) Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
^Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Length of existing bridge:
(iii) Width of existing bridge:
(iv) Navigation Gearance underneath existing bridge:
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be removed?
(Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert:
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the NHW or NWL.
j. Will the proposed culvert affect navigation by reducing or
increasing the existing navigable opening? ^Yes ^No
If yes, explain:
3. EXCAVATION and FILL
a. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any
excavation below the NHW or NWL? ^Yes ®No
If yes,
(ii) Avg. length of area to be excavated:
(iii) Avg. width of area to be excavated:
(iv) Avg. depth of area to be excavated:
(v) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic yards:
e. (i) Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
^Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Length of existing culvert(s):
(iii) Width of existing culvert(s):
(iv) Height of the top of the existing culvert above the NHW or
NWL:
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be removed?
(Explain)
g. Width of proposed culvert:
i. Depth of culvert to be buried below existing bottom contour.
k. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
^Yes ^No
If yes, explain:
^This section not applicable
b. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any
excavation within coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands
(WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square
feet affected.
^CW ^SAV ^SB
®WL 7350 ^None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
To relocate roadside ditch
c. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any
high-ground excavation? ®Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Avg. length of area to be excavated: 134'
(iii) Avg. width of area to be excavated: 60'
(iv) Avg. depth of area to be excavated:
(v) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic yards: 1212
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves any excavation, please complete the following:
(i) Location of the spoil disposal area: To be determined by the contractor
(ii) Dimensions of the spoil disposal area: To be determined by the contractor
(iii) Do you claim title to the disposal area? ^Yes ®No (If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.)
(iv) Will the disposal area be available for future maintenance? ^Yes ®No
(v) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs), other wetlands (WL), or shell
bottom (SB)?
^CW ^SAV ^WL ^SB ®None
If any boxes are checked, give dimensions if different from (ii) above.
(vi) Does the disposal area incude any area below the NHW or NWL? ? ^Yes ®No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (ii) above.
2SZ-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCt9A5T :: www.nccoastalmanagement,n~t revised: 10126106

~t-rm DCM MP-5 (Bridges and Cutverts, Page 3 of 4}
e. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert result in any
fill (other than excavated material described in Item d above) to
be placed below NHW or NWL? ^Yes ®No
If yes,
(ii) Avg. length of area to be filled:
(iii) Avg. width of area to be filled:
(iv) Purpose of fill:
g. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert result in any
fill (other than excavated material described in Item d above) to
be placed on high-ground? ®Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Avg. length of area to be filled: 350'
(iii) Avg. width of area to be filled: 50'
(iv) Purpose of fill: Approach Fill
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project require the relocation of any existing
utility lines? ®Yes ^No
If yes, explain: See Drawings and Utility Narative
(i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert result in any
fill (other than excavated material described in Item d above) to
be placed within coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands
(WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square
feet affected.
^CW ^SAV ^SB
®WL 11220 ^None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
Approach Fill
b. Will the proposed project require the construction of any temporary
detour structures? ^Yes ®No
If yes, explain:
If this portion of the proposed project has already received
approval from local authorities, please attach a copy of the
approval or certification.
c. Will the proposed project require any work channels?
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2.
< Fonm continues on back>
^Yes ®No
e. What type of construction equipment will be used (for example,
dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Road and bridge construction equipment will be used such
as cranes, earth moving equipment, and road surtace
equipment.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any
shoreline stabilization? ^Yes ^No
If yes, complete form MP-2, Section 3 for Shoreline
Stabilization only.
d. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
Using NCDOT Best Management Practices
f. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project site?
^Yes ®No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
252-808-2808 ;: 1-888-4RCAAST :: www.nccoastalmana~eme_rtt.net revised: 10125/06

` ~Ci~Ktii DCM MP-5 {Bridgers and Cuiv~er#s, Page 4 of ~}
~~,ZZ'dZ
Date
a- y~z~
Project Name
~~. C.Cusk Ap
plicant Name
~~ ~ P
plicant Signature
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST ;: wrniw.nccoasYalmartagement.ne# revised: 10126/06

Restoration Plan for Tranter's Creek Wetland
At Bridge No. 8
In Beaufort/Pitt County
TIP B-4020
May 29, 2007
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will perform on-site
mitigation for riverine swamp impacts at the SR 1403 overpass of Tranter's Creek at the
boundary of Beaufort and Pitt Counties. This mitigation site occurs within
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) B-4020. The project begins approximately
350 feet west of Bridge No. 8 and continues to approximately 400 feet to the east of the
bridge.
NCDOT will restore approximately 0.14 acres of riverine swamp wetland by removal of
existing causeway fill. The roadway project will impact 0.37 acres of unavoidable
wetlands, leaving no wetland restoration assets on-site.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The project is located in along the Beaufort and Pitt County lines just west of the City of
Washington. Land use in the project area is predominantly forested with scattered
residential lots.
The existing causeway for the SR 1403 overpass at Bridge No. 8 is located in the
floodplain of Tranter's Creek. The floodplain harbors a mature riverine swamp forest
dominated by canopy species including bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple
(Ater rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and black gum (Nyssa biflora).
Aerial power line and telephone lines are located in the northwest quadrant of the project,
running parallel to the causeway. This maintained herbaceous plants including cattail
(Typha latifolia), rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus),
and soft rush (Juncus effusus) dominate area.
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for TIP B-4020, dated Apri12003, provides further
details concerning existing and proposed roadway conditions.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
DESIGN
The proposed wetland mitigation will consist of restoring approximately 0.14 acres of
riverine swamp wetland.. Restoration will involve removing causeway fill from the
approaches to Bridge No. 8 to match the swamp wetland elevation. Representative spot
elevations will be taken within the adjacent reference wetland to determine the target
elevation. Excavated areas will be ripped and disked if necessary.

The Natural Environment Unit shall be contacted to provide construction oversight to
ensure that the wetland mitigation area is constructed appropriately.
VEGETATION PLANTING
The restoration area adjacent to the new structure will be planted following the
completion of the site grading. The following riverine swamp tree species will be
planted: bald cypress and swamp blackgum. Planting density shall be 680 seedlings per
acre, which equates to a plant spacing of 8 feet on-center. Restoration area under the
bridge will not be planted with hardwood species, but will be stabilized by seeding with
the appropriate wetland seed mix.
MONITORING:
Upon successful completion of construction, the following monitoring strategy is
proposed for the mitigation site. NCDOT will document monitoring activities on the site
in an annual report distributed to the regulatory agencies.
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
No specific hydrological monitoring is proposed for this restoration site. The target
elevation will be based on the adjacent wetland and verified during construction.
Constructing the site at the adjacent wetland elevation will ensure the hydrology in the
restored area is similar to the hydrology in the reference area.
VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
NCDOT shall monitor the restoration site by visual observation and photo points for
survival of planted seedlings and stabilization of restored areas. NCDOT shall monitor
the site for a minimum of three years or until the site is deemed successful. Monitoring
will be initiated upon completion of the site planting.

Mildred Wood Mitigation Site Debit Ledger
The Mildred Wood Mitigation Site was constructed as onsite mitigation for T.I.P. R-
2111/R-2112A US 64 relocation in Edgecombe and Martin Counties. The 418-acre site
is located in Edgecombe County southeast of Tarboro and may be accessed from US 64
on its southern boundary. The site has completed its monitoring period and met
prescribed hydrologic and vegetative success criteria.
The Site was originally debited for R-2111, R-2112A, and R-509GB and has since been
debited for R-2112B, alterations, U-2218, U-2720, B-2980,.and B-4021. To offset the
0.23 acres of unavoidable impacts to riverine wetlands due to T.I.P. B-4020, the Mildred
Wood Mitigation Site will be debited 0.46 acres of riverine wetland restoration. These
debits are reflected in the debit ledger below.
Onsite Mitigation Debit Ledger w/Residual Assets
Site Name HUC Mitigation Type Original Available Debit Debit
(acres) (acres) R-2111, R-2112A, R-2112B
& R-509GB
Mildred Wood 3020103 Riverine Restoration 395 100.33 217 23
Riverine Preservation 23 8 15
Debit Debit Debit
Alterations U-2218 U-2720
Debit Debit Debit
U-2980 B-4021 B-4020
23.5 21.5 6 3 0.25 0.46

o~~~ wAr~9p~
~ ~ e~
o ~ -c
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:

JUN 26 2007
DNISIOfr OF HIGHWAYS
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Permit No. SW7070417
TIP No. B-4020, SR 1413 Bridge Over Tranters Creek
State Stormwater Permit
Linear Public RoadBridge Project
Beaufort County
The Washington Regional Office received a completed Stormwater Application for the subject project on April
23, 2007. Staff review of the plans and specfications has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with
the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000. We are forwarding Permit No. SW7070417 dated
June 20, 2007 to the NC Department of Transportation for the proposed improvements and bridge replacement to SR
1413 over Tranters Creek in Beaufort County.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be subject to the conditions
and limitations as specified therein.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to
request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this permit. This
request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes,
and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. Unless such
demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information t:oncerning this matter, please contact Roger
Thorpe or me at [phone].
S' cerel ,
AI odge, egl upervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
Washington Regional Office
cc: Washington Regional Office
Central Files
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Internet: ~~•~e~e.nc~~•aterqualit~ .ors D[lt;
943 Washington Square Mall Phone [phone] NorthCarolina
Washington, NC 27889 Fax [phone] ~atura!!~

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7070417
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
STORMWATER PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and
other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
NC Department of Transportation
Beaufort County
FOR THE
Construction of a public road/bridge in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (hereafter referred to as
the "stormwater rules and the approved stormwater management plans and specifications and other supporting data
as attached and on file with and approved by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit for
bridge replacement over Tranters Creek on SR 1403 in Beaufort County.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be subject to the following specfied
conditions and limitations:
DESIGN STANDARDS.
1. The runoff from the impervious surfaces has been directed away from surface waters as much as possible.
2. The Amount of built-upon area has been minimized as much as possible.
3. Best management Practices are employed which minimizes water quality impacts.
4. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of
the permit.
5. Vegetated roadside ditches are 3:1 slopes or flatter.

The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing address changes within 30 days.
The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with the Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 026.0233) or the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0259).
Permit issued this the 20 th day of June, 2007.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
for Coieen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water duality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit Number SW7070417

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall at all times provide adequate erosion control measures in conformance with the approved
Erosion Control Plan.
2. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or more of the minimum
requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in the. notice, the permittee shall submit a written
time schedule to the Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall
provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director that the changes have been made.
3. The permittee shall submit all .information requested by the Director or his representative within the time
frame specked in the written information request.
4. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for revised plans, specifications,
and cak;ulations prior to construction for the following items:
a. Major revisions to the approved plans, such as road realignment, deletion of any proposed BMP,
changes to the drainage area or scope of the project, etc.
b. Project name change.
c. Redesign of, addition to, or deletion of the approved amount of built-upon area, regardless of size.
d. Alteration of the proposed drainage.
5. The Director may determine that other revisions to the project should require a modfication to the permit.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice th and approval by the Director. The Director
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit to change name and incorporate such
other requirements as may be necessary. A formal permit request must be submitted to the Division of Water
Quality accompanied by the appropriate fee, documentation from the parties involved, and other supporting
materials as may be appropriate. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or
may not be approved. The permittee is responsible for compliance with the terms and condtoons of this
permit until such time as the Director approves the transfer.
2. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the Permittee to
enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.6(A) to 143-215.6(C).
3. The issuance of this permit does not preGude the Permittee from complying with any and all statutes, rules,
regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other government agencies (local, state, and federal)
which have jurisdiction.
4. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and modifying the permit, revoking
and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by laws, rules, and regulations contained in
Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .1000; and North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
5. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of a request for a
permit mod cation, revocation and reissuance or termination does not stay any permit condition.

~-
o
. ~ ~ SITE
'~ " o
5~ i rvsET o
_ ~ BELOw
. ~ _
- . _ _
~~- O
BEAI~ORT/PITT COUVT I ES
~ ~~~-' 4
~ j` - ~ ~ ~ ~
y\~ w'~?° ,~..J-•~~ ~~ __%, ~~~ ~\~:•i. `t J 111 \y ~~~/
n-
` i
4µ l "~' - -
~ - r S~fack ~J ~
~.
ti
] ~. r- t ~0
J.:
1~ i`
~DaY~i scan ,- "_~:., ~ ' ~ a. Dayb`>sic~h _ ~ '_ .^ s ~,`~`.
VICI11tITY MAP NTS
- N.C. DEPT. OR TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OR HIGHWAYS
WETLA11tD BEAURORT/PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: (B-Mi0)
IMPACTS BRIDGE N0.8 OVER
TRANTERS CREEK ON SR 103/SR 1567
SHEET OR _
P~tTrtlt OraW1~
Shut ~ d

O ~
-.,
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
ft
1 16+25/24+45 -L- BRIDGE 0.22 0.15 0.31

TOTALS : 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.31
Area of impacts due to proposed piers is 201 ftz.
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Wetland Mitigation Due to Excavation = 6163 square feet (0.14 ac) DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
0.08 acres of Temporary Fill in Wetlands in the Hand Clearing areas for Erosion Control Measures. BEAUFORT/PITT couNTY
PROJECT: 33387.1.1 IB-40201
ATN ReWaed 3/31/05 SHEET Mar-07

NAI~IES AND ADDRESSES
~ARC]E]L N®. NAIs'IES
ADDRESSES
I FIeEc}~er Fmmily ProperEies, I.LC
2 Eric S. Ranb
~ CiEy of `VashingEon
4 CiEy of Was}~ingEon
102 E. 2nd S£reeE
Was}-ingEon, NC 27889
b02 E. 2nd SEreeE
washingEon, NC 27889
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWr~YS
BEAUFORT ~ PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: QB-4020)
BRIDGE N0.8 OVER TRANTERS CREED
ON SR 1403 ~' SR 1567
P'~f111~'{~faY1f,~
SHEET 1 OF 1 Sheer ~>_ ~ . ~.~ ,.

Permft Drawing
Sheet ~ of

0
0
ti
U
0
a
ti
•~
See Suet 1-A For Index of Sl,~ets
.~ ~. ~~-
j .*
t. ~ ~'~ ` /
~~ ~ ~,
-.
r ~~
.~ ,~ ~' r_
~.'~,
.~ ~. ~~;
x lEGIN
P P~
{~
VICINITY MAP
LBGJi11tD ~-~-• sauna Jkrow Roux
~~1 L~~ ®~~Tl ~ ®~wy~1Lll f,~yT~11ggL~/y~®~~[y~y ~~L li e~nC ac~n woncr ~unwaq ~*
~~ V' ~~~®A~ ®ll ~~~lJ~~ 1V L~ 11 ~ •R.e Bunn ~O~O ~ o~m
333A7,1,1 BRZ-14031Q P.E.
BEAUFORT /PITT COUNTIES
LOCATTON: BRIDGE N0.8 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
ON SR 1403 /SR 1567 IN WASHINGTON
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAYING AND STRUCTURE
THIS PROJECT IS NOT
WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. NCDOT CONTACT:CATKY HOUSER,PF,PROJECT ENGINEER - ROADWAY DESIGN
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
i0 25 50 1 0 ADT 2007 = 5940 LENGTH RO

ADT 2030 = 9300 ADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4020 = 0.139 mi.
PLANS DHV = 10 %
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4020 = O.OA3 mi

50 25 50 1
D = 60 % .
m O
PROHLE (HORIZONTAL) T = 3 % ` TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT 8-4020 = 0.222 mi,

m y = 60 MPH
10 5 10 2 FUNC. CLASS =
o URBAN LOCAL
a PROFILE (VERTICAL) ` TTST i % DUAL 2 %
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT 1151 Po0. GONSiRUGT10N
°CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY METHOD 1I1.'
PieporeC In me p'tla d: HYDRAULICS $~JNgBle DlI7SION OF 7>RGHWAYS
WANG BNGINlsSRIl1iG COMPANY,lNC srAra of xoRrH cAROLavA
CARY, N.C P~rmlt Drawing
POd NOdTB CedOLiNA DdredTd(8NT OP T1teNSPOdTAlION
~'~"° ,rd Sheet ~ of _,,,,~
RIGHT OF WAY 1L122k GREG S. PLlRVI$, P. E• S1°~'N"°' ra
ru~arr mim~aa ROADWAY DESIGN area anroN mrvnue~
DRPARTMIDVr OP TRANSPORTATION
1,877T11'G J~928o SCOTT L, KENNEDY ~~ HIGHWAY ADMIBVISTNA2TO!
December 18.2007 ' "~"~ ~'~"

0
0
N
U
i+
/-~
s ~.7

0
0
N
U
r~
/.
"knit Drawing
.~~ 7

P
P
N
1G
'M/~. REPGB
~CE INV.
~~ N0,
1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

C V T

.0100 DA1
e \

-

-
- _ ~ -
:1
-0.
3

A A E

ova °' o, H D C E RI

a H N C I G

~ BE IN BRI E ST 19 8 .00 ~ _
' :1 -0 3;

F LL IN E N

e ~
E
a _
~'
m
N + ~ fs
m
P
m
F
ll
I
N
m
N
m
a
0
0
rn
~

~
up
m ~
vi
m
r ~_
O ~
O ~
G~ ~~
m.~
~m° > > 1 a ~ a ~ o > >
1 ~ o i o ~ o ~ o ~ o

. ~ ~ SITE ~~~' ~
®.
SEE II~ET O O
ElELOw ~Y .~
~~~~ ~3
i3EAUFORT/PITT COUNTIES
l .~ ~ `f ~: /O~
-r.. j
_ ,.w ~ ~ ~ wry ~ 5~ vt. ~=
~ .%" '•\ 1
~ i rte- s \ .•
~ __ ~ ~~ ~ ~--yl Yom.. ~~ ~ '~' ~1~'
. i ~- _ :=' ~'~ }f -~ :% Suck fCj~ `\i~
_ n (y- ~
~ r ~ ~' i~ ~
`"'~~ -r' a Dayb`~ac~n
vrcr~rTY MAn NTS
N.C. DEPT.OR TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUFFER BEAURORT/PITT COUNTY
IMPACTS BR nc~g o`.e 0 °ER
TRANTERS CREEK ON SR 1103/SR 1367
SHEET OF
Butter Drawing
Sheet / of

N~
~c
~ n
...
0
~~
'gS
M
BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

51TE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE /
TYPE STATION
FROMITO ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ft~) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ft~) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ft

1 9 S an Bride -L- 19+80-24+20 X 3943 2483 6426

1
Roadwa Fill -L-16+50-19+80
-L- 24+20-24+50
X
0
630
630

TOTAL: 3943 3113 7056

...
~~~
Si

!offer Drawing
itteet ~ OI
2
.-_-_
~ ~ 12~z~1
0
0
Fi
U
0
4
ti
ti
•~
See Sheet 1-A For Ineex of Sleets
••
~~=
'1• Tom'
,, ~ ~~- - i
.) ~,~ ~,
.~ . ~c r -
>„
'` ~,
r
r IN
a ~ir ~
,d~/ • , -
i ~~9'A'l1 PROJECT '~
(~
VICINITY MAP
LBGJ>TID •-f-~- s:~ra J7rooia Roab
~ \ ~. \ Sfo. 29+2DA0 - - 4
Sta.l + \ ~ N \ ~ rCge STA. 28+00.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT 8020
Begin Bridge ••\ ~m \
\ \• ~ `,
\ \ ,~ TO WASHINGTON
~-- TO GRIMESLAND
-L- SR 1567 ~~ -L- SR 1403 -'
,1
Wr ~ I
~.
;~
~~ J
l ~~ ~~~ ~
STA. 16+25,00 -L- BEGIN T1P PROJECT 8-4020 ~' ~p 4
~ / ~ ~ ~~
/ / /•
~~~~~~~~ ®~ ~~~~w~~~
BEAUFORT /PITT COUlYTIES
LOCATION: 9R1DGE N0.8 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
ON SR 1403 /SR 1567 JTN WASHINGTON
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
1 RAl~ AOI.R tYOClO q tiU
~. _6-aazo 1
rtn AOlN6 RLIYLIR ggVtLp
PRELIMINARY PLANS

00 NOT USB POR CONSTAVC170N
THIS PROJECT IS NOT
WITHIN MUNICIPAL 80UNDARIES. NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY HOUSER,P£,PROJECT ENGINEER -ROADWAY DESIGN 'CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II/.'
Pr~~ m ~ orno~ d ~ ~~ ~G~ N
A
GRAPHIC SCALES DBSIGN DATA PRO CT LBNGTX
J~
WANG BNGINEBRING COMPANY, INC. S A~ 0
OLL~IIA
NURS
CARP, N.C
50 z5 0 5D 1 o ADT 2007 = 5940 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4020 = 0.139 mi, roa xoara ceao~rx~ narAasiraxr or riuxaroar~rrox
ADT 2030 = 9300 mn sr~cimesn aruu~rtrrant
PLANS DHV = 10 %
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4020 = 0.083 mi.
rg
lIIGBT OF iPAY DATE PURVI
P
E ~"'~s' rs
50 Z5 5 0 1 0 D = 60 % : ~,
.
GREG S.
cr aca~
rao ROADWAY D&SRiN .nos twtmr
T = 3 % ' TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJEC'i 8-4020 = 0.222 mi. n ENG>~8R DSPARTMSNI' OP TR9NSPORTATIDN
PROFILE (HORIZONTAy y 60 MPH PRDSRAL H7GRWAY ADMINISTRAT7O
LBITTNG DATE: SCOTT L. KENNEDY
10 5 10 20 FUNC. CLASS = 2007
b
8 "`~ °°~"` ~`
URBAN LOCAL Decem
er 1
,
' TTST 1 % rs
PROFILE (VERTICAL) DUAI 2 % ,asruna +oara~¢murua r.Na

PI Sto 16fD6/6
o = 3'mss2srRrr
D = 0' 30' DOA'
L •65979'
r ^ 329.99' a
R ^ 11,45916" ~
~} ~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE i
m ~"`~ ` ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONtt-2
~ ~~~~~
SKETCH SNOWING BgDGE

ui a
IN RELATIDNSNIP TO ROADWAY ~
~
d ra,
TY3s u ~
TYFe n
~ D ~ tl ~.
9y ~ ~ g "~
rYFS m ~
'
' TM~ •
~
~
OS = 60 mph 30
O ~ St
B~GfX TIP PAOJEC! B~ a •E c"An~ .0~5 S ~
' eyn Aq!xOOCh }
i~E61N QQNSTRIIG
fICW } Slob
are RAF
p/y~ ~/y~ J euwo -sL•STa w.sl
(EIE. FAY meM~
TW ~ ~'~G"A{If/ i~ nT LEFT EL
V
2
'
}
. •
29
E
• {- 5TA. 15.75.85 eLb' LT. S
T 78A0'
~
~ a`
} G
AATl
N 8q0~' 447$ E
.. ...
"
gg
BEARllV6 ~
-- --------y---- .v- -F- - -F- - -F - -F- - ,--

19^e
roCRVE N85T .
.. .. .. ..
•aw. E E
~ '1
{• ~ ~ . as.oa
g -E
E
Raos a
~
D0
OET ` ui RA 19+
1
t T
~tAa '
SPECUL~SE pTCH + e_ f .OD
tY CY 1WEOYA
50' TAPER Y Roo AND ~ ~~ aD•r +
``~ s~eo.
o-01n0 ~
a c Ton }
an
a
O T
~ sEUVS~r nos r
0 T
r
T
XIS
E
T (EIL
R
M
T
I
s m m Lo Ft.
& LO Ft PVMT ~ p pT.6' Try~ FuLT PROPFRTESAI.G
~ .~
_
~
~
t •t= Er
.

FfOY IRA 9A+M R1 RA 71+M IT iLl1{+EE 1O
+A~dpdgyEp FG Ep
iB GlTAI f1
O }
}

-L- PT
,~
O
O
N
.~
U
linter Drawing ~
iheet S of ~ '~
r
~;
~ -L- Nn\
1
} .~ SITE 1
~ }\~,
-L-
Pi Sro 26+9372
o • o'irr9,4rr~rr
D • CYi500AT
a T
R •229/831
OS • 60 mph
ssec w:~ sASR o3ra+ O
+~ M7 • , ETA L+00 Tb ~+~L n
2~ ~p~~ .
~Cl+~ O m~ ~ 1 li1R. NY I VI
~~, ptt ~ ~raNi ~ ~ n! TO -L- PCSta. ~+355
`` Sto.24+20,00 -L- ` • a'~y~• ~ ~ } ~ i ~to 2 +45A0 -L-
r~r~ j~~
R9 ~ ~ SIoD R F~u~c'; n`
teAV 1YOSIC IEOa ~ j 1rs~ as _ 1 1 ~ +7EOO ~ !s~ qr w~TI~OwE
00 -~.~
-L- S '37' .,
r
0
* o
} ~ ~~ ~ TAO ICE AG74YE0 errav~te m wn
~# ~E• t a ~ •
j
tEao' r •.srnr. --
ec
v
i
/
' o
r V 9
8g
)
8L91
.ti.~ J
' ~~~ ~
4 .~
OOOt
} ~
b ~ ti
Qir 0
'~~ m RD PU3G5
~~ ~Fl' RN71i ELEV. • 228'4
'
m
RT.
-L• S/A. NNS56 5QW
0
%
~ ~
9R/OGE M'ORAUUC DATA
DESIGN DISLRAfiGE ~ 9.970 CFS
DESkM FREOUEALY 50 YR
DESIGN Hw ELEVATION - 6Q'
BASE DlSpfagGE 12.r/0 CfS
BASE FRECYIEMCI' ^ A7O YR
BASE IAV ELEYATIpv 7b'
OVERTQ°PIHG NSDHAAGE ^ x,970 CFS
OVER7OT'PING FREOUENCY^ -5O YR
OVER7Q°PrNG £LEVATpsr ^ 5d
DATE DF SURVEY 3i3/OS
W~EtEVATpN
AT DATE Cis' SURVEY 'fA'
B-4020 4
Rw asst No.
ROADWAY ORN3N MYD9A0003
as~9ssR RIGIND3l
o'~"aH r%t50i g
n D TJP PAaIELT 8-1D80
D L~1Ad.IfS~~TppA~~G~yL'9~//y~~ . 5dT7ERm
J/Y. GD~WW ~.
~ - PTSfa ~ _ _ sx3Ew.YO.oa „,.~
-Y ~ 3~ •~ n 7wc
t• sTl, j!
~ ~~
N
_ nn•ET.
u
~ - - ~ seuw
- '~°`-
~ - ---
~
~
4
_ _ _ - _ _ s" "m coats 7~
a
n
n
asr
x
- ,
~
'
~
~
-~_ .. __7. w•G-~ E'SL'---BDb'.
_p___ ~
y / - -r
- '_ - X~-x
--- -.X x =~
~ ~ - (7 _ 0.MN
~~ /~
8vQ OivE RkTA1N
e
+ ~
+/ 3750 "
!
I ~ ,
50'
//
/ •
s

~
pTT pF suSE•3ctaN 51EC ~p~y 1~ /C /

\ X~ DO 9t7 Po !01 RA
+~
i
~ 00 TO ~i+EO a.l~f/~/
~

a
~ \ g
!^
p ~ EIDOE TO fG 2l+EE epevQ PMmG
~~~ \~ IT A30Q --------
-
\ / /
}/ // /~
~ ~~
aaRR~~ ---
\
\ _
+ / / /

x
~
az2s• / ~,0
/± / /

/ -- -- i / /

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

+ ~ ~{?5S ~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1 ~~
~ 6 !
~" ` ` ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONL-2 ~°
.,~.~
P! Sto 16+0516 ~,.
• O = 3'IT'S6Z6'rRT/ ~
~ = O'30'OOA'
L ^ 65979' TYFe w
T • 329.49' a ~
R ^ 1!,45916' '
Ds = 60 ~ ~
O
dE~liY TIP PAQIECI B~g80 o~s ~ m Maoo: ~Stal
9E6flY L~QNSTR(xTA'kY ~" ~'~
~y~ M /y~ * Slab a ~m FAr
!'W ~ l0~'~. W ~~ qY L~EFi ELEV ~ Z29 * ~fiL FAY
R~ 0#' 447E ~ V .. .. *.. .. .. ....
.p- _ _p.._ -F - -F- _
~ 1\\ \\~~ ~~~ < ~~ TM~ ~ •` Pr Sto 26+9372
p - o'rP/A47'rL
N ~ ^ ~ w T ^ 5775'
\ R ^ 22.9/8.3r
~ ~" OS • 60 mph
srsc vv r Kse Dra O
ffA L+ao To :a+ao a. ~t ,~p~aI
.10.!9 ' ~ , 0 1 aaf DEWL K pg a1H FC-:~
a \ 04 ml 1 aTrIIrFM
pnL FAr n-W
* Y u rori i 11 1 TIE TO -L- PCSta. +
~` 1 EXLST. DWY.
1 ~ I Sto.24++X4~5.00 -(-
* G \ ~i ~ ~ ~ Slab! ~?,L~w„=,'°~>'" ~ - -, ~...a,,
/r~P{~~PRpayE~Cr e~o~o `~
v.^^~. I1f1H1 '. SC.17TFpm Tom.
ro.~ ~°

* Q DL aW

• E
_
{ ~ agar E~--E_
AIt g ~
*
a~D
~ET
2 i ui cu.ly
ro
~+~
SPECIAL uiEHAL E ASE DITCH +~ d u
~ Mot b Sadu
+
'~
I~
50' TAPER -oo AND WD
aiaat
a^.~a a w~c-l `asro. Z5' TAPER a 7' ur aAF a Tow
EK
ST.
T F
LTEt FAlI0C
7Y
B Yln D. LO Ft.
& 2a Ft T
PVM ~
~ M O1 a'~
,g
TES,l1.G
~
. ~ ~
aiA.1-+60 TO
71+1gysr

Fnw atA t-+ne m -r~ to+ea IY tg DerAn rl O
,. ~
..
~•~~
-L- PT Sb.i9+35515
*
*
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA
DESIGN Df$CFIAAGE 9,970 CFS
DESIGN FftEO(tEMGY 50 YR
DESipt FAP ELEYATgIY • 6D'
BASE gSCHAiaGE 12370 CFS
BASE FAEQUENC)' 100 YR
B0.SE trw ELEVATlpY • 76'
OVERTA°PlNO OPSCRAROE • -9,970 CFS
QVERTOPPIMG FREQUENGY• -50 YR
OVERTOPPIIYC EL£VATpN • 5A'
DATE OF SURVEY • 3/3/05
w.SE~EYATgx
ar DATE OF SU15!Et iD'
t`
O
O
N
.C:
U
r~
/-.
lulfer Orawinp
.he~t~pf„~
/ ~~
/ ' /
a
% / '---
~ / 57.50 ~ /

I 0 t~x~'TC T R
~~//„„ rp
r~
gar /
° ~
~
CITY OF 145HFa'TON alEC ~~y TI' /~ /
{~ ~x~
'F oe 9aT va as
'` arA oD To Y-+ao .ar I~/~~i
y nn..
ur
\\`.~ fHOUDl1 aBM WIIIA
\ RID OF YImGE TD bTA 2a+al
LT MID aQ eq / ^
/ / /ye
wrQ ~aiF }
/

~
\
\ _
R _ /
\ /
a ai23' /
~±~T/ ~'D
/
---
i ------------- /
-- - ~i
I '
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

0
QO
~i
U
W
O
til

See Suet 1-A For Index of Stets
r ~y ~
,. ~:
<.~ L,.
' ~ F' ~
~'
x
BE61N
~,,` ~
~~
~ ~+~ ~ ROJECT f
~~
VICINITY MAP
LBGJ~ ~--~~- Sam 1MorrJ4owa
\ ',
4
r +~ - - ~~ `~~, ~~ "~ aqe STA. 28+00.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT 8-4020
n dye •\ $m ,
~ ~, \ ~,
~--~-- TO GRIMESLAND. k \', ;,;~` \ t TO WASHINGTON
30.93' ~
-L- SR 1567 ~ -Ir SR 1403 --
~~
•~1 .e:,c
7059'
N.36 ~ I 1
- ~ 10.03' ~~ i
V i
i ~ ~V J
~~ ~;~, /
STA. 16+25.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4020 ,-/ ~`~ a'?
~ ~ -~ ~~ i
~~I]~~~ ®~~71~' ®~~ll llg~v~~~1yLD~~~7 ~1M L~
~~ ~Y ~~~®1N ®~ ~A'lU~ VW ~ ll
BEAUFORT /PITT COUNTIES
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.8 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
ON SR 1403 /SR 15671N WASHINGTON
TYPE OF WORK.F GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
UTILITY DRAWINGS
THIS PRDJECT IS NOT
WITHIN MUNICIPAL HDtINDARIES.
NCDOT CDNTACT:CATHY HDUSER.PJ:,PRDJECT ENGINEER -ROADWAY DESIGN
INCOMPLETE PLANS
)10 NM US FOX X/W ACGVI6TION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m Nvr lW ro" CONb7RUCRON
"CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ESTABUSHEO BY METHOD
n
GJL4PIffC SCALES
T
m ~ 50 25 50 1 A~
N
m
° PLANS
a
`a 50 25 50 1
0 PROFILE HORIZONTAL)
°® 10 5 10 20
m~~ V
PROFILE ~VERTICAL~ "
f1~N

DESIGN DATA

T 2007 = 5940
PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4020 = 0,137 mi. wepareo m me cnna a,
WANG BNGINEERJ?NG COMPANY, INC
CARY, N.C.
roa xo~re cuouxe csrear~rsxr os riuxa~o~rer~ox 6YDRAULfCS SAIIGIN88R DIVISION OA ffiGHWAYS
srAr>s of xoRTa cAROUNA
T 2030 = 9300 ,~, ,,~,,m,,,m aacmee„ot~o
DHV = 60 % LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8-4010 = 0.085 mi. ra
D = 10 % Ji!IGRT OP WAY Jl
4T8 E
EG
pURViS
P
S ~°°"n°°
i
t .
.
.
GR_
_
.
~ ~°°
R~
A
~~ rs
'~" °i~ ~°°
T 3 % " TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT 8-4020 0.212 mi. Fsbruan 1T. 1006 BSi
G
V 60 MPH

FUNC
CLASS =
L871TlIlG L1A2J3:
SCOTT L KENNEDY DEPARTMlflVT OF TRANSPORTATION
~~ ~GtliVAY ADMIHI37RATI0D
.
URBAN IOCAI ~~ nm,®,

TTST 1 % DUAL 1 % rs
~~ ~~
.mam~r ~ .~

nlomLT telee~ce Ho. 1
-L- B-4020
Gll P15~ zs~3~z r~ ~,trt ~.
0 - 0!5'00.0'11 ' A"~ e~v~
N L ~ n550'
r =5715'
DS = 60 +rM
~ Proposed U/G Power and Telephone Lines R-ter
~ By Directional Method ~ 5
tRC TAT N qR ORCH °
O
rtA u+00 TO b+00 a. R ,~ L WSON
dEgN TIP PA~Cr 81980 INm9 ~' a'rtr Iv a~"e ali v~~' A~ a ce nN rc m g
~y p1A, MY Iltly
f~f0>11Y ~~~ r ~ CITY ~ ~9; ICTON
P~ Sla -i- ~ \ Sta 24fZ0A0 -C- ~ `~ EXnISTTD~W1', + D TIP PAQI~7' B"~
570.19+80,00 -L- '~ ,,.~ ` Sta 24>~45A0 -L- D QOIMSIf~CTA9N
,.o,,..,r,,,n....... .. ,
~ ge a~ • # ~ SAS fBd0000 -L-
jY~qq(8p9(04' 4~T~ E wu ~ ` M0 rl.r+c~ ` ~ a 1 ~ S1Q6
3EA~IMG * * M*' " unn 111YII10 a °`00. a a ~, L- PTSfO.
______ -f---f--7i-F----p-~--F- ~f unm GMY,10Dr
__ ----- - - ------ •z9.26 wunw u E---~~E ~ ~a r 70.00'
_~__ ~'~~ a P -_-__ __ - - `]7.66' T'~ ,r a A
SR N1X ~ 1 ~~_ 30.93' .95
_ 3 .02' I
-N- __2185x____ _ _ ___ I ~ ~- I
I AtGN
i. ~ N~{SEIlIt
{ ~' ~ E ~ a E`er--~E , ~ez~s -- -_ _ _ u_~ .ecr~m
e ° 70.59' ~~ ~ -ti ~~
rD005 In ` ,1 iTA 11+~12~ IE~GN ~G! E * Et a 0011rIG IAIDG! a ~ ~ _ _ ~ F- _ - pp .
+n L lT ANO R t lo,pr q A •7aae to ! tbMOrm ~ HIdYATe TO NG fi ~ __ - -x GfwEt IPoVE ~ =x= ~ Fx nw ~ --
+ :r u tr p- vreiowF y 30.03' / °T 110 _ _ ~ ~96.ai
FLETCIIFA FAILr rADrER 50' TAPER too°OD~ND IU6 YNIQYE 6AN{tT prn -AY ~_•-z -_,~-_-~-- -,t: x, ' p
„000 • + ,~ z n c~aY ~t'- 8
~ TO EXIST, ~u euoiic~N a ~r pr Iw t Taa MG IEVA T10 'a. ~ ~ ,,,~ , 0ou '[/ ~~` ~ - "- -x = .~ x_ ` t0i1 _ _ S.~
PVMT rtA 1/+eo TI) st+10 .>r rt IliEt MMIC 7 rn HIG ~FLOY ' 19 ` T ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ I tr At)v~,pyp \ } 57.50 ~`7'H
0
ii DRAL H FIETpEN FATLY iIIOPERTES.LLC. ~ - ~ ~ $p, / r~ "
a uto vc /a I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ s$'~'" I °7N'a + 45' T +~Y~A,
O Nlxj{ N4 .~,, ~ 4 Q. ~ ~0 lOAr ~ ~` J ~ ~4 / ° N
DETAIL I D~EETAILL 3 Hlnae"~°RR,FLEOEVaran . r,/. ./~ °on /~.R ~ do OF rAS+r+GtOx p0~ T+ ~~ -
SPECIAL LATERAL BASE pTCH SVECIAC'C7TEREt''Y' DITCH Ncx MATER iNFOygrpN~F•p ~ < a; W ~ ~3 ~ C ~~ FNOUICp IfAll 61RIH ~ ~ ~~ +90 -L~t/~`
SNH ro Soar iRer ro Swr ~ p7tM~ 01srr0cr pA da ~~ ro '° v1w05 !` \ tin tTA tap / d?~
~ !9D ar N0D01 + av
o-arN , d sryieoM __. _ i _ 81'P-BL- sr/ 77nt sa • ~\~ ~R NA 11 .~ _ _ _ _ ELV / /
0 _.}_ p~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~~' /armcxr an.: zzt•o ~~" ~,/ +~=x--x-x-x-x-x=x
OIIk D SIOpM __• ' ' ! i ~` _, i• $r1.21N6,$5 190, aRf.
w0= a Ft. ,~ -L- PT Sf0./9+J$,~~! , j /nzs~ /+~ ,~
~ 9iAYt. I ~~ - -Y --- - - sesvrse•~
e° ~, / J
HOAI rtA 11+00 TD rtA t1+/0 rt. +00•TO'tTA Zd+10 Af w[2 _.
SAnT11 /, ~' ~ ' ~ T"
_ ~,~;ti, ~
o ~ ~ I ~ ~~ w asi"
%st ~0 ~o
t
uervr'0yw~--~
TILITY DRAWINGS
shee+ ? of ~

O
O
h
U
01
III
~•II
See Sr1ee1 1-A hor IndeX of $Le21S
~„ -
~~:
.~ ~ ~ ~
,
~;:!.r i
~'-
C" ~
~ 7 ~~
hy, ~;,.
} ~ c
•,~ ~ ~ ~ -
..
~_ _ ,~ . _
x ~ ..,
!N
a
~ ~
s~ "
VICINITY MAP
J:ar~ -~-~-~- saw naoa-R~eu
~. s ~. sr a+ - - 4
t ! + ~ ~~ ps \ r10 Brldge STA. 28+00.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT 8-4020
Begin 8rl0ge p
~,~ m~ `~
~. ~ `.
,~
f-- TO GRIMESLAND \ \ ! TO WASHINGTON
___^_ -lr SR 15 7 _ _ ' ~ -l- SR 1403 -->
1 '~ 1
j ~
e
~o
j ~ °:ir
STA. 16+25.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4020 'e~ ~p;~,o )
~ ~ /
~ j j` 1
~~~~~g~N ®]~ ]~~~I~[~A1~Y~
BEA UF~RT /PITT CDUII~TIES
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.8 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
ON SR 1403 /SR 1567 IN WASHINGTON
can Ran eesT,maw p ~
~ mui.
~
.c. ~-aazo 1
nan,swio R,.weun ro~nsi
33387.1.1 8RZ 1403 4 P.E.
333871.1 8kZ-1403 WW tlTiL

TYPE OF WORK: GRADI11lG, DR4JTNAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
TN/S PRDJECT !5 NOT
WITHIN IIUNfCIPAL 80UNDARIES.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ro eor v. roa cox~nucnon
NCU7T CONTACT: CATHY HOUSER.P.E.PROJECT ENGINEER - nOADWAY DESIGN "CLEARING ON THIS Pf~OJECT SHALL BE ESTABUSNED BY METHOD lll.'

GRAPXIC SCALES DESJGN DATA

~ 50 T5 50 1 0 ADT 2007 = 5940
" ADT 2030 = 9300

m PUNS DHY = 10 %
so s5 5o I D 60 %
T = 3 %•
° O PROFILE (HORIZONTAL}
y 60 MPH
t0 5 t0 20 FUNC. CLASS =
URBAN LOCAL
PROFILE NERTICALI " Ti'ST 1 % DUAL 2 %
PROJECT L101fGTfi
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4020
LENGTH STRUCNRE TIP PROJECT 8-4020
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4020
PreDareO rn M! aflw d,
WANG ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
CARY,NC
= 0.139 mi. roa xor+TS creouxA nuuraurrr or riuxaroererrox
ma atuim~c a>~rrarra
= 0.083 mi.
RIGBT OF WAY DATB: GREG S. Pl1RVl~, P. E.
= 0,222 mi. ~''~'
L8127NG 1>dlTB: SCOTT L. KENNEDY
December 1 B. 2007 "~ r ~ameQe
sYnR,tuLres ~vca~sa nuvrslox oa E
STATE QP NORTS
ROADWAY DESIGN awa nmur
BNGIII186R DBPARTMffiVT OP TRANSPORTATION
FRDBRAL I~IIGIIWAY ADA(1l1DS79Ll2TOI

'~
O~
1~
~ a~
to
0
~'
L~ tl/L//Y`1
II ~ I I ~:
} ~ A
g II~~ II I ~~~p ~ ~~~ ~ _~
3 ~ r • IIII~ III j ~S '4 ~ ~: ~ ~ 15100
a
t v ~' III I ~ ~ * n
~, ~ III 11 I V ~' ~ 8 0 0"
~ ~~_ f~19 y~, T
T m= Y'^ ~~ VIII ~~ I ~ ~$ * 4
'1 2 4 s J +~~
$ ~o ~ ~ ,i ~ IAN ~ II I rl 8 .~
'~ ~ 1!!~~ IIII i" I .
~ II
~ I I '~ ~Y~
T +50.00 II I rma
r P.S. I I 4'" ,
k I <~
$ R + I I I ~~P
~ ~ ~~ I li ~~~ M~~uuuv~
4'
4'P.S. m I I ~ ~~ OV~i~~R~a'i r
~ o ~ a a sa~ ~ wµ ~y~O,g ~~~q~
a ~~ ~ i ~ ~~ 3 ~~
o t, 4 ~ ~ I
a 5 ~ ~ > ° .w
Y~ ~ +~~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~ I ; '
~~i ~~ ~~~ I ~ IVAD 83/9
Off" ~~ ~ ;_ ~ I I I O C
6 I
I g
I 4' P ' PS.
:~ ~., 1 : Z
'' .. I ~ I
~.'
' N
N
"'
Iwo
,~ r
ow
.vy. ~ ^
e
~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ C ~ .~ ~
~ \... .. ~
In ~ V ~ b r~\ PITT
8i ~p ~O 7p D ±~~ CO
~N
~' ~ <
O ~ OJ ~ O ;~~ iO, m
;/
ra- ss - r~
as
3~"'
y3~
/ 4
d
~ +
~~~
I~~
I~
lam
I~~
I~
I ~O I~
h w ..
~ -
I r --8~~ '
~ II
~ I ~/~ ~
`'~ / 1
I I ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ I
I I , I ~ II
I I ~ ~ ;\
I I
I I ~ ~x x I ~
I I +' / I
rly~ I I I
I II
xl~ w IX I 1
I~ I I I ~ I I II I
I 1 -
aa
I I x l 0 y IxK~ IX 1
! II ~ I ~~~g II III 1 I
I I x l s~ iO I IX I
Ix I~R~ IIII~I
~ I j ti l i ~ ~~ ~` I~ ~L
~ I
I I~ I I I I I ~
~~~ II III ;~
III XI~ ~ ~
I i Ir+
~ I I!~~8 IX ~ ,~ 1 I
.~ 1 ~ 1
• , \+ + ,~,~ ~ 2~ P I 19
. ~ --~
\ °• ~' s~ « 1 I I
~Qn\f; ~• Qa ~~ete ~ I ~ I ~ sort. v
157.63' ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1 + _
502'IS'02'M ~ ~ I
I \\
I ~µ, Q ~
~ b ~ss I N~ a ~~
' ~o~ I II ~t
i ~ II ~ ~~
•
II
~ ~ ~ I 1~
,, a,
~'ppO
~ i .86'0!1
= =t1=Z90M
svx. v _ - ' . P ' P.S.
~~~ ~~
N ~ 1 ~~
g o vo ~~ 25+00
+~
~~ ~ ' >;
~' $ g~
S ~~
V~ 1 rpyc`N
m~ibliQ44Y
+ S3
s 3. ~~`I~ODb
$ q4~ ~
~ ~'~~cn~~ 'i
CFO ~~~ y3
~~~

r , K
al~.r~
A
1~

r
Beaufort/Pitt Counties
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR 1567 Over Tranters Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1403(4)
State Project No. 33387.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4020
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
DATE ~ Gregory J. Tho , Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
S-~~' -4~
DATE As- ohn F. Sullivan, III, P. E.
(J Division Administrator, FHWA

Beaufort/Pitt Counties
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR 1567 Over Tranters Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1403(4)
State Project No. 33387.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4020
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
July 2006
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Greg S. Purvis, P. E.
Project Manager
'~.
\`O~'(H C'4F~0~ ~.
\\ ~~~NNy~ I ~I
s Q~ '~':
~~
99 ~ =
• ~r
auu«~
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~ /
~ ~-(
Wade Kirby, . E., ~.
Project Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

PROJECT COMIVIITMENTS
Beaufort/Pitt Counties
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR 1567 Over Tranters Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BR~1403(4)
State Project No. 33387.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4020
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's Guidelines for
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Division Two
The Stream Crossing; Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented.
An in-water work moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to September 30 due to Anadromous
Fish in the project area.
The Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for
Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters will be implemented during construction.
Road closure will be coordinated with the Beaufort County Schools and Beaufort County Emergency
Management Services prior to construction.
Hydraulics & Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A CAMA major stormwater permit will be required.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of I
July 2006

Beaufort/Pitt Counties
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR 1567 Over Tranters Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BR~1403(4)
State Project No. 33387.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4020
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 8 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 9.0 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of an inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1403/SR 1567 (Clarks Neck Road) is classified as an urban local. Land use in the project area
is predominantly residential. There is a City of Washington boat ramp access in the southeast
quadrant of the study area. The Singleton Primitive Baptist Church located in the northeast
quadrant of the project study area is a National Register eligible property.
Bridge No. 8 was constructed in 1935. The existing structure is 308 feet in length, consisting of
seven spans with the maximum span at approximately 66 feet. The clear roadway width is 28
feet, providing two 12-foot travel lanes with two-foot gutters. The superstructure consists of a
steel plank floor on I-beams. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber
piles. The bed to crown height is 31 feet and the normal depth of flow is 20.5 feet. The posted
weight limit is 22 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 26 tons for truck-tractors semi-trailers
(TTST).
The existing bridge on SR 1403 is on tangent. The west approach has an approximate 13,030-
foot radius curve that is approximately 129 feet from the bridge. The east approach has an
approximate 2,123-foot radius curve that is approximately 95 feet from the bridge. SR 1403
consists of two 10.5-foot lanes with approximately seven-foot grass shoulders.
The estimated 2004 average daily traffic volume is 5,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected
traffic volume is expected to increase to 9,300 vpd by the design year 2030. The volumes include
one percent TTST and two percent dual tired vehicles.
The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is not posted and therefore a statutory 55 miles per
hour (mph) is assumed.
This section of SR 1403/SR 1567 is part of a designated NC Bicycling Highway, NC-2
Mountains to Sea.
There is an aerial power line and telephone on the west side of the existing bridge. Utility
impacts are anticipated to be low.

There were three crashes reported for the three-year period of October 1, 2002 to September 30,
2005.
No school buses cross this bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure will provide a 33-foot six-inch clear roadway width to allow for two 12-
foot travel lanes with four-foot nine inches each side from edge of travel lane to face of bridge
rail. The bridge railing height will be a 54-inch bicycle safe rail. The existing bridge
navigational clearance will be maintained.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travel way providing for two 12-foot
travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including four foot paved shoulders. The proposed right-of-
way width varies from 80 feet to 100 feet. The design speed will be 60 mph.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, Bridge No. 8 will be replaced with an approximate
440-foot long bridge. The bridge was lengthened approximately 120 feet to mitigate for the
impacts to the adjacent high quality wetlands on the west side of the proposed bridge. The grade
of the roadway will match the elevation of the existing roadway. The minimum deck grade will
be 0.3%. The length of the proposed bridge and the recommended roadway elevation may be
adjusted (increased or decreased) to accommodate design floods as determined in the final
hydrologic study and hydraulic design.
B. Build Alternatives
Three (3) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic
will be maintained by an off-site detour route along SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge Road) and US
264 approximately 6.3 miles in length. The length of approach work will be approximately 355
feet on the west side of the bridge and approximately 380 feet on the east side of the bridge.
Alternate A was selected because of the comparatively lower construction cost, lower
environmental impacts, and lesser construction time associated with it.
Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing alignment. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site temporary detour structure located south of the existing bridge. The
length of approach work will be approximately 615 feet on the west side of the bridge and
approximately 363 feet on the east side of the bridge. The proposed structure will be
approximately 340 feet. The length of the temporary detour structure will be 305 feet. Alternate
B was not chosen because it has comparatively higher natural environment impacts and
construction cost.
Alternate C replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an off-site detour route along SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge Road) and US 264
approximately 6.3 miles in length. The length of approach work will be approximately 600 feet
on the west side of the bridge and approximately 765 feet on the east side of the bridge. The
proposed structure will be approximately 635 feet and would provide an additional approximate
2

5-feet of vertical clearance underneath the bridge. Alternate C was not chosen because it has
comparatively higher human environment impacts and construction cost.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge and closing of
the road. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1403/SR 1567.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge at the existing location, while maintaining traffic by an
off-site detour route is the preferred alternate. Alternate A was selected because of the
comparatively lower construction cost, lower environmental impacts, and lesser construction time
associated with it.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternate A as the preferred alternative.
Alternate A is estimated to cost $2,684,400. A breakdown of the estimated cost is shown in Item
V (Table 1).
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ANTICIPATED
No design exceptions will be required.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current 2006 prices, are as follows:
Table 1. Estimated Costs
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $3,030,000 including $180,000 for right-of--way, $2,450,000 for construction, and
$400,000 for prior years costs.

VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Washington, NC
[1993] 7.5-minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) mapping (FWS 1994a), and recent aerial photography. Water quality information
for area streams and tributaries was derived from North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
sources (DWQ 1999, 2003a-c, 2004a-c). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data.
Natural community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names generally
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current
nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as
expected population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available
habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980, Martof et al. 1980,
Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Conant and Collins
1998).
Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACE) delineation guidelines (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetland jurisdictional
areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowazdin et al. (1979)
and A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (DEM 1996).
Information regarding federally protected species within the project study area was obtained from the
FWS lists of federally protected species (July 26, 2006) and federal species of concern (FSC) for
Beaufort and Pitt Counties. Supporting documents and databases documenting the presence of rare
species and raze natural communities were consulted before commencing field investigations
(Amoroso 2002, LeGrand and Hall 2001).
Bridge No. 8 was visited on Apri12 and 20, 2004. The project study area was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential habitat
for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in Tranters Creek.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area occurs within the Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces ecoregion of the
Southeastern Plains physiographic province ofNorth Carolina (Griffith et al. 2002). The project study
area is situated within the Yorktown Formation and is underlain by fossiliferous clay with varying
amounts of fine-grained sand and bluish gray shell material commonly concentrated in lenses (NCGS
1985). Elevations in the project study azea aze approximately 0 to 10 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (USGS Washington, NC [1993] 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Soils within the project study azea consist of three series: Altavista, State, and Swamp (probably
synonymous with Dorovan). Altavista fine sandy loams aze neazly level, moderately well drained
soils found on stream and marine terraces along the Pamlico River. Permeability and available water
capacity aze moderate. The seasonal high water table is approximately 1.5 to 2.5 feet below the
surface during winter and early spring. Altavista fine sandy loams encompass most of the project
4

study area east of Tranters Creek (Beaufort County). Altavista soils are replaced by State soils near
the eastern terminus of the project study area. Altavista soils are not listed as hydric soils in Beaufort
County (MRCS 1997).
State sandy loams are nearly level, well drained soils on river and stream terraces. Permeability and
available water capacity are moderate. The seasonal high water table is approximately 4 to 6 feet
during winter and early spring. State soils are not listed as hydric for Beaufort County (MRCS 1997).
Swamp soils were mapped as just that in Pitt County with few descriptors (SCS 1974). The soils are
probably equivalent to Dorovan soils in Beaufort County (MRCS 1995). Dorovan soils are nearly
level, very poorly drained organic soils on floodplains along the Pamlico River and its tributaries.
Permeability is moderate and the available water capacity is very high. The seasonal high water table
ranges from 1 foot above the surface to 0.5 foot below the surface, but is usually at or above the
surface. Swamp and Dorovan are listed as hydric soils in Pitt and Beaufort Counties, respectively
(NRCS 1997).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located on the boundary of sub-basin 03-03-06 and 03-03-05 of the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin (DWQ 1999). Sub-basin 03-03-06 is located upstream and north of Bridge
No. 8. Sub-basin 03-03-OS is located downstream and south of Bridge No. 8. Tranters Creek
empties into the Tar River in sub-basin 03-03-OS approximately 0.1 mile from Bridge No. 8.
Sub-basin 03-03-07 begins approximately 0.2 mile downstream from the confluence of Tranters
Creek and the Tar River. Therefore, water quality at Bridge No. 8 is primarily affected by
activities within sub-basin 03-03-06, and activities at Bridge No. 8 primarily affect water quality
in sub-basins 03-03-OS and 03-03-07. The project study azea is part of USGS hydrologic unit
03020103 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region (Seaber et al. 1987). This section of Tranters
Creek, from the source to the Tar River, has been assigned Stream Index Number 28-103 by the
DWQ (DWQ 2003a, DWQ 2004a).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Within the project study area, Tranters Creek is a fifth-order perennial stream exhibiting strong
sinuosity, very slow velocity, and poor riffle-pool sequence. The width of the stream is
approximately 210 feet at the point of the bridge crossing. During the field survey, water clarity
was good. The substrate was composed of silt and sand. The right stream bank was mostly
submerged and its location was only apparent due to the lack of woody vegetation in the channel.
Classifications are 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. A Best Usage
Classification of C Sw NSW has been assigned to Tranters Creek in the project study area. These
waters aze protected for Class C uses which include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body
contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. The supplemental classification Sw,
Swamp Waters, characterizes the stream as having naturally occurring very low velocities, low
pH, and low dissolved oxygen. No specific restrictions on discharge types or development are
involved. The supplemental classification NSW, Nutrient Sensitive Waters, is intended for
waters needing additional nutrient management due to vulnerability to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general, management strategies for point and non-

point source pollution control require no increase in nutrients over background levels. The effect
of NSW classification on the replacement of Bridge No. 8 is discussed in Section 4.3 of this
document. Tranters Creek is "Supporting" of its Best Usage Classifications (DWQ 2003a).
No watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1 mile of the project study area. No designated
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or
Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1 mile of the project study area (DWQ 1999, DWQ
2003b).
DWQ conducts awhole-basin approach to water quality management for 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. A benthic macroinvertebrate sampling station and ambient monitoring station (A-16) are
located at Bridge No. 8 (DWQ 1999). Tranters Creek at this station received a "good-fair"
bioclassification rating in 1997 (DWQ 1999, DWQ 2003b). Benthic macroinvertebrate samples
were not taken at this station in 2002 because of high salinity (DWQ 2003a). A benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring station (B-1) approximately 10 miles upstream was given a "good-
fair" (Moderate Stress) bioclassification in 2002, which may have been due to drought conditions.
The ambient monitoring station A-16 indicated elevated levels of total phosphorus in 2003 (DWQ
2003b).
The Tar-Pamlico River subbasin 03-03-06 supports two permitted dischargers (DWQ 2004c).
Total permitted flow is slightly over 1.8 million gallons per day with the largest being the
Robersonville Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) at 1.8 million gallons per day. The
receiving stream for this discharger is Flat Swamp (SIN 28-103-2 (DWQ 2004a)) which comes to
a confluence with Tranters Creek approximately 10 miles upstream of the project study area. The
smaller of the two dischargers is Bear Grass Elementary School WWTP with a discharge of 5000
gallons per day. The receiving stream for this discharger is Turkey Swamp (SIN 28-103-5 (DWQ
2004a)) which comes to a confluence with Tranters Creek approximately 5 miles upstream of the
project study area.
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snow melt. Sediments and nutrients are the major pollution sources associated with NPS
pollution. Other pollutants include any substance that may be washed off the ground or removed
from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters. Unlike point source pollution, NPS
pollution is diffuse in nature and occurs at random intervals depending on rainfall events. Major
non-point sources of pollution within the project study area subbasins (03-03-06 and 03-03-05)
are generally few and primarily from forestry operations (DWQ 1999).
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired
waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards including
designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40
CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or
an unknown cause of impairment. The source of impairment could be from point sources,
nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state
lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines
available in the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Tranters Creek is
not listed on the NC 2002 or the Draft 2004 Section 303(d) list of impaired streams in the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin (DWQ 2003c and 2004b).
6

The WRC has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance
planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by WRC as being critical due to the presence of
Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
occurs within the project study area. The nearest Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin occurs approximately 33 miles northwest of the project study
area near Tarboro, NC (WRC 1998).
To minimize fishing and non-fishing activities that adversely affect marine fisheries, areas of
Essential Fish Habitat afford limited protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996 (16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Essential Fish Habitat has been broadly defined by congress as "those
waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity."
Fishing and non-fishing related activities that can adversely affect fisheries include fishing gear,
dredging, filling, agricultural and urban runoff, and point-source pollution discharge. Palustrine
emergent and forested wetlands are located within the project study area. Anadromous fish
spawning habitat occurs within Tranters Creek. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) may be required to determine if Essential Fish Habitat exists within the project
study area (NMFS 2001).
3. Anticipated Impacts
a) Impacts Related to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for Construction and Maintenance Activities (NCDOT 2003). 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. These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other
containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites;
management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential
negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into streams by catch
basins and roadside vegetation. In addition, tall fescue is not suitable for erosion controls
along stream banks.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Tranters Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts
resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to
water resources, NCDOT's BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project. Sediment curtains should be utilized to
minimize potential water quality degradation as a result of bridge replacement.
NCDOT will coordinate with various resource agencies during project planning to ensure that
all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved. Anadromous fish spawning habitat
occurs within Tranters Creek. The replacement of Bridge No. 8 can therefore be classified as
Case 2; where no in-water work will be allowed during moratorium periods associated with
anadromous fish migration (February 15 to September 30). The final decision for this
determination lies with the WRC.
7

b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States will be avoided unless
there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, aworst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the United
States. There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into waters of the
United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is expected to
be approximately 7 cubic yards. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be applied for the removal of this bridge.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section,
work done in the water for this project will fall under Case 2, which states that no in-water
work will be performed during moratorium periods (February 15 to September 30) associated
with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery azeas. This conclusion is
based upon the classification of the waters within the project azea and vicinity, the Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage, and comments received from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area:
disturbed/maintained land, Cypress-Gum Forest (Blackwater Subtype), and Freshwater Marsh
(maintained). These plant communities aze described below.
a) Disturbed/Maintained Land
Disturbed/maintained land covers the most area within the project study area, approximately
5.2 acres, and occurs as maintained residential areas and road and powerline right-of--ways.
The maintained roadside is approximately 10 to 30 feet wide. The maintained powerline
right-of--way is approximately 35 feet wide and occurs in the southwest quadrant of the
project study azea. Very few trees and shrubs contribute to the composition of this
community. Plant species on the roadside margins include clovers (Trifolium spp.), glecoma
(Glecoma hederacea), dandelion (Taraxacum oj~icinale), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), thistle (Carduus repandus), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), blackberry (Rubus
sp.), and fescue (Festuca sp.). Disturbed/maintained land is relatively low in plant and
wildlife diversity. Wildlife species that utilize disturbed/maintained land include American
robin (Turdus migratorius), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus). American robins forage for soil invertebrates. White-tailed deer and
rabbits consume many of the herbaceous species.
8

b) Cypress-Gum Forest (Blackwater Subtype)
Cypress-Gum Forest is the second most dominant community within the project study area,
covering 4.8 acres. The canopy is mainly composed of red maple (Ater rubrum), bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and black gum (Nyssa
b~ora). Some loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) also occupies the canopy. Shrubs present include
wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), American holly {Ilex opaca), blueberry (Vacciunium elliottii),
(Cyrilla racem~ora), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), fetter-bush (Leucothoe
racemosa), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and saplings of canopy species (mainly red
maple). The herb layer consists of cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), sedges (Carex
spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.). Vines present include greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Wildlife
species observed within this community include yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica
dominica), northern parula (Parula americana), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), and
Carolina wren (Throthorus ludovicianus). Other wildlife species that utilize Cypress-Gum
Forest include prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), egrets (Egretta spp.), herons
(Ardea spp.), and white ibis (Eudocimus albus).
Prothonotary warblers nest over water in small cavities in Carolina ash or standing dead
wood. Like many migrant songbirds, they are exclusively insectivorous during the breeding
season and thrive on the abundant insects within the Cypress-gum Forest. Egrets and herons
establish colonial heronries and one may find 10 to 100 nests within several acres. No
heronries were observed during the field visit. Ibises nest on coastal islands but fly many
miles to forage in freshwater swamps. Their use of Cypress-Gum Forests is interesting in
that the young must be fed crayfish (Procambarus spp.) until their supraorbital salt gland
develops. If fed the fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) that the adults consume, the young will not
survive dehydration (Bildstein et al. 1990). All areas of this plant community within the
project study area are jurisdictional and subject to consideration under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Section 328.3).
c) Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater Marsh is the least abundant plant community in the project study area
(approximately 0.6 acre). This community is located within a maintained powerline
easement (Figure 6). Natural Freshwater Marshes are typically found in deep depressions or
natural lakes in the Coastal Plain or along the margins of reservoirs or beaver ponds
throughout the state (DEM 1996). The hydrology of natural Freshwater Marshes ranges from
semi-permanently to permanently inundated and the dominant plants vary because of this.
The wetter a Freshwater marsh, the more herbaceous species dominate. If this particular
Freshwater Marsh were not maintained, it would likely succeed to a Cypress-gum Forest. A
few trees within the powerline easement such as red maple, sweetgum (Liquidambar
styrac~ua), black gum, and black willow (Salix nigra) are coppicing. The dominant shrubs
consist of blackberry, giant cane, and swamp rose (Rosa palustris). Dominant herbaceous
species present include cattail (Typha latifolia), rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), lizard's
tail (Saururus cernuus), and soft rush (Juncus effuses). Vines present include Japanese
honeysuckle and muscadine grape. Due to the small size and disturbed characteristics of this
.community, -the normally diverse .assemblage of wildlife would not normally be expected.
Wildlife, which may be expected to occur within this community, include wading birds such
as herons, egrets, and least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis). All areas of this plant community
within the project study area are jurisdictional and subject to consideration under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Section 328.3).
9

2. Aquatic Communities
Spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer), southern cricket frogs (Acris gryllus), southern chorus frog
(Pseudacris nigrita), and yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta) were the only aquatic
amphibians and reptiles observed during the site visit. Typical amphibian species for these
habitat types include carpenter frog (Rana virgatipes), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia),
two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), lesser siren (Siren intermedia), and greater siren (S.
lacertina). Tranters Creek and the associated swamps provide suitable habitat for aquatic and
semi-aquatic reptiles including eastern river tooter (Pseudemys concinna concinna), eastern mud
turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum), common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus),
chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), painted turtle (Chrysemys pitta), snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), black swamp snake (Seminatrix pygaea), red-bellied watersnake (Nerodia
erythrogaster), mud snake (Farancia abacura), rainbow snake (F. erytrogramma), and
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorous). No benthic invertebrates were observed during the field
visit.
No sampling was undertaken in Tranters Creek to determine fishery potential. No identifiable
fish were noted during the field visit. Species which may be present within Tranters Creek
(Menhinick 1991) include Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilh~, chain pickerel
(Esox niger), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek chubsucker (Erimyson oblongus),
yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), inland silverside (Menidia
beryllina), white perch (Morone americans), bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), bluegill (L. macroshirus), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomozis nigromaculatus), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and
hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Permanent plant community impacts for Alternates A and B are small (approximately 0.8 acre,
Table 2) and the majority of impacts (approximately 0.6 acre) will occur in the most disturbed
areas (disturbed/maintained). Alternate C will result in approximately 1.6 acre (Table 2) of
permanent plant community impacts, half of which will occur in the most disturbed areas
(disturbed/maintained). Temporary impacts associated with the Alternate B detour bridge are
small: a total. of 0.3 acre will be temporarily affected by the on-site detour. It should be noted
that Alternate A calls for extension of the bridge a distance of 120 feet longer that the existing
bridge, allowing for removal of approximately 0.2 acre of roadway fill. This 0.2-acre area of fill
removal could be graded to approximate natural contour and will not only allow for wetland
restoration, but will also increase the active floodplain width at the bridge crossing, improving the
fimction of both_the stream and the wetland in the vicinity of the bridge.
No significant habitat fragmentation will be expected as a result of project activities if potential
improvements are restricted. to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and associated
disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
10

Table 2. Project Study Area Plant
Cypress-Gum 0 2
Forest
4.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
Disturbed/Main 1
3
tained 5.2 0.6 0.1 0.7 .
Freshwater 0
1
Marsh ~ 0 7 0.1 _ 0.1 .
Total 10.7 0.8 0.3 1.1 1.6
Areas are given in acres.
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the stream system to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and
suspended sediments may affect benthic populations. Benthic invertebrates form the basis of the
food chain in stream and estuarine systems. Impacts to downstream habitats associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement will be minimized through
the use of silt curtains and the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat exists within or near the project study area.
Because anadromous fish breed in Tranters Creek, the replacement of Bridge No. 8 can be
classified as Case 2; therefore, no in-water work will be allowed during moratorium periods
associated with anadromous fish migration (February 15 to September 30). The final decision for
this determination lies with the WRC.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within and adjacent to the embankments of the Tranters Creek are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United
States" (33 CFR Section 328.3). The Tranters Creek channel and immediate floodplain, within
the project study area, have been characterized on NWI mapping (NWI Washington, NC [1994]
7.5-minute quadrangle) as riverine, lower perennial with an unconsolidated bottom that is
permanently flooded (R2UBH) and palustrine, forested, deciduous (broadleaved and needle-
leaved), and semipermanently flooded (PFO1/2F), respectively. During the field visit, Tranters~
Creek was determined to be riverine, lower perennial with an unconsolidated bottom that is
permanently flooded (R2UBH)., The project study area contains a total of approximately 805
linear feet and 2.7 acres of perennial stream (Table 3).
Vegetated wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Section 328.3). These areas are defined by
the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a minimum of 12.5 percent of the growing season
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). During the field visit, the two wetland types found were
palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved deciduous, and semipermanently
11

flooded (PFO1/2F) and palustrine, emergent, non-persistent, and semipermanently flooded
(PEM2F).
a). Summary of Impacts
Replacement of Bridge No. 8 will be constructed with one of three alternatives: A)
replacement in place with anoff-site detour of approximately 10 miles , B) replacement in
place with an on-site detour via a temporary bridge on the east side of the existing structure or
C) replacement in place with anoff-site detour. The replacement structure for Alternates A
and B will result in permanent impacts to 0.2 acre of vegetated wetlands. The temporary
detour bridge proposed as part of Alternate B will result in no permanent impacts to surface
waters and 0.2 acre temporary impacts to PFO1/2F wetland (Figure 6 and Table 3).
However, because of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rule, written authorization from
the DWQ is required for buffer impacts associated with the replacement structure and the
temporary detour. The replacement structure for Alternate C will result in no permanent
impacts to surface waters and 0.1 acre of permanent impacts to PEM2F wetland and 0.2 acre
of permanent impacts to PFO1/2F wetland (Figure 7 and Table 2). It should be noted that
Alternate A calls for extension of the bridge a distance of 120 feet longer that the existing
bridge, allowing for removal of approximately 0.2 acre of roadway fill. This 0.2-acre area of
fill removal could be graded to approximate natural contour and will not only allow for
wetland restoration, but will also increase the active floodplain width at the bridge crossing,
improving the function of both the stream and the wetland in the vicinity of the bridge.
2. Permits
a). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 23 (67 FR 2082; January 15, 2002) for CE's due to expected minimal impact.
Activities under this permit are categorically excluded from environmental documentation
12
i- ~ uc~cilluucu uy a~~M WCRSIIU Kaimg WOrtcsnee[

because they are included within a category of activities that neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human and natural environment. Activities
authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular
permit.
b). Section 401 Water Quality Certification
DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 23 (GC
3403). If temporary structures are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or
dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15, 2002) permit and
associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366) will be required. Impacts to
vegetated wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078) and the associated
Genera1401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWP No. 23, 33, and 3
will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements
are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 and its associated General 401
Water Quality Certification (GC 3404). Notification to the Wilmington USACE District
office is required if this general permit is utilized.
c). Bridge Demolition and Removal
If no practical alternative exists to remove the current bridge other than to drop it into the
water, prior to removal of debris off-site, fill related to demolition procedures will need to be
considered during the permitting process. A worst-case scenario will be assumed with the
understanding that if there is any other practical method available, the bridge will not be
dropped into the water. The worst-case scenario associated with the bridge removal is
expected to be 7 cubic yards of temporary fill. Permitting will be coordinated such that any
permit needed for bridge construction will also address issues related to bridge demolition.
As this reach of Tranters Creek has potential as a travel corridor for migratory fish, this
project can be classified as Case 2, where no in-stream work be allowed during moratorium
periods associated with anadromous fish migration.
d). Coast Guard
According to a letter received from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) dated April 4, 2005, this
reach of Tranters Creek is considered legally navigable for Bridge Administration purposes.
This reach of Tranters Creek also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways outlined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 115.70. Advance approval waterways are
those that are navigable in law, but are not actually navigated by other than small boats. The
Commandment of the Coast Guard has given advance approval to the construction or repair
of bridges across such waterways; therefore, Section 10 permit for structures and/or work in
or affecting navigable waters of the United States will not be required for this project.
e). Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
The proposed project will occur in one of the 20 counties covered by the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) within these counties
are under the jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). Because the
project study azea contains navigable waters and is located within inland fishing waters,
Public Trust Areas (a CAMA AEC) are expected to potentially be affected by the proposed
project. Public Trust Areas are defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0207. If the project area contains
Public Trust Waters AECs and replacement of the bridge avoids impacts to AECs, the DCM
13

will review the permit application for CAMA consistency. If an AEC is proposed to be
impacted, a CAMA Major Permit or General Permit for bridge replacement (15A NCAC
07H.2300) may be applicable.
3. Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) provides a designation
for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The Tar-
Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rule applies tb 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured
perpendicular to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Designated surface waters are indicated on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps and county soil
surveys. Within the project study area, Tranters Creek is the only feature subject to the riparian
buffer rule.
Changes in land use within the buffer area are considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes
within the riparian buffer are defined as being Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or
Prohibited (15A NCAC 2B .0259 (7)). The Exempt designation refers to uses allowed within the
buffer. The Allowable designation refers to uses that may proceed within the riparian buffer
provided there are no practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the DWQ is
obtained prior to project development. The Allowable with Mitigation designation refers to uses
that are allowed, given there are no practical alternatives, and appropriate mitigation plans have
been approved. The Prohibited designation refers to uses that are prohibited without a variance.
Exemptions to the riparian buffer rule include the footprint of existing uses that are present and
ongoing (15A NCAC 2B .0259 (3)(b)).
Both alternatives for the replacement of Bridge No. 8 permanently impact less than 150 linear
feet of riparian buffer, and are therefore Allowable under the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer
Rule. Temporary impacts from the on-site detour of Alternate B are approximately 3,049 square
feet. Impacts from temporary roads used for bridge construction or replacement are Allowable
under the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rule, providing that restoration activities, such as soil
stabilization and revegetation, are conducted immediately after construction (15A NCAC 2B
.0233 (6)). Written authorization from the DWQ is required for buffer impacts associated with
the replacement structure and the temporary detour. In addition, any changes in stormwater flow
due to the proposed project must be diffused to enter the buffers as sheet flow.
4. Mitigation
The USACE 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, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
14

scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes. Impacts to streams are expected due to the nature of
the project. Not all sediment can be prevented from entering waters of the United States.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), DWQ may require compensatory mitigation
for projects with equal to or greater than 0.1 acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater
than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance
with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and
type of the proposed project impact and the function and value of the impacted aquatic resource
are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and
creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional area impacts may not need to be proposed
for this project due to the potentially limited nature of the project impacts. However, utilization
of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains
associated with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with
native riparian species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or
alteration of more than 150 linear feet of stream may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with
the DCM, USACE, and DWQ.
Opportunities for compensatory mitigation are available within the project study area. Extending
the distance between abutments will allow for less concentrated flow under Bridge No. 8. This
will reduce flooding immediately upstream and improve aquatic habitat under the bridge and
downstream. Moving the western abutment farther west and lengthening the bridge could
provide on-site mitigation. The amount of mitigation would vary with the distance that the
western abutment is moved (approximately 0.1-0.8 acre).
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
15

or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened," but "closely
resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Eight federally protected
species are listed as occurring in Beaufort and Pitt Counties (FWS 2006a and 2006b).
A summary of Biological Conclusions for the replacement of Bridge No. 8 is presented in the
following table:
Table 4. Federally Protected Species
Red wolf Canis rufus May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversel Affect E
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversel Affect E
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversel Affect .I,
Red-cockaded
wood cker
Picoides borealis
No Effect
E
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii No Effect E
Tar spinymussel El/iptio steinstansana No Effect E
Sensitive joint vetch Aeschynomene virginica No Effect T
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia No Effect E
1'- Threatened, E- Endangered
Canis rufus (Red Wolf)
Endangered
Family: Canidae
Date Listed: November 19, 1986
The red wolf is a medium-sized canid that resembles the coyote but is larger and more robust.
Adults measure 4.5 to 5.5 feet in length, and weigh from 35 to 90 pounds. This species is slightly
smaller than the gray wolf (C. lupus) with a more slender and elongated head (FWS 1990), and
longer legs (Webster et al. 1985). Its pelage is shorter and coarser than in any race of C. lupus
(USFWS 1990) and individuals vary in color from reddish to gray to black (Webster et al. 1985).
The red wolf prefers habitat that provides large amounts of cover, including both upland and
swamp forests, coastal marshes, and prairies (Webster et al. 1985). Small- to medium-sized
mammals are normal prey items, but the red wolf is also heavily dependent on white-tailed deer
(LISFWS 1990). The red wolf was once found throughout the southeastern United States, but was
extirpated from most of its range by 1920. Captive-bred animals were released at Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge in the fall of 1987, and successful reproduction resulted in 26-30 adults
by August 1993.
The red wolf is considered by USFWS to be an experimental, nonessential endangered species. It
is experimental because the local population has been recently introduced into the species historic
16

range and habitat. This species is considered nonessential because loss of the experimental
population is not expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in
the wild (CFR 50, Part 17.80). The red wolf is considered by USFWS to be Threatened on public
land, for consultation purposes, and as a species Proposed for listing on private land. Therefore,
with respect to the proposed project, the red wolf is considered as Proposed for listing.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of red
wolves within 10 miles of the project study area. There is suitable habitat for red wolves in the
project study area. Based upon the limited nature of the project, replacement of Bridge No. 8
should not adversely affect this species.
Trichechus manatus (West Indian Manatee)
Endangered
Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The West Indian Manatee is a large, gray aquatic mammal that averages 10 to 13 feet in length
and weighs up to 1,000 pounds. The manatee has a laterally flattened tail, no hind limbs, and the
front limbs have been modified as flippers. This species occurs in the Caribbean and western
Atlantic from Brazil to the southeastern coast of the United States. Manatees occur around the
southeastern end of Puerto Rico and Vieques Island (an estimated 60 to 100 animals in 1993), but
are rarely seen and are considered absent from the Virgin Islands (USFWS 1993). These
mammals inhabit warm waters, both fresh and salt, where the diet consists mostly of aquatic
vegetation and sometimes shoreline vegetation. Manatees have also been known to feed on fish.
This species prefers vegetated bottoms in 4 to 20 feet of water and near a source of freshwater.
Manatees are known to migrate to North Carolina in the summer (USFWS 1993).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed a record of manatees
within 1 mile of the project study area. There is suitable habitat for Manatee in the project study
area. Based upon the close proximity of documented manatees (within a mile), replacement of
Bridge No. 8 may impact this species. However, due to the seasonal nature of manatee
occurrence and the protection of habitat through stringent erosion control and other BMPs, the
risk to manatees from the replacement of Bridge No. 8 is low. The USFWS has generated
"Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee" for use during construction
activities in North Carolina waters. These guidelines should be implemented during this project.
In a letter dated May 5, 2006 the USFWS concurred with the biological conclusion that this
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian Manatee.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
Threatened (proposed for delisting)
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald eagles are dark
brown with a white head and tail. Immature bald eagles are brown with white mottling on the
tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish; however, they may also take birds
and small mammals. In the Carolinas, the nesting season extends from December through May
17

(Potter et al. 1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in conspicuous locations near
open water. Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching
(Hamel 1992). Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1,500 feet from a
nest tree are considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). USFWS
recommends avoiding the disturbance, including construction and tree cutting, within this
primary zone. A secondary zone, extends from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1
mile from a nest tree. Construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted within the
secondary zone to the non-nesting period. The USFWS also recommends avoiding the alteration
of natural shorelines where bald eagles forage and avoiding significant land-clearing activities
within 1,500 feet of known roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
NHP records document the nearest occurrence of the bald eagle in Beaufort/Pitt County as
approximately 1.5 miles west of the project study area. The project study area has breeding and
foraging habitat for bald eagles. In July 2004, a canoe survey was conducted along the Tranters
Creek shoreline for a distance of 1500 feet upstream and downstream of Bridge No. 8. No bald
eagles or eagle nests were observed during this survey. In a letter dated May 5, 2006 the USFWS
concurred with the biological conclusion that this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect bald eagles.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded Woodpecker)
Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches,
and ablack-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye;
however, the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat
consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf (Pines
palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond pines (P. serotina) (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest
cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years that have
been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are
referred to as colonies (USFWS 1985). The woodpecker drills holes in the bark around the cavity
entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection
of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by
frequent natural fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development
of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of existing
populations ofred-cockaded woodpecker within 5 miles of the project study area. There are few
mature pine trees and many hardwoods within the project study area; therefore, the project study
area contains no suitable red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat. Based upon the
lack of suitable habitat, this project is not expected to affect red-cockaded woodpecker.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle)
Endangered
Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: December 7, 1970
18

The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles (23- to 30-inch carapace, 79 to 110
pounds) and is generally considered the most endangered species of sea turtle in the world
(Palmer and Braswell 1995). This species ranges from the Gulf of Mexico and the east coast, to
Nova Scotia and Europe. In addition to its small size, this species is discernible by the heart
shaped carapace and gray coloration. Kemp's ridley prefers shallow coastal waters, including
sounds and the lower portions of large rivers, where it feeds on crabs, shrimp, snails, clams, and
some saltwater plants. Nearly all members of this species are believed to nest on a short strand of
ocean beach in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Only a single nesting record exists for North
Carolina, on Long Beach in Brunswick County (1992). The nearest suitable nesting habitat for
this species is the Outer Banks ocean beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no existing records of
Kemp's ridley sea turtle within 10 miles of the project study area. There is no suitable habitat for
Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the project study area. Based upon the lack of habitat for Kemp's
ridley sea turtle and NHP records for Beaufort County, this project should not impact this species.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spinymussel)
Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: June 27, 1985
The Tar River spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel that grows to approximately 2.5
inches in length. The external shell of the adult is smooth, orange-brown to dark brown, and
ornamented by one or two rows of short spines (to 0.2 inches long). The shell is thicker on the
anterior end and thinner on the posterior end. Preferred habitat of the spiny mussel includes
relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, circumneutral water over asilt-free, noncompacted,
graveUcoarse sand substrate (USFWS 1992). The mussel's range is believed to be limited to a 1-
mile section of the Tar River in Edgecombe County and Swift Creek in Vance and Edgecombe
Counties (TSCFTM 1990). This species is now also known from Little Fishing Creek in Halifax
County, Shocco and Sandy Creek subbasin in Warren/Franklin Counties, and the Little River
subbasin of the Neuse River basin in Johnston County (WRC 2004).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
NHP records document the nearest occurrence of the tar spinymussel approximately 50 miles
upstream on the Tar River from the project study area. The project study area has no habitat for
the tar spinymussel. Based upon NHP records and the lack of habitat, the replacement of Bridge
No. 8 will have no effect on the tar spinymussel.
Aeschynomene virginica (Sensitive Jointvetch)
Threatened
Family: Fabaceae
Date Listed: May 20, 1992
Sensitive joint-vetch is a robust, bushy-branched, annual legume n exceeding 3.3 feet in height.
Young stems have bristly hairs with large, swollen bases (Leonard 1985). The alternate,
compound leaves are even-pinnate, approximately 1 to 2 inches wide, with 30 to 56 toothless
leaflets (Radford et al. 1968). The leaves fold closed when touched. Flowers are bright greenish-
19

yellow with red veins, about 0.5 inch long, and are subtended by bractlets with toothed margins
(Leonard 1985). Flowers are produced on few-flowered racemes from July to October. The
jointed legume (loment) is about 2 inches long, has 6 to 10 segments, and a 0.5 to 1 inch long
stalk.
Sensitive jointvetch occurs in the intertidal zone near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation. It seems
to prefer sparsely vegetated areas where annuals predominate (USFWS 1995). Habitat for this
species in North Carolina consists of moist to wet coastal roadside ditches and moist fields that
are nearly tidal, especially in full sun (Leonard 1985). Associated plants listed for this jointvetch
in North Carolina are all freshwater species. Sensitive jointvetch is not expected to be found in
association with salt-tolerant species such as saltmarsh cordgrass or giant cordgrass (Rouse
1994). This species seems to favor microhabitats where there is a reduction in competition from
other plant species, and usually some form of soil disturbance (USFWS 1995).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed a record of sensitive
joint-vetch population within 2 miles of the project study area. There is suitable habitat for
sensitive jointvetch in the project study area in some of the maintained areas near Bridge No. 8,
particularly in the freshwater marsh. Systematic surveys for this species were performed on
August 19, 2004; using overlapping transects to cover the habitat area. No specimens of sensitive
jointvetch were located, and the presence of this species within the project study area can be
discounted.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (Rough-leaved Loosestrife)
Endangered
Family: Primulaceae
Date Listed: June 12, 1987
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial with erect stems 1 to 2 inches tall. Leaves
are sessile in whorls of 3 or 4, broadest at the base, and have three prominent veins. The leaf
margins are entire and slightly revolute. Flowers are yellow, bisexual, and usually have five
petals that open from late May to June. Seeds- form in August and the small round capsules,
surrounded by the persistent calyx, dehisce in October. Rough-leaved loosestrife typically occurs
along the ecotone between long-leaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas where lack of
canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herbaceous layer. Rough-leaved loosestrife
is endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas. This species is fire
maintained, and suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in
our state. Drainage of habitat may also have adverse effects on the plant (USFWS 1994b).
Habitats where rough-leaved loosestrife have been found are low and high pocosin, wet. pine
flatwoods, pine savanna, streamhead pocosins, and sandhill seeps (Schafale and Weakley 1990),
as well as peaty pond margins, and disturbed sites such as roadside depressions, power line right-
of-ways, and firebreaks (USFWS 1994b).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
20

A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of
existing population of rough-leaved loosestrife within 5 miles of the project study area. There is
suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife in the power line corridor within project study area.
A systematic survey was conducted on June 10, 2004 within all suitable habitat in the project
study area, and no individuals of this species were found. Based on the survey results, this
project will not affect rough-leaved loosestrife.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The FWS also provides lists (FWS 2006a and 2006b) which include a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in Beaufort and Pitt Counties (Table 5). A
species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for species listed. NHP files
document Rana capito within 3.9 miles of the project study area. No other occurrences are
located within 5 miles of the project study area.
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects) on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
21
T- Threatened, E- Endangered

and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted by NCDOT architectural
historians on July 30, 2003. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed
with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a report dated June 2004 it was
determined that Singleton Primitive Baptist Church was eligible for the National Register. The
church is located approximately 150 feet northeast of the end of the project. HPO concurred with the
eligibility of the church in a memorandum dated August 23, 2004. In a concurrence meeting on June
28, 2004 NCDOT, HPO, and FHWA agreed that the project would have no effect on the church and a
concurrence form was signed to this effect. Copies of all correspondence and the concurrence form
are included in Appendix A.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. There are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological investigation needed to
be conducted (see letter dated July 15, 2005 in Appendix A).
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
.environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There is a City of Washington boat ramp access located in the southeast quadrant of the study area.
There will be no impacts to the existing boat ramp.
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of this
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Frime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
22

Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional emission
analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Beaufort/Pitt County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project
is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. Therefore, the project's impact
on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites, no regulated or
unregulated landfills or dumpsites with in the project area. No facility with underground storage tanks
(LJST) was identified in the project vicinity.
Beaufort County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The bridge is located within a
Detailed Study Area, but there is no floodway delineated in this area. Since the proposed replacement for
Bridge No. 8 would be a structure similar in waterway opening size, it is not anticipated that it will have
any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway. The proposed alternatives will
not modify flow characteristics and will have a minimal impact on floodplains due to roadway
encroachment. The existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
IX. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
Part 23 CFR 771.135 Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303) states that "The Administrator may not approve the use
of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge,
or any significant historic site unless a determination is made that:
(i) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property; and
(ii) The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from
such use."
In accordance with the criteria set forth in the Federal Register December 23, 1986, the following
Programmatic Section 4(fl for Minor Involvements with Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife
and Waterfowl Refuges evaluation was prepared:
23

Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from a recreation land, a city
owned boat ramp, which is adjacent to the existing roadway, and since the project meets the
criteria set forth in the Federal Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the recreation, have been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing;
(2) improve the highway without using the adjacent historic site; (3) build the replacement structure on
new location without using the recreation land.
No Build Alternative: The No Build or "Do-Nothing" alternative is not considered feasible and
prudent because the bridge will eventually deteriorate beyond repair and necessitate closure of the
bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by SR 1403 and SR 1567.
Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge: This alternative is not considered to be feasible and prudent
due to the age and deteriorated condition of the existing~bridge.
Replacement of Bridge No 8 on New Location: Moving the bridge location to a point upstream
to avoid impacts to the recreation land would negatively impact the Singleton Primitive Baptist
Church a National Register eligible structure. An alternative on new location will introduce
horizontal curves into the alignment and increase cost. Therefore, this alternative is not
considered feasible or prudent.
These alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent
All possible planning to minimize harm to the recreation land has been performed as an integral part of
this project. Alternative A, the preferred alternative, will minimize impacts to the recreation land. The
recreation land will be impacted by widening the approach lanes from 21 feet to 24 feet, widening the
shoulders from 7 feet to 8 feet including 4 feet paved, and providing guardrail.
The approved Final Programmatic Section 4(fl for Minor Involvements with Public Parks Recreation
Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refu es is included in Appendix B.
X. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A mailing list was developed based upon property owners located near the bridge. Approximately twenty
names are included on the list. Newsletters were mailed early in the planning process to the nearby
property owners and local officials. A copy of the newsletter is attached in Appendix C. A workshop
was held on February 21, 2005 at Eastern Elementary School in Washington. Approximately thirty-seven
people attended the workshop. Among the comments received at the workshop were: 1). Several
citizens asked that the clearance underneath the bridge be raised to accommodate additional boat traffic.
2). Several citizens commented that the bridge should be lengthened to mitigate for flooding. The
proposed bridge was lengthened to mitigate for the proposed impacts to high quality wetlands. The
vertical clearance under the bridge will be studied further during final design.
XI. UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
No unresolved issues or areas of controversy have been identified during the planning process and none
are anticipated.
24

XII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Scoping letters were sent to the following agencies listed below. Agencies that responded are marked
with an asterisk (*). Comment letters are included in Appendix A.
Federal Agencies
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh*
US Army Corps of Engineers -Washington
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency -Raleigh
National Marine Fisheries -Beaufort
US Geological Survey -Raleigh
State Agencies
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Cultural Resources*
NC Division of Coastal Management*
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Regional and Local Agencies
City of Washington*
Beaufort County Schools
Beaufort County Schools -Transportation Department
Beaufort County
Beaufort County EMS
Pitt County Schools
Pitt County Schools -Transportation Department*
Pitt County
Pitt County EMS
Mid East Commission RPO
The following are comments received during the Scoping process:
1. United States Department of the Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practical."
Response: The preferred alternate, Alternative A, replaces the existing bridge in the existing
location and minimizes natural environment impacts.
Comment: "Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site
bridges."
Response: An off-site detour will be utilized for this project.
Comment: "Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish
spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.....The general moratorium period for anadromous
fish is February 15- June 30."
25

Response: An in-water work moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to September 30 due
to Anadromous Fish in the project area (See WRC comment on page 26).
Comment: "The bridge design should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology
or impede fish passage."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge .length will be
determined during final design.
Comment: "Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in
damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge length will be
determined during final design.
Comment: "There is a past concurrence of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) less
than one mile south of the project area. The Service's Guidelines for Avoiding impacts to the
West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina
Waters should be implemented to minimize impacts to this species."
Response: The guidelines will be implemented during construction.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous
species are found in this portion of Tranter's Creek, including striped bass, American Shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous
fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and an in-water work moratorium
will be in effect from February 15 to September 30 due to Anadromous Fish in the project area.
3. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
Comment: "...the following projects will impact CAMA Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC) and will require CAMA permits."
Response: NCDOT will coordinate with the DCM during final design to obtain the permits
necessary.
26

FIGURES
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure lA- Vicinity Map -Detour Route
Figure 2A - Alternate A (Preferred)
Figure 2B- Alternate B
Figure 2C- Alternate C
Figure 3 - Photographs of Bridge No. 8
Figure 4 - Typical Roadway Section
Figure 5 - FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 6 - Natural Communities Map

sw ~ i Pike Noad
'\
{
Old Font 1
~1• inelown. RNA
S Terra
,~ ~ Acre Cela
0 lei
~;~,,.
Wrtmar - ® romr
~ ~ ~ Crass - r1
~ ~ ~'
,~ 81oun
~~
n
Roya; 1
rnW Gy7on '.:~
t Asklnsw _f ~ ~'~ _.~ .._ REL.
1443
1451 ~ ~ M:
1458 •
1452 : s ~b ~
1453 , G_•` ~` '~
1451 1405 ~` '~~ .•
•
~~' ~ ~ '.
`. '•,a •.
.: ~ ~, n. ~
` ~ ,,` 14 1 M
• ~-
1567 ~ ^, `~ , `
!~ w 140'
2400 2 •, ~~ ~ 1404
TrantPrc '•~ ~'.

e v
r 1,
Tdr~i~e~ ~ '
1 0 1 2 MILES
1 0 1 2 KILOMETERS
SCALE
.. ~ NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT' OF TRANSPORTATION
~~•' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
•~ 6 ENV~ONMENTAL ANALYSIS
BEAUFORT /PITT COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. B ON SR 140.i~SR 1567
OVER TR.9NTERS CREEK
TTP NO. B-x1020
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE l

<~~

•.•-•. ..
141 .r -
~ ', _ •i

• ~-~- . i

,
~ .
.,

~•. ~ti+ _!
ti~ ~
_ • .N+

'~••
261
~• Z '
••~ - ;
_
v
^
•~ •• ~] .. 1463
I y:4 - •,
! •~ ~L ue6 __. 1~
156
1553 '~
••`.
l~ '~
~' +
i '

•• ___
~~ •,•
~ 1
• '•
' ` ,
~ ~6•
~
.. .~Y• .~
155 ~ 1• '
~ ~

v ~
•
, •~
1567
~
6
•~•. } `61
~ ~!~
i`
'•,~•
~ 2258 2~2

t
N
S
•'
,'~•6,'
~`, ~.
~~ ~~ ~
-~_ ~`
1161 ~.I
•~
~- ' •y
i
••
1
~~
1
i
11}# ~'~ ,406 t43~ 14 ~~~~
l\ • • 5 430- ~•
6~, ~ , ,; 43 14 I.67 IIBO /
,~ 1N9 i~'•' 113 ;
1 •
j 1 1451 j
1 145 iJS~ .
11 ~
1 5 1153 •
ar 1151 1405 . 6•
1 ~~ ~ , 140 = •'•~
t ~ a ~•
Creek rs •~ ~ \
• ~•
•
•
,:Q
r~
e,
VICINITY MAP -DETOUR ROUTE
FIGURE lA
LEGEND
~4~~ saidrR~
NORTH CAROIJNA
DBPARTTilENl OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT' DEVELOPMENT
BEAUFORT /PITT COUNTIES
BRIDGE N0.8 ON SR 1/0.3/SR 1567
OVER TRANTERS CREEK
?TP NO. B-E020

." ( f
'~ 3
F •` ~,, ~•
~'~
W
~~
~ ~ oo•sc+
~~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ x~
1
~' ~ee~A ~ $ r I 5
sdo.a,~~g ~ ~
w i.;
1 _. '.
~~3
o~
F4
~_------'--- -----It-i ----~
;~ .,
:~ ~ .
,~, rr'
•'~
~~TM ~ ~~
~~.~~
~~ s,
/ ~'"f ~
{~• f.
;' ~
i'
~~~ ~
~,~~e ~~
gg
pti~~~rr
aao.,~ae~g ao
~~
~~
~~
y
GO+G
_ m
.~/ ~ z z
a
a ~
~ a ~.

~.` ~ ~~
~, c
~
~~

\. ~
\
(
1
1 ~'"'1`
M 1'I~
~
IX
• .
1 ;~~
1 1

I I I 1
\
~
1 , ~ ~,
i
\+I
I ~~ ~
f
x
1;
I
1
i 1
1
I
I , 1
I
1 ,I
1
~ II 1 1 '
~ I ix
~i ix 1 ~ i ~ ~ i
~ i
XI II Ij
I K X 1 %
1 1 I
I I
~: li I ~!
I I I i I
1 li i
1 1
~ li i
1
~ S' ; i

~ x li ~

i~ ~

1 I
1
1 1
1 1
xl ~
~ 1 x
1
I~ ~'
.
j
~ 1 1
1 ,
I
~
I 1 ~ ~
~ ~ +,,
1 1
1
1 ,
,/
I~ i42
1
1 1 1

I I
1 ,
I 1
~
I ,
~` 1
1
' A(~
` ~
~
/ 1 1
~ 1
1
I
' Y
~ /'
I
;
I
` ~
~

, I
I 1
,~ 1
~
1
x~
1
:
,a °~- -
,. y
,~ ~ ""

F•
,,~
{
.•,,,r, ~~~u,;.,
~. ,.
;~
,„

M,'~ . ~
~
..,,

i ` ~~I
.. ,1
y
5 Ij
~ ~ a~
~ ~.
~' ,
.`
~~
I

i` ~
~
,3
G '
1
j
.,~
t` ~
JJ
l3
17}

,L
~~~
N~
¢ly3~@~~pi9~9~~~9~
3& 3 6 8 4 ~vB9 ~ @~
'tooooa~ao~

D ~6 BI~§~p~g~0g1~€
~~ $ ~ ~ ~~i~ € i B ~ E ~ g
~~~ l~;~3~6,$~ ~~
3 ~ i~ € € . .
~I

~ ~-MoD
r^^rrr
y
~ ~ ~~
~~
T,
.~~_

~ ,,
~ 1 ~~ ~ .,.~
,~
~toD ~
~ ~
,r

~
~

`''~~,~
fil
~
, ~ ; a
,~~-''
~
~;~~'~ .
~,
"+~~~
..
~ ~
~. ~
,, ~ .
.;,~,

F i.~,~
~i
~
,,
~,
.

~
~ • "1'y'F 1
SC~`n`dD~ ~
~
~~,~s~~~ k `~ ~j -- - ---
-
-- ---
. ^ 1~
,~ Y
f~~~~: 9 ~~
~

4 /
t. ~ ~x
ql 'h; {
~ ,
., r
x~
~
~~`~~OD~ ~ I ~
~ ~ I ~ ~
x ~' I
1
r^r^r
~~
~
~~
~ .
~ y.
~
~
'!
~
y x ~

li i ; ~ ~

~ I, ~ ~
'
` x

~
l ~

r

~ ~ i

;,
~ ~' ~
~` x
a1
i
x ~ ~,
,,,

~`
P ~~ ~'~ I~ ~I
~
,
~
+
~. ~ ~ `t t' ~ TAPER
\ ,~ .+
\
~
ax ~ ~,;
\'' ~

~
. -, ~.,
~ .
.

.
~ .
~~ ,
. .~,.~, *
~ ,
I ~
~ .~n
3
~ ~
~
r ~ ~
~

~
y ! ~
~ ~ ~'

;
~ ~
~
,

~oaiooooo~~
€I~'i,llil~ll~
~~ ~ ~~i~ B, I I § §
~ ~~ ~ _ . .
~~
~~~
~s-I..o,2
,..~..~
~~~a~~ ,;
~ ~~~
r.

~ _ ~ M
ate' ~.T~'...~
y .,:
aR
,i ~~ i.
1 ' * !{^""
~ ~ _ ~
v y' i
>;a ` ~~ Pv fir: ~~~i
F `.
~~ ' ~ 1
'~ .-t3'~. 4r `~ .
~~~~ ~ " "
1 1 1 %
1 1
f 1 1~ 1 1 11 \ '.~
11 1 1 1 1
I l 1 I
1 I I k, ~i 1\ 11
• 1
11 1 ~ ell
1 1 1 1 ~ M.
~J I I 1 1 ~ 1
1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ''I
y 1 1 1 1^
1 1
11 1~ l 1 ~
1 1 t. % ;
11 1 1 1 I
J / 1 1 ~ 1 1
I 1 i 11 ; 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I i '~.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I 1 1 1 1 I
I
f3 '; -'11 ~1 I
~ , - \ 1 1 1 1
i (~ .\I i ~ i i
\ II 1
~ `?_Y \ \ \` '1 1 1 \ 1
.. ,\ `` 11 1 \ 1
~ ~. ~I \~ 1
1 l'
.; ,~
1' '~ `±~.
;•
•
4
\
\, 1
.\
:. I
'\ ..
~..
_--__``~ ---_ --• 0 ~ ~--- I
Yy ~ -------..~~--,
i,
~~ ~~ i ~ .~
r
V
~r x ~•~ ~I
• r~ ~ ~ I i
iPl ~ ~~ +~t I ,1
~~~ ~/ 11
1
~ ~ • i ~ 11
(/ 11
1 1 li
i ~ ~
, )
i
~
~~
~
.
1

.,.. ~
~~
~-~~
,f
• ~J~r
~: ~
r
= r~..r.
l r .
m+ao ~,r
~' l ~,
f _,,.~
,:'
r A:
r k~+ ~ \
~ ~' a
!~'~
4i ~aF' ,.~ ;~,.
~;
~1 . ~;
~~
;..~..
C~
-i-" '-. ~
r'j~ r
;~
~~
~~
1 m
1
b

B-4020
Replacement of Bridge
No. 8 on SR 1403ISR 1567
Over Tranters Creek
Beaufort/Pitt Counties
FIGURE

1~ ``
GROll1~0
•• 1 ~ 1 8• 12•-0' I+wr. 6• •• 1 •-0-
v r 1 '- .
vAraAeLE
'~• •,' SLOPE
~ ~ A2 ~ a ` ~
bs l ~ ~ ~ 1 I
A2 A2
uAo~ TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTI011t c~ o`J
•• IIIIEN THESE DISTANCES NDICATE SLOPES OUTSOE THE LYTS 6:1
TO Ss 1. TIE DISTANCE BECOIES VARIABLE AND TIE Wx. OR YM4
SLOPE WNTAMEp.
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT 2002 4,800 LOS B
ADT 2004 5,200 LOS B
ADT 2030 9,300 LOS C
~' DUAL 2%
TTST I
A FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION:
.02 _82.. URBAN LOCAL
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTl0111
EXISTING BRIDGE LENGTH IS 308 FT.
• - 81CYCLE ROUTE
...\CE
I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPEMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BEAUFORT/PITT COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. B ON SR 140.i~SR 1567
OVER TRANTERS CREEK
B-4020
FIGURE 4

~. ~..
,~• .,
~ -_` _ ~: " 7Ai~E Xa Cry caa -i2a~ ; ,
=.~~,~ CREEK5IDE D ~~~~~ ~~ ~~` gat
,- ~
`` ~ _ ~ 8~ ~. `A.~tB(3R'fltj~ . ZtJ~ AEA
~ AEFV1f ~ r '' Y $67500 T~ ~_ vi
gi tom. ,~ y.
•~;
', ~
„ ~ir~KY 938 39sst ~ ~k{ 9i 28a V
~L x'95^~t~,)0"~ q29~
RS CRE Na.ltln,tnu
ZUr~t a,~ •,.
j n.a. Z01+EE X,-
~;~ ~iLR~~"~i,
Z~~ Xy Lind AY ~., '. rJ~fJFJ ~ 5~7~ "~t ,''
9i, • ~~ 2C)i~tE XA ' r 1EL ~kZdifiiE X,~ '"~,~.-
? (El's ONE %~ - ' ~` ~
ZOraE ~ "' .. , .., _ SHADEQ X ' zol~ ~ ~.F ~+a'•b ,
9,~ ; CL~tcS'~;EGK rtn~. _, c,..~KS?~~ : ". _. ~ ~~ ZONE ~; ~t ;
8a[dac No•a
~'
HRRUl~ STS JOINS p14#~EL 56861 aZOfJE
~ ~.
_ _ ~ ~_ .: - -a,~- . _____ ~ _
~ ` ~ 'J7t3lT~~,n'
M" b
A .~ 38371 ~g3?i a ~. >yh
Legt;nd
E}r#'.,A,j ~ ~Ll R~ ~ CorrrCrssiyr<,
-~~ ~ . s c'7'~'9Rti! A.~.dtr ~+/ Ae.+[rs arxi S. arnv As- si ~5dri7'~'n
~~ ~ I=t~rt~r~{rd E"cxSdHazad
" _ t~"~ i A"r>rsm€ao-ts ~ 7W}-~.cesl~ t1fl=a' ;fs
.°D~ ~..'Yt :fir: Les~~ r-~ tOh° c~ V[tat,.,• Zow ;`v m
~*'` ~ PIriS N ~~4ntrr:
ll~iS ilS~u.~
l1EiSrrnss•~•„~Yr~ 1CXn-~n:vx€worf~g'fs~a
A'1;
Prcnsy ~faVTw,a?~
~/ t~su~ii',g~m-s.~. 5Y,t1xc.;u~3:s7dXCru;o:l:r9X'.
~{,~ US Ht~ssazsfs ~ 1Cf.R° ~~:~ . t}i; ~ ~ s #~i
dNi. H"3'M?~~ 1Gh- ~ imi;Jaf~ tA_~-tip f
~ l ~' NL ~Kls} f#a~ Rf-~recsY Esat~3.e}•
~ ~ + • IJ~`_~I ~;!:j! ~ RA'a'tts Comer uora~~
iBlasaoorsannaa KMWG~5U7M[R
N.C. Floodplain Mapping tnformetion System
Da-Liwc MaPPin9 APPRcatien PYoviled ~ the
Nestle Cawl'sa Flee/Piain MaP-IM Wa9raan
Disclaimer. This is not a kgaliq binNnp (FIRM] flood
Insurance Rxe Amp and should not be used as such.
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATTOl1f
PROJECT I118i'ELOPMTs11C1'
BEAUFORT /PITT COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. B ON SR 140~SR 1567
OVER 7RANTERS CREEK
TTP NO. B-4024
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
FIGURE S

~.
~~~ _~
~.~
~r_;
.:
t 'ff/~.''j ~J,.
.:~~/f~ .
~ ~'i .
let) g t[16
w~tiana
y...~----~-.
'We~and 7
t~etland
Kirbt~s Creek
1
. r~
~~~,~~~,
,~~, ~.
~ ~;- ~
,~ ,~'
~.~~. ~~
~~~
;.
,~~ ,
>~
~I~leti a nd
- -
,.
,.-~
_ ~ ~``~
`~' ~~Jetland 3
~~
LE G Eld D
® Existing Bridge
NC 35
1~If ettands
Stream
Swamp Farest
:~,~f'' ShrubAssemblape
Agricultural Land
Disturbedltviaintained
~~
21fORTX CAROLINr!
r+ DEPARTMENT OF TRd1YSPORTATlOX
pJv'S ~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
BEAUFORT /PTlT COUNTIES
BRIDGE N0.8 ON SR ]403~S12 1567
OVER TRANTERS CREEK
TIP NO.8-9020
NATURAL COMMUNITIES MAP
Fl(:I/RF 6

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

United States Department of the Interior-
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Otfice
Posc Office Bo:33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 276363726
January 13, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
r ~
.~~ ~-
v •r
~~
,;,';~
., - o
\ ~ ~"'• ~ Q
. ~ ~,
..N,~rN ;~ ~~
.~f~ '~„ ACT ~JEV~~Oe'%'~`
~~ ~"~~~dc:vTA~~
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
F
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
nine bridges: 4
• B-4018, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek
• B-4019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek
• B-4020, BeaufortlPitt County, Bridge Ito. 8 on SR 1403 over Tranters Creek
• B-4055, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 on SR 1124 over Branch of Newport River
• B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 on NC 561 over Looking Glass Swamp
• B-4172, Lenoir County, Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 over Jericho Run
• B-4212, Northampton County, Bridge Rio. 77 on NC 35 over Kirby's Creek
• B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 over Carraway Creek
• B-4326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 on SR 1001 over Bloomery. Swamp
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-66id) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Sen-ice recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by

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

B-4020, Beaufort/Pitt County -There is a past occurrence of the West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) less than one mile south of the project area. The Service's
Guidelines For Avoiding Impacts To The West Indian Manatee: Precautionary
Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters should be
implemented to minimize impacts to this species. These guidelines can be found at
http://nc-es.fws. op v/es/,publications.html .
B-4055, Carteret County -There are known occurrences ofred-cockaded woodpeckers
(Picoides borealis) and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) within two
and three miles,~~respectively, of the project area. If habitat for these or any other listed
species occurs at the site, appropriate surveys should be conducted. In addition, this site
occurs within the Croatan Game Lands area. Impacts to this protected area should be
minimized to the maximum extent practical.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. 'A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as' a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similaz projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
.minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;

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

b7/ G7/ Gi7bb 11 : 4b

IVI. 1.NJ 1 I'LtM ~ yb'("(y"!44
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Of'F•tce Box 33726
Raleigh, Korth Carolina 27636.372E
May 3, 2006
Phil S. Harris,- III, P.E.
North Carolina Aepartment of Transportation
Projecx Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
rU. 9~/
RECEIVED
~>II~Y g

Thi$ letter is in i`esponse to your letter of April 16, 2006 which provided the U.S.1 isb aad
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCIJOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. S on SR 1403 over Tranters Creek
in Beaufort and Pitt County (TIP No. a-4020) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
Cedetalty protected bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephelus) and West Indian manatee (Tricltechus
nranatus). In addition, NCDOT ttas determined that ttte project will have no effect on the
federally protected Kea~p"s ridley sea turtle (Lepiduchelys rnanaters), red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picuides borealis), Tar River spinymussel (£lliptia steiastansalra), rough-leaved loosestrifc
(L,vsimac;hin aspcrztlaefulia) and sertsitivc jointvetch (Aeschvnunrene r-•ir~inica). These
comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Speeies Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. ]531-1543).
According to information provided, an eagle survey was conducted within a one mile radius of
the project site on March 30, 2006, No eagles or eagle nests were observed. Based an the
survey results, the Service concurs with your determination that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
NCD(?T has committed to implementing the Service's GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING
IMPACTS YO 7flE WEST INDIAN MANATEE: Precautionary Measures :ur
Construction ACtevittes in North Carotins Waters. Sascd on this commi+ment and on all
available information, fire Service concurs with your determination that the proposed project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Please note that the above
guidelines were revised in 2003 and can be found at the following website: itttl~~i;nc-
c:.fw,.env/mammal/manatee~;uidelines.Qdf .
t+~
based on the lack of habitat. the Service concurs with your determination chat the project will
Dave na elTect on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, red-cockaded woodpecker and Tar River
spinymussel.

E'J~i G~~ G~ 1 1:417
fHl.. JJU t F'lJtH i Jb'!"f7f44
t~.987 D9.3
Hared on 2QQ4 survey results provided to the Service via facsimile on May 1, 2!}06 by Chris
Manley oiNCDOT, the Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no ",.~_'-
effect on rough-leaved loasestrifc and sensitive jaintvetch. We believe that the requirzments of
section 7(ax2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations undo section 7 _
consultation must be reconsidered if- f I) new iriforenatioa reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a tttatuter not previously considered in
this review; (2jthls-action is subseQuently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review; or (3) a stew species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this
identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (9l9) 856.4520 (Ext. 32).
Si
Pete B amin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: William Wescott. USAGE, Washington, NC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedtnoor, NC
Chris Militschcr, USFPA, Raleigh, NC
Jahn Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC

tl.S_ Department of
Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard
Commander 431 Crawford Street
ihtiled States Coast hard Portsrnoulh, va. 237oaSOQ4
FI(In coast Gsyani nisaia stall symba: obr
Phone: [phone]x22
Far [phone]
Ematl: BBrazier~lantd5.uscg.mi!
16591
4 APR OS
?1~1r. Brian Yamamoto
. \TCDOT -Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Consulting Engineering Unit
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Yamamoto:
E~Ve re~riewed the information forwarded by the Ecoscience Corporation by Iettec dated March 16,
2005, regarding the proposed replacement of two bridges across Tranter's and Runion Creeks in
Beaufort County, North Carolina.
' Since Tranter's and Runion Creeks are subject to tidal influence, it is considered legally
navigable for Bridge Administration purposes. These waterways also meet the criteria for
advanced approval waterways~oadined~in Title 33, Code of Federal~Regulatioas-, Section 1 15.7f?
Advance approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by
other than small boats. The Conunandant of the Coast Guard has given his advance approval to
the construction of bridges across such waterways. Therefore,. Coast Guard Bridge Permits are.
not required for the proposed replacernhnt bridges.
The fact that Coast Guard Bridges Pernritsare-not required does not-reii~ytnrof the
responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or local agency
who may have jurisdiction over any aspect of these proposed projects.
If you have any questions regarding.this.roatter, please contact dlr. Bill H. Brazier, at the phone
number or address shown above_
S'1ncereIy,
a,.. '
WAVERLY W RE ~ RY
Chief Bridge A " tration ranch
By direction of the Commander
Fi€th Coast Guard District
P-~ .
Copy: ~Ir. Alexander P. (Sandy) Smith, Senior Project Manager, Ecoscience Corporation ~~=:=-°--__-.

oY s~~Eo
....
North Carolina Department of Cultaral Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
- PeoaB. saodberl4Admmialeatx
)1~Iichsel F. Eat~ley, Goaetaar Office of Arcbivea and Iiuttxy
Liabdlt C. Evamt, SeaetarY Divmm afffutatiica(Reaotunes
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy SAY David Bc'ooB. Diroctac
July 15, Zoos
MF.I~toRANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis $ranch
NCDOT Division of ways c -
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ~ ~[,~~,~C.
SUBJECT: Bridge Group 50, Bridge 8, SR 1403 over Trantl°xs Creek
B-4020, Beaufort and Pitt Counties, ER 04-0104
Our memorandum of February 18, 2004 concerning this project contained conflicting recommendations with
regard m archaeological resources. We apologize for the confusion and would 1~7ce to clarify our comments.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present knowledge
of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources, which may be eligible for inclusion is the National
Register of Historic Places, wdl be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National I~storic 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,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced trackiag number.
cc: Paul Mohler
NC DOT
two J~u
r . .,{~I1 t-
>i••- i h ..vUJ
~,z
_ -.rir
L =''. -
Laefiioo
ADMIIHISTRAIION 507 N. Bloat Strew, Raleigh ITC ~M6it7 Swig Ceara, Raleigh NC 276994617 2
RESTORATION 515 N. Bloat Stneet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail 8erviw Cmt,~ Raleigh NC 27699.4617 (919)733-47fi3~33-8653
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N BIo~ Street, Raleigh, NC 4617Mai1 Setviae Ceaox, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733~6547r715~801
(919)733-65451T15~4801

~se ~o~
r
~rsaaYd~
x111.
North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbak, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor _
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM
~~~~~/~~
~'~
t - ~~i8~
:'• ~~ x.
~` /~~ Q
ill..'"e _ t~lx~~ i~ .•/
Z.; III r;
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck ~~ P ~(' ~~~L
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR1567 over Tranters Creek,
WBS Project # 33387.1.1, Federal Aid # BRSTP-1403 (4), TlP# B-4020,
Beaufort County, ER 04-0104
Thank you for your letter of June 16, 2004, transmitting Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report for
the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Sir>tgleton Primitive Baptist Church, north side of Secondary Road 1403, approximately five miles west
of town, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for azchitecture. It is a significant and
intact example of anineteenth-century Primitive Baptist house of worship. The property meets
criteria considerations for moved properties because it is primarily significant for its architectural
value and has not been compromised by the move from its original location. We also concur with the
proposed National Register boundary as described and delineated in the survey report.
For purposes of compliance `with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Bridge No. 8 linking SR 1403 to SR 1567 is not eligible for the National Register because it is a
replacement to an earlier 1935 bridge. During the 1973 rebuilding, the eazlier bridge was nearly
eradicated and is now a common steel stringer bridge.
Location Mailing Address Telep6oae/Fn
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Bount Street, Raleigh NC 1617 Mail Service Ceuta, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Stmt, Raleigh NC 1617 Mail Service Cetus, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]!715.4801
SURVEY & PLANNING S15 N. Blount Stmt, Raleigh, NC 1617 Mail Service Cetus, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733fi543/7I5-4801
n

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 ~~ 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. Ia all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
PBS:w
cc: Mary Pope Furr

V 1 / CJl / GCIC1y 1 `7. HCJ 1`Il. 11U 1 ~"L/Ct1 ~ '7b ((7 (44 __-
• .~~ •
y~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
I~EPARTMII~`~' OF TRANSFOR~~kTION
MtCt3AF.L F. Fr-SLEY
Gov~rron
INI~BOFFICIc 11dF1tit01tAt+IDIlM.,
nu, tars ~
LYtaDO'h~'t-[.
SDf~ET/-iY
TO: Elmo Vance, PE A,
FROM: Penne Sandbeck; Historic ArchitecturelPDEA f~ /~
SUBJECT: , B-402EI~(ReplaceBridgeNo.8-on-SR1483fS~~VRJJ~ISfr'~;HeandortCounty_
DATE: July 1,.2QQ4
CC: Project File
Sarah McBride, NC-HPO
Attached is a signed concuurence form stating NCDO'T and NC-HPO's concurrence that:
• lbere are no effects on the National Register-eligible property (Singleton Primitive
Baptist Church)•located-witlrirr-thepmject's area~ofpatential effect:..
Since there are no historic.pmperries affected by tho_proposed-pro,}ect, compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is complete. Please notrfy res in
writing immediately~sheetld-tl:escapcof this'PmJccrotrazzg~t." A chattge-in-scope-map
necessitate a new survey of the APE.
Please also make sure that this copy of the signcd concurrence form is attached in the
Environmental ~Dockuncnt:
wiuHC mss:
NC OEPNCIMlNiOF TwweFwTwTp„
OFFICE OFl11WYt ENN~AIEMT - .
1513 M~1~ SF~v1eE r.DlTEII
RKrI Ww-WC-77~fYi-t6i3..
T~~a.loae: e+a~+a-+eoo
Faz s»-»s.~srt
VYE851Tf: WWW.IVCDOT.CrRG
LOCATON:
PMMEq L~nCOli+Buao+n
I7ZBGplTiu: EOULEVMO. StIRET08-
M6E~CN. IiG 2760

f7f~b1~GF~~
- .~
1~ ~ 4b N~. LNJ I t'UtH i Jb'T79"l44
rio. eee ves.
Federal lid # HRZ-1403 (4) TIP itB-Ia?0 Coxriry: Beaufort
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace.HridgeNo_-Boa-SR-1403lSR-1.S~7-ouaF-TraAters-Creeks Beaefer~
County
On lone 28, 2004,_repz>ESentatives.of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal ~EIighway-Adrainistratiorr (FHR+A} - -
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (ISO)
Other
Rcvicwed the subject.projectand-agreed. -
^. Thereerle.naeffecls.oa.tha•Nationa}-Register-}isted-preperty/properties•}ocated-within,
the project's area of potential affect aad listed on the reverse.
® There are no effects on the National Register-eligibleproperty/properties located within
the prosect-'sAres~o€potontial-efftet~and-}iated on thc-reverse:
^ . There.isea tffectoa.the-National-Register-}i9Eedpropertyiproperties-}ocaoed within the,.
project's area of potential effect. The properly/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse:
Q There is as effectoa-theNatieaa} Regists~r-eligible-property/prapertierlocatedwitbin the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed oa the
reverse.
Signed:
- ,

A, for the Division

or other Federal Agency
~d~~TY - /V
Representative, HPO
State Historic
Date
~a -
Date
U ~ ~ .. .
~ -~~D
Date

---
__ - - FD. t908 ~ -~ W4
___
rv~. w ~ rutr+ y ~'rrJr4v
YJ~f~CJl~GCXJ~1 1~:4b _ _ _-_. _ _._-
r ~ _
Federal Aid !1 HRZ-1403 (4) ?7P 11 H-4020 Couriev: Beaufort
Properties within the area of potoatial effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National RegisteF-listed (1~R}er-determined t}igibte (DE): "
Singleton Psimititie-Baptist Chtrreh-($E).
Properties within the area of potential -effe+et forwhich there-is'arr effect ~ indicate property status
(NR or D~ and describe the effect.
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicablo).
Initialed: NCDO? `lGl FHVSIA .~ HPO ~:~.

Greg Purvis
From: Steve Sollod [[e-mail]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:32 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; bill arrington; Doug Huggett
Subject: [Fwd: Scoping Request)
Scoping Request
(2.33 KB)
Based on a preliminary evaluation by Bill Arrington, DCM's Field
Re~rese.^.tative and Transportation Project Coordinator for NCDOT's
Divisions 2 & 3, the following projects will impact CAMA Rreas of
Er_vi:o-.-aental Concern (AEC) and will require CAMA permits.
B-4C~3, Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek, Beaufort County
B-4019, 3ridge No. 103 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek, Beaufort County
B-4C20, Bridge No. 8~on SR 1403 over Tranters Creek, Beaufort/Pitt
Coun~y
B-40~~; Bridge No. 22 on SR 1124 over Branch of Newport River, Carteret
Ccu:. ~y
T2:e specific type of permit and specific permit conditions will depend
or: es_~n of the project, methods of construction, and impacts to AECs.
Zt_~ =ecommended that NCDOT allow sufficient time to coordinate with
DC:•~ .
Be a..:°_sed, DCM did not receive the NCDOT January 8, 2004 letter
re~~es~_.^.g comments on the potential impacts of the proposed projects.
We apo_:,gize for the delayed response. Please ensure future requests
fo= :.,-= ents on potential environmental impacts are also directed to
C...
_._a~= contact me at 733-2293 X 240 for questions or comments.
ate- _ ~oilod
St=-: ~ ~ollod
T=~=~~=_ation Project Coordinator
NC ~_~_sion of Coastal Management
16°_~ ._~__ Service Center
Ra;=_~= NC 27699-1638
(9~:; "'33-2293 X240 Phone
(5_s; -~3-1495 FAX
1

~a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, E.iecuci~eDirecror
~NIEMORANDUM
TO: Elmo Vance
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator .°_ ~~ -
Habitat Conservation Program '
DATE: February 5, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Beaufort, Carteret, Halifax, Lenoir, ,
Northampton, Wayne, and Wilson counties: TIP Nos. B-4018, B-4019, B-4020,
B-4055, B-4132, B-4172, B-4212, B-4321, and B-4326.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
iJ. S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
~Iailin~ Address: Di~~i;i~~r. <~t I, ' :;,:1 J~i•,nrrir~ • 1?' 1 ~Jzit ~rr•.•ice (;inter • I~al~i~1.;. ~C.'?6~)9- ~ -"
Telephone: ~+I`-~ -~?-iEii.iXt.?:il • Fax: i`-19j ?1~-?6-~.i

Bride Memo
2 February 5, 2004
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original around elevations immediately upon the compietion of the project. Distiibed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout «•aters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. VVe have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual .`404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, I~TCDOT biologist A4r. d'al' ~ ,~,,~,~,.
should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be ~~~ °~~
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be follo«•ed.
10. In areas ~;•ith significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-tetTrt erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
~t-here possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface avaters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used

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

Bride vlemo
4 February 5, 2004
2. B--1019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 over Runyon Creek on NC 32. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Runyon Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4020, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 8 over Tranter's Creek on SR 1403. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Tr3nter's Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-405, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 over Branch of Newport River on SR 1124. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this area, including striped bass, American shad, blueback herring, and
hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September30.
Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 over Looking Glass Swamp on NC 561. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Looking Glass Swamp, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT
should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an
in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations
apply.
6. B-4172,. Lenoir County, Bridge No. 9 over Jericho Run on NC 55. We reconunend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B--1212, Northampton County, Bridge No. 77 over ICirby's Creek onNC 35. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Kirby's Creek, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No, ?i7 over Caraway Creek on SR 1918. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Caraway Creek, including~alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B--1326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 over Bloomery Swamp on SR 1001. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
~~icinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
L CDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box

• Bride Memo 5 February 5, 2004
cul~~erts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning. structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at (919 528-9886. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

...:w
~ ` f ~ ii { ff ¢
City of Washington
P. O. Box 1988, Washington, NC 27889-1988
January 26, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director
N. C. Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
t. r r , ~:~
.. .~
~.Wf
- .~~.
.~
~.
Re: B-4~ 020~aufortlPitt County, Replace Bridge over Tranters' Creek on SR 1403
Deaz Dr. Thorpe:
Sorry, long in coming. After review of proposed Alternate A, there are no objections
to your proposal.
Thank you for information.
Sincerely,
~~~.. ~..
Steven L. Harrell
City Manager
102 E. Semnd SG • Telephone [phone] ~~ i' TDD 1$00.735-2962 • Fax [phone]
~~ •

Vag aw LC.16.I`• aJ•'•J In. 1/L!1 rLGn ~ 70! !JINN
• Pitt County
Schools
I)cpan.nx~m rd'IY~nxpnrrauon
9(11 ~hII priu•
crrhnuui•.'~unh frnJinu 37y34
January 14, 2004
~~ • ~~ ~~
F:~~:(3c.21 7:lfr82i3
Mr. EImo Vance
NC Deparflnent of Transportation
Project Developma>tt and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
kaleigh, NC 27699-1348
Ittfereneo:13~1020, 8caufort/Pitt County, Replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403 over Tratrtats Crtek
Dear Mr. V>lince
Because this is at the county line of BesufoNPitt County there is littic beneficial or adverse
impact on our operation from this project. It would be unusual for a Pitt County School bus to
cross the county line on a regular bases.
If you have any questions about t)tis correspondencc, please give me a call at [phone].
Cordially,
~~~
)oey Weathington
Transportation Director
Pitt County Schools

APPENDIX B
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project
State Project
T. I. P. No.
Description:
BRZ-1403(4)
33387.1.1
B-4020
Replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR 1567 Over Tranters Creek in Beaufort/Pitt
Counties
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X ^
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ^ X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or ^
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(fl site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site

Yes
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f) ^
land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise ^
encumbered with a Federal interest
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land a
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of ^
an EIS?
No
X

X
X
X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and ^
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ~ X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ^ X

or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ^ X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X ^
impacts of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the hi way without using
the adjacent public park, recreational X
land, or wildlife waterfowl refine.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of ^
retaining walls, etc., or traffic X
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or {ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land, or wildlife and ^
waterfowl refug~This would be a X
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems

or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible ^
planning to minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
c. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the

based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land
~b Local/State/Federal Agencies
c. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Date ~°~Vlanager, Project evelopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
~~!'T" fi
Date Division Administrator, FHWA

,J
..~..
t
City of Washington
P. O. Box 1988, Washington, NC 27889-1988
January 26, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director
N. C. Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
~"`'`"~.
r;~~ ~.
. ~.
' - ~,
i~
_ ,~ .
~_
Re: BB-4`OZO~aufort/Pitt County, Replace Bridge over Tranters' Creek on SR 1403
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Sorry, long in coming. After review of proposed Alternate A, there are no objections
to your proposal.
Thank you for information.
Sincerely,
~~ ~.
Steven L. Harrell
City Manager
102 E. Second St. • Telephone [phone] ~ ~ ~' TDD 1.800-735-2962 • Fax 25Z•946-1965
I~ •

APPENDIX C
Newsletter
Official Workshop Announcement
Workshop Handout

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0.103 ON NC 32 OVER RUNYON
CREEK AND BRIDGE N0.8 ON SR 1403/SR 1567 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
WBS Nos.33386.1.1 & 33387.1.1 B-4019 & B-4020 Beaufort/Pitt Counties
The North. Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Informational Workshop on Monday February 21, 2005 between
the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. in the Cafeteria of Eastern Elementary
School located at 947 Hudnell Street in Washington, NC.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
.information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this
project. Interested citizens may attend anytime during the above mentioned
hours. NCDOT proposes improvements to replace bridge nos. 8 and 103 over
the Tranters and Runyon Creeks.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Karen Taylor, 1548
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, by phone at [phone] ext.
223, fax at [phone], or E-mail at [e-mail]
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who
wish to participate in this workshop to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. To receive special services, please contact Ms. Taylor as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0.103 ON NC 32 OVER RUNYON
CREEK AND BRIDGE N0.8 ON SR 1403/SR 1567 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
WBS Nos.33386.1.1 ~ 33387.1.1 B-4019 & B-4020 Beaufort/Pitt Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Informational Workshop on Monday February 21, 2005 between
the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. in the Cafeteria of Eastern Elementary
School located at 947 Hudnell Street in Washington, NC.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
-information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this
project. Interested citizens may attend anytime during the above mentioned
hours. NCDOT proposes improvements to replace bridge nos. 8 and 103 over
the Tranters and Runyon Creeks.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Karen Taylor, 1548
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, by phone at [phone] ext.
223, fax at [phone], or E-mail at [e-mail]
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who
wish to participate in this workshop to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. To receive special services, please contact Ms. Taylor as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.

~~
1VEWSLETTER
Besufort/Pitt County
Far Replacement of Bridge No. S
Over Tranters Creek On SR 1403/SR 1567
TIP Project No. B-4020
~4F µOfi7li 44
,~T ~9.
h 7
o z
'~r~~MraF rnaN~~i'
C~uzens Informational Workshop
Monday February 21, 2005, from 4.30 PM to 7.30 PM, at Eastern Elementary School Jn Washington
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform concerned citizens
of an lnfarnratianal N'~rks/rnp concerning the proposed replacement and road closure of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR
1567 over Tranters Creek (TIP Project No. B-4020). This newsletter gives an overview of the steps in the project
development process and presents the bridge replacement alternatives evaluated.

I
~. ,, STEPS T"IU ~'ULICBSS'
t

f .~ ~ Step 6 'Environmental Document
Step S Public Involvement
,,>' Step A Selection of Preferred. Alternative
.Step 3 - Environmental .Studies.
: Step 2 ` Alternatives Developmeirt
~_
Step 1 Project Ini#iation/Scapirig
~~~" Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing aligmnent.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by an
on-site temporary detour structure located south of the
'~_ existing bridge. Alternate B was nat chosen because it
has comparatively higher natural environment impacts
and construction cost.
-- - The NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the
proposed project area want to know the potential effects
- =- of the project on their homes and businesses. However,
~=' ~.~61' ~
. Y-: exact information is not available at this stage in the
THE PROJECT DEYELOPMEIVT PROCESS planning Process. Additional design work will be
performed before the actual right-of--way limits can be
During Step 1 of the project development process, established. This newsletter is to inform the public of
information was collected an the existing human and the replacement of Bridge No. 8 and solicit your input
natural enviromnents. This information was used to on the project.
identify preliminary alternatives for replacing Bridge
No. 8. In Step 2, the preliminary alternatives were Planning and environmental studies for this project are
evaluated and two "build" alternatives were selected in progress. The Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) is
for detailed environmental studies. Steps 3 and 4 scheduled for approval in February 2065. The CE will
involved conducting the detailed environmental address the potential impacts of the proposed bridge
studies for the "build" alternatives and selecting a replacement on the human and natural enviromnents
preferred alternative. The build alternatives were: and will include recommended design criteria for the
project. Input received from the public will be included
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge at the ~ the decision makiag process.
existing location, while maintaining traffic by an off-
site detour route is the preferred alternate. The off-
site detour is along SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge A Citizens Informational Workshop ~~ill be held on
Road) and US 264, approximately 6.3 miles in Monday February 21, 2005 at Eastern Elementary
length. Alternate A was selected because of the School, 947 Hudnell Street in Washington. The
comparatively lower construction cost, lower preferred alternate will be displayed at the Citizens
environmental impacts, and lesser construction time Informational R'orkshop for your review and
associated with it. comments. Following the informational workshop and
evaluation of the comments, an environmental
document will be published.

o~
x
or
~(~ i~~ Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E. or Mr. Greg Purvis, P.E.
"`"`--- NCDOT - PD&EA Branch Wang Engineering
(j 1548 Mail Service Center 15200 Weston Parkway, Suite 101 - ~ E
`\,_ Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Cary, North Carolina 27513 ~ '~
[phone], ext. 223 [phone]
~ entail: khtat•lor?~idar.state.nc.us email:gprcn~isa_~+=ang-enchieering.ca~n `
If ~-ort have trattslr~rtatior~ ~ZZQstio~s oa outer pr~~ects5
call the NCUOT Custa~er Set~vice Office toll-free: at 1`-X77-DOS-4~'OLI.
NEWSLETTER
You ar+e invited to a
Citizen lnfarmationaf Warkshap
Monday February ?1, 2005
from 4:30 pm to -7:30 pm - - -
Af
Eastern Elementary School
947 Hudnel/ Street
in
Washington
BEAUFORT/PITT COUNTY
Replacement of Bridge No. 8
Oyer Tranters Creek
On SR 1403/SR 1587
TIP PROJECT NO. 8-4020
Public invo}vement is an important part of the project planning process. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation is committed to ensuring all issues of concern
to the public are addressed and considered. We encourage you to attend the Citizens
Informational Workshop and discuss your views with the Project study team. If you
are unable to attend, you may send your comments to one of the addresses listed
below. Your comments are important to us!
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Developmern and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mai Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548

COMMENT SHEET
Replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403/SR 1567
Over Tranters Creek
Beaufort/Pitt Counties
TIP Project No. B-4020
February 21, 2005
Please take the time to give us your comments and concerns regarding this project. Please continue any
responses on the back of this sheet.
NAME:
(PLEASE PRINT)
ADDRESS:
(PLEASE PRINT)
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING TIP PROJECT NO. B-4020:
Please send comments to: Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Email: [e-mail].z~s

APPENDIX D
Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts
to the West Indian Manatee

"T ' , United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
~s ~ . Post Office Box 33726
H Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters

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

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

Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.
~~ ~~- -- _
y~T(3
Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source: Clark, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-
3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.

APPENDIX E
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND OETEAMINATION
(198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua()
VEGETATION
~.
~.
'` 1
Domin//a~~nt Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum Indicator

2. ~ r-t,.,sT~r~'L~ FFCG~ . 10.

l
~pl~~. Af~
~~•.. C
K
4. ~Jp~ 12.
~
/
~"
~
d/Qta:tmiv~~-e~i'epC~"% ~
5. 13.
)
~•
6. G~~fi~ I~cr(C~Anp~
J 14.
~
^
8. ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC lexcluding FAC-)
Remarks:
I
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): WetlandHydtology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_
Aerial Photographs inundated
-
Other ySaturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available ,Water Marks
~Orift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators !2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water• •~ lin i Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 121nches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~ lin.) Local Soil Survey Oata
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~lin,l -Other (Explain in Hemarks-
Remarks:

r
a
SOILS
Ma Unit Name
(Series and Phasel• I'~r`7V~~1 Drainage Class: ~r~~ ~~~~
• ~ ~ Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~ ,D ~ L~Cr(~1 !~ uQC'l~•5 Canfinn Mapped Type: es No
Profile Description:
'Depth Matrix Color Motde Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions.
inches Horizon (Munseil Moist) fMunsefl Moist) Abundance/Centrast Struettrre, etc.
~'? ~ ~ ~ Z ~/~ /kvc~
2-~- ~ C~ 3 1 ~ ___ ~ ~a
Hydric Sait Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histic ~pipedon
~Sulfidic Odor
~Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed ar Law-Chrome Colors
Remarks:
_ Con~retions-
High Organic Carrtent in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy-Soils
~Llsted on Local Hydrie Soils list
_ Listed on National Hydrie Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydraphytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circlet
Wetland Hydrology Presem? Y No
Hydric Soils Presets? Yes No Is this Sampling Paint Within aWetland - Yes Na
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL '
8/93 ~'

f
.. , ~ /_._
DATA FORM ~-
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site• ~~ ~` -R..JZ ~ Date: ~ 2~
ApplicantJOwner: ~~ QT County -~, c~}-
Investigatar: ~~ sci ~nCe, State: •
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Transact ID•
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: •
(If needed. explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1nd~ pominant Plant Soeeies Stratum Indicator
. 2. ~ ~ 10.
3. ~GV^ \~J~~ 11.
4. IrAGP~G 1GItL`si>P"i iccz y 1'/ 1`. -
5. ~ `eG.ya.~e... ~ ~ 13.
6. 14.
7. _ _.:. _ . 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are 08L, FACW or
FAC lexcluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Oata (Describe in Remarks): WetlandNydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Cake ar Tide Gauge - '-- 'aimary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other iSaturatad in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_prift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (Z or more required):

Depth of Surface Water: (in
) Oxidized Roat Channels in Upper 12 Inches
. _Water-Stained leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~~~ (in-) -Local Soil Survey Data

~ _FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sail: '~ ~
lin.l -Other (F~rpiain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Sr711 S
Map Unit Name ', l`
~'
fir
i
Cl
~~~ ~ D
{Series and Phase): t~ .
ra
nage
ass:

~ ,mot Field Ohservations
~ l ~ a l 1 ~ C
M
d T
fi
Y
N
1 ~
Taxonomy (Subgraupl: on
rm
appe
ype:
a
es
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
inches orizon Munsell Moi (Munseil Moist) Abundance/Contrast _ Structure. etc.
~~- ~ ~ ~`~k'~ 4 -- -~' ~h Gnd
Hydric Sail Indicators:
Histoso( _ C~n~retions-
_
Histis Eppedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sails
Sutfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Lora! Hydric Soils Ust
_ Reducing Conditions _ Usted on National Hydric Soils Ust
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ~ Yes N
Hydric Soils Preserrt? Yes No is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE Z/9Z
HJL
8/93

x

Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name ~ e ~(~ r-~-~ Nearest road ~~G+~~'~ ~ I~~~
County Name of Evaluator_ Date
Wetland location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Soil Series Cr~bU~n
predominantly organic-h s,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
~Cwetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation
agriculture, urban/suburban
impervious surface
Dominant Vegetation
(1)

(2)

Floodin and Wetness
~emipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland. Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
,r Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage 1 * 4 = ~_
Bank/Shoreline stabilization
ll
a
P
l ~.~
J` * 4
* = ~ 2 T t 1 score
ut
o
nt remova 5 =
Wildlife habitat ~- * 2 = ~ ~
Aquatic life value 3 * 4 = ~:Z
Recreation/Education ~ * 1 =
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream

~+
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name ~ ~ Meares road ~;~~'~ ~~ ~~~~~
County ~ ~- Name of Evaluator Dat a,~~
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
~.on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil Series/o'~Nr.~C~ ~--
~.predorninantly orgaru~c-humus,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
~ wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile u str am)
forested/natural vegetation
agriculture, urban suburban
impervious surface / %
Dominant Vegetation
{_.
(2) r' tr~v `~
~~~
Floodin and Wetness
~semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland. Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
"Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * 4 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization * 4 J 2
Pollutant removal ~ * 5 = ~-
Wildlife habitat ~ * 2 = _~
Aquatic life value * 4 = Z O
Recreation/Education ~_ * 1 _~
Tota_ ga.
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream

PUBLIC INVOLVEl~IENT AND
THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The estimated 2004 average daily traffic volume is 5,200
vehicles per day (vpd). The projected traffic volume is
expected to increase to 9,300 vpd by the design year 2030.
PROJECT PLANNING
The planning and environmental studies for this highway
project will comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), The type of document published for
this project will be a Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE).
This document will fully discuss the purpose and need for
the proposed improvements, evaluate alternatives, and
analyze the project's impacts on both the human and
natural environment.
Some topics that the document will address include:
• Neighborhood and community impacts
• Efficiencyand safety of travel._ ____
• Relocation of homes and businesses
• Economy of project azea
• Historic properties and sites
• Wetlands
• Endangered species
• Wildlife and plant communities
• Water quality
• Floodplains
• Farmland and land use plans of project area
• Hazardous materials involvement
• Traffic noise and air quality
CURRENT STATUS
Plannttg and-enviromnen~alstiulies for-tlisptnjeeTare in
progress. The Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) is
scheduled for approval in February 2005. The CE will
address the potential impacts of the proposed bridge
replacement on the human and natural environments and will
include recommended design criteria for the project. Input
received from the public will be included in the decision
making process.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN PROJECT PLANNING
Public involvement is an integral part of NCDOT's project
planning process. The concerns of citizens and interest groups
are always considered during project planning studies. 08en,
additional project alternatives are studied, or existing
alternatives changed, based on comments received from the
public.
If you have comments concerning the NCDOT or questions
regarding other projects, you may call the NCDOT Customer
Service Departraent toll-free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU.
If additional information is needed or you would like to submit comments after the workshop, please
address your requests and comments to: c~ ~~~
Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E. Mr. Greg Purvis, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Wang Engineering ':~~
North Carolina Department of Transportation =~• 15200 Weston Parkway Suite 101
1548 Mail Service Center ~ ~ Cary, NC 27513 ~%-
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 '' EMAIL: gpurvis~tvang-engineering.com
EMAIL: [e-mail] _ TELEPHONE: [phone]
TELEPHONE: [phone], ext. 223
Citizens Informational Workshop
BeaufortlPitt Counties
For Replacement of Bridge No. 8
Over Tranters Creek On SR 14031SR 1567
TIP Pro'ect No. B-4020
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
has begun the engineering and environmental studies for the
replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 14031SR 1567 over
Tranters Creek. The studies consist of alternative evaluations,
- _ -preliminary -engineering;-environmental--analysis; -ands -e
prepazation of an environmental document.
The purpose of this workshop is to review the reasonable and
feasible alternates with interested citizens and to receive
comments concerning the proposed project. Representatives
of the NCDOT are available to answer your questions and
discuss the project with you. If you have continents or
suggestions about the proposed unprovements described in
this handout, please inform a representative of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation.
The NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the proposed
project area want to know the potential effects of the project
on their homes and businesses. However, exact information is
not available at this stage in the planning process. Additional
design work will be performed before the actual right-of--way
limits can be established. This workshop is to inform the
public of the replacement of Bridge No, 8 and solicit yow
input on the project.
You are encouraged to view the project maps and displays.
Please ask questions if you have any and complete the
enclosed comment sheet. We will keep a record of yow
comments and consider yow suggestions concerning the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 8.
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIlvIATE
TIP Schedule Estimated Cost
Alternate A Alternate B
Right of Way Febntary 2006 $ 84,400 $ 1f13,300
Cotlstntction February 2007 $1,700,000 2 250000
Total Estimated Cost $1,784,000 $ 2,353,3()0
NOTE: The schedule and cost estimates are elimin and sub'ect to than e.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
NCDOT's 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Pmgram
(TIP) proposes to replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403lSR 155?
over Tranters Creek (see vicinity map}, Due to the
deteriorated state of the existing structtue, improvements are
needed for Bridge No. 8 to meet the current NCDOT
standards.
Two alternates evahrated fos detailed environmental studies
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge ai the existing
location. During construction, traffic will be maintained by
an off site detour route along SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge
Road) and US 264 approximately 6.3 miles in length
Alternate A was selected because of the comparatively
lower construction cost, lower enviromnental impacts, and
lesser construction time associated with it.
Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing aligniment.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by an on-site
temporary detour structure located south of the existing
bridge. Alternate B was nit chosen because it has
comparatively higher natural environmem impacts and
construction cost,

~~
~ y`s A
e
S N ~
. a 2 ~ h '~y.; c . -
', ~ ~ ~,{t E r ~ '
~r- ~ z
a ~~ ~
1 7 ~ ~ ~1
A ~. . I \ 1 ~
~0. ~~~ '~'
'l'am /) :.L ~k ~ y~ ~V n~" } \ / /~ ~i ~i S~. i:IzV~.4V ~~~ ,
< ' ~ ; '.
D ~ Ofis'2td ~ ~ ~ °,~;~ h"~.,~` ;~ ' '; ~, SAD ~
L ~ d.'~71' Toros ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ '~ ~ f
R ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ,. ~y ~,
~. ~ ;
OS . ~ ~ i'v t ~~,. ~~
.,
;r.,;, ' ~
i ~ 1 , r Y.
~9
x
i
~~ ILtW
i
r- r ~
~ i ,1
• .Fi .. ~.. ..~ r a r „~..,. ~ t
pl. ., ~ ,}
ti x~ ,. X0005 r X-.~g~,_X x.._
___~ ~ - -
~M. _.
.. x +,. ... ... .-.
--w.r soarEmT.an ~ _ ~ ~ -- ~ ,
~ ~ ~i.__
~P" .,-~~t1PE IO , ef-
a.~ , .
.~ ~' - - ,.I 60.Op'EYJS~atiir -~ -~.'
~. ~ :. _ .,
.'
. ~ _ '.
i s.r-fi
..
X0005 i ~ % i ? ~~ ~ >:s: ~ ~ -7C~s..x ~C X' r
__ _
- x k-
X
PrS+a ~.. ~~ , 1
. ~1
i
~~_~~ ~_
. ~ ,\ ,
~:
}` - ce M
-. a ' x-~-x-a-x-x x
~.
..
:.
,_ _.
:,. ,.
~- ,
Z -"' --"-- --'-"°-"
. i ~ ~ 264 ,~
5U o ~ ,oo T{fT
scAre
LEGEND
R
~,~r ' Ax~smwc RAAl1' oP WAr
PROPQ48D AIGBf OP WAY
~~
Q mYlSrlIYG AQADWAY
a;;;Y`-;'~ ~; ax-sarxc AoAUweY alo Ae A&SURNACID
Q PAOPOSHD Ra9aWAY
® PRafaS6a STAUCTURES,ISlAND,
CRRB AVID GUrfBR
aausravc srRUCRmss, fsraaID, cvAa
AND carrBA To Ari RBMOYea
L911IS, AlYB$ STR&1MS AAID PO~ID,S
,,~e , rAas&vr Aar rmoir
PUTf1R8 Aar (zozs~
' SR'1565
(GRIMESLAND
BRIDGE RD.)
r.:,
SR ?567
N \~
\ \ 5 ~.

BRIDGE N0. 8
MAP LEGEND
1 0 1 2 MILES
SCALE
Studied Detour Route -~--1~---
Approximate Detour Length = G.3 miles
ALTERNATE A
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
$1,784,OOD
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m am uae r~ coamvrn0x
INCOMPLETE PLANS
m em. uu rac ~.. Acou~r+
~,~~ ""• ~„ NORTX CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATrON
~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT £~'
~`"•.~~~'~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCb1
BEAUFORT /PI1T GOUNTJES
BRIDGE N0.8 ON SR 1903/SR 1367
OVER TRANTERS CREER
TIP N0. B-4020
1 „ = SO' ALTERNATE A
(PREFERRED)
FIGURE Z

NEWSLETTER
Public invo}vement is an important part of the project planning process. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation is committed to ensuring all issues of concern
to the public are addressed and considered. We encourage you to attend the Citizens
Informational Workshop and discuss your views with the Project study team. If you
are unable to attend, you may send your comments to one of the addresses listed
be}ow. Your comments are important to usl
~~ ~`/ J~ Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E. or Mr. Greg Purvis, P.E.
NCDOT - FD&EA Branch Wang Engineering
1548 Mail Service Center 15200 Weston Parkway, Suite 101 ~ - f
.~ \,_ Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Cary, North Carolina 27513 "~
[phone], ext. 223 [phone]
errrail:kbtnylora,dnt.srarc.r:eras enrnil:~prrrn~r`sat+~urtg-ertrineer•irrg.com
If yon ha~c~e rrrrttsp~rtatior~ ~uestic~ns oa othea pr~:r~eets5
call the NCDOT Custart~er Ser~•ice Office toll-free: at 1i-87'x-DC~T-41'OLI,
You are invited to a
Gltizen fnform2tional Workshop
Monday February 21, 2005
From 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm
At
Eastern Elementary School
947 Hudnell Stree!
in
Washington
BEAUFORTlPITT COUNTY
Replacement of Bridge No. 8
Over Tranters Creek
On SR 1403/SR 1567
TIP PROJECT NO.8-4020
North Carolina Departr>tient of Transportation
Pro}ect Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
~~~
~~~JOf~t

~fo~
~~
NEWSLET7".ER
Beaufort/Pitt County
For Replacement of Bridge No. S
Over Tranters Creek On SR 1403/SR 1567
'~~jOf7RAN~4~T TIP Project No. B-4020 ~Ftiror~A~~'
Citizens Informational t~orkshop
Monday February 21, 2!105, from 4.30 PM to 7.30 PM, at Eastern Elementary School m L~ashington
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform concerned citizens
of an Infarnradoria! l~i'nrksltrrP concerning the proposed replacement and road closure of Bridge Na. 8 on SR 1403/SR
1567 over Tranters Creek (TIP Project No. B-4020). This newsletter gives an overview of the steps in the project
development process and presents the bridge replacement alternatives evaluated.
. ' a~8~ ~ a~~~~s
` ~ ~
t' ~ ~ Step b Environmental Document
Step 5 Public lnvalvement
..1' Step. 4 Selection of Preferred Alternative
'~ '` Step 3 - Environmental Studies
~ ~_, Step 2 Alternatives Deve}opmem
Step 1 , Project Initiarion/Scoping
...r~.~...~
Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing aligmnent.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by an
on-site temporary detour structure located south of the
'' - existing bridge. Alternate B was not chosen because it
has comparatively higher natural environment impacts
and construction cost.
- - The NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the
proposed project area want to know the potential effects
,~ ~, ~
``'~ of the project on their homes and businesses. However,
'~-= exact information is not available at this stage in the
THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Planning process. Additional design work will be
performed before the actual right-of--way limits can be
During Step 1 of the project development process, established. This newsletter is to inform the public of
information was collected on the existing human and the replacement of Bridge No. 8 and solicit your input
natural environments. This information was used to on the project.
identify preliminary alternatives for replacing Bridge
No. 8. In Step 2, the preliminary alternatives were Planning and environmental studies for this project aze
evahuited and two "build" alternatives were selected in progress. The Federal Categorical Exchision (CE) is
for detailed environmental studies. Steps 3 and 4 scheduled for approval in Febretary 2005. The CE will
involved conducting the detailed environmental address the potential impacts of the proposed bridge
studies for the "build" alternatives and selecting a replacement on the human and natural enviromnents
preferred alternative. The build alternatives were: and will include recommended design criteria for the

Alternate A
replacing the existing bridge at the project. Input received from the public will be included
,
existing location, while maintaining traffic by an off- in the decision making process.
site detour route is the preferred alternate. The off-

site detour is along SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge A Citizens Informadanal Warksho ~•ill be held on

Road) and US 264, approximately 6.3 miles in Monday Februa 21 2005 at Eastern Elements
~' ~ r3
length. Alternate A was selected because of the School, 947 Hudneli Street in Washington. The
comparatively lower construction cost, lower preferred alternate will be displayed at the Citizens
enviromnental impacts, and lesser construction time Informational V1'orkshop for your review and
associated with it. comments. Following the informational workshop and
evaluation of the comments, an environmental
document will be published.
~~T~