20180654 Ver 1_Construct Connector Taxiways & Improvements_20180514

��earWa�er
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
May 8, 2018 www•cwenv.com
Mr. Billy Standridge
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 W. 5'" Street
Washington, North Cazolina 27889
Ms. Kazen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 Permitting & Buffer Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9�' Floor
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27604
RE: Plymout6 Municipal Airport (PMZ)
Nationwide Permit 14
SAW-2016-00197
Was6ington County, North Carolina
Deaz Mr. Standridge and Ms. Higgins,
a���fl 6��
MAY 1 0 2018
The attached Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) is being submitted on behalf of Plymouth
Municipal Airport (PMZ) represented by Mr. Curtis Potter. The project site is located off
Plymouth Airport Road in Washington County, North Carolina. The applicant is seeking a
Nationwide Permit 14 for the authorization of permanent wetland and open water impacts
associated with the conshvction of a new parallel taxiway and two additional connector taxiways.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) was issued for the project on March 28, 2016
under Action ID SAW-2016-00197. Due to the use of Federal and State funding, proposed
improvements at PMZ were subject to NEPA/SEPA review. A Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) was issued on January 20, 2018 by the N.C. Department of Transportation, Division of
Aviation and a comprehensive review of the project was completed in March of 2018.
Applicable comments from this review process are included Attachments A-E. Attachment F
contains a PJD request for a proposed construction staging area located within an upland portion
of the project site. Proposed compensatory mitigation and a NC Wetland Assessment fornt aze
included in Attachment G.
A copy of this package has been sent to Mr. John Ellis of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincer y,
� �.
aylie A. Y ura
Biologist
cc: US Fish and Wildlife Service — John Ellis
32 Clayton Street
P,sheville, NC 28801
828-698-9800 Tel
� �
R. ement Riddle, P.W.S
Principal
n���� V ��
W MAY 1 1 Z018
pENR.WATERRESOURCE3
TRANBPORTAiION PERMrtTl�3 �

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW-
Prepare file folder �
Begin Date (Date Received):
Assign Action ID Number in ORM �
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ)
2. Work Type: ❑Private ❑ Institutional ❑✓ Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
The purpose of the proposed project is to update the current airport infrastructure at Plymouth Municipal Airport.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Plymouth Municipal Airport (Mr. Curtis Potter)
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form AS — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., 32 Clayton Street, Asheville, NC 28801
' 6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form BSb]: SAW-2016-00197
7. Project Location — Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN F'orm Blb]:
35.80856, -76.759667; 1069 Plymouth Airport Road, Plymouth, NC 27962
8. Project Location — Tax Parcel ID[PCN Form B 1 a]': 6765.00-47-4125
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Washington
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: plymouth
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]: Conaby Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]: Roanoke/03010107
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑✓
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard 3'ernut
✓ Nationwide Permit #
Regional General Permit #
✓ Jurisdictional Deternunation Request
Section 10 and 404 �
Pre-Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

� � ��� E��� � j �: a� �..:,
.�
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Scott McLendon, Cl�ief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
WI�I11111�OT1, NC 25402-189Q
-and-
NC DWR, Webscape Unit
Attn: Karen Higgins ,
�12 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
1, the cun•ent landowner/managing partner of the property identified below, hereby authorize
ClearWater Gnvironmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the
processing of jurisdictional determination requests and permits to impact Wetlands and Water of
the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. CGC is authorized to provide supplemental information as
needed at the request of the USACE or DWR.
Additionally, 1 authorize representatives oftl�e Wilmingtoil District, US Anny Corps of Engineers
to enter upon the property herein described for the purposes of conducting onsite investigations and
issuing a detennination associated with Wetlands and Waters of tl�e US subject to Federal
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act andLor Section ] 0 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.
Property Owner of Record: Washinytoa Gounty
PO Sox 1007
Property Owner Address:
Plymouth, NC 27962
P11one Number: 252-793-5823
Email address: cpotte�twashconao��
Airport Rond, Plqmouth, NC
Property Location:
�
Owner/Managing partner Signature: .,�.�/- � . �.�/�-,1
— ��
Curtis 3. Potter, County Munager
Owner/Managin� printed name:
4/23/18
Date:
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone:828-G98-9800
w�v�v.c�venv.com

�
+ _.--:- �
f � 1
__�l \ 1 ; ti�, �y�1,1' ,-
\ 4 \'� r �'
. � �
� (��'�'�- c Ti�'� F_:.
. > � � .s
.` _� � � _
�,� .
� �f <:�F
� ri � �.., L � , � . .J ,.
�� �
�,
,. �
���� �
, - �
��
��
�� a r
�

�F W ATFA
o`' pc ��ce Use Only:
� ' Corps action ID no.
� � > -i
�,. , � o T DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notificaiion (PCi�) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: X� Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Spe�ify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 74 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verifed by tlie Corps? � Yes ❑ No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought.from the DWQ (check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Fermit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes � No ❑ Yes ❑X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for
mitigaUon of impacts7 If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank X❑ Yes � No
or in-lieu fee program.
1g. Is the project located in any of NCs twenty coastal counties. Ifiyes, answer 1h 0 Yes 0 No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DGM Area of Environmental Concem (AEC)? ❑ Yes �x No
2.: ProJect Information
2a. Name of project: Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ)
2b. Counry: Washington
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Plymouth
2d. Subdivlsion name: N!A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Washington County
8b: Deed Book and Page No. 461/Q54
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if Mr. Curtis Potter
applicable):
3d. Street addressc 1069 Plymouth Airport Road
3e. City; state, zip: Plymouth, NC 27962
3f. Telephone no:: N!A
3g. Faz no.t N/A
3h. Email address: NIA
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.: Applicant Infocmation (if different from owner)
4a. Applicani is; ❑ Agerit ❑ Other, specify:
4b: Name:
4c: Business name.
4d. Street addresst
4e. City; state„zip:_
4f. 7elephone no::
4g. Fax no.t
4h. Email address:
5: AgenUConsuliant.lnfor.mation,(ifapplicable)
5a. Name: Clement Riddl.e `
5b. Business name ClearlNater Envi�onmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC)
/ L ___I.��LI��. . . .
�5c. 5treet address: 32� Clayton Street
5d. City,.state, zip; Asheville, NC 28801
5e. Telephone no,.: 828-698-9800
5f. Fax:no::: N/A .
5g.. Email add[ess: . Kaylie@cwenv,com
Rage 2`of 10

B. Project Information and Prior P�oject History
1. Propertj► Iclentification
1a. Froperty identifcation no. (tax P1N orpa�cel ID): 6765.00-47-4125
1 b. Site coordinates (in.decima( deg�eesj; Latitude: 35.80856 L'ongitucle: -�6:759667
1 c. ' Froperty size; 334 acres
2. Surtace Waters:
2a. Name of nearest tiody ofwater to. proposed project: Conaby Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest �eceivirig irva#e�; C;Sw
2c. River basin: Roanoke/030.10107
3. Project Description
3a: Describe the exisiing conditions on the,sife and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at•the time of this
application:
The project:site is lhe�Plymouth Municipal Ai,rport (PMZ): PMZ ls a general aviat(on airporl' located approximately five iniles southwest'of downtown
Plymoulti. General land use�in 1he viciniry of the project Is prima'rily uUliied foi agricultural, �esidential, and„small;scale commercial pu�poses:.Tfie.
projecl area contains approx.:0.888 AC of JursldlcUonal weUand and 2.221 AC of,open water in the (orm af Jurisdicl(onal open wa(ers/ditche„s:
3b, List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetland's'on the property; 0,885
3c, List the, ldtal estimated linear feet of all existing sireams'(intermittent and perenn'ial) on the property; 0
_3d: Explain the pu`rpose of the proPbsed project: �
The purpose of the proposed project is'lo updale PMZ's cunent' alrport infrasUucture. Please reference Attachment A for more details:
3e. Qescntie ttie overall Project in d'etail, includin.g ttie type of'eguipment.lo be usedi
Please r`eference Attactiment A.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.. Have jurisdictiohal wetland or stream'determinations by:ihe � Yes ❑.No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested :or obta'ined for this. property /
ro'ect includin all rior hases in ,the ast? Gommenfs; SAV11-2016-00197 -
4b; 'If the Co�ps made tFie jurisdictional determi.n,a4ion, whaf tyPe Q,preliminary � Final
of determination was made3
4c. If yes; wh'o delineated the'jurisdictional areas?' Agency/Consultant°'Company:>USAGE
Name (if khoitin): M�chael �Baker Intemalional; Othe�; Mr. Ky1e Barnes
4d. I.f yes, I.ist tfie dates of the Corps jurisdictional d"eterminations or,:State�determinations and atta�h documenfation.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination was issued on March �28, 201fi under USACE AcUon ID SAV1l-2016-00197 and is included in Attachment B.
5,. Projeci His#ory
5a. HaJe permits ,qr certificati.ons tieen reque'sted or obtained for �'Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
tfiis project (including all prior phases) in the pas12
5b; If yes; explain in detail acco[ding to'"help file° instructions..
The USACE'has indicated ttial previous projects have been permitted at PMZ. Plea,se reference: Attachment_A;
6. Fufure Project Plans
6a: Is tFii`s a phased project? ❑X Yes ❑ No..
6b, Ifyes, ezplain:
The projecCwill 6e compieted in thtee' phases (Figure 3.1):
Page 3 of 10
FCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. lmpacts Summary
1a. Which 5eetions were completed below for your project (check all that apply);
[]X �INetlands ❑ Streams — tribuiaries ❑ Buffers � Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are weUand impacts proposed on the site, then complete this quesUon. fo� each wetland a�ea impacted.
2a. 2b. • 2c. 2d: 2e. 2f.
V1letland impact Type of impact Type of wetland Forested Type of jurisdiction Area of
number Gorps (404,10) or impact
Permanent (P) or DWQ (401, oiher) (acres}
Tem ora T
,�y� P Fill Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsfi No Corps U:13
W2 - Choose qne: Choose o. ,n.e Yes/N' o -
W3 - Choose one Choose one Yes/No -
Wq . Cfioose one� � Choose one Yes/No -
N15 - Choo.s.e,one Ghoose one Yes7No -
y�g - Choose'one Ghoose one Yes/No -
� 2g.Total Vlfetland Impactss 0.13'
2h. Gomments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including, temporary impacts) proposed on the site, tFien eomplete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b, 3c: 3d:. 3e: 3f. 3g.
Si�eam impacf Type of impact 5tream name Perennial (PER) or Type of Average ImPact
number intermittent,(INT)? jurisdiction st[eam length
PertnanentY(P),or
` width' (linear
Temp'o'rary{T) (feet) feet)
S� - Gh'oose one - -
$2 - Choose one - -
S3 - Choo"se orie .
S4, - Clioose one - -
� S5 Choose one - -
36 - Choose one - -
3h. Total stream and tributary-impacts 4
3i: Co,mments:.
There are no sl�eam impacts associated with propo5ed pFoject.
Page.4 of`10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacis to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, souncJs, the Atlaniic Ocean, or any other open waier of
the U.S. then individuall list all o en water im acts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impaci Waterbody Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or type
Tem ora T
01 P . Culveri Olher 0.1
O2 P Cu�verl Other 0.1
03 P Culvert Olher 0.1
04 - Choose one Cho�se
4f. Total open water impacts 0.3
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Pond ID number Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
purpose of pond (acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
p� Choose one
P2 Chaose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k., Method of construction;
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a proiected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Nease ❑ Tar-Pamlico � Catawba � Randleman ❑ Other:
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer Impact Reason for impact Stream name Buffer Zone 1 Zone 2
number- mitigation impact impact
Permanent (P) or required? (square (square
Tem ora T feet feet
g� - YeslNo
B2 - Yes/No
B3 - YeslNo
B4 _ YeslNo
B5 - YeslNo
gg - Yes%No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Rage 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and.Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures.taken to avoid or minimize the p�oposed impacts in,designing projecti.
Impacls. to jurisdiclional featu�es were avoided io lFie maximum extent praclicable. Impacls to OJ55 AC (85°/a) of wetland and 1.921 AC (86'/0) of
jurisdfctional operr.walerwould be avoided on-site:
1b. Specifcally describe measuces.taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacis through construction techniques.
All construction equipment would be operaied from high ground/upland areas. Sediment and erosion:control measures and besf managemenC
practi'ces would be uUlized on-site. Construclion' acti'vities will occur in the.tlry via the use of a coHer dam.
2. Com ensato Miti ation for Im acts to Waters. of the U.S. or INaters of the 5tafe.
2a: Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for � Yes � No
impacts to Waters, of the U:S.. or WaferS of th�e,State?
2b. If'yes, rriiUgation is requi�ed 6y (ctieck all that apply)s ❑ DV1L� ❑X Corps
� Mitigation bank
2c.: If yes; wh'ich mitigation option will be usecl for'this
project? ❑ Payment to in-lieu fee:program
❑ Permittee Responsible Nlitigati,on
3. Com 'lete if Usin' :a Miti� atlon Bank,
,3a, Name of Mitigation Bank: Great Dismal Swamp Mitigation Bank
Type:..Riparian`wetland Civantity: 0:13 AC.
3b. Gredits Pur,ehased: (attach receipt,a�ii letfer) Type: Choose one Quenti_ty:
Type: Choose one ' Quantiryt
ease re erence c men . an c men _.
3c. Comments:' � �
4. Com lete lf Makin ' a Pa ment to In-lieu Fee: Pro ram`
4a. App�oval :letter from m-lieu fee program iS attached. 0 Yes
4b. Stream mitigation,requested:: linear feeY
4c. Ifi using stream mitigation, stream_temperature: Choose one
,4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DW.Q only): aqua;re;feet ' �
4e, Riparian we8and mitigafion requested:` acres;
4f: Non-riparian wetland mitigation; reguested: acres;
4g. Coastal, (tidal.) wetland mitigation; requested: acces.
4h. CommenEst �
5. Complete if Using a Rermittee Responslble Mitigation Plan
_
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the: proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
' PCN F.orm,—Version°1.4January',2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulafed Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will. the project result in an impaci within a protected riparian buffer that cequires � Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify fhe square feel of impact to each zone. of the riparian 6uffer ihat requires mitigation. Calculafe the
amount of mitigation required.
6c: 6d. 6e: �
Zone Reason for impact Total impacf Multipliet Required m'itigation
(sguare feet) (square feet}
Zone 1 3 (2 fgr:Calawba)
Zone 2 '� .5
6f: Total buffer mitigation reyuired:
6g: If buffer mitigafion is required, .discuss.wfiat:type of mitigation i's proposed '(e.g., payment to Private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible �iparian.6uffer restoration, Payment into an appcoved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. .Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (�equired by DWQ),
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian 6uffers identifed � Yes 0 No
wilhin one of the NC Ri arian Buffer Protection Rules?.
'1b. If,yes; then is a diffuse ilow plan included? If no„ exPlain vuhy.
� 1!es ❑ No
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. INhat is the overall percenf imperviousness of. this p[oject? p,p2 °/a
2b. Does this ro'ect re uire a Stormwater Mana etnent Plan? ��Yes ❑x No
2c. If this.project DOES�NQT r,e.qui�e a Storrriv�ate� Manageiiient Plan, explain why:
There,are no city or county regulallons;_however; FMZ'�will comply irvith 3tate guidellnes for storrtiwater controls at public�aitpo[ls (Section•6.'GS:
143-214.7)
2d. If this project DQES requi�e a Stormwafer Management Rlan, then prouide a brief, nanative description ofithe plan:
, .
2e: Wh"o will tie responsible for the review of tFie Stormwa'ter Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Sformwater Reyiew
3a. In which local ovemmenYs 'urisdiction is this � �o'ect?
�`Phase. II
3b. V1lhich of the following locally-implemented stormwate� management programs ❑ NSW
a I check all that a', I 0 USMP
PP Y� PP Y)� , � WaterSupply Watershed.
� Other
3c. Has the approVed Storriiwater Management Plan wilh proof of approval been ❑Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DW� .Stormwater Pro ram Review
OCoastal counEies
❑Hctw
4a,. INhicti of the following sfate-implemented stormwater management programs apply �ORW
(check all'that apply): ❑Session Law 2U06-246
� ❑Other
46: Has the approVed Sionnwater Management Plan with proof of approval been � Yes. OX No
attached?
5. DWQ_401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does tFie Stormwatei Management Plan meet the appropriate reyuirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No
56. Have all of:the 401 Unit submittal requirements beeh_mei? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of'10
PCN Form— Version 1„4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation .(DWQ Reyuirement)
1a Does the proj'ect involv.e an expenditu�e of'pu6lic (federal/state/local) funds or tfie � Ye"s ❑ No
use ofpublic (federallsCate) land?
1b; If you answered "yes" io,the a6ove, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document' pursuant to the requicements of the National or State � Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/$EPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document reviewbeen finalized by the
State•Clearing House? (If so, atiach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter. . - �X Yes � No
) A copy of:lhe NG Departmenl of Transportation, Division o( Aviation - Finding qf No
COI7lrnenfs: SigNficant ImPact has,been included in Attachment C..
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a: is the site in violation of DWQ 1Netland Rules (15A.NCAC 2W ,050�), Isofated
Vlletland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .13+00), DWQ Surface Water or Wetia�d Standards, ❑Yes X� No
or Riparian Bu ,ffer Rules (15i4 NCAC 2B. :0200,)?"
26: Is thi's an'after-the-fact perrriit application? �Yes x0 No
2c. 'If you answered "yes" to. one or both of {he above questions, provide an' explanation of the�violation(s):
3, Cumulative Impacts (DWQ'Requtrement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and r,easonably anticipated futu�e"impacts) result in.
additional development, which couid impact nea�by dovirnstream waterquality? ❑ Yes ❑X . No
3t7., If you answered "yes°'to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulafive impact analysis in accordance with fhe
most recent.DVVQ policy. If you answered "no;" pcovide a short,narrative description.
P
Yhe proposed.projecl is located, in a reviously developed a(rporl, surrounded by an ex(sting residential, commercial, and agricultural corritlor. The.
proposed projecl is„aimed,at�updaUng and enhancing existing.on sitg infrastructure,and would"not conUibute fo add[lional deyelopment which could
impact,near6y downstream wate� qualiry`.
4. Sewage Dlsposal (DWQ Re.quirement)
4a. Qlea[ly' detail_itie ultimaCe treafrrient methods;and disposition (non=discharge o� discharge) of wastewater. generated ftom
the p[oPosed p�oject; or.available capacity of the subjeot facility.
Wastewaler would not be'generaled from the proposed p[ojecl.
Page: 9 of 1`0
PCN F.orm -Version 1,.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this projeci occur in or near an area witti federally protecfed species o� � Yes OX No
habitat?
5fi,, Have you checked with, the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � Yes ❑ No
impacts?
Sc: If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Ofiice you have eontacfed. Raleigh
. '
5d. Vlfhat data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impacf EndangeCed Specie"s or pesignaied Criti.cal
Habitat?
The USFWS'and NaWral He�itage Prngram provided comments during the NEPAfSEPA Environmental Assessment scoping process (Attachment D).
It was delermined l6at the proposed project would not likely adversely aHect any tederally listed endangered or lhreatened sp.ecfes.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
_
,6a. Will ihis project occurin or near an area.designated as es5ential fish-habiiat? ❑ Yes ❑X No,
6b. .What data sources did you use to det.erinine whether,your site would im"pact Essential FisFi Habitat?
Souih;AUantic Habitat and Ecosystem IMS., Impacls will not occur in a marine system. ��
7. Hisforic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. V11ill this.projecf occur in or near an area that the sfafe; federaF or tritial
governments Fiave designated as having'historic or c"ultucal p�eseivation 0 Yes �x No
status (e,g., National, Historic Trust designation or properties significant� in
North Caroliha history and erchaeologyj?'
7b. What daEa sources did you use fo determine wFi.ether;you� site would impact histonc or archeological resources?
HPOWEB Maq Service. via NC State Historic Preservation Office. New;SouUi Assac(ates, Ina completed an archaeolog�cal survey for lhe proposed
improvement projecls at PMZ (A@achment E). No archaeologfcal sites or isolaled finds wer'e identified and not fiirth"ersurveys were„reco,mmended.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requlrement}
8a. �II'this project occur io a FEMA=designated 100-year floodplain?- � Yes x❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how P[ojeet meets FEMA �equirements:
8c.lNhat source(s) did you use to make the floodplain deteemination2-
NC Floodpla.in Mapping Program. FEMA map. numbers 3720676500J (Panel 6765):and 372067600J'(Panel 6766); effective Septem6er 19, 2007
(Ffgure 6):
R: ClemenE Riddle 05-08'-2018:
Applicant/Ag,ent"s Printed Name ApplicanUA ent's Signature _ Da..te
(AgenPs.signatuPe is:valid only iF'an authorizalion
letter from the a' lioant is rovided.
Page 10 of 10

Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ)

Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ)
.�• • _ . -� ' �,� ' ':,
' �� `-�r� � , , . �. � ' ,���`�
: . �.� .�. �; G�,Y r
��" F _;.� � _, 1� • .1 � Ca��aby � — J
- �f " , . . � -
, •� ! I
-_,r, � . . .. ? \, r,_�`�� � ,
'�� , � . sM ✓. '��
` � , .. �- ..:+. j •_ �` I-, e 0„
J . -;'. , � . 1��' - �� � ��
�' r ; :. � e _.
;• � � I � � �. ''�. -
.r. . , `,' , � ,� i o a �
� 6 �
(
r
LL
��', ` jf a �
.,. ��1� � �; i . � .
.; S� yia�` ti ' ��' J i, � _ '
:. , � _1
�� _ �' � ..,.�' / �— � j- — �
•,�! i' . I � � " �
, j• , :j iL� f, . ' �r_,�1 - "` -
`. i� ( � � � --�' i � PMZ PropertY -
� � / ' `--
" � 1 � __ ' �
���' ''' �� � I
� � i ��� � �� �,i�'% � s � ;; � �r � / � �
. •,� � cJJ :f� / �� �l�' �~7 �l� � �l �'g',9'
'�.i � . ,� �`�_l� i � ` .
, 1`. �./ r Plr;'qut� MunK�pal
BM'� '-- .� . ,: , � � Avllal . _ -
ls Cem . � i %//�� % .
�: � ' 7jJ ' •
Ren� �; ' \ �>' . . � . (� ,� f � %� �� j a,;_
� ��� � ' "•
. '_ � . � i , ��1�.�:,' _ — � � +R� �¢
1 � f1J'�M I � �� ���
'�.: _ , A��w � � � ,.
�: , �
� � 1' '; ��. ,� ' . � �
�, , .
' � � �` � � •'���'•:�,�l,� ;� .--;' ;�
� � . � ' � '�• ' -•" I
'� .%, � ,'t. , '�' `,o•� � � ���
i � y
: � c_� •
. � . . �'\\ „1 �, l lI `G, , � � I � _ I
Legend . � '
'�.,. ��
� ', � a `
' 0 5001,000 2,000
— --, i ��
�_: Plymouth Airport (PMZ) Property � `, Feet
� (jCA 6.13.17; CEC Projeci7l 867 � �
�l� � - �
Washington County'. �Lea�wa�e� USGS Topographic Map
North Carolina Plymuuth West Quad
i2 <luytnn ti(rtel FI �UI'e 2
Ashr�illc. NorOi Carohna 1.38UI €'

'�.zs. `:tis SF Apron Expansion
I \
PJew ConneCtOr
iaxiwaY_ 25 LF Witle -
�"1 ���
�;. - /i---'
ou �F ��
nd� ,v P���anai ��� �
� r.in: , � --�
.�
� /.�
�'� �a
BS
,.u¢. ewsnnc v,wxuY
ReOEEEMOVEn1
' qSTUiBEO p�gEp.. . _
CAEA.]O.NS`F� � ]21�Sf
�,,, -
N9w Connecio• �
�raxh:�ad�._35 Lf w�do.
J
E
l
)
;
a
;
i
i
� �x�.<��,�,, ,� ��,,:�,��,�
:; y
�Ren,oval
IEGEND
PIWSEI —
arwsE z
GXASE � �
AIRPORTPRJPERryiWE ---�
I C�ELENEPi£OOPENWPiEPS
� DELENEPi£D WETI/•NU!UAT= �
PflOJECIBOVNDARv Rnp�
PRpJEQ q5TUR9ANCE L�I.p �5
/ Taxiway, 25 I
� lF Witle I
�
�-- --
]5' l
� �
�
— Ispp f —
1� Sf
oisn,weeo �
nnew • u +. sr
�
\-�t�1 4V:�Je�i�nc'
��o� l zxda�e ..
�Connectors '
�.— _ — .
.�—_—" -i ,�� i--�
��.
,-' �,.
,/� �-'
�' �� •i
Figure 3.0
Washina-ton
c�,t���r,�.�; x c.
, •,
n�<o. mc ...
ISSUED FOR BID
NOT RELEASED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT (PMZ)
PLYMOUTH,
NORTH CAROLINA
Y
Ker auH
PARALLEL TAXIWAY
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
CRITERIA
SCALE � AS NOTED
PEVISIOK4:
NO. W1E BY pESCWPTIXI
DESIGNEDBV: G.M.W.
DRAWNBY: A.M.T.
CHECKEDBY: G.M.W.
APPROVEOBV: G.M.W.
UATE: MARCH 207!
STATE LICENSE p N.G 0.M50
GR0.IECT NO. 2016.20J.01
SHEET NUMBER
EXHIBIT 1

��"1
��--
/./�
/.-�
.-'i
��
, I fTl F1� Cf +�) � - �
�.0 11] AC I �
�
�eu:
wsnmeeo
NREA - b BB SF
impa�� tto� . �
I�� i�, ac
e:.
EJtI6TNGTA%IWpY
[IO BE REMOVEO)
asnmeeo
RREN • 32.ia SF
��'=oi,��s���: �
Laydown
Yard J
Impact #W�
013AC
.–– �—
..._.zs . _;
�..�..� J5 �
i�..�..
� �i � r
; _
:Impacl "03 h ;.
�0 10 nc I
LEGEND
vnnsE i -
PIWSE 3
%MSE J ��
FIRPURi PRpPEPiv UN[
DELENEAIE� OPEN WhTEF�
�ELENEATEOWFRANCLil.fil� �
�qOJECi60lIN�ARv?BbA.',
PROJ6CT UISiUR9qNGE IJMITS
k
1BN1
wsnateEo
aRE4 -121� SF
�..
�
�..
---- ---�/� �--'
�- �,-
-�' �-'
_�' �-�
�' �--
�-' ,
Figure 3.1
Washin. on
�:������, .�.
�
...n<<o, �.c. ..
ISSUED FOR BID
NOT RELEASED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT (PMZ)
PLYMOUTH,
NORTH CAROLINA
ti
NEY PIAN
PARALLEL TAXIWAY
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
CRITERIA
SCALE e 'AS NOTED
REVISION9:
r+o. w*E er oescwvnou
DESIGNEDBY: G.M.W.
ORAWNBY: A.M.T.
GHECKED BY: G.M.W.
AVPROVED BY: G.M.W.
OATE: MARCH 2O18
STATE IICENSE % N.G CQ650
PRQIECT NO. I016.203.01
SHEET NUMBER
EXHIBIT 1

WI FT.
ELEVATION
D �
�._0.
O �
� N2
HI �
�._a. � ---- I —
m �•II B" O.C.(TYP.1
� 1— PEFEH TO LHRHT
FOR BAq SIZE
SIDE
NOTES:
• TNIS PflECAST ENPTALL YAY 8E USEO FOH TNE FOLLOWINO
STAN�MDS: 838.01, 838.11. B3B.2f, 838.27, B3B.33�,
838.39, 838.�51, 838.5�, 838.83 RNU &38.68.
' INSTALL GPECAST ENOWALLS WITN NINGS RNU VAY
FOF IN nCfAPO1ViCE MITH SPECIFICATION SECTTON B98.
• USE 1000 P51 CONCPETE.
• PPOVIOE ALL PEINFOPCING STEEL WMICN YEETS ASTY A616
FOfl 6HPOE 60 ANO wEL0E0 W3flE FABNIC fANFOPNINO
TD ASTY A1B5 WITM 2' YIN. CLEMMICE.
• FLACE LiFT HOLES OX PIN$ IN ACC0110ANCE WITN
OSNA STRNpMO 18t6.�04.
' PIPE TO BE GPOUTED 7NT0 HEAVNALL AT JOB 6iTE BY
CANfMCTOP
• ALL ELEMENTS PHECAST TO YEET /STY C91�.
• MELUEp WINE FABP[C YAY 6E SIIBSTITUTEO FOX PEBAH
AS LONO AS TNE SIWE MEA OF STEEI IS PqOVI�EU.
' CN4YFEF ALL fAPNEPS 1" ON NAVE A PAOIUS OF 1^.
NOTE: TNE YINIYUY BAN.SI2E SNAIL BE YS BFPS
AT 8" CTS.TNE CONTPACTON NILL NAVE THE OPTION
TO INGHEASE TN16 BAIi SIZE AS NEEDEU.
Z
Oy
F Q
Q
tiQ�U
OO�2Z
WQaLL=
< U ¢� H
H
NF=-�yH,.Wj
O�VI¢
Z ?
� �ti
O
W
O J N
� 3 m
� z '
Q W a
o W a
F=
� W a
Q � n
z z i
F p �
N�_
N
>�
3 y w
O W ?
¢ � �,
� LL
COFFER DAM DETAIL
� NOT TO SCALE
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
1. INSTALL COFPER DAM 1 UPSTREAM OF PIPE INVERT.
2. THE BOTTOM OF COFFER DAM 1 SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 5' FROM UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT.
3. INSTALL COFFER DAM 2 DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE INVERT.
4. THE BOTTOM OF THE COFFER DAM 2 SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 5' FROM DONMSTREAM PIPE INVERT.
5. CONTRACTOR TO TAKE EXTREME CARE TO NOT DISTURB SURROUNDING WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE STATE.
8. CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIZE DISTURBED AREA DURING CONS7F2UC710N OF iHE COFFER DAMS.
7. CONTRACTOR TO PUMP OUT WATER BETWEEN THE COFFER DAMS AND INSPECT COFFER DAMS FOR ANY LEAKS.
8. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ANY LEAKING AREAS AND CON'fINUE UTILIZING PUMPS AS NEEDED TO KEEP AREA AS
DRY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE PIPE INSTALLATION.
9. CONTRACTOR TO UNDERCUT FOR PIPE AND BEDDING MATERIAL.
10. THE PIPE SHOULD BE INSTALLED SO THAT THE INVERT OF THE PIPE IS APPROXIMA7ELY 12' BELOW EXISTING
CHANNEL BED.
11. COMRACTOR TO PLACE EMBANKMENT MATERIAL OVER PIPE AND COMPACT.
12. ONCE THE FILL AREA IS AT SUFFICIENT HEIGHT, CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE COFFER DAMS AND RESTORE
DISTURBED AREAS TO ORIGINAL STATE.
0
vi
0
m
0
N
�
�
a
�
GENFfUL NOiES
�$E a000 PSI YINIYUY GOY%VESSIVE STREqGTH GpVfAEfE.
I.ISE ASTN A615 GNADE 60 NEINFOflCING STEEL. USE ASIY AIO6A
IfElDEO PlIflE F�BNIC (WxF).
FABFlIfATE, ASSEYBIE AND OESIGN PPECAST YANHOLE WtlVONEMS
�CfDqDANCE WITH MSNfO N188.
ASSEYBLE HISEH !WD Gi1F0E FINGS MITN TnE STEPS SPALEO 12"
FMOY T11E TOP 70 TNE BOTTON OF THE YANMOLE.
tl1EPE TME WMHOLE 15 EYPOSEO TO RORD TpAFFIL, CANSTNUCT
TNE TOP OF TNE•44NNOLE FWSN WITN TXE GFOUNO�ANO / YfN1YtM
Oi 9� RB�VE 1NE GHOUNO AT OTXEP LaGTI0N9.
LSN[T DEPTN OF FIIL 70 30'�0' FPON FINISH ONRpE TO TOP Oi
BORON SLAB.
iNE YIN. SIAB iNILNNESS 'T' IS THE DIYENSIOX UF TIIE
iNINMEST PONTIUN OF THE TOP(BOTTOY SLAB.
' TOP WT DF HEINFOflCEYEM tlAY BE NEGLECTEO IF TOP SLPB WS
A DISTINGUISIUBLE TOP AND 90TTOY.
�
fANtENTPIC
CONE 6EOTION
'o'
ALTERNATE CONE SECTION
'0'�2 W IN
� t•, YIN �OITIONpL
CLfl. . Y4 PEBNN
•� • �~ ��N�. • ,USE YIN. APEA OF STEEL [N TDP
��p• SLAB OF Nd'S @ 8' LTS.
FACNR'AYlEACN FALE •.
noo[naxu ea ucx FLAT TOP.SLAB
SiDE OF OPENiNG (1" AOOITIONAL Y< EPCH
CLEM OF BOff�Y FAGE SIDE OF OVENING �1'
PLACE BA115 OiAGONAL � CLEAF'OF BOTTON FACE)
To wnxens �Tvr.�
4�3��- I.
i' j:=-`=.�
y'=-_=ci . ,I
h:=]�=_i.
�-_--_�� +
ti-� -'_ - -i�
GRATED INCET OFTZON
A
�
L_
FPAME 6 GPqTE��' `� ''=
; , �Ara
� �>
1 \Y� �T
�
MANHOLE�OPTION
PLAN OF FHM1E
SECTION A-A
IIfiENN,LL 4IN. tlIN. YIN. CIPCUYFEHEMtAL
OIAYEiEP PALL iOPfBOTTpN qqEp OF STEEL
�FT.) TNICIMESS SlAB TNICKNE65 PEN VEXTIWL fT.
(IN.I SIN.) (50. IN.)
8
OMDE flIN6 ��
YIN. MEA OF 6TEEL
' iS 0.0] in.°
ECCENTIIIC CANE-�
SEE STO. 840.5<
FOF NN1110LE
n�xo arm wven
� ��r.:' •::r;�:�': r:".•:•:•:•::'i'.
USE YIN. AIiEA OF STEEL
IN BASE SLPB OF
0.12 in° PEA LiNEAP
FOOT EACH WAY
TYPICAI MANHOLE SECTION
ns
PEINFOPCFYENT�A�
SOLID CAVEH SMOWN PEHFOHATED. PERFOpATED AVAILABLE
IF SPECIFIEO.
STATE USE OF SYSTEN ON COVEfl
(I.E.: SEWEH, STORH UNAIN, ELECTNICALj
TOP OF COVEfl
� � 4� �
_J L_ _I
BOTTOM OF CAVEfl 1'2�� .
1" H.
PLAN OF COVER
�TVPE N7
�
I
1
/~ � ALTEflNATE
�
� _
�� i� ��\
r �
i
1 I
\ /
\ /
� i
TYPE p2
1�
� I �
i2���'� ���" �
—� G---a�a^
�,,��„
SECTION�B-B
YININUY WEIGHTS - LBS.
FflAl1E - 180
CA4EP - 120
TOTAL • 300
Z
O y
1�- a
Q¢� .
O
OOy2�
S �
HUQO�
F-
tAH�yOJ
O�fn¢
Z
��, 7
d �
Q
W
F
W
Q
� ~
o �
�
� �
H W
Q = �-1
¢ a a
0
o N �
Q n
Z 'a ¢
F W �
m J,
Q=�
Qa
o �
x F
y
Q
V
W
Q
a
z
oy
F Q
Q ¢
H Q � V
ooy=Z
¢
fUQO�
�
yY=-IyOJ
o���
z
�a .�,
c�
�
o W
LL �
C7 �
Z �%
� O
o Q
o W
Q �
Q �
� LL
�
Q J
3�
O =
o Q
¢ �
Figure 3.2
■�������i
I';�,�I; IK 1��1►+1
��������I
1 1
O��ce:M64�549008
ISSUED FOR BID
NOT RELEASED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT (PMZ)
PLYMOUTH,
NORTH CAROLINA
o�
�����
NEY PLAN .
PARALLEL TAXIWAY
DRAINAGE
DETAILS
(SHEET 2 OF 2)
•nvmox:
mu oocu�xr mxr�wa rnrvueom�o raorwsruar
IHFOFMqiqN� I1LL OFYMICN I! WRES�LY �R011mm pY 11VC0!{ MC.�
FOp Y9E �YIME RlTENOED RECVIENT,�NG FORA NKM1%FlIProBE
WrtXDUT TIEEIV0.E98 WIITEN CONSENTOF 11VCON, MCANY
DWTWBYTIOM, PEIROOUCTON, OROTNfA WEOF MI9 DOCUI.�M� V1
WMOIEON M �MT.196T11CILY �ROM�REO
SCALE: AS NOTED
r�nsioNs:
NO. . � DATE � � BY DESCRIPTION � "
DESIGNED BY: G.M.W.
DRAWN BY: A.M.T.
CHECKED BY: G.M.W.
APPROVED BY: G.M.W.
DATE: APRIL 2018
STATE LICENSE # N.C. C-2450
PROJECT NO. 2016.203.01
SHEET NUMBER
C-20

0
Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ)
s�� _, " ��gy" �r., �r
��„ _ . _ ,� : x� �' i � ?,
. J <, ,�p, ^ . '
� - a � '. .1�,;� aA n p,.
.• � ����i `�.z �C.�.,
w.� •� ! `._�:�+»1...�,4I� i
. . � ~ *� J� J y 1 _
A �
.,� "�„� �I
- � � J��� ' � f � .—
,�--
� � � �� _
4 '
�(:.� . e 4 1 '. •
O#r� I'�� ... _... .
� �..� .+} -�J��', y�.
l. + '
� - . .- � ' �, . i �F � .
��
y�
�
� le. L i
�
� rK.- ' � i , r y � t �� n;, ,�;�� .
� fil�u ,
`i. � t` f ,� :r,; t
1
1
;i
� � %�''r. �4.iY�p
: rw� - �-
:.�r � . `'-'. �'�'"
: _ �� � .s ysn..�:
w'*nd.�,*�,� ;... ,wx.4::"� . �
. i?.�„� �� �j" .. � ,
� �
R � � ' P.��ys • � � "
i � � ryfi'�t•. � � :
;�!�.'1 �ii ,j..
q. Mi
V �4� .Y.
,;:....aa .k.
.�t
a. �1y
�_' ��
�r1 ai '� Y, %- �'`. ',C'
F ��' v ` }
H .fir`
.I�
! �� ,(� 1y' .,
r • � a ':'� . t'„�'
.� � .� �'�r1CN, ,
f �i
�� f�F.c . �.fy�'�.. _:!-.Y,�'
+ '` �G
� _ �� r
� � ; ���
.���.�� 4 'j ` ` � �5"j �4 � f �.�
ttL. '. ry�7'M"K1�_
� N ��f .n 1 `\., � t
� • +J�A.. ��QiO �� �,i�y„� r . . � a.,
��`�. �('� � ?� x ..rr�,y r ' t+. � Y,� � iL r , �'1. ��
Z ,'[ �: � �1y�.%R4/ j.�`' %� '.i�l �
�:. 'lay� YjiV'+Y 1 . � M")^��.4 � -Yr�� r i �� +
t � Aii �• •'t:� � � �x���tl, A /�� _
•�.� .����� 1�2[. � l 4 � w A J�%'�5'! � '.
s���. . t ���1J.���N �h � n � E
. -.i:: t .� '�,.:�`s� � . -k„" 4irc.-i4���r,G.h�Y i� � .. _.- ..
�t ..
�'4
.+j'.�%j � �� ��:�
;�,:; _
����i'' �
. �` x " ;r
`xd„i�m�{ a �;S
� �- �l �� n s�:t� ..l_,
r�. .: � - '
Leyend
i , Fiy�nwin �.��➢on �PMLr Fr� ,
Washington County.
North Carolina
G
r,',
f,
��ear�/�/ater
+_' c�:ni,m sn<rt
ibhc� ille. N�nh C;uoLna 28FI7I
1 Ju0 � ��u0
�� _ �
� ^
. ��'� r.ett�
�j
[p_ .
�
�
4,�
� Feet
Aerial Pl�otograph
NCCGIA (2015)
Fiaure 4

Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ)
, �.�� � "- ,'
�_ �''.
t'� �� .} w~� `:
lr�f " �
1
: ' -,
S
% �J
� �
�y
i
, ' i
�"s. :.- t;A; : ., �._���. /;
j� ...�y�..:?.`4���:'' -
�� �j ` . . � . . �.
.w�s . . . _ . . . . G�tA
.. �y,- . �. '•�! ,
r, _.,
�' k � � � - . .. _ . ,1,,` �'..
, �� ._ ..,�.
�+ ,�-., 'ps
,�.�'t
�'r - �1
Legend �. ��
r---i �� :r � � �1
L_"_' PIYmwN AiryM (PM2) Propetly 11ery
$OI�S : .r�-r' .
}�}4
At - Augusta Fine SenEy Loam /�
C1A- COneloe Loamy Pine SenC _�
Ds � Dragston loamy Fine Santl �r
%- PMsmou�� Fine Santly Loem � �-
__-
. To - Tomolky Fir�e Santly Loam � '� ` ' �
iawn :. Y 223.17: - �
Washington County,
North Carolina
�, At
��-
>
__ . _�.��s....,..�.�, t
�.i ��. ��.
! . _. '_ - (�it. . ? -_ '
/�� �� �
/ � �
� � �,��� 2,��� 4,���
Feet
�L2af��E'f us�n so�is Map
Figure 5
32 Cla��ion Svect
sheville, Nonh Carolina ?SSUI

Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ)
T
� � v
�t1
� .
�, F '
mi
��
100-YR Floodplain
E
.nT, -,• }
'�1 f
_ -_ _ ., j:
— — _ '\ %
Legend �,` j
� _'_, Plymou�n Airpo� (PM21 PmPertY '"�
� .� 100.YR PboGplain
]2wn by: . 1. i.� � m 887
Washington County,
North Carolina
025 0.5 1
N
��earWater
32 Cla�ton Slrce�
,qshtville, Nonh Gunlinu _'SriUI
Pkih1A Ruodplain Mep
FEMA V�lap Sen i�Y Cenlrr
Nuntbers i7206765p01 & .i7?
Map Panel 676$ Xc G7(G
r�g��re e

Attachment A
Pre-Construction 1�lotification Forin
Continued

B. Project Description. 3d. Continued: The purpose of the proposed project is to update PMZ's
current airport infrastructure. Proposed activities are in accordance with projects recommended
within the North Carolina Airport System Plan (NCASP). The NCASP identifies projects airports
should consider in order to meet overall Airport Development Plan objects, as well as those that
would meet the standards and serve the needs of the surrounding community and the statewide
aviation system. Proposed improvements `are designed to meet Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) standards and will improve the overall efficiency, safety, and utility of the airport.
B. Project Description. 3e. Continued: The proposed project includes the following components
(Figure 3.0):
1. New Parallel Taxiwav — Construction of a 5,500-linear-foot taxiway that is 35-feet-
wide and maintains 400 feet of separation to the west of existing Runway 3-21.
2. New Connector Taxiwavs — Construction of three new 35-foot-wide connector
taxiways that would provide access between the new parallel taxiway and existing
Runway 3-21. Two additional 25-foot-wide connector taxiways would also be
constructed to provide access to the new parallel taxiway from the existing T-Hangar
and from another existing hangar to the apron.
3. Existing Taxiwav Removal — Removal of the taxiway that currently connects the apron
to existing Runway 3-21.
4. Widenin� of Taxilane Connectors — Widening of two existing taxilane connectors at
the northern terminus of existing Runway 3-21. The widened taxilane connectors
would provide improved access to and from the new parallel taxiway and existing
Runway 3-21.
5. Apron Expansion — The existing apron will be expanded by 24,165 square feet.
The proposed project would occur in threephases (Figure 3.0). Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and open waters would only be associated with. construction of the new parallel taxiway and new
35-foot-wide connector taxiways (Figure 3.1). Construction relating to the additional 25-foot-
wide connector taxiways, removal of an existing taxiway, and the proposed apron expansion would
occur in upland areas (Figure 3.1). An existing culvert is located within the taxilane area proposed
for widening. Widening of the taxilane connector would involve resurfacing of the runway
material, which would be expanded/widened to the extent of the existing culvert. This
modification to the taxilane connectors would not impact jurisdictional open waters (Figure 3.1).
Typical earth-moving and construction equipment would be utilized for the project. All
construction equipment would be operated from upland areas/high ground. Sediment and erosion
control measures and best management practices would be utilized on-site. Work within the
jurisdictional open water ditch would occur in the dry by utilizing a coffer dam and pump-around
apparatus/system (Figure 3.2). Culverts associated with impacts to O1, 02, and 03, will be
installed to facilitate an appropriate aquatic passage (Figure 3.2). PMZ will comply with all state
stormwater guidelines.

A proposed staging area/laydown yard is included on Figure 3.1 and a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination package for this area is included in Attachment F. This upland area has been
utilized in the past for the stockpiling of construction materials and has been previously accessed
via Plymouth Airport Road. PMZ proposes the continued use of this space for the proposed
activities listed above. An open water ditch is present just east of the proposed staging area. CEC
did not delineate this feature during the April 25 and 26, 2017 site visits and it is not included
within the PJD request. PMZ proposes the use of timber mats for the temporary crossing of this
feature to facilitate construction access to the airfield.
B. Project History. 5b. Continued: During the NEPA/SEPA Environmental Assessment scoping
process, the USACE indicated that previous projects had been pernutted at PMZ. After review,
the USACE identified the proposed proj ect as a separate, single and complete linear transportation
project from prior permitted actions at PMZ. It was also detertnined that the proposed project
would likely qualify for NWP 14.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation 3c. Continued: PMZ proposes to purchase 0.13 AC of
riparian wetland credit through the Great Dismal Swamp Mitigation Bank (GDSRB). CEC
contacted Ms. Beverly White with the GDSRB on April 13, 2018 to confirm credit availability.
Email correspondence and an NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) evaluation form are
included in Attachment G.

Attachment B
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
SAW-2016-00197
March 28, 2016

arr�c�aME�vr A
PFtELif�11fU,4RY JUFiISDIC710i�A�L DETERMIi�AilOR1 FORflN
�ACKGROUND 1�1FORMATIORI
�►. REPORT COflf1PLETlOf� bATE FOR PRIELIMIf��1RY JUF3ISDICTtO�AL
DETERMIi�ATION (JD): �oi2�1�5
B. �I�hME A�1D ADDi2ESS OF PERSOf� REQUESTIf�G PRELIiUIIP�ARY JD;
Edward J. Small, Michael Baker Internaiional
4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Sulte 105, North Charleslon, SC 29405
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE MA�AE, AND MUflNBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATIORI(S) AfdD BACKGROUND IRIFORMATIORI:
Plymoulh Municipal Airport (Parellel Taxiway)
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUfYIEPIT IUiULTIPLE WATERBODIES Ai DIFFEREfdT
SITES)
State: NC County/pa�ish/bo�ough: washin�ton City: Plymoulh
Center coordinaies of site (IaUlong in degree decimal forma4):
Lat. 35.811086 °N; Long. -76.758490 °W,
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Conaby Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: .
linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class:
Stream Flow:
Wetlands;.� .IOL acres.
Cowardin Class: PEM
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
TId21: None
Non-Tidal: �one

�. R�VIEW P��FO�iNi�l� FOIa SIT'E �VALUA710� (CF9EC6( ALL 7Ha�T
APPLY):
� Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 9�2���5
Q� Field Determination. Date(s): s�2st�s
�llPPORTI�IG D,4TA. Da4a revievu�d for preliminary JD
(check all 4hat apply - chec�ed items should be included in case file and,
where checked and reguested, approprlately reference sowrces belovv):
�Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
plicanUconsultant: see At�acned
� Data sheets prepared/submitied by or on behalf of the
app ' nUconSultant. .
Qffice concurs witi� data sheetsldelineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study;
� U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
� USGS NHD data
� USGS 8 and 12 digit HUG maps
� U.S. Geological Survey map(s), Cite scale &�quad name: �:z4�000-Plymoulh West
� USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: Soll Dala Mart GIS Data
❑✓ National we#lands inventory map(s). Cite name: usFws weaana MaPPa�
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
� 100-year Floodplain Elevation is;
(National Geodectic Ve�tical Da4um of 1929)
� Photographs: a Aerial (Name & Date): Nc o�e MaP �zo�a� or
� Oiher (Name & Date):
� Previous deiermma�ion(s). File no. and daie of response letler:
� Other information (please specify):
2

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be"waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by fhe proposed activity, based on the following information:
Ifl�PORTAMT MOYE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarilv been verified bv the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later iurisdictional determinations.
- 2 2o�b
Si ature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
.
�%'�w�-(J -
Signature an tlate of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Plymouth Municipal Airport
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Jurisdictional Area Summary
Area Name Length Acres Latitude Longitude Type Class
(D
W-1 Wetland 1 N/A 0.885 35.816996 -76.757836 PEM Non-Section 10 -
Wetland
OW-1 Open Water N/A 0.965 35.811596 -76.758743 PUB Non-Section 10 -
(Jurisdictional Ditch) 1 Wetland
OW-2 Open Vl/ater N/A 0.56 35.806185 -76.760827 PUB Non-Section 10 -
(Jurisdictional Ditch) 2 Wetland
OW-3 Open Water N/A 0.695 35.816518 -76.757119 PUB. N�on-Section 10 -
(Jurisdictional Ditch) 3 Wet[and
TOTAL , - .. . . r _ N/A 3.106 : - - - _. _ . _ _ .

.�i'..
-��i 1
Fi \ '• va 'y� i � '
�w - 7�.�i i : � t.:`
".f �a i� :� S� -+.:' t
Eti1��i�r � �` � '
_ e e u
� t - �
ii' y . r y +:.,�v ; �y
�. +{�� ,� �: s� .'.
. * �+ t �? ]
..y}� fi v �i� �� s.'. � 4 ,}
'�� . ^ • - �* $�'ti;
- 4t ��:' � ♦ M_ �� .. ...`� I L^ j� ��. f a. �- ti 4 . i�J7
n4 �L• f � �C �.'� Y ,,�/� � � - �� � yi r � � . ` _ r'.��u3 '' J` r,
� � t+$v f, a � ' 5, dty �
. li �§���� x��"��t��` �M'y��e �� .vrs�^,�y'�4�.* w4� n � ` � I� J. � y �'��r��kY�+il.�C
���f�}��,���)�� ��� � �� ,� ��f,`i'' -� t' j k ; S Y 4 ` i`:' �a+.
.� � �c '�'��,r�€ ` '� ^ � I { L z
f � ��? �i � � `� �`�.�ip y♦ •' g y p,;.� ' .�.{�,� ��a �, �
"a,s��s��`i rt'������� S�n: i4.r� �;,�t%,a+.� j . yy -q tr •',
� Y��y���� � `��;,;�-� ) .:�j ia;' j� 'a� _ 1« 't��
� hy� :,'9,•�,.��{i,�-���.".1�s�� +.�5'4'[ ` �y *� ` i `� �, `" ` ��5•��'ts�'
', St �. 0 • . . 0 .` ` '�,F � �wt &� � ` � `�- '` '+ '�+ i ���
i�. 7Y a � � � % 4x,�,.,�"� t y+k.� .+. ` �1 � ,� t V �. �y :�
P -:w �B .. �� a � iS y ' r3f ',�y.� ^
� �. ", s ���i��� '� 0 0 �` '$ � � ]1't�,��itP p5'".: i �.�s! ��
�,s. i �, , _x 74.� �'Y � r�r 4 J,, j��y ;, •E ,
� i'l �• ^.kY,�n Iy�r . � � �.�Yr_y! '�'l '�' �1 1 ' Si, J f � f iY 1(
Yil �'.��{ P �J j; j+r G`' . . n. Yx 4Y'y"� tt + ,y, t a 1' �5 7Y p��. � �� t5•.�
�' c 'IjJ� ( �� �y ��.:i5•�/`" .� . I � L ;� ��+.�r � ��:aT� �ti 'X���r r fS,�t`y� t "� . t J1'
f�' r� j�/t ��St; �{ K l�j�'-. Y rn: `� t��•�,�, i. { t'��rfi :LT!"f,��^7^
��,i��.•i. � i; � S - '1� I ���. sz �/�,� �� 4 �t. f f'�fr t�.� � �'. "�'
,'��. ij .Y .;lu �, ,st k . '�3x �. �,:.Y�,� r� �.�, A
7 � � � . . . 5.�, �
�. .. t �3: �R i��.:: � 7*{ f !� -:=t �=Y � k i .0 � � � �! ;�;`• 'iJ1t t `r {�rY�r �t �. S y c � ♦
{`, �i�ft,�'C 7 � � (-}�K �!?' , � -G�.0 I_ .:x7��`: i',�.�7�i�+ �� l'.. �N M i I.P ��4„
' ,a_ .� �i��,�4�i.,_ .`*.`/...,t�� � ' • 1 ..�+.,3Y4 .�_'. sc z..::L'i:�
'[`�t �'.t't�'t3�Y �+ /� '}:� a�jlylL�, r* � {�' �rT�r�Fi',�# � ��pl t i�� Y�' �� �ct�'t �.
F.`r J•�i° I ': '� � x ,� r,;,1.7 �+� f i�. l�'�
.� a"d� :A�r- -.r� ��1 �.i��f f+r�'t�r }F�� �i�`�;,µ i �'v�.
ti�:a.,�t��4. � � �L. �� �T•�.=iai�%z* �y� �ft�ft� �rr ? '= ,.
p� � r . , ,,�,t �.�r3��� � 1.r � y � � } �
t K,'��� gc.. � i ♦ it t.��F ` ! i� *�,�, � . 3`
4'e � . ' � � -�t � i�.E,, F�P � �� 1 a . n ' � '
�s� 0 0 rj� i� �fJ .,:'11 ! �• 7 � ,� .,� � i , tY ^.
���!,�{ �K '*.Yi �`. C' vt . �. 4 i � � t ��'�!i f' �� .i�� p ti �,�1.:
�T��aJ�'.''f. . �..�''c4 .. .f ir�._r :�_Y�F.J, i � `� t}�,�'d'� ,'rif ,_ v:�. �:�F. i.,:S. �h x
_
Michael Baker
+ :t; i ,
c.�.s+,., r.i

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2016-00197 County: Washington U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-PLYMOUTH WEST
Property Owner:
Address
Telephone Number:
Size (acres)
Nearesf Waterway
USGS HUC
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDTCTIONAL DETERMINATION
Washineton Countv
William Sexton, Jr.
116 Adams 5treet
Plvmouth, NC, 27962
[phone]
78.9
Conabv Creek
03010107
Nearest Town Plvmouth
River Basin Lower Roanoke
Coordinates Latitude:35.811086
Longitude: -76.75849
Location description: The proiect site is located at the Plvmouth Municipal Airport at 1069 Airnort Road near the
town of Plvmouth in Washineton Countv, North Carolina
Indicate Which of the Followins Anulv:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. T'his preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the
size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any
delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corp`s. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
Page 1 of 2

There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine .
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without aDepartment of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Kvle Barnes at 910-251-4584 or
Kv1e.W.Barnes a(�,usace.armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: The US Armv Corus of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Atlantic and Gulf Coast Resion Supulement. The wetland and waters on the uroiect area are part of a large
watershed adiacent to and abuttin� Conabv Creek a tributarv of the Roanoke River a TNW.
D. Remarks: Additional nermits to cross reference — SAW-2006-32597 and SAW-2010-00757. The attached aerial
indicates iurisdictional resources identified for this uroiect.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Informatlon (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional deternunation for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room l OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must detemune that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by NlA.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
conespondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: March 28, 2016 Expiration Date: March 28. 2021
The Wilxnington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
•http://reQulatorv.usacesurvey.com/.

Applicant: William Sexton, Jr.
Washin�ton Countv
Attached is:
❑ lI�TITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT Standarc
I—I PERMIT DENIAL
s �
File Number: SAW-2016-00197 � Date: March 28, 2016
"Standard Permit or Letter of
Permit or Letter of nermissio
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PRELIMINARY NRISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
S'ECTION. I� - The follo.vi�wing id:ent�es your nghts. and; opriops ri
Additional information,maybe found athttp://www.usace.armv
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERNIIT:
See Section below
`,�
You may accept or object to the permit.
ix or
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and retum it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the peimit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and retum the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the pernut in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for fmal
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Pernut or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
' SECTTON II - RE UEST FOR APREAL or OB7ECTIONS TO AN INITIAi, PROFFERED'PERIvIIT' .. .
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is akeady in the administrative
record.
- . _ . _. �._ _ _ -- -- ---- u..,_ __ .
__. . _ . .
', PQINT OF CONTACT FOR �� iJESTIONS OR INFORIVIATION: ,. ,
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Kyle Barnes CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of an site investi ation, and will have the o ortuni to artici ate in all site investi arions.
Date: Telephone number:
Si nature of a ellant or a ent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Kyle Barnes, 2407 West 5�' Street, Washington, NC 27889
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

Attachment C
N.C. Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
January 20, 2018

Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ}
Plymouth, North Carolina
Construct Parallel and Connector Taxiways, Improve Taxilane Connector,
and Expand Aircraft Parking Apron
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Aviation
State Block Grant Program
�FTR
Administrative Action
Finding of IVo Significant Impact
January2018
Submitted Pursuant to the Provisions of
The National Environmental Policy Act
and
Requirements of the State Aid to Airports Program

Preliminary Notes:
This environmental document was reviewed under the guidelines set forth in the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The proposed development at Plymouth Municipal Airport (PMZ) will require that the federal and
local governmental units participate in the funding of this project and the development has been proposed for
potential state and federal funding under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) State Block Grant Program.
Under the provisions of NEPA and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) no funds may be
dispersed until the funding agency has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed projects
and has concluded that the impacts, if any, are acceptable. In the scoping o.f these projects, Washington County
was required to develop a Draft Environmental Assessment {EA) meeting the provisions of both the federal and
state environmental regulations. After the Draft EA (August 2017) was circulated and reviewed by the public,
state and federal ageneies, and other stakeholders, comments and concems were addressed. It has been
determined that the environmental impacfs are minimal. With appropriate mitigation measures, the
environmental impacts do not cross the threshold of significance. As a result of this documentation, a Finding of
No 5ignificant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate and acceptable in this matter.
This FONSf announces final agency determinations and approvals for those Fedecal actions by tfie Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), through the North Carolina bepartment ofTransportation (NCDOT), Division of
Aviation, that are necessary to support the construction and operation of proposed improvements at the
Plymouth Municipal Airport (KPMZ) requested by the airport sponsor, Washington County. The NCDOT decision
is based on analysis described in detail in the Enviconmental Assessment for Rarallel and Connector Taxiway
Construction, Taxilane Connector Improvements, and Apron Expansion, (August 2017), incorporated by
reference, ancl all other applicable documents available to the agency.
Proposed Federal Action:
The Sponsor has requested NC DOT Division of Aviation approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP� and providing
federal funds for construction of the following proposed improvements at the Plymouth Municipal Airport:
1. Construct Parallel Taxiway, approximately 5,500 feet long by 35 feet wide, parallel to Runway 3— 21.
2. Construct three (3) Connector Taxiways approximately 400 feet long by 35 feet wide between the centerlines
of the parallel taxiway and Runway 3-21.
3, Widen the existing two (2) Taxiway Connectors at the nvrth end of Runway 3— 21.
4. Expand the existing aircraft parking apron and construct two (2) taxiway connections to the new parallel
taxiway.
5. Remove portions of the existing parallel and connector taxiways
These proposed actions are shown in the August 2017 EA in Figure 3, Exhibit 1.
Purpose and Need:
The purpose of the proposed Parallel Taxiway and Apron improvements is to meet FAA design standards and to
imp�ove the efficiency and utility of the airport to accommodate approach Category'C' and wingspan Group II
airplanes. The proposed projects are planned to comply with the published FAA airport safety and design
siandards.

The planned dual taxiways at the north end of the runway will allow aircraft to bypass during times when an
aircraft is waiting for an instrument release from the FAA control facility, an aircraft disabled, or another event
when an aircraft is not ready to depart. This will enhance airport e.fficiency, and reduce the need for a runway
hold apron.
The FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the Nationa! Plan of Integrated AirportSystems (NPlASJ, Chapter 3,
Table 3-1, includes a full parallel taxiway and aircraft apron as'Fundamental Airport Development' components.
This documents the FAA's recommendation that airports such as PMZ which are included in the NPIAS, meet the
standards listed in the table, and documents the justification for these basic airport facilities.
Alternatives:
Federal guidelines concerning the environmental review process require that all reasonable and practicable
alternatives that might accomplish the objectives of a proposed project be identified and evaluated. 5uch an
examination ensures that an alternative that addresses the projecYs purpose and that might enhance
environmental quality, or have a less detrimental effect, has not been prematurely dismissed from
consideration. In addition, for alternatives to be considered reasonable, th,ey must not have excessive
construction cost, must be feasible to enact, and mu'st comply with FAA airport safety and design standards. In
the Draft EA, reasonable and practicable alternatives were carefully examined.
The following alternatives were discussed:
• No-Action Alternative
• Preferred Alternative
No-Action Alternative:
The No-Action Alternative is considered the basis of comparison for evaluating the benefits and impacts of other
reasonable alternatives. The No-Action Alternative is also defined as the do nothing alternarive, which means no
changes would be made to the existing airport layout, The parallel and connector taxiways would not be
constrwcted, and the existing aprori would not be expanded.
This alternative is required to be considered as part of the EA to provide baseline, information and consider the
impacts of a decision not to perform the planned airport taxiway and apron improvements.
Preliminary Alternatives Considered but eliminated from further analysis:�
The draft EA states there are no other reasonable alternatives, other than the preferred action. While there are
alternatives such as replacing the entire airport at another location, or changing the parallel taxiway separation
from the runway centerline, none of these alternatives would pass the test for'reas.onableness' because of
potentially greater envirorimental impacts, or not beirig economically feasible.
Preferred Alternative:
The airport sponsar's preferred alternative is carried forward as the Proposed Action for further anatysis, along
with the No-Action Alternative. The Proposed Action that was evaluated in greater detail in the Draft EA is
comprised of the following airport improvements:

� Construct a full-length paralleC taxiway, approximately 5,500 feet long by 35 feet wide along the western side
of Runway 3— 21, witli a 400-foot separation between the runway centerline and proposed taxiway centerline;
• Construct three (3) stub co.nnecting taxiways, approximately 400 feet long by 35 feet wide, between the
proposed parallel taxiway and Runway 3— 21;
• Improve the existing two (2) stub connecting taxiways at the north end of Runway 3= 21, approximately 400
feet long by 35 feet wide, to bring tfiem into compliance with current airport design standards;
• Expand the existing a'ircraft parking apron, approximately 2700 square yards, along wifh connection to fhe
parallel taxiway;
• Remo�al of an exiSting tax'iway that connects the apron io the stub taxiway.
Along with the proposed new.construction, the project would install blue taxiway edge lights, require
installation and temporary use of staging areas, haul roads, and sediment and ero.sion control features for
construction of the Rroposed Action.
Selected Alternative:
Comments on the Draft EA were solicited from the public, and North Carolina state an, d federal environmenial.
resource agencies. No comments were received from the public. Re'sponse's and comments of relatiyely rriinor
nature were received from the state and federal cesource agencies.
The Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft EA would not result in s'ig.nificant environmental impaets. No
comments were recei'ved in'opposition to the Preferred Alternative, anii due to .tfie minimal impacts that would
result #rom the connector taxiway alignment, the, Rreferred Alternative has been designated at the Selecfed.
Alternative for the Pro:posed Action.
Anticipated Impacts to Human-and Natural Environment:
The potential impacts anticipated to result from the proposed project were studied and iiocumented in the EA:
Comments on the proposed project and its impacts were solicited from Federal, State, and loca.[agencies, and
the public. No signifcant impacts on the Fiuman or naturaf environment have been identifietl that cannot be
mitigated below the level ofsignificance. ' �
The EA study reqealed several impact categories are not present in the study area or nof ineasurably impacted
by the Selected Alternative. These include:
• Air Quality: The project area is not located in a non=atta:inment or maintenance area for the National
Ambient Air Qual,ity Sta,ndards (NAAQS}, The airport's activity levels are below thresholds requiring
NAAQS analysis.
• Coastal Resources: The projec`t is located in the coastal region of North Carol'ina, however the airport is
outside the Area 'of Environmental Concern. Coastal resource impacts would not occur as a result of the
proposed:project, and no further action is required. �
• Compatible Land Use: 7he propos,ed project occurs.entirely on airport property. Following required
.
state req.uirements for erosion and sediment control and dust control during construction, will result in
no impaets to adjacentcommunifies, businesses or residenees.

� Section 4(f) Resources: The proposed project would not result in a taking or use of any 4(f) publicly
owned land, park, rec`reation area, histo.ric sites, or other properties covered by the 4(fl Aet..
• Energy Supplies, Natural Resources and Sustainable Design: The proposed project would not have any
measurable impact on energy consumption o.r natural resour"ces:
� Environm"ental Justice: The proposed project occurs entirely on airpor# p�operty, and in prozimity to tFie
exisfing runway and apron area. The project would not haue any impact on off-airport low income or
minority commuriities.
• Farmlands: The project does not impact, conyert or use. farmlands.:
• Floodplains: The project does not take place inside the 100-year flo,od plain area, as identified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency maps: Therefore, the project would not affect or encro�ach on
floodplains. �
• Hazardous Materials: The project would not involve any or cause potential contamination from
hazardous materials.
• Historic, Architectural; Archeological, or Cultural Property: The projeet would not imp`aet properties.
included.in.(or eligible for inclusion in) the National Register of Historic P.laces: The project would also
not affect #he view shed of fiisforical sifes:
• Induced Socioeconomic Impacfs: The project "wbuld take place entirely on airport property, .close to
existing airport pavement. No direct� induced or secondary im�pacts to the surrounding community or
public service demands'will oc¢ur as a result of the project:
• Light Emissions and Visual Effects; The project woul.d n.ot crea.te light emissions ttiat would be visible off
the airport property, and therefore would not result in light effects on nearby residents.
� Noise: The project will not increase or decrease th"e nurribers or siie of aircraft using fhe facility; and will
have no effect on the noise le,v,els surrounding the airport.
• Sociaf lmpacts: The project would not cause an alteration in surface traffic patterns or increase in traffic
congestion. The p�oject would ha`ve no impact to. existing surface tra,ffic levels of service.
• $olid Waste: The proposed 'projecf v✓i.11 not resul# i.n 5ignifica'n, t generation of solid waste. Any waste
generated'by the project would be disPnsed of at existing waste disposal facilities in the area.
• Wild and Scenic Rivers: There are no listed Wild or Scenic Rivers in the area of the airport.
Impacts ca.tegories included irt the affected environment are briefly described below, including any`additional
analysis, measures to avoid impacts, measures to minimize harm and mitigation plans.

Biotic Resources:
The Selected Alternative would disturb existing maintained field and lawn areas, require removing
approximately 0.12 acres of trees, and impact less than 0.5 acre5 of wetland, all occurring on the existing airport
property. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NC Natural Heritage Program were consulted during the EA
study.
Given fhe land use as an airport, and the noise and disturbance associated with humans and aircraft operating
on the airport, the amount of wildlife utilizing the area is minimal. Wildlife species are mainly small mammals,
birds and aquatic species in the wetland on site. '
The NC Natural Heritage Program consultation identified in three (•3) species potentially within 5 miles of the
airport site. These are the Atlantic sturgeon, red wolf and northern long-eared bat. (The red wolf is an
experimental population, and discussed in the Endangered and Th�eatened Species section below.) No
protected species were identified during field visits conducted during the EA.
To reduce the potential for adverse impact to aquatic species, the sponsor should take measures to reduce
sediment and enhance erosion control. An erosion and sediment control plan is required to be subrnitted to and
approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section, before construction.
Additional best management practices are required by FAA grant a"ssurances as outlined in FAA Advisory Circular
(AC) 150/5370-10, "Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports." Implementing required erosion and
sediment confrol will protect against damaging habitat, and no additional measures are necessary. Therefore,
no significant impacts to biotic resources are reasonably anticipated.
Construction Jmpacts:
A certain amount of disturbance is inherent with all construction projects, however, the impacts are temporary.
The terriporary disturbance includes degradation of air quality resulting from diesel construction equipment,
increases in sediment runoff from disturbed surface areas, increases in surface traffic and increases in noise.
The mitigation measures that require the project to be designed and constructed in accordarice with the state
erosion and sediment control standards will reduce the potential for adverse impacts off the airport property.
The construction impacts will be temporary, and impacts should be limited to the immediate airport property.
The construction impacts do not c�oss a threshold of significance by themselves, or when combined with
projects planned to occur within the foreseeable future.
Endangered and Threatened Species:
The NC Natural Heritage Program (N:CNHP) and The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) databases were
consulted regarding current federal and state listed species within Washington County; In addition, the study
solicited comments from North Carolina Natural Culture Program (NHP). The NHP con�rmed in their letter of
March 2017, there are no records of rare species, important natural communities, natural areas or conservation
areas within the project boundaries. The only species documented within 1 mile of the airport is the red wolf,
noted as a nonessential experimental population, last observed in 2006.
Listed species and their respective federal and state status are identified in the Environmental Assessment in
Section (G) Endangered and Threatened Species. Field observations of the study area did not find any evidence
of the federally-listed or state-listecl species with documented populations in Washington County nor suitabie
habitat.

USFWS concurs that the proposed project will have "no effect" to any federally-listed endangered or threatened
species. This concurrence was documented in a letter dated April 17, 2017, where USFWS indicated that the.
requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are satisfied, and again in a letter dated October
13, 2017. The USFINS letter states concerns with potential impacts on aquatic species, (Atlantic Sturgeon, West
Irrdian Manatee), and therefore recommends measu�es be taken to limit sediment and erosion during
construction.
Due to the areas within the proposed construction project footprint being less desirable for wildlife based on
airport mainte"nance; potential impacts to.federal and'state-listed species as a result ofthe Selected Alternative
would not be likely.
Since no significant impacts were identified in association with implementing the Selected Alternative, carrying
out standard tiest management practices �equired by FAA grant assurances as outlined in FAA Advisory Circular
(AC) 150/5370-10, "Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports," and minimization and mitigation
measures mandated by p.ermitting requirements and/or other special purpose laws, no additio'nal mitigation
measures are necessary to ensure less than significant impacts.
Water Quality:
An increase in imperoious surfaces would increase the amount of stormwater runoff following construction.
fncreased stormwater runoff could cause inc"reased pollutant loadings, and disrupt the natural hydrologic cycle if
no post-construction storm water management measures are implemented. Washington County is subject to
NPDES Phase II permitting requirements, which includes post-construction stormwater management for new
development and redevelopment projeets where total land disturbance is one acre or more. Additionally,
included as part of Phase II :permitting is a requirement to use Best Man'agement Practice {BMPs) facilities to
meet stormwater quality objectives. Implementation of post-construction storm water management measures
may also be required under the Selected Alternative to satisfy Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality
Certification conditions.
Temporary impacts to water quality could occur during construction of the Selected Alternative, including
surface water runoff, smalf accidental releases of fuel/hydraulic fluids, and sedimentation from soil erosion.
BMPs regarding stormwater management and sediment control would be implemented during construction. In
addition, the contractor would be required to comply with erosion and sediment control measures as specified
in FAA AC 150/5370-1QC, entitled "Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports," and specifically, Item P-
156, "Temporary Air and Wafer Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control;' which sets standards for
environmental protection and water pollution control during construetion.
A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan would be in place to address any accidental
releases of fuel or hydraulic fluids f.rom construction equipment exposed prior to paving or re-vegetation.
Erosion controls would be in place to minimize sediment transport, such as silt fencing and the use of check
dams in ditches to catch sediment. In a.ddition, efforts would be made to re-vegetate cleared areas as soon as
practical after grading. Potential water quality impacts resulting from construction would be controlled in
accordance wi.th FAA criteria, through use of BMPs, and through permit requirements. Following the above
required procedures, no significant adverse impacts to water quality would be anticipated to result from the
Selected Alternative.

Wetlands:
In accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Fxecutive Order 11990: Prorection of Wetlands, potential
impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the United States were evaluated for the praposed
project, as well as mitigation options to offset unavoidable impacts.
Jurisdictional wetlands comprising a total of approximately 0.885 acres, were identified within the delineated
area. Additionally, 2.221 acres of jurisdictional ditches/open water were identified within the project area.
Based on the anticipated construction footprint for the Selected Alternative, it is anticipated tHat approximately
0.13 acres of wetlands and 0.30 acres of ditches/open water (total of 0.43 acres ofjurisdictional features) would
be impacted by the Selected Alternative. (The 'No Action' alternative would not impact any waters of the U.S.)
Construction activities would be confined to the permitted construction limits. During construction,
potential impacts to adjacent jurisdictional areas would be minimized by implementing sediment and erosion
control measures. Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required of the contractor to ensure
compliance with the policies of 23 CFR §6506. All temporary and permanent stormwater management
techniques and permit requirements will be designed to ensure they are not in conflict with AC 5200-336,
Hazardous Wildlife Attrac.tants on or Near Airports. If needed, permitting issues related to stormwater and
wildlife attractants inrould be coordinated with the USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, Wildlife
Services office.
The Selected Alternative was coordinated with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers {COE) to determine the level of
permit required. The COE cannot pre-determine the outcome of a permit request, and traditionally will not
provide a final determination until a completed permit application is received. However, the COE con�rmed in
an e-mail message dated October 16, 2017, that because the projeet impacts less than 0.5 acres, it should
qualify under the 404 Nationwide Perrriit for linear transportation projects (NWP-14).
The project will require further coordination with the COE during the design phase to obtain concurrence from
the COE that it is covered by the nationwide permit. Therefore, the project sliould not have wetland impacts
thaf cross the threshold of significance.
Cumulative Impacts:
The eumulative impact analysis under NERA requires that the Selected Alternative's direct and indirect impacts
on a particular resource be assessed to determine if those effects in combination with the effects of other
projects on the same resource would be cumulatively significant.
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable capital improvement projects at PMZ are shown in Section (V) of the
E,4. None of the proposed CIP projects would increase airport capacity or result in additional aircraft operations.
Therefore, significant increases in cumulative noise levels within the project area are not anticipated. It is not
anticipated that the past, present, or future projects at or in the vicinity of PMZ would result in discernible
changes to employment or business relocations, disrupt existing or planned communities, relocate community
facilities, or be inconsistent with established City or County land use plans
Regarding the Selected Alternative, fhe areas of development are immediately adjacent to the existing airport
site; thus, no significant changes are anticipated to the visual landscape of residences located in the view shed of
the airport.

The Selected Alternative, would result in approximately 6 acres of new impervious surfaces.at PMZ (257,000
square feet). Past projects at PMZ include runway and apron rehabilitation which did not increase the
impervious surface area. Capital Improvement Projects within the foreseeable future (5=years) include airport
pavement maintenance, and planning for a future runway extension. No additional impervious surface
increases are anticipated in the 5-year airport plans.
The Selected Alternative would impact less than 0.5 acres of wetlands. The protection of wetlands is regulated
on a case by-case basis by state and federal agencies and mitigation for permitted cumulative impacts is typically
required. Impacts to wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would require a permit from the COE prior to
construction, as well as Section 401 Water Quality Certification, as administered by the NCDENR-DWQ. The COE
has indicated the project should qualify under the Nationwide Permit (NWP-14), because the disturbance is less
than 0.5 acres. The North Carolina state and federal permits required for the project are listed in the EA in
Section 7, Permits.
Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources:
Irretrievable consumption of fossil fuel, both during construction and for ongoing aircraft operations, is
anticipated. Operational consumption would occur under the NoAaction and Selected Alternative alternatives.
Normal growth will cause a slight increase in this consumption. A temporary increase of fossil fuel consumption
would also be anticipated during construction of tfie Selected Alternative.
Construction of the Selected Alternative would result in the ircetrievable loss of approximately 0.30 acres of
open water ditches and 0.13 acres of wetland. These fill impacts would be associated with the construction and
improvement of connector taxiways. Piping open ditches at three (3) crossings would provide for continued
water flow under the connector taxiways.
The irreversible and irretrievable resources required for the project do not cross a threshold of significance.
Public Participation/Public Comment:
As outlined in FAA Order 5050.48 Airport Environmental Handbook, notifications of availability for review of
draft EA and request for a public hearing were published to the public. The notice was p�inted in the Roanoke
Beacon newspaper and the Draft EA was provided in hard-copy form at the Airport and the Washington County
website (www.washconc:ors), and electronically on the NCDOT website. Comments received on the Selected
Alternative were solicited during the advertised.availability period. No comments on the proposed project were
received, and no request for a public hearing was received. There is no known public opposition to the Selected
Alternative.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the EA has shown fhat the proposed project can be completed with no significant impact to the
environment that cannot be mitigated. All necessary permits are expected to be obtained without incident and
any additional mitigation measures that may be necessarywill be completed prior to, or when applicable in the
construction process.

Recommendations:
After careful review of the Environmental Assessment and comments and response from the coordination
process, and the facts contained herein, the undersigned has found that the proposed project is consistent with
the objectives of the national and state environmental policies. The objectives arid policies are set forth in the
National Environmental Policy Act and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, and the project will not
significantly affect the quality of the natural or human environment or otherwise include any significant
condition requiring further consultation with any federal, state, or local review agencies with the following
mitigation measures which shall be made a condition of the environmental approval of this project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Washington County, or its appointed representative shall obtain any and all federal, state, or local
permits (such as burning, sediment and erosion control, NPDES general construction permit, Section 40.1
Water Quality Certification, Section 404 Clean Water Act permit, etc.,) prior to construction of this
project.
2. The project plans and specifications wilf incorporate the Best IVlanageme'nt Practices to provide
stormwater management and sediment control during construction. The project specifications shall
include in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-1OG, entitled "Standards for Specifying Construction of
Airports," Item P-156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, latest
edition.
3. All necessary mitigation shall be developed and implemented prior to, or during the construttion phase
of this project.
4. To the extent practicable, every effort will be made to avoid and minimize environmental impacts in the
development of this project. The development of this project will utilize best management practices and
good construction techniques. �
Additionally, as required under 49 USC 44502(b}; (fiormerly Section 308 of the'federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended), the undersigned certifies that the proposed improvement project is reasonably necessary for use in
air commerce or for national defense.
After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed
Federal Action is consistent with the national environmental policies and objectives asset forth in Section 101(aj
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and that with the mitigation that is a part of the
project, it will not significantly affect the quality of the human or natural environment or otherwise include any
condition requiring consultation pursuant to Section 101(2) (c) of NEPA. Therefore, it is the undersigned's
recommendation that the project be given a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) uncler the provisions set
forth by the State of fVorth Carolina Block Gra�t Program, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
2D, �.Dl Y
Date
fronmental Program Manager
sion of Aviation, North Carolina Department of Transportation

Attachment D
U.S. Fish and Wildlife (April 17, 2017) &
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (March 3, 2017)
Comments

�Jnite:d �tates �epart�nent of the Inieri�r
Kaylie Yankura
ClearWater
32 Clayton Street
Aslleville, NC 28801
1=151�1 AND `rVILDI.IFE SERVICE
Raieigh 6S Field C�ffice
Post Offce Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolin�i 27636-3726
A�i•il 17, 2017
Re: Plymouth Muiuci�al Airport Parallel Taxiway — Washington County, NC
Dear Ms. Ya��lcura:
This letter is to infoim you that the Service has established an on-line project planning and
consultation process which assists developers and consultants in determining wliether a
federally-listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected l�y a proposed project. For
future projecfs, please visit the Raleigli Field Office's project plaiuiing website at
https://wwtiv'.fi�+s.�ov/raleigl�/pp.html. If you are only searclling for a list of species,that may �e
present in the project's Action Area, tlien you may use tlle Service's Inforniation, Planning, and
Constiltation System (IPaC) website to detern�ine if any listed, proposed, oi' candiciafe species
may be present in the Action Area and generate a species list. The IPaC website may be vie���ed
at htt�s://ecos.fws.�ov/ipac/. The IPaC web site contains a conlplete and frequently updated list
of all endangered and threatened species pi�otected by tlie �irovisions of tlie �ndulgei•ed Species
Act of 1973, as amerided (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act); a list of federal species of concern� that
are known to occur in each county in North Carolina, and other resources.
Section 7 of tlle Act requires that all federal agencies (or tlieir designated non-federal
represenfafive), in consultation v✓ith tlie Sertiice, insure •that � ny action fecierally a�lfhorized;
fitnded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or tlu•eateiied species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulf 11 that requirement ai�d in determining whedier additional consultation witli the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list,. infonnation oii tlie
species' life llistories a�id habitats arid infonnation on completirig a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be foimd on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigli. Please checic the
web site often for updated information or changes.
;,�a �
� The tenn "federal sPecies of concern" refers to those species whicl� the Service believes miglit be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern reeeive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply thaf dte species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federail�� endan�ered or tl�re�tened
species. Ho�vever, we �recommend that all pracficable measures be tal:en to avoid or mininaize adverse�impacts to
federal species ofconcern.' �

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of tlie %derally-listed species known to be
present within the eo.unty whei•e your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As stich, we recommend that suiveys be coiiducted to deternline
the species' presence or absence witlun the project area. T11e use ofNorth Carolina Nat�iral
IIeritage program data sliould not be substituted for actual field surveys. .
If you deterniine tllat the proposed action n7ay affect (i.e., likely to adversely af%ct or not lilcely
to advei•sely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify tllis office with your
deterniination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any acti��ities that might affect tlle species. If you detennine that the proposeci
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our offce fo"r coiicurrence (unless an
Envirorunental I�npact Statement is prepared). However, y.ou should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, liabitat conditions, site photographs; and any other related arCicles.
With regard to the above-referenced project, w.e offer the following remarks. Our coiruizents are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordaiice with, provisio»s of the Eildangered Species Aet.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it a�pears tliat the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endarigered or threatened species, tlieir
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under tlie Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirenieiits of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impaets of this identified action that n�ay affect
listed species or critical liabitat in a maruier not previously considered; '(2) tllis action is
subsequently mod'ified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (�) a new species
is listed or critical habitat deteiznined that may be affected vy the identif ed action.
However, the Ser��ice is concerned :about the potential iinpacts the proposed action might ]iave
on ac�uatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible #o sedimentation, Therefore; we
recorrimend that all practicable measures Ge taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatie species,
ineluding inlplementing directional boriilg inethods and st�-ingent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shotild Ue submitted to and approved by
the North Garolina Division of Laiid Resources; Land QuaIity Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be insta.11ed and mainfiained between tl�e construction
site and any nearby down-gradient surface waters. I�l addition, we recomrilend inaintairiing
natural, vegetated buffers on all streains and ereeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource"s Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www:fws:gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We reconuiiend that you consider tlus document in the development of your projects and in
coinpleting an initiation package for corisultation (if necessa��y).
2

We hope you find oui• web page usefial anc3 informative aiiel t11at following the process descriUed
above will� reduce the time ren.uired; and eliininate the need., for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you li�ve any questions or comments, �lease contact Jolui Ell`is oftliis office at
[phone] ext. 26.
Siiicerel ,,
/ �.�i� �
� �
I' e Benjamin
I'ield Supervisor
�

Natura( Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Plymouth Municipat Airport Raralie[ Taxiway Design
March 3, 2017
NCWFIDE-3060
Element Qceurreaaes Documented Wtthin a One-mfle Radius of the Preject Area
.. . . .. . .... ..
T�xdnomic.., ED�ID Scientffic.Name �.,-.,•",�ummon•Mame� . Last �� >.. Element Accuracy F�deral State• ��Globei Stale.
.. - , , ... ,.., _ ;. .,: . .
Group:.' •;' • ;'� �. � ...: :�: w z.. •: '�•• �, ':.. •'. - . - : ' ` ' . ObservaHon, ;.;,,Occurreoce. Status ' Status ' Rank Rank.
. ... ::. . : - _ . . .
�:<�.,..� .... ., . � .. ... . ..
. .,. ... , .... ,.• ., .:•:
- . . . . . . . ... � . , .. - . . Date . FZank .;�. . .
Mammal 23081 Canis rufus Red Wolf 2006 - BC 5-Very EXP Significantly G1Q S1
Low Rare
No Natural �?►reas are Documerrted Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
fdo Managed Areas are Documented Within a One-mtle Radius of the ProJect Area
Definitlons and �n expla�atlon ot sk+tus des�gnaHons and codes can be tound at `�+;: ^<°+:-��hd.^ �,3r:re ;r•r� -: ^�r;�r.:rr.�c=� t'!•�,;'n, Data query generated on March 3, 2017: s0urce: NCNHP. Q1 Janusry 2U1i. Pleese resubmil you�
intormatton reqqest if more than one ye3r elapses before proJect initiatFon as new inform�don Is conUnuaily added to the NCNHP dalabaso.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-3080: Plymouth Municipal Airport Parallel Taxiway Design
March 3, 20iT 1:33,337
a o.2?5 D.55 t.l mi
� Project Boundary �.�
�„� Bufferad ProjeCt Boundary o o.es n.9 t.B km
�'... Swr,es' Esn, HERE. Qx:S..� �r�.mnp +n-.c-r.r. p �-�_ OEBCO V505.
�.� 1 Naturai Heritage Element Oaaurrence {NHEO} fM, NFS, �72GtN ce,s,�. !,t�. uar,ic��Fn_.e�e,a��e s�-..y c.q!�,no�.,
NETI, E�n Cl+�+n 1Hanp RwpG sw•arf.M: ��r,�-y�+d+, c rtcenfi+ec�A!xe
y�nt,+,}.r�� ?*'1'.�nA1.5'.laqrf�.+Turl!�
Page 3 0( 3

Attachment E
Archaeological Survey of the Plymouth Municipal Airport
Washington County, North Carolina
New South Associates, Inc.
October 27, 2015

�'. ry ' � � . . . . � .
Archaeolo ical Surve of the
g Y
Pl mouth Munici al Air ort
y p p
WaShlllbt011 COLll`lt�T, Nortll Caiolin�
New South Associates, Inc.

P�lymouth Municipal Airport Cultural Resources Survey
Washington County, North Carolina
Report prepared for:
Michael Baker International • 4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105 •
North Charleston, South Carolina 29405
Report submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Human Environment Section •
1598 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Report prepared by:
New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083
and
New South Associates • 722-A Blanding Street • Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Danny Gregory, M.A., RPA — Principal Investigator
Tracy Martin, M.A., RPA — Archaeologist and Co-Author
Ellen Turco, M.A. — Historian and Co-Author
October 27, 2015 • Final Report
New South Associates Technical Report 2506

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 1
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
AB STl�CT
New South Associates, Inc., was contracted by Michael Baker International to conduct
archaeological testing for proposed improvements to the Plymouth Municipal Airport in
Washington County, North Carolina. This work was completed in compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Programmatic Agreement for Minor Transportation Projects with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.
Proposed improvements would consist of additional hangers and taxi lanes, an extended apron,
and a partial parallel taxiway. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) includes 79 acres of existing
airport property on the east side of Plymouth Airport Road.
The archaeological survey included shovel testing at 30-meter intervals and ground surface
inspection of areas that permitted it. The soils in the APE were classified as very poorly drained.
No archaeological sites or isolated finds were identified. No further archaeological work is
recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Multiple people contributed to the successful completion of this project. Ed Smail at Michael
Baker Intemational managed the contract. Knapp Brabble was the Plymouth Municipal Airport
contact. At New South Associates, David Diener prepared the graphics, Danny Gregory
provided the technical review, and Rebecca Brown edited the report. Fieldwork was assisted by
Chris Young and Will Britz.

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, 111
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABS TR.AC T . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................
I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT...........
PHYSIOGRAPHY ....................................
SOILS........................................................
CURRENT SETTING ...............................
......... 1
...................................................... 3
...................................................... 3
...................................................... 3
...................................................... 3
III. CULTURAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................................... 5
PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 5
Paleoindian (12,000-8000 B.C.) ............................................................................................... 5
Archaic (8000-1000 B.C.) ........................................................................................................ 6
Early Archaic (8000-6000 B.C.) ........................................................................................... 7
Middle Archaic (6000-3000 B.C.) ........................................................................................ 7
Late Archaic (3000-1000 B.C.) ............................................................................................ 8
Woodland (300 B.C.-A.d. 800) ................................................................................................ 9
Early Woodland (1000-300 B.C.) ......................................................................................... 9
Middle Woodland (300 B.C.-A.D. 800) ............................................................................... 9
Late Woodland (A.D. 800-1650) ........................................................................................ 10
HISTORIC OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 10
IV. METHODS ...........................................
BACKGROUND RESEARCH .................
FIELD METHODS ...................................
CURATION ...................... ........................
NRHP CRITERIA AND EVALUATION
V. RESULTS ...........................................................
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
................................................................... 15
................................................................... 15
................................................................... 15
...................................................................16
................................................................... 16
..... 19
..... 19
REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 27

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Map Showing Location of APE in Washington County
Map of APE Showing Shovel Test Locations ...............
Photographs of the APE, 1 of 3 .....................................
Photographs of the APE, 2 of 3 .....................................
Photographs of the APE, 3 of 3 .....................................
Photographs of Shovel Tests, 1 of 2 ..............................
Ph t ra hs of Shovel Tests 2 of 2
PLYMOUTH MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, V
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
0 og p , ........................................

PLYMOUTH MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 1
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I. INTRODUCTION
New South Associates, Inc. was contracted by Michael Baker International to conduct
archaeological testing for proposed improvements to the Plymouth Municipal Airport,
Washington County, North Carolina (Figure 1). This work was completed in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) Programmatic Agreement (PA) for
Minor Transportation Projects with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).
Proposed improvements would consist of additional hangers and taxi lanes, an extended apron,
and a partial parallel taxiway. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) includes 79 acres of existing
airport property on the east side of Plymouth Airport Road.
The scope of work specified archaeological survey (shovel testing) to locate, identify, and
evaluate archaeological resources in the APE for eligibility on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). Given the very poorly drained soils within the APE, expectations were very low
that archaeological sites or isolated finds would be identified.
Investigations included shovel testing at 30-meter intervals and ground surface inspection of
areas that permitted it. The soils in the APE were classified as very poorly drained. No
archaeological sites or isolated finds were identified. No further archaeological work is
recommended.
This report is divided into the following sections. Chapter I includes the introduction and project
overview. Chapter II is a brief discussion of the regional environmental context. Chapter III '
discusses the prehistoric and historic cultural contexts for the study area. Chapter N outlines the
methods. Chapter V presents the results of the study. The references used in this report follow
Chapter V.

2I
Figure 1.
Map Showing Location of APE in Washington County
: -. - ��. r ,, �# `ti ,� ,� �,,ra� �
e�;_J.t� ftd` � ,
; � '�.
`-" `" =�:..^-� ..�':-� . . : � t .y , ,
' �..
,
.
:� ,
, -�.--- - ,,
, ,!1. �a , � ,.�,
_ .. , . tio� °
, ��; a� 4 ��� a6���.'�^,��� ent,� s
„ +� , � � �-.�� �.,.�- 5�7,
;�;�� _ � r� � _ '��
�� � 'f�°,� � �� � t
� k �� �x �k: � �� �NCli1E.Yit ` �yil{�. . �
�' ' ���� �`'`,`'b.. "� '� �� �N�`�� �"��+�r°� !� � ,� �...1��[pQ �� �@ �` �'�''w
� •� ' �3�'rs � x � ��v ��"4e� `�x=� � � - - C. � �
��� � -�, .�s �� _
ya + x � ;
+� ��� � _ �
-: �.,
.
k �� � ` ''��.
, �, �... , � ;
��� ��� ��� '� °� � I��i i� e ���� i
� '� - '�� .��" ; ' � ' � �', w � ./'i
a ="1`r ���' �� .!�� x '
,
; °G�� � , ' . " � �.� �.
� , r ' n� ��
,
��.....^`�, � � ��' .� � � .�'�'"�x � � �r �
� �.:'�
,' � _ }, t1�14.�d �e Sr� � y• � r,......r...:��.,..'--r'�`u��/* ' , /�'�Sw
� �
__=-�-�. � ,• "�'�"� . — �` �� . ` � f,
''�' � C.�--'� t � =' �, "�= .� � r Y"v, - �� � - � -
r
i� �� � Fu1..s f � � �"'" � � <
_,. �_ � F � • ,�$�5�- :, @ Washington�Cour�ty �k .. ,� e..
� •, .` d�"�' . �,,y, .s*, -�.,� � , �
J ,,r � � �
_. - �:
t � 1�� - ,t- �,�
,` a;%, �•'`° ��' � � � "-� _ _ _ ' `' �� �!
� �� � .
" �.�" , �'� �=r„'"`-�-.�:- �"".•'� � y ,� i� � :-" �'� �
P�p��,�• `.-�--��� ��i � `' �
�}� � ,,� 1 �'"� -� a a.4� ' ;r•J
� y b
=M �� � {{� � �' f , . '•;�9 „� j ,
�� r r�[� �--� �.,�� , � � �� ` Y _
E� �� �
� j � ,�, a � �, ; � . � ���"�,,�-,��„"'"�,'�; , g � � ;{
. �,
�` -, ,�
-� �
�:� :" � � � ��ra�ridP� er � �. ._ `,/
� ��,, `,� U �. t���� ;, ,x � �._ �
��`�� � � �'�� � �f� APE � 1 ��a � . � � _
r f, / �� Ph�� �.�
� y� � �, - * 99 --e�f , � Lt � � ^ * .
= � ,� �� � �" . '' r� .
�W. � � � "; . i
s� .
�: 4y� ,�:_ . � '
� ». �� � F �
� �, �
���� � � ' -
# _ � `� ��o ''
. c,x� _ H .1
t�_ � �:� _ _= -- -- — —�--�=— -:_ `�
. ;�� � �' �, ' ' � �; . � -.
� �"�� 3� � ,� x , �
. , �,
• . • „
,1" � � � �; ,
- .
.. , . _ ; A/r
� F� � i � _ � - , s � _��
/ �= ' ��, _ ,� e
��'"�/ J 4 ` .r+"" � „a•�„_ i � {` ." �'f
�I .
`� �� � . `
� ��.
f�-�,��-..: _ ��-� _.�--�`� � �. .�;
` � APE - .-. �,�„�
z' _N � � (
R. ��.,p G � ..=Js�.r-�
� � ����� Washington County Boundary _.,.._��-_,,,.�` ,��� � �� � ��
� .•,�f_. 1 �
0 3 6 12 Miles �-- --�--i � �': �'M-�-+
I � � � I � � � t aVen , '. �� `
�rr � �
`� . �� � � _ �� .
u :
^ 0 3 6 12 Kilometers , s � � �� , � � � a�°
" ". _1r"".; r:*';`__`�` ,,._. _ _ ,_ � " = . . �- - _ �_ _ .
._��,_ �, . ._= -�\�- _ '
Source: ESRI Resource Data

PLYMOUTH MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, 3
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Washington County is located in the northeastern corner of North Carolina, within the Tidewater
area of the North Carolina Coastal Plain and is 336 square miles in size. The county is bound on
the north by the Albemarle Sound. The county is bordered by Bertie and Martin counties to the
west, Tyrrell County to the east, and Beaufort and Hyde to the south. Two major river basins
divide the county. The Roanoke River drains the northwestern part of the county while the
southern part drains into the Pungo River Basin. The remainder drains into the Albemarle
Sound. Elevations in the county range from sea level to about 50 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) in the western part of the county and less than five feet amsl in the floodplains of the
Scuppemong River and Bull's Bay Swamp in the northeastern corner (Tant 1981). Elevations in
the APE are around 10 feet amsl. Washington County is drained by the Pasquotank River
System, which flows to the southeast. The closest water source to the APE, 0.7 kilometer to the
west, is an unnamed tributary of Welches Creek, which feeds into the Roanoke River.
SOILS
The APE is in the Lower Coastal Plain Physiographic province. Soils in the APE are classified
as Portsmouth fine sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes (Soil Survey Staff 2015). This soil type is
found on flats or in depressions on marine terraces and is very poorly drained. The parent
material is loamy fluviomarine deposits over sandy fluviomarine deposits. A typical profile
consists of fine sandy loam (Ap, 0-12 in.), fine sandy loam (Eg, 12-19 in.), sandy clay loam (Btg,
19-35 in.), sandy loam (BCg, 35-38 in.), and loamy sand (2Cg, 38-80 in.).
CURRENT SETTING
The APE is located south of Plymouth, the county seat of Washington County. Plymouth is a
relatively light population center in rural Washington County. The APE consists almost
completely of wetland grasses and sedge with a small very dense wooded portion in the
southwest that was flagged with wetland delineation flagging tape. A small portion of the
northwestern APE, which had been logged in the last few years, consisted of a fairly thick
understory of greenbrier, sedge, and switch cane. Drainage ditches, varying in width from 3-7
meters ran parallel and perpendicular to the existing runway. There were several airport related
structures, tanks, paved roads, and parking lots along the western APE boundary. ..
0

PLYMOUTH MUMCIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, 5
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
III. CULTURAL CONTEXT
An appropriate historic context is needed in order to evaluate the NRHP potential of
archaeological sites (Savage and Pope 1998). For an archaeological properiy evaluated for its
information value, the historic context is the analytic framework within which the property's
importance can be understood (Hardesty 2000). To that end, a brief overview of the major
cultural developments throughout prehistory and history for the APE is presented below, and
provides the framework for assessing the significance of archaeological resources located and
identified during this project. This overview has been drawn from a variety of sources including
management documents, published historic contexts, and relevant regional research.
PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW
The basic chronology, principally the pre-ceramic Paleoindian and Archaic sequence, for North
Carolina prehistory was established by multiple excavations in the Piedmont under J. L. Coe's
(1964) direction. This cultural sequence, with minimal change, continues to provide the
accepted structure for developing regional chronologies (Glover 2005:6). The cultural prehistory
of Coastal Plain North Carolina follows that of the Southeast, with the prehistoric chronology
divided into three general periods related to broadly defined cultural traditions: Paleoindian (ca.
12,000-8000 B.C.), Archaic (8000-1000 B.C.), and Woodland (1000 B.C.-A.D. 1650). These
periods are primarily based on studies of culture change demonstrated by the distribution and
variation in diagnostic artifacts through time. Any shifts in settlement and subsistence pattems
assume reflection of reactions to environmental changes through time (Glover 2005:6).
PALEOINDIAN (12,000-8000 B.C.)
The Paleoindian period is commonly dated from circa 12,000-8000 B.C. Traditional hypotheses
in regards to human entrance into the New World have centered on access over the Bering Land
Bridge and the associated ice-free corridor (Anderson et al. 1990:3). However, in recent years,
there has been extensive agreement in the professional community that early models of "Clovis
first" need to be revised in the face of a growing body of evidence for earlier occupations
(Cactus Hill in Virginia and Topper in South Carolina) (McAvoy and McAvoy 1999).
The most easily recognized and representative artifacts of this period are a series of finely crafted
projectile points. In North Carolina, these types are most frequently recognized as Clovis (Early
Paleoindian) and Hardaway (Late Paleoindian) (Glover 2005:6). Diagnostic artifacts such as the
Clovis points are found throughout the New World. Clovis, in particular, is distinctive because
of the presence of channels or "flutes" on one or both faces. Both the Clovis and Hardaway

�
types are typically well made, and it seems that these prehistoric groups deliberately chose high-
quality stone for tool production (Daniel 1998). The later Hardaway points, initially identified
from the North Carolina site of Hardaway (31 ST4) in the Uwharrie Mountains area on the west
bank of the Yadkin River (Coe 1964; Daniel 1998; Ward and Davis 1999), are regionally limited
to the Southeastern woodlands. At Hardaway, three fluted points, mentioned by Coe (1964) and
recently reexamined by Daniel (2006), were recovered from surface contexts. These have been
classified as Clovis and Redstone types, which represent the early and middle Paleoindian sub-
periods in North Carolina, respectively (Daniel 2006:108). The Hardaway-Dalton points
represent the late Paleoindian to Early Archaic occupation at Hardaway (Daniel 1998).
Unfluted triangular projectile points such as Dalton and Hardaway Side-Notched mark the
transition to the Early Archaic (ca. 8000 B.C.) (Daniel 1998; Justice 1987). These point types
have been recovered from stratified Paleoindian to Archaic contexts in eastern North America
(Daniel 1998) and possess characteristics that are more typical of the side- and corner-notched
traditions of the Early Archaic period (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Paleoindian sequence for the Coastal Plain is generalized from the Piedmont data (Bradley
and Lautzenheiser 2007:7). Due to the rise in sea levels during the Pleistocene/Holocene
transition, it is likely that a number of coastal Paleoindian sites are currently submerged (Ward
and Davis 1999). There are very few examples of Paleoindian artifacts identiiied for this region
of North Carolina beyond surface finds. Phelps (1983) pointed to the lack of good depositional
contexts in upland settings as the major factor in site discovery.
aRcxalc �s000-i000 s.c.�
The Archaic period is dated from circa 8000-1000 B.C. and is commonly divided into Early
(8000-6000 B.C.), Middle (6000-3000 B.C.), and Late (3000-1000 B.C.) sub-periods based on
specific projectile point types. The Archaic period was a time of climate change with the onset
of Holocene climatic conditions that was warmer and wetter than the late Pleistocene (Bradley
and Lautzenheiser 2007). In addition to these changes in temperature and precipitation, there
was a significant rise in sea levels as continental glaciers began to melt. Prehistoric groups
responded to these changes with increased population, expansion into new environmental zones,
and regional variations in point styles.
It is commonly thought that the Archaic began with hunter-gatherers spending most of their time
in small, scattered bands. By the end of the Archaic period, these small bands gave way to larger
groups that centered on more restricted territories with rich food and raw material resources
(Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:107). Coastal Plain base camps were often located at the
mouths of major rivers (Ward and Davis 1999).

PLYMOUTH MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, 7
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Early Archaic (8000-6000 B. C.)
The Early Archaic Palmer phase (circa 8000-7000 B.C.) is characterized by a small corner-
notched blade with a straight, ground base and pronounced serrations (Ward and Davis 1999).
During the Early Archaic Kirk phase (circa 7000-6000 B.C.), the points increased in size and
basal grinding declined (Ward and Davis 1999). Gradually, broad-stemmed, deeply serrated
points (Kirk Serrated and Kirk Stemmed) replaced the earlier corner-notched style. Additionally,
the use of hafted end scrapers increased during the Early Archaic period; other formal tools
include gravers, drills, and perforators (Coe 1964; Davis and Daniel 1990; Ward and Davis
1999). Both the Palmer and Kirk points have been found on the Coastal Plain, but most are from
surface contexts (Ward and Davis 1999). However, the scarcity of grinding tools for plant
processing supports the contention that toolkits continued to focus on hunting and butchering
large game animals (Goodyear et al. 1979).
Middle Archaic (6000-3000 B. C.)
The Middle Archaic began with a warmer, drying trend that dominated North America. The
climate eventually changed in the Southeast during this period, becoming wetter and cooler. The
Middle Archaic Stanly phase (ca. 6000-5500 B.C.) appears to have extended out of the Early
Archaic (Coe 1964; Ward and Davis 1999) and is exemplified on the Coastal Plain by the
presence of Stanly Stemmed points. These points have a broad tree-shaped blade and a square
stem with basal notching (Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:8). Based on Piedmont data, the
main difference in the Stanly phase artifact assemblage appears to be the emergence of polished
stone atlatl weights. Formal chipped stone tools, such as scrapers, are sporadically found, and
practical flake tools were sufficient for most processing tasks (Ward and Davis 1999).
Both the Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases appear during the NYiddle Archaic. Coe (1964)
and Phelps (1983) believed that these phases did not have a local technological precedent and
considered them to be western intrusive horizons (Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:8). The
Morrow Mountain Stemmed projectile points outnumber other types of Middle Archaic points in
the northern Coastal Plain region (Ward and Davis 1999:75). These points date to circa 5500-
5000 B.C. and are relatively small with a short, tapering stem (Davis and Daniel 1990).
Guilford Lanceolate projectile points, representing a possibly uncharacteristic situation in the
overall Piedmont sequence, are also found on the Coastal Plain (Claggett et al. 1982:1). These
points are dated to approximately 5000-4000 B.C. (Davis and Daniel 1990). This point type is
described as a thick, lanceolate bifacial cutting or piercing tool that seems to interrupt the
Archaic development trend from notched to stemmed points (Claggett et al. 1982:1:39).

:
The Halifax phase was identified from the Gaston site (31 HX7) along the Roanoke River near
the fall line transition zone (Coe 1964). This point type is usually made of vein quartz or
quartzite and is a slender blade with shallow side notches. The base and side notches are usually
ground (Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:8). At the Gaston site, the Halifax zone occurs above
Guilford material, which suggests a late Middle Archaic temporal affiliation. The Halifax phase
is well represented in the northern Coastal Plain (Coe 1964; Phelps 1983).
It has been suggested that as the Archaic period progressed, there was an increase in sedentism
with a corresponding reduction in mobility (Goodyear et al. 1979:111). The decrease in high
quality lithic material supports the argument that mobility did decrease as the Archaic
progressed. However, there has been some debate that there was higher mobility within a more
restricted territory, explaining the changes in tool assemblages, lithic materials, settlement, and
subsistence patterns (Glover 2005:9).
Late Archaic (3000-1000 B.C.)
The Late Archaic marks a period of substantial cultural change in the Southeast (Glover 2005).
Although hunting and gathering continued to be the dominant mode of subsistence, there was a
significant growth in sedentary lifestyle. There is evidence that there were larger sites with a
more settled lifestyle, laying the framework for the emergence of horticulture and pottery (Ward
1983; Ward and Davis 1999).
The Late Archaic period of the Coastal Plain is marked by the Savannah River phase (3000-1000
B.C.). Characteristic artifacts include steatite bowls and the Savannah River projectile point,
which has a large, heavy, triangular blade, and broad stem (Coe 1964; Phelps 1983). It has been
suggested that the smaller variation, the Small Savannah River Stemmed point, serves as the
temporal marker for the later part of the Savannah River phase (Oliver 1985).
The earliest known ceramics in the Carolinas are fiber-tempered sherds made as early as 2500
B.C. (Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:8). These ceramics, named the Stallings series, have been
recovered from South Carolina and the southem Coastal Plain of North Carolina, and reflect the
larger developments along the south Atlantic coast (Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). In the
northem Coastal Plain, Croaker Landing ware, tempered with steatite and clay, is an early
ceramic found in the region. This ware is likely contemporary with steatite-tempered Marcey
Creek ware, which was the earliest pottery type found in the Mid-Atlantic region (Ward and
Davis 1999).

PLYMOUTH MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 9
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WOODLAND (300 B.C.-A.D. 800)
The Woodland period, like the Archaic, is separated into three sub-periods: Early (1000-300
B.C.), Middle (300 B.C.-A.D. 800), and Late (A.D. 800-1650). Although hunting and gathering
continued to have an important role in subsistence strategies, agriculture allowed for the
development of complex social, ceremonial, and economic systems (Glover 2005:10).
Innovations in technology, such as the bow and arrow, allowed for the development of a diverse
number of diagnostic triangular projectile points. Additionally, ground stone tools increased
during this period. However, stone tools were increasingly manufactured expediently, as
sedentary horticulturists required less effort or need to sustain a substantial tool kit (Parry and
Kelly 1987).
Early Woodland (1000-300 B.C.)
The Early Woodland and its transition from the Archaic is the least understood of the prehistoric
periods from the Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983). Much of what is known is based on the study of
ceramic assemblages and, as Ward and Davis (1999) stated, there have been few Early
Woodland components isolated stratigraphically. Therefore, detailed studies needed to clarify
intenegional temporal relationships are not possible at present.
The Early Woodland in the northern Coastal Plains is represented by the Deep Creek series, first
defined at the Parker site (31ED29) along Deep Creek in Edgecombe County (Bradley and
Lautzenheiser 2007; Glover 2005). The Deep Creek series includes coarse sand-tempered sherds
with primarily cord-marked, but also net-impressed, fabric-impressed, and simple-stamped
surface treatments (Martin 2008; Phelps 1983). Other material manifestations of the Early
Woodland in the northern Coastal Plain include large Roanoke Triangular projectile points and
possibly steatite vessels (Phelps 1983).
Middle Woodland (300B.C.-A.D. 800)
The dominant phase of the Middle Woodland period in the northern Coastal Plain is the Mount
Pleasant phase (Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). The Mount Pleasant series are sand-
tempered ceramics with larger clastic inclusions (i.e. pebbles, "grit") in differing amounts
(Phelps 1983:32). The surface treatment includes cord marking, fabric- and net-impressing,
smoothed, and occasional plain with incising (Glover 2005:10; Phelps 1983). '
The Mockley series dates to the latter half of the Middle Woodland (Herbert 2009). The dates
range from circa A.D. 200-800. In the coastal North Carolina region, this ware is characterized
by having thick vessel walls, coarse shell tempered, cord-marked or net-impressed surfaces, and
simple jar forms with direct rims, wide mouths, and semi-conical or rounded bottoms (Potter
1982).

10�
Late Woodland (A.D. 800-1650)
The Late Woodland period is the last precontact period for the northern Coastal Plain, and the
associated archaeological assemblages have been linked to historically recorded tribal or
linguistic groups (Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:10). Two distinct groups represent the Late
Woodland in this region that continued into the Contact period: the Carolina Algonkian of the
tidewater zone and the Tuscarora of the inner Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983:36).
The Colington series is associated with the northern estuarine Coastal Plain area of the Late
Woodland and Contact period Algonkian-speaking groups (Ward and Davis 1999). These
ceramics are shell-tempered with a surface treatment that is fabric-impressed, stamped, incised,
or plain (Glover 2005:10). Simple or folded rims can be incised or punctated on the exterior and
diagonally marked with a dowel or fabric-wrapped paddle edge on the interior (Green 1986;
Phelps 1983). Projectile points associated with the Colington phase are small triangular types
(Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:11). Shell tools and beads, together with bone tools, are also
part of this phase. Site locations of these groups are concentrated along streams, sounds, and
estuaries. Types of sites include seasonal shellfish gathering and fishing camps, longhouse
village sites in areas that were suitable for horticulture, and ossuary sites found near the villages
(Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). Large ossuaries received both secondary burials (bone
bundles) and articulated primary burials, but artifacts were rarely included (Phelps 1983).
The Cashie series is associated with the Tuscarora of the northern inner Coastal Plain. The
ceramics of this series are pebble-tempered with a distinctive interior finish (Green 1986; Phelps
1983). Exterior surfaces are fabric-impressed, simple-stamped, and plain. Rims are straight or
everted and can also be folded to the exterior (Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:10). Other
artifacts associated with the Cashie phase include pipes, bone awls and perforators, shell beads,
small Roanoke and Clarksville triangular projectile points, blades, celts, milling stones, and drills
(Phelps 1983).
HISTORIC OVERVIEW
The first Europeans to visit North Carolina were the Spanish explorers. Though the
archaeological evidence for their presence is limited, the intangible effects on Native groups
were widespread and may have severely altered the native groups' social fabric. When the first
Europeans explored North Carolina, Algonkian groups were known to inhabit the Tidewater
region in the northern Coastal Plain (Bradley and Lautzenheiser 2007:11).
The English first attempted to settle in North America was on Roanoke Island in 1585. Although
the colony eventually failed, the colonists managed to explore not only the Albemarle and
Pamlico sounds but also the Washington County area (Modlin et al. 1998:8). When the London
Company established the Virginia colony in 1607, English colonies spread south into Carolina

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 1 1
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
along the northern shores of the Albemarle Sound, although the earliest colony established in the
area by Sir Robert Heath in 1629 failed to become a permanent establishment (Corbitt 1987:33;
Watson 1987:1).
During the mid-1650s, emigrants from Virginia started settlements in North Carolina. The
earliest successful colony in northeastern North Carolina was a trading post installed by Virginia
governor Sir Francis Yeardley in the 1650s at the western end of the Albemarle Sound. Another
trading post was established by Nathaniel Batts in 1655 at the mouth of Salmon Creek in Bertie
County (Butler 1989:4-6; Gardner et al. 1985:22; Watson 1982:2). The Virginia Assembly
assumed regional control of the "Southern colony" as it was known, in that part of Carolina as no
other governmental system had been established (Butler 1989:7).
The County of Albemarle was established in 1668 after King Charles II issued the Carolina
Charter to the Lord Proprietors in 1663 (Mathis 1976:3; Watson 1987:3). The land was divided
into precincts as the regional population grew. Settlement, however, was slow in the area as
swamps made travel difficult. Large landowners and business people settled the land bordering
the Albemarle Sound and rivers and creeks. The inland areas were settled by backwoods settlers
with small subsistence farms (Modlin et al. 1998:8). These smaller "back country" farms were
more common than the large plantations. Extensive drainage projects were required in order to
create arable land in much of the county. Much of this had already started by the early
eighteenth century (Cook and Hill 1984:8).
Tobacco was regions first profitable crop but was replaced by the mid-eighteenth century by corn
and wheat (Middleton 1984). Corn and wheat were sold to New Englanders who traded with
England, Bermuda, the West Indies, or other colonies (Butler 1989:32). With the introduction of
the more profitable wheat, tobacco was regulated to being grown inland (Middleton 1984).
Cattle and hogs were also of economic importance to the region during the period.
Throughout the eighteenth century, local industries included involved the production/procurement
of furs, skins and hides, or timber. Many of the trees in the Tidewater region were well-suited for
use as shingles, lumber, or barrel staves (Butchko 1991:2; Haley and Winslow, Jr. 1982:1). The
long-leaf pine that grew in the region was important in the naval stores industry in the shipyards of
Norfolk and Portsmouth. Tar was produced by burning the pine trees over kilns or dirt-covered
pits. Trades practiced throughout the region included those associated with navigation, seamanship,
manufacture, leather work, and blacksmithing (Butler 1989:47).
During the late eighteenth century, the residents of eastern North Carolina generally supported
the American cause in the Revolution. They contributed a full company to the Continental Army

12 I
and many participated in anti-imperialist activities during the years leading up to the Revolution.
Others served as leaders in North Carolina's radical faction (Watson 1987:29-32). Although the
majority of the population supported the cause, Loyalist sentiment did exist. The Quakers in the
region opposed the war as pacifists, their opposition to slavery, and their doubts about the
legitimacy of the Revolution's leadership (Haley and Winslow, Jr. 1982:21)
After the American Revolution, the demographics of eastern North Carolina changed. A large
portion of the pre-Revolution population left the area. Many Quakers moved to non-slave-
holding areas such as the Old Northwest Territory. Others migrated to new areas in the Deep
South. It was at this time that Washington County was formed from a part of Tyrrell County in
1799 (Barefoot 1998:21). Plymouth, the largest town in the county, had been established in 1787
and incorporated in 1807 on the banks of the Roanoke River. In the early 1800s, it was one of
six main ports in the state and the ninth most populous town (Town of Plymouth 2015). The
number of slaves in the area increased in number to comprise nearly 50 percent of the population
of the county (Watson 1987:41-42).
Small individual farms began to decline in number (Watson 1987:43). Many wealthy
landowners began purchasing the land as people moved away, consolidating them into larger
farms and plantations, all of which was dependent on the slave population (Watson 1987:43).
The wealthiest landowners were able to increase their acreage with considerable effort by
draining the numerous swamps and pocosins to create additional arable land. After 1820, cotton
became a viable commodity, most of which was grown on the larger plantations (Watson
1982:52). The smaller farms, most of which held one or two slaves, remained the dominant
socioeconomic class in eastern North Carolina.
Other economic exploits during this time include a growing timber industry for construction and
naval stores, and commercial fishing. By the 1850s, long leaf pine forests had been drastically
depleted and caused a decline in the naval stores industry (Harmon et al. 1995). The increase in
fishing expanded into the river estuaries and waters of the Pamlico and Albemarle sounds.
Prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, loyalties were divided. The majority of people held few,
if any, slaves but they agreed with the concept of states' rights (Haley and Winslow, Jr. 1982:26—
27; Watson 1987:77; Thomas 1996:37). Residents of the regions joined Confederate Army units
or guerilla-style ranger groups that provided local defenses, harassed Federal troops, terrorized
and plundered Union sympathizers, and prevented slaves from escaping to Union lines (Thomas
1996:37; Thompson et al. 1987:27; Watson 1987:77-79).

PLYMOUTH MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 13
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The larger towns in the area, such as Elizabeth City, New Bern, and Plymouth, suffered varying
degrees of Union occupation (Butchko 1992:E-13). Several naval skirinishes were fought at
Plymouth. In the fall of 1864, Union forces torpedoed the Confederate iron-clad ram, CSS
AlbemaYle (Federal Writers Project 1939:496). Union forces controlled the Plymouth and
Albemarle sounds 1862 until the Confederates took it back in 1864. Union forces again retook it
after the sinking of the CSS Albemarle (Johnson 1996:71-76). Plymouth stayed in Federal hands
until the end of the war (Thomas 1996:50).
By the end of the Civil War, eastern North Carolina suffered varying degrees of social and
economic damage. Whereas some towns remained relatively undamaged, others were ruined. In
Plymouth, 11 battle-scarred buildings remained standing (Federal Writers Project 1939:496), the
infrastructure had been destroyed, and the local economy was devastated. Land values dropped,
which lowered the local tax base and made recovery difficult (Watson 1987:87).
Transportation improvements helped restore the economy throughout the regipn. Steamboats
began transporting passengers and freight along the sounds and rivers to Norfolk and Nag's Head
(Watson 1982:43). In 1870, the Norfolk and Southern Railroad began operation between
Norfolk, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina (Hobbs and Paquette 1987:71-73,153—
156). The railroad encouraged the growth of small towns around train stations, crossroads, and
industrial facilities.
By the end of Reconstruction, agriculture had started to recover and new commodities became
the staples. Rather than growing traditional grains as before, farmers started to grow cotton, rice,
soybeans, peanuts, and various vegetables and fruit that were shipped to northern markets
(Thompson et al. 1987:29-30; Watson 1987). Poultry and dairy became important parts of
production (Watson 1987:97). Timber harvesting increased to more remote areas and lumber
companies built small tram railroads that connected to the main railways (Butchko 1991:39;
Haley and Winslow, Jr. 1982:56-58). Large sawmills and lumber factories were built in many of
the surrounding towns in the region such as Hertford, Edenton, and Elizabeth City.
Loggers were more focused on removing trees and abandoning land rather than reforestation,
which left the land bare. The area was nicknamed "The Blacklands" for its soil color and was
considered worthless. In the early 1900s, land companies began promoting timbered swampland
for agriculture. The State Drainage Act of 1909 allowed for the creation of drainage districts that
financed drainage projects through property tax assessments. In 1912, Blackland Test Farm, on
the south side of Washington County, was started by the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. In 1943, it was moved to Plymouth (Modlin et al. 1998:17). In the 1920s, the
initial drainage canals were dug using large steam shovels. The heaviest amount of canal

14�
building was done during the 1950s so that timber companies could gain access to plant
additional pine (Thompson personal communication 2002, as cited in Child et al. 2002).
The Great Depression in 1930 brought an economic slowdown and eastern North Carolina was
slow to recover (Keane 1998). Little has changed since. The region remains largely agrarian
based. Though corporate farming dominates areas previously cultivated by smaller family-run
farms. The timber industry had declined by the 1950s due to the overcutting of suitable
woodlands (Haley and Winslow, Jr. 1982:67). A large land development called Colony Farms,
which involved the development of large areas for agriculture, cattle and hog farms, forestry, and
peat mining, was begun in 1973 and lasted only a few years. It consisted of 376,000 acres in
Washington, Tyrrell, Hyde, and Dare counties.
Tourism and leisure activities generate a large amount of revenue within the North Carolina
Tidewater region. The population remains small, with 13,228 residents over 348 square miles
(iJnited States Census Bureau 2015). However, many people have moved to the region because
it is recognized as a good place to retire, creating a gated recreation and retirement community.
These new communities have generated many new opportunities for new business and stimulated
new growth. However, they have placed increased stress on the infrastructure.

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 1 S
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
IV . METHOD S
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. This
phase included reviewing reports of previous investigations in the area, producing a cultural
context for expected resources, and checking archaeological site files for known resources in the
APE and within a one-mile radius. The National Register files were also consulted. No
previously recorded archaeological sites or historic resources were present in the APE or within a
one-mile radius.
FIELD METHODS
Following the background research, a three-person crew, consisting of the field director and two
research assistants, conducted an archaeological survey to document any alterations to the
natural landforms and to identify potential archaeological deposits. The APE is located around
an existing runway. The area around the runway has been graded and mounded to flatten out the
space. The APE also has several drainage ditches (3-7 m wide) running throughout. Vegetation
across most of the APE consists of grass and sedge. The far southwestern end of the APE
consists of an extremely dense wetland forest of sedge, switch cane, and pond pine. A small
portion of the northwestern end consists of moderately dense wetland switch cane and
greenbrier.
Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals throughout all accessible areas of the APE.
Shovel tests were approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and excavated to at least 10
centimeters into culturally sterile subsoil, where feasible. All soils were screened through 0.25-
inch mesh hardware cloth to ensure systematic artifact recovery. Shovel tests were excavated by
natural soil strata in order to better assess integrity. The profile of each shovel test was visually
inspected by the crew for artifacts or features related to an archaeological site. Stratigraphic
descriptions included depth and soil texture.
Field notes were taken of survey methods or changes in the methodology for a particular section
and environmental factors such as vegetation and ground disturbance. Maps of the locations of
all shovel tests, natural features such as drainages, roads, or disturbance were kept. Notes were
taken on site condition and testing results.

16
CURATION
All of the written records, photographs, and project materials generated from this project are
being curated by the New South Associates Stone Mountain, Georgia office on a temporary
basis. At the conclusion of the project, they will be transferred to the North Carolina Office of
State Archaeology for long-term curation.
NRHP CRITERIA AND EVALUATION
The significance of historic properties is evaluated according to the criteria established in 36
CFR Part 60.4, Criteria for Evaluation. Section 36 CFR 60.4 states that the quality of
significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that may represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
Once archaeological sites were identified, it was then necessary to evaluate them for the NRHP.
In general, there are several factors that influence evaluations of eligibility, particularly under
Criterion D. The most important include sites with sufficient artifact density and diversity to
generate information regarding spatial patterning, technology, adaptations, behavior, and
lifeways. The presence of clear spatial patterning, either vertically or horizontally, as well as
artifact depth, are important variables. The presence or absence of known or suspected features
can also be critical because of the information they often contain. Sites that represent types,
components, or periods that are rare or relatively unknown can be important even if they lack
other variables such as high artifact density (e.g., Paleoindian). Specialized locations such as
seeps or raw material outcrops may have been important. Sites may also be recommended
eligible based on their association with certain events, themes, unique construction methods or
materials, and important people.

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 17
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Assessing significance is probably the most difficult part of the Section 106 process because
there are different types of significance (Schiffer 1977). Under Criteria A, B, and C, an
archaeological property must have demonstrated its ability to convey its significance, while
under Criterion D, only the potential to yield information is required (Hardesty 2000:33; King
1998:77-80). Criterion D is frequently used for the evaluation of archaeological sites.
Archaeological sites identified within the project's APE were evaluated according to the criteria
outlined above, with particular emphasis on their potential to contribute new and significant
information to local, regional and national research. The quality of archaeological information
must be addressed in terms of historic contexts, research questions, and data requirements
needed to answer specific questions. Integrity, artifact density, and potential for intact features
and subsurface deposits are some of the key factors that ordinarily are considered during the
evaluation of a site for inclusion on the NRHP.

PLYMOUTH MUMCIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 1(�
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
V. RESULTS
This survey was conducted within an approximately 79-acre open field. Most of the APE
consisted of wetland grasses and sedge. A total of 361 shovel test locations were investigated
during the survey. Of those, 51 shovel tests were not excavated due to flagged wetland areas,
paved parking lots or taxi lanes, drainage ditches, or standing structures (Figure 2). The
southwestern portion of the APE had a small, extremely dense wooded area that was marked
with wetland delineation flags. A smaller section in the northwestern portion of the APE had
previously been logged and consisted of dense greenbrier, sedge, and cane. Representative
photographs of the APE can be seen in Figures 3, 4, and 5.
The soil across the APE was very poorly drained and appeared to have been swampland which
was most likely drained historically. Most of the shovel tests west of the north/south running
drainage ditch, were not as disturbed as those on the eastern side lying between the drainage
ditch and the runway. A typical shovel test west of the drainage ditch included a first stratum of
very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) or black (lOYR 2/1) silty compact loam reaching between 10 and 60
centimeters below surface (cmbs). This was followed by mottled yellowish-brown (lOYR 6/8),
pale brown (lOYR 6/3), and gray (lOYR 5/1) silty loam or clay subsoil. The area bordering the
runway consisted of fill dirt and much of the soil was disturbed at surface. A typical profile
consisted of 15 centimeters of mottled very dark gray (lOYR 3/1), black (lOYR 2/1), and
yellowish-brown (lOYR 6/9) silty clay. Representative shovel test photographs can be seen in
Figures 6 and 7.
No archaeological sites or isolated fmds were identified during this survey. This is primarily
because the APE is located on drained swampland and contains only very poorly drained soils.
Other factors include construction related to the airport such as graded and/or built up surfaces,
paved roads and taxi lanes, standing structures, and drainage ditches. New South recommends
that no further archaeological work for the APE.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
New South conducted an intensive archaeological survey to locate and identify archaeological
sites in the APE. The APE was located in very poorly drained soil and much of the area was
disturbed from airport construction and drainage. No archaeological sites or isolated finds were
identified and no further work is recommended. •

�p
Figurc 2.
Map Showing Location of Shovel Tcsts in thc AP�
�J
� ♦
\ 1
Transect 57,
Shovel Test 6
� - � ` o ° � �q Transect 57,
1`� '� o,� � o a o Shovel Test 1
yiy�;� i`�i �;-t; , o o �4 �q ,•�
I s e j, � t �, � � p � :; i�._ ..-
, w'@:�, _.' ''. ��!!`�„t o p 0 O
S� '
� � p � � O
O
.� �000 000 .'.�I
00 000 _`
. o , <s_
'k; � o o � o - x;�l• ti'#j,j. �
.;;; �'%� ° o 0 0 0 0 . _ , � �?- t� f .
0 0 0 . '/ . 'i4 4
\ 0 '
� .� ♦ �, . f � ^���k�1: �� ll�' � 0 O 0 ' . .
* �•^" ... �' � - `~Y� � o O 0 o O '� . . ,r` .
;� Transect 40, o,� o o ,
� �+y, "' . Shovel Test 6 ° o o ° o �
.,�,�-�s o . �
� :q.# � t' .,'��,�` � ' ' ,,��,i ',�r;. � o o ° o o ° Transect 40, � a - -
4 . � �.� �~� ��� ` �S, ° o 0 0 � o Shovel Test 1 ��M`
��?!��s '' i�_.:�:�� , 9, ,�:f,�(-� ° o 0 0� o
' �� �o 0
� � . -�� : r:, � ,t{ � � � p Q , � �' �
� +�t:,tt � +i.y �. ��V p �Op � . � .(:'.
, �
�r�:^ Mf,:,` ,'f , ' I: - o �a o � ' 9.-
.ssi��t1. � C �'� � r, r�:��+� • '40 0 � �4 0 ° } � � ;
_ , 4,'t :, s � � o 0 0 ,,, r
��,, t, o ° o o ° e�_ .`; .�. , t.
i'''i i ;•,' o ° � � o ° + ��1•, �
. ,;� c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 4Ly -..�,� ;�,
, .s ° o ° o 0 0 , �-� ,,..�r �
� r.; r o 0 0 0 ,��'.. Y.
, Transect 20, o� o� c o ,+�..�� -'`�
' 1 Shove Test 8
0 0 '`�� �`�i
000 0 +e c:} , .
0 0 ` �-
-�J/ ; o00 �:',f - .
; ; j 'i �� j i o ° ° o �,�' �,
R� '�„��i'�w t d;�,� t.> 0. . 4L; a', .
� � � '�Q � � O ��'�? . ��'° i hil ' � I.:fi J f .
1 ., � 0 O p O �+�fy� % 1
i � ' � � O W
[�.� . 'Q o o ° oo Transect20, ` ��+'1 �.F� ,�
�.�� t,.ei '..: �,7�'ji; o° o p o Shovel Test 1 �����F ;
� tiJ �o ,�'� (
�e,. o p o � 0 4.�T`{,': h�• .�.-i ,l l f
0 0 , r f�.;i �%�4 ��,��'!j � a
w: l� -.`P' �I� o 0 0 0 0 .' ,��I`ti;i���t'/11 i�,If '�
. _FY�.�- ��� C o O p � � � i �/,�l �; �N�l��� /f � �R
0 0 , ; i R, S, �� ,
�` o � ° � ° � , : ' � �l�r������� i�j', �`rr�r� � �;►h, �I � !�%
0 0 o'Q p ;' i'. ±, '�1''/'fi;'+'IJ�t�'i������(;'',"'�I/[,�, r
�� � O O 0 O ; q� y� •K�,��R , �.. �r.>M �n .
O o O O O .�^' R Y. .�11,/5 .
-, •� - a �q .,, � y �, ,Negative Shovel Test
o i �„�- o
,y'.� ._.:._ .:� o , .y.
.r,. .%: o 0 o tii o ��,, ti:7
" '� O
° o 'Q o 4� � ' , :t Unexcavated +
�o °Oo °yi:.
00 �oo � £ 1 ��,M:
�Transect 1, APE
0 0 �, -r ��R;,.�:
I ShOVeI Test 6 �� 0 250 500 1,000 Feet
` �'��'}'..�', Transect 1, � � � � � � � � �
;� k, ; �.
�j�� r �� Shovel Test 1 N 0 75 150 300 Meters
�A . kl.�F . - =� .
Source: ESRI Resource Data

PLYMOUTH MUlV1CIPALAIRPORTSURVEY, I 2 �
WASHINGTON COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 3.
Photographs of the APE, 1 of 3
_ -�-+,.r.:t��
- �.' t. ',-,i':'':i�o\�.. ..
':� '+ .. � , � `�'� � �x. � .
s� �,:n-� a �-�.-.
� �4 - yC:
�'G 1��� �. �.�:�. :. . . _ � � ���, ia , ��+i`�s'b'�. �:.vi�,:
y��liy r�.=�``•�L}��+��-n.M.�'. ' 1 �,,•'.�Ti I[.2 t �`� �l � • {� '. ,,,, w'I �y �L..
, JY�i..-c.i ._ ��.ys� ''�'JAG�d►�+�RYY+�+'•-- , �u►i��}�f► Yb.��•L.:: _ � .'�'�'� � •'3�
� . . ... - _ - , ...i• - 1 ,
. , _.�t��. . -- - � . �.. �. ,_ � . r �
� � _a. �.'���,'11 .I. - ..y.T•.,. . � � . . � s ti V,�..� pi: .r �r_, - � �/� �.�s � r _ ..
' ii' Y ; �, . � � 4.�r. . . ��` ;���{ i.�. �" i � � '� �,J�1G,. . �y7,� • R 1-.i � ����.�g -
:�r � t ^ �i. °�� � - � ��'-.
n
r r t .
. �i, f 7 �. � r '1 � .tF y�� � -( � � �� j 1 '- ��
��� i , ' � � � ��4 t �1 .: 4� �� �Y� ? �+t'��� u v�6 .�t i S � �*`y'IL
..��4 � �. . � t F� �2` "' . � :; ( ��` q�t�,�'�iE�: r Ac�''. i � ��� r � -� .
, T` ��, `A . _ ' ." ' � 9 4' � � l� .J f " n ��- ✓ _Y �.
) � -,� .�� .. F`, � S f I.�4 +"f, b t d � v s�i � I
�i�k,�� - !! tt- r it 1 �; l � t .ieifr� ip�. ..°tY f 1 ; r � y i�j' ��yw,� �' -:.
f � �� , t r '� e� �.1 r 1i
��� � ' ��� �' �� 1 il � d � "� �,. .. ,, . v ���j i ��: � � � , � W 1 ��' a � Y i a RtJ� r � � ,� �. � � � r+:�. � 1� 1:
,�. � f, t d s �. M�.F 3 r� ',� ; :.�e� M� �'�e ! i � �y. a ���r�"�'"fi .;' ���, �4>
� � �, o �f.' ." , . `V , ,,- � , �� '•; � : w �i � , .' '; ` . r?�'r. � � y M' y�'F� � .,' _
�7�'� �Sy� F^�;'�t -��y �.'�" �'j v � r �i -�54� r'�fe�, �ir.�lfr���,�� � -:
II-,�' �t�� 9��� . 7� 4 n l �� i� r e�fo. � � 4 r ���; n! _jy! �( Y. s�y��.:yi. R�F `r;.
R. 8I.`� �� ..�I�� ,.,.. .��Ra.. .. . �. 1.,2'.. ti . . . . . . ..�;F,'f�
r�. ��izw� Sho���i�l�� } iel�1 in 1'r�ject Area
f�. ���i����� �i� lnsiuc u� 1��,�ul� in ���ctl�inc� Deline�ition Boundary
C. View of Poorly Drained Area Near Transect 16, Shovel Test 6

��►a
Figure 4.
Photographs of the APE, 2 of 3
A. Disturbance at the End of Transect 17
B. Tanks and Ground Disturbance Near Transect 19, Shovel Test 8
C. Showing Paved Road/Runway Along Transect 20

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL.4IRPORT SURVGY, I 23
�VASHING�iOn COIT'TY. AORTH CAROLINA
Figure 5.
Photographs of the APE, 3 of 3
:�. Shu�rii��� 1Jr��in�i�� l�itci� 1 arin�� C�i�rti� Nurthc<�st I�ruin I�rans�ct �'ti. �hu��l lest '
B. General View of Drainage Ditch and Runway
C Showing North End of Rtmway Facing Southeast From Transect 56, Shovel Test 5

24
A. Transect 14, Shovel Test 1
. �. c •.� :?
��j i .� ;,r ► �f�
�.'' ,� r si`-
�,r�' h�,� �� �
`o� �.� L �.; ��° � �#
y. �''Z:��. �, � �� � ` f
� �:�� �5
,�� •..�� vJ�P.:
�- w� �'�=�,
� y
�`\ �� ��
\�`` �:� c
L t � '
F
{/� - d
�'.bxi+;,'�����`%�d' _
_ � �e ;'Y ��e•;
Figure 6.
Photographs of Shovel Tests, 1 of 2
,,,. � � ,,�ti•'�' �l r-,. � j1 • � '
T' t
� �
7� q� � �' R�: L �:v f.� . i' � -.
� f ��� �.� �i � �� T . ,�/ •:' � ,
��� �i7,'-} ��'!'? '1t.�FMa i1� h ��� .7+, �iR
� Z�}y,,��, l. . � ,.r,.i`? - .��� � ..
��� �.. 4 �J �. � �1` „ J i r '
1 - �� ��ti ?�.
� ,,t _ r ,�,l.. ., } � - , "'p.
�~ �'. .lr �'�� 3 ` kF C3•'� .
3 � ��� , �,� ,� .
t "i �< � ��f :' ,�,.� ` " "♦` '�. '
h , r y.•
�T { � � �� �, ` y� , f}( � � I . . .
. � '� } .�e �., �"� 4k .. _ +IA Y .
� /.` W ' � ,�� �,�,:� - ',� 4�
df Y�, �� ' .,i'�
� t�, ,f .''"�r . -���: � `��;, * � .
� � y,. �., � 3
��� -�;,- .f° .�i,R, . ,� � . �. . \
- `� � -'� Y , Rt _ : .F ,a�«�
�� , _ _ � .�� .
�� ";� a �,�
, � `�, .�-,,� ` +" , ,
��.: � ;'� � ..$' . .t
,,..._ ,. v .. �n'a �
��"'� �, � '7 ' S � rfA�'�.``;
.",' r, f� . ��
,y .;. .
,•
a ,. ' n
�, � : . i �'�:�,`. o � f � � �l
� � , j, ��� �,,` ,�,ya t � ':�
��' �" " B. Transect 19, Shovel Test 4
'� .
Y'(� e . `' ' . � � _,
�' 'r f�.R`.
1, j'��`-: �� � ' ^ � 1 ;
`�, , . .;
� � ° t� ' �r :
�t ���.�4 Yn Y.^ ��� -�.'.�.��.
. � j � ,� y 1'�ty .
,� t -
t'�. i
�u � � � , y� € �:
� '' c. M -�1�i 1
1 : ti �- ti�
�� ��ti x
�. ;
� ��� �•
� r�, r•1
. �_ � �e
4,�� 4• i
C. Transect 23, Shovel Test 2
.-�:-

PLl'MOU�HMLNICIPALAIRPOR7'SURVGY, I 2S
V✓ASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 7.
Photographs of Shovel Tests, 2 of 2
A. Transect 32, Shovel Test 5 � , +�.: ; ,�,, , . �
�� � •'. . . �. a�•� .,•t'^> � �
;.., ' , .
�•�� r l�< ��.4�,•�1 '��1 ��" � . ,l �•�s .: �z`t� e
. �' ' '� �r�, `'�" r�C �
�.�''ti � f r, .� ie� l J
� ' -���`'�,.1�i� J�r� �'•,, a��;� ,.
� .
��,7�� r• � �`.
. /�
+ � t - ,� �� .+ ' *id� � ;, r �:i:4"�;',,�}'��.•�y��' 7
� .
� t �"��� �' f �':� ��'�'��, ��
r`r� r4'� E i i "�'— ' k� ��p 1� • )
^�'`�;+�`iiA'r �� �� .,y�:���'� .�j �'
�: g♦ '- ., �.A�,' �� : . . �i ��.
�/ f. �� . .. , � ' , _ _ ��``�.
.a, % ! : �: it.l t S �""�� ° 2 � �:
# �:�. � i,�l,y,y + . � 4y� ��'7' ` ' �� 9�$ • - �" �
' y� "�t «�, ; t�!1r�� -a. '
K rr1 yj �� y��
� �� dd- _ ., ` P �� � q F t .- . c
�Y : + 7 � �' ,�y��' � r � �w , s._ �
���? _� JK+ � : _ § d.��! �a.1,�4�fY�,, � i� .. ' �
I �'�j-, � ��?�, t.,_'�.� 4A�'b x��yq„�„�jQ+,�l�Y .J'�"`.�, ..
�y, .. f ��, ��'1,i' � S �,N* ���il � ��y � #� . .�}�T�`:
� � �� _ ��, ��� Sd � ��' .1�� �..}, �' �. � �
�l..��, t r ���.�I �' �" � ' °i .
V I: �. J � � ' �a d r ��' �_ � {e _ � � _'
� � � ♦ ;' `�QQ ! . r `�'
�- �y ro
7� `C� t ,�� f�,��' ,� ,�?; . { ' :`
1 i' " � a:q �` 1,t � J1,
. f s `�ti._ .r '�
° I� • �� �� x � r: :�,�,'� n. �,dF�:d�-�,� i�s� - :�
t ' _ � _
j� � �'� a � � ` �'n n k _ � � ��
'[h; � .' � - '�''�+ J �' "i ° .. J:+ t
.�i ' �' � . f a� � � .� � �
a � ' �:
'' � a " ,'S � t �y': l Y '� .
��� �' . ; � l r3L � � .1'. � �'`+� F� � � {` ;°' �� ' /
{ r � �� � �', ]a-i _ � � .� s-•'_ /'n.'
� � ��,� t u��y� i�rl i= �� � 4F' j� � �.. �yF'i .t . '
S`M'-� ,�x'�4�� y �' �" 1 .-� •.'������.� �',�� ` a aj •,
� +'�+��• ' �' � • ' ��r` t 71 z�'� �7��yS'; '; `��� �� ai
' '� '�t� �y1" . , �
• �(�,�yy�� ; � - 1�, � �'.dVp _. h.>�� � ' � �'� �� t "v
� ,� � ��'� `�l J� r �i1:Y?%�. u' .1 �..� •{W��r�a�.��^�,`�,�`'�_��
i► r�V� I' �I� •rt� a',�Ri �Y {ys,4+'R2'' �� ,�N1� li A�lj�i'i 4 i'e -��1'�`�'i�'_'y���F'
1, � ��"�► w � .� : ,�, :,
ti ' �,�, yf.� r'r�)t R y'�'? , "�` � ,wt�''�F�X'.�'• � Y��S,y� � � � i�.'
1�� ,�, ` "�r� i>, ��il �,a�•,� �' '. E*� c+i�t,�D:�•s'� Y,F'�iJs,��"':- .
��� •.Lti.�'��� � w� ��' . " � d,� , ., ��rti�<"y� ��l` � �:.,t��
�'+ �. �/Cr � 7q ,r,�.,��, �.�F� • ��� �r *',�����" , " �` r �1 � �/. 1 -� ^�� y `.
�t
� �
f �\�,�±f��}''�I�P� ���' � t,'��a ' �`'° � i �� �, ���/;1
� . }ay, r ~, , . `, 1 " 1.��1"•.
''�at ' T1:i°'�
��`� y� -��� � � � K���{�s� �t' �,Ys����� � �}.r�y :`�, �! 4 Tk Pt.Jq�'p!
jM;� ��� r+ •
'�ry`� .�y�� ^`• a � ,Y-� 3 � N�,.+� '
,y r� � t',� � ��s�r ���:�T�� 4 sy�� ,4 . � r� i - ��j r3.�..'�`,,.
l../ �p.r_ �S,r' 4j''' .. .� � • }F'�� r . �i � � � � C ' � �'?"� T�
� (�I1,,i'�`t . ��S.rY�tr�.`�?',��f'�►�J ��`•.,�5��`%.� `l��y�_'"i,-�{��i�.-,�
�i�+�I��'. !M� � � r ''r.�(,' �,'� t ,� �`.."��,'. �+ , �� '�"'r�
k�� ° • ! ;� �4.�'.� /�`� ���� y„�� ` ,�y�_Jr i �' }� F�C . ��� :� : .�,� k.?�.
�'��a: t � � �� ��y:_ r. .;��,4 . e� t . !., N i.� d �
.��r�. .��. ,�, rq-. r ;,.• y i�� '1 � � _� ��+:.
r '( M x�s r� � p �, .`,'�jl Y r. �� �„�
/r.� . � �%Y� f � ?-'�1� . �? � r 7$ . +s. ..i/
� '6�' � � ' _ � x �r . �/A� r�• ; f�;P ` P� .��++��r�
�� `, . � �e' j .. , t � � � �X y� ,
,:�� '� � � , K� + ,./ � � �. _ � j,��� y--� �:.r� ; ",, gE
�i�y� i>�;,: �� ' , ,` �l t- �� "F•��.I%:�'��.�
�"� � �>„4 .��� . . ' -r� � ' � � §. ��1r�1"�r
�� •' .r� ,�,
: .�: �, � : � , �.►..� ;,, � � ,,�.� +�t►-- � -�+ ,-=�:'r' ,
y� �� p 4 i �.�, � . y -
y +�r. ..�.-_] -.
��1����� � pt���_�e�t�, 'vr ti- J. r'.���' . ; �`,� ' ���'�"o.
.,� g� _�`r,. . „�„ I �� , �—,�+., �. ,. B. Transect 36, Shovel Test 2

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, I 27
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Lisa O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. Laboratory of Anthropology Series
Report 8. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Barefoot, Daniel W.
1998 Touring North Carolina's Revolutionary War Sites. John. F. Blair, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina.
Bradley, Dawn M. and Laura Lautzenheiser
2007 Archaeological Identification Survey, Proposed Nicholson's Point, Currituck
County, North Carolina. Report submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Report available from Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina.
Butchko, Thomas
1991 Forgotten Gates: The Historical Architecture of a Rural North Carolina County.
Gates County Historical Society, Gatesville, North Carolina.
1992 Historic and Architectural Resources of Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 1793-
1943. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation
Form. Privately Prepared.
Butler, Lindley S.
1989 North Carolina Genesis: Seventeenth-Century Albemarle County. Perquimans
County Restoration Association, Hertford, North Carolina.
Child, Kathleen, William Lowthert IV, Ellen Saint Onge, Brad Burkholder, Chris Heidenrich,
and Marvin Brown
2002 Archeological Reconnaissance Survey, Archeological Phase I Survey, and
Architectural Inventory Survey of Outlying Landing Field C in Washington
County, North Carolina and Architectural Inventory Survey of Outlying Landing
Field E in Craven County, North Carolina. Report available from R. Christopher
Goodwin & Associates Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

:
Claggett, Stephen R., John S. Cable, Curtis E. Larsen, and Wilmington District United States
Army Corps of Engineers
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the
North Carolina Pledmont. Report available from Commonwealth Associates,
Pennsylvania State University.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society. New Series 54(5):1-130.
Cook, Cindy and Michael Hill
1984 The Hyde County Archaeological Project, Hyde County, North Carolina. National
Park Service Suvey and Planning Grant. Hyde County Society and County of
Hyde, North Carolina.
Corbitt, David L.
1987 The Formation ofNorth Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Daniel, Randolph I.
1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
2006 Three Fluted Points from the Hardaway Site, North Carolina. North Carolina
Archaeology 55:103-111.
Davis, R.P. Stephen and I. Randolph Jr. Daniel
1990 Projectile Point Classification Project: The Classification of Projectile Points in
Existing Archaeological Collections from North Carolina. Research Laboratories
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Federal Writers Project
1939 North Carolina: A Guide to the Old North State. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Gardner, William, William P. Barse, and Timothy Thompson
1985 A Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Selected Locations in Bertie
County, North Carolina. Report prepared for Virginia Electric Power Company
and Envirosphere Company. Report available from Thunderbird Archaeological
Assoiciates, Inc., Woodstock, Virginia.

PLYMOUTH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SURVEY, 2(�
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Glover, Gerold F.
� 2005 Archaeological Study, New Visitor's Center and Rest Area at the Intersection of
US 158 and NC 168, Federal Aid Project NHS-158(25), State PYoject No. WBS
#36400.1.1, Currituck County, TIP No. K-4700. Report prepared by NCDOT,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neil W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens Anderson: An Archaeological Study of the Intet�riverine Piedmont.
Anthropological Studies 4. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Green, Paul R.
1986 The Archaeology of "Chowanoke ": Results of the 1983-1984 Investigations at
Mount Pleasant and Liberty Hill, Hertford County, North Carolina. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Haley, Drucilla G. and Raymond A. Winslow, Jr.
1982 The Historic Architecture of Perquimans County, North Carolina. Precision
Printing, Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
Hardesty, Donald
2000 Assessing Site Significance: a Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. A1taMira
Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Harmon, M.A., R.J. Snedeker, and A.S. Ashcraft
1995 Archaeological Investigation of 31 CV160: A Coastal Plain Tar Kiln,
Compartment 9, Croatan Ranger District, Croatan National Forest, Creaven
County, North Carolina. Report prepared for and available from the U.S. Forest
Service, Washington, D.C.
Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 YYoodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Hobbs, Kermit and William A. Paquette .
1987 Suffolk: A Pictorial History. Donning Publishing Company, Norfolk, Virginia.

C1�
Johnson, Clint
1996 Touring the Carolinas' Civil War Sites. John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern
United States, Bloomington, Indiana.
Keane, Beth W.
1998 Hertford Historic District: National Register Nomination Form. Retrospective.
National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C.
King, Thomas
1998 Cultural Resource Laws and Practice: An Introductory Guide. A1taMira Press,
Walnut Creek, California.
Lawson, John
1709 A New Voyage to Carolina. Republished 1967. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Martin, Tracy
2008 Refming the Deep Creek Definition: An Examination of the Deep Creek
Ceramics from the Parker and Barber Creek Sites. North Carolina Archaeology
57:78-96.
Mathis, Mark A.
1976 Preliminary Analysis: HistoYical and Cultural Yalues, Bennetts and Sarem
Creeks. North Carolina Division of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
McAvoy, Joseph M. and Lynn D. McAvoy
1999 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,
Virginia. Research Report Series No. 8. Virginia Department of Historic
Resources, Richmond, Virginia.
Middleton, Arthur Pierce
1984 Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era. The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

PLYMOUTH MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT SURUEY, I 31
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Modlin, Betsy, Frances Jones, and Shirleyan B. Phelps, eds.
1998 Washington County: A Tapestry. Washington County Board of Commissioners,
Plymouth, North Carolina.
Oliver, Billy A.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point
Sequence. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy
S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Parry, William and Robert Kelly
1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core
Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. West
View Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Phelps, David S.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and
Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina, an Archaeological Symposium,
edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey L. Crow, pp. 1-51. North Carolina Division
of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Potter, Stephen R.
1982 An Analysis of Chicoan Settlement Patterns. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Savage, Beth L. and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register of
Historic Places, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Schiffer, Michael
1977 Conservation Archaeology: a Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies.
Academic Press, New York.
Soil Survey Staff
2015 Web Soil Survey - Home. Electronic document,
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/homepage.htm?target_app=web_soil surv
ey_application_1s1w1d5xqltck4jr4crzplko, accessed February 6, 2015.

32
Tant, Phillip L.
1981 Soil SurVey of Washington County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.
Thomas, Gerald
1996 Divided Allegiances: Bertie County in the Civil War. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh, Norfh Carolina.
Thompson, Priscilla M., Susan J. Eggert, and J. Ames Thompson
1987 Reconnaissance Survey of the City of Chesapeake. Prepared for the City of
Chesapeake and the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, Richmond,
Virginia. Report prepared by The History Store.
Town of Plymouth
2015 Plymouth, NC, Visitor Info. Electronic document,
� http://www.visitplymouthnc.com/visitorinfo/default.asp, accessed July 29, 2015.
United States Census Bureau
2015 State and County Quick Facts, Washington County, North Carolina. Electronic
document, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37187.htm1, accessed July
29, 2015.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In
The Prehistory of North Carolina, an Archaeological Symposium, pp. 53-81.
North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Ward, H. Trawick and R. P. Stephen Davis
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Watson, Alan D.
1982 Bertie County: A Brief History. Division of Archives and History, North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
1987 Perquimans County.: A Brief History. Division of Archives and History, North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Attachment F
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request

Appendix 1- REQUEST FOR CORPS JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD)
To: District Name Here
• I am requesting a JD on property located at: �ossP�Ymo�+na��ortRoaa
(Street Address)
City/Township/Parish: P�Ym���n COUfIt)/: Washington State: Nc
Acreage of Parcel/Review Area for JD: 3.�2
Section: Township: Range:
Latitude (decimal degrees): 3s.e�3„a Longitude (decimal degrees): -�s.�sosoa
(For linear projects, please include the center point of the proposed alignment.)
• Please attach a survey/plat map and vicinity map identifying location and review area for the JD.
• 01 currently own this property. _ I plan to purchase this property.
� I am an agent/consultant acting on behalf of the requestor.
D Other (please explain):
• Reason for request: (check as many as applicable)
�]✓ I intend to construct/develop a project or perForm activities on this parcel which would be designed to
avoid all aquatic resources.
01 intend to construcUdevelop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be designed to
avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
�I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may require
authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional
aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting process.
01 intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may require authorization from
the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
� I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the U.S. which is
included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
DA Corps JD is required in order to obtain my local/state authorization.
L] I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps confirm that
jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
Q I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
0 Other:
• Type of determination being requested:
� I am requesting an approved JD.
01 am requesting a preliminary JD.
�I am requesting a"no permit required" letter as I believe my proposed activity is not regulated.
I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information to inform my decision.
By signing below, you are indicating that you have the authority, or are acting as the duly authorized agent of a
person or entity with such authority, to and do hereby grant Corps personnel right of entry to legally access the
site if needed t6 perform the JD. Your signature shall be an affirmation that you possess the requisite property
rights to request a JD on the subject property.
"Signature: Date:
• Typed or printed name: R.cieme��R�aaie
COfllpBfly fl8flle: c�earwater Environmenta� consu�tants, Inc.
IQC�df@SS: 3z claylon Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Daytime phone no.: eze-ssa-saoo
Efll81� 8ddf@SS: [e-mail]
•Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Final Rule for 33 CFR Parts 320-332.
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine whether there are any aquatic resources within the project
area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public, and may be
made available as part of a public notice as required by federal law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in
the approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the DistricPs website and on the Headquarters USACE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be
issued.

Appendix 2- PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
C3Td:C�Z�1�1`171►13��i]il
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 3/27/2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD. PlymouthMunicipalAirport(Mr.CurtisPotter),1069PIymouthAirportRd,Plymouth,NC27962
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: (vC County/parish/borough: �/aSi11Cl9t011 c�ty: Plymouth
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
�at.: 35.813118 �ong.: -76.760804
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Conaby Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLI�:
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: '
❑■ Field Determination. Date(s): April 25, 2017
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site Latitude Longitude Estimated amount Type of aquatic Geographic authority
number (decimal (decimal of aquatic resource resource (i.e., wetland to which the aquatic
degrees) degrees) in review area vs. non-wetland resource "may be"
(acreage and linear waters) subject (i.e., Section
feet, if applicable) 404 or Section 10/404)

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre-
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
� Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, Topo, Aerial, Soil, Delineation
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
� Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
� Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
� Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
� USGS NHD data.
� USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
�■ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24k; Plymouth West Quad
� Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
�!
�
State/local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
� 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
� Photographs: � Aerial (Name & Date): NCCGIA (2015)
or � Other (Name 8� Date): Site Photographs, April 2017
� Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
� Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later iurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

urisdictional Determination ReQuest
US Army Corps
01 Englneers�
Wilmington Distrid
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.armv.miUMissions/Regul�rvPermitPro�sam/Contact/CountvLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number. [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina27587
General Number. [phone]
Fax Number. [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY F`IELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number. [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D— PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the deternunation, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D- NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
street Address: 1069 Plymouth Airport Road
B.
C.
City, State: Plymouth, NC
county: Washington
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 6765.00-47-4125
REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: R. Clement Riddle (ClearWater Env.
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
: : .•: •:��
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
� I am the current property owner. '
� I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultantl
I�I
n
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain.
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATIONZ
Name: Plymouth Municipal Airport
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
1069 Plymouth Airport Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
N/A
N/A
I Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
z Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/ParceUTax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION3,a
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
R.Clement Riddle
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner ✓0 Authorized Agent�
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
� I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
� I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
� I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
� I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
� I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section lO list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
8 A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
QI believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
� Other:
For NCDOT requests following the cunent NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet. �
5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JiJRISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
� I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminarv JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
� I am requesting that the Corps provide an anproved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Deternunation (AJD) is a deternunation that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the lunits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for pernut
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter OS-
02).
� I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQiJESTS
� Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area 3•72 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
� Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: 35.813118
Longitude: `76.760804
� A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than l 1x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidaUnavigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminarv Jurisdictional Deternunations:
■ Wetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
� Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.armv.miUMissions/Re ug latorv-Permit-
Program/Juri sdicti on/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
aCompleted appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminarv Jurisdictional Determination Form� and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDS' please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination FormB
� Vicinity Map
� Aerial Photograph
� USGS Topographic Map
� Soil Survey Map
� Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
� Landscape Photos (if taken)
� NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
� NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
� Other Assessment Eorms
' www.saw.usace.armv.mil/Porta1s159/docslregulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL 08-02 App A Prelim JD Form fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.armv.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Pernut-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your requestto determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project azeasubject to federal jurisdiction undertheregulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public onthe District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Plymouth Municipal Airport Proposed Staging Area (+/- 3.72 AC)

Plymouth Municipal Airport Proposed Staging Area (+/- 3.72 AC)
`' _; �� ' :••l_ ` �°����- .
�' ` � � � �"� `� i Conaby Creek
\��., • ! -- ' • •- ;�BMxy r1,�I._ _ �•����
` � ���� ��1��� � ��� I�1 `C•`�r
i �!
? � . j �1 - # � 1 t ' �4 C
. ;�, <�' /` � C�: �� 114Si' i �'� c �
. )if' r I/ ' _ r�- i�. V v
'�J, �y� � i �II e ���, Y�`
'��i �, — – ; p
. %i :, 1', � I PMZAirport Property �I i; uq n
i� �I r p
t 1 N
� �
' �1 � �, ' .. I" � I : u 11
'� I a i
iQ:�-. . 1 � 1'.'v,'� �� , �I � •
�i � 1 �, 1:
� . �I �� � , � _/.� __._ ___ '
' �'�, j Proposed Staging Area �f � / /
�`./ �+ P ! �I -
,. Boundary �
� ��T � f� .., � _ � r_ I � - _ _ � . � 3 Y _ " .. �
• • •• 11 � r•� /
� �, � ,I �-, ;
�p:.
. • ;/� � ; � ^', l;' -'' ;` I
' o ' �
. . • v /r / / ,,
. n ',
_Y
� � _ ;;:: J
� , . = �} �, � , ;'
.�(� � � �� � � �/' � �`
t.: •
�. \ _� �3 . � i�` � Plpiautfi MunKip�
�t _ �� . . - ; Aiq)ort
`�6.-' :, ,Cem- . . . �: J �;t r __
' } +' , '' i— .,'
� • -i' •« -: - �1 ' . � \ • �. .,
� \, • l� l� \i b�, ,� �
i `, ` \:�. • � ! .� %' 1 %h - �x
� � • _. � •: � `�
- t � _ �i ���� ��•— — , ��'`� dM � ��ll a'
. • � `` �1 U1 � a
•� �` �) . . + � � j i
• . , � ,�;. `�I ��
. , 1 � 11 U J �
. . ` . .� o
� \ � �� ' . 'I�f, l 74� ,r /, � . P I ,
� :
i O � . • ,1, ji ����
•i. ; i �r• N
� /� �' � . . ���'1,', � �-_ � ss r,
Legend :�`�� ay°° % � n �
�,,�� i� " � t.
�
•
� �_ _� Proposed Staging Area • �,� � �
---, • � % 0 500 1,000 2.000
�-- ---, PMZ Airport Property '. `.�. ''i Feet .
r w�n by: KAV 327.1 ' ECProjactq 887 � ry-. �
i
wasn�ngt�n ����,�,��. C�earWater l IS<;S Topographic �1ap
North C�trolina Ph�mouth West Qu.id
,, c i�,����, s��,����
Ashccille_Anrthl:uolina'ridUl FI�U�f 2

Plymouth Municipal Airport Proposed Staging Area (+/- 3.72 AC)
r•-�- _ _ , _
�.�.'
Y ;;,;� �- � , .'`,�- `. . ��- s .�,L-'. -.�
,.— . . ; ...
- � .�.: � ��
Proposed Staging Area i
Boundary � + . �
ti — �'' , ��'
�=�r: �� �� �
s*�� * � +' �` ,�.
i ' �,
a f , �i.,y� �.
, �'}� �, )'� �'f:*, . �
�iQ , ' •�'
+Y {' � ��, �R .���
, ��1_� � 1 ',� � - f
,?,:>,. � . . �. , � ' /}�.; . , ,
I Y i' /� ��� E- ��1�
�� T k�'f
J r /
b � �� f ;- i
�w: . _ �.
>
� -
.� (/^� '.t +— � + .�
r i �
� :N� �l..�J�-�Y•. 'S• --�
I � �- � Gt�. 1 � �,
'.[ � . �' �
�7 � t. ' . .'J'.�F . r �. �. � .
. � ! . u_ • S ; •
� M 'J
•� ) .
J ��, ,f' :f p�� '..� ' �. � 1��. . .
� l �.
- � f� 'j� :� �` ! �!' '
1�.�,-: s ' +
i• .�� y�i� „��,{'�'' �•, ��,',,� •` -
� �.t 'a��r'J � �^• �� � ,
. , - . 'T ,j- l: l,(, -�R+c3 � . ..�.,• . i . . . .
,"� � '� s �lr,� t4 ! {:� t" ��, '
.. , � 4 r� . ..
j �� . r�'3. G �'y�' 4 .° ..
.•i � ` � A � s� . �, �
c � '�lq, ,=�r� ,. _,, �' r
,�';,��"� �'• � � �
".�'� � , �a '� � .x�, '� ' - ;
�"; ` ". `.� a:`-1� 3+: � "
#� � , . '� ; �r' ` � .
� '' �` � , � .
�: � ' , �� � s �� �..' - � �
l � - - ' ,� y � + � .� �+.� ,� , ' r �� �- �
.,., . ..• i . . � �...�� . ,/.
• `t.
F �
, _ "y '� � .- ? ' "' ,� b : � r: . _
' - r : �k •. ,��.. � i �' �.
. �� �r� :
.. - � � JP, '.'! � }.� �' � /� ` _�
. �
t,..i+�� _ ".4t k . _ `'?ti �.��� �y,' , . 1�
.. •�y ' j•;_,�.�C��,��,�.� ,f .
� ' _ . . � t �� ,<� i�. N •
A: ---�.. - � 7�,' `.:.� `� �� �
t �e.�. � - _c<i�%i'i�i., j. ' -
Legend ���'-� ' `
--------, o so ioo 200
L____.._� ProposedStagingArea Feet
EC Prqectq 867 � , . . �
wash;n�,�n �o�,,,�y. C�earWater Aerial Photograph
North Carolina NCCGIA (2015)
3? Cla�lon Svice� �
Ashevillc, Nnrth Carolin:+ 28501 Figure 3

Plymouth Municipal Airport Proposed Staging Area (+/- 3.72 AC)
ProposedStagingArea I
Boundary \ �
, `�'�,
wash�n��on c�u„t�. C�earWater USDA Soils Map
North Carolina Fieure 4
s? ci�y«�� s«<�-�
.4sheville, North Carolina 2880i

Plymouth Municipal Airport Proposed Staging Area (+/- 3.72 AC)
�unsaa�onai weaanes ara .enen oemeea on Polentially.luri}dic�iunxl \Fa�er
Nls map M1a�e Eeen IaateC winm suEmeler
xmraryutilinnqaTnmb�emepU�nggraOeG�oCai �'�I�811t1(1���) SIfC.l�ll(�,�')
PosnlonNg System (GPS) and Ine suDsaquem
tirterantel cartection W Ihal Ea�a GPS ponis �'�� - -
1M13y CETOf19VdlE �lfl(9RpC[d�IP BROIS 411Q IO
ropog aphy vegelatve mver, anNor mulupa�� �e � - - -
sigrel arrar
Nore The illuSValeE welland end Aream
bcaUons are approximale. iMse area Ia�e ���OI;II - IOfAI -
oean nayyiG io Uie riea�, noweae. mer na e nci ..
pe2n SVNByeC. f�AYIWB� Clea VW el '�
Envvmmanlei Consullanls. Irc. (6EC) s
con(tlenl In ow as5essment Ine US Mmy Corys I
q En9irie¢n (CMOs) s t1�9 oNy agenCy Ih31 Cd ��
make final aeciswns mgardng � nsEdonal ,i
wetlentl ena waters W Ne US tlerneefons �.
Tperelore, eA pRlimmary Eetem�inatiau a�e �
6UqEC1 IO Ci1811y2 Ill1111 NTIIBII v2f1(ICd�i0l1 IS r }
oMalnatl GEG nrongly recommerMs ihai wm�en
venfiCelion be OOteiiteC INm tl�e Corys pnof la
f =����; #� 1 ' e' � � � '' �;
.:; � P
�" �r -'� ',�
'S 1���t .� I`� S' a b
- r �_a} -� A .'. ��i;
' �fi 1 , Y �•t Jf�
.. f ' 4 '�` ' �y�
f ` ' ,��!+. . . .� {��; r� .
� 4:
., i{ ; � ,
S 1r. ' i .
�� � ���
.. � M1 : (� � -�
�; , Yf,.. a " T ��
� R �
ti�
tloang an �he prapeM. �e9mning aM sna work, �
a makirg any iege� rei�anre on ws ae�elmrzaoon x
inis maP was preparee DY CEG us�ng Ine best �,. ' '_ a.2yj�
inlamau0n evalatle �o CEC e1 Ine ome al �: q.
protludlon. THs map Is lor inlormabovi '
puryoses onry ene s'wWa noi ne useE m �I��Y � ` j
delermirie Meciu DounGanes. maAvaYs. GmpenY . '
EourMary tines, rwr legal Easmptions. Tpis mep .�«�� �•.` \� ,y'
Nidll OOl EB CM6INBG �O �@ dO OIfOBI SUN¢y U '.� �
xry eaw aepfaea. � '
So�rce Deia Topo is han WasNrpmn Canry r � �
F'�o,. ea Sla^ g 4 ea pvmaeU Ey AVCON , �
. _..� rr..g�r�...,.: 41-'015) . -
..� j,��
� ,
� ifylyr r
:1 . �':; i� �.
I
Legend
� �'1 �F
0
0
^R"` � ��,
` ��
� _
� `
F� * Data Form
" r---1
a, �__� ProposedStagingArea
• � Contours
Washington Count�.
North Carolina
9
'. At
C�earWaEer
;z c�avmn tivrct
Ashccillt. North Carolina 2SRUI
Proposed Staging Area
Boundary
�T
�4
"i/� r
-'��� r���;-. �
N
�
50 100 200
Stresm & Wetland
Delineation Map
Delineated April 25, 20U
Fi�ure �
�

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: $67/PMZ City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 4/25/2017
ApplicanUOwner: Plymouth Municipal Airport State: NC Sampling Point: UPL1
Investigator(s): �Y� B� Section, Township, Range: �
Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex/Flat Slope (%): ��%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat: 35.813178 �on9: -76.760967 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Pt - Portsmouth Fine Sandy Loam NWI ciassification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
UPL1 (Upland 1).
HYDROLOGY
Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Yes X No W�thin a Wetland? Yes No X
Yes No X —
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondarv Indicators (minimum of two reauiredl
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aqolvl II Surtace Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (A1) 1❑--� Aquatic Fauna (613) ❑� Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Q High Water Table (A2) 1�---If Mari Deposits (615) (LRR U) ❑ Drainage Pattems (B10)
Q Saturation (A3) 1u--r Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
� Water Marks (61) 1L�J Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) II Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
t❑�- Sediment Deposits (62) LJ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) � Cra�sh Burrows (CS)
LJ Drift Deposits (B3) Q Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) II Saturation �sible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
a Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Thin Muck Surtace (C7) II Geomorphic Position (D2)
a Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
a Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) II FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
a Water-Stained Leaves (B9) II Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surtace Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present7 Yes No X
includes ca illa frin e
Descritie Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. samPiin9 Point: uP��
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1.
2.
3.
4. N/A
5.
6.
7.
8.
Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test worksheet:
) % Cover S�ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (A)
50°/a of total cover:
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 �
1.
2.
3. N/A
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
3PClaytanStreet 70fi9P1ymauNAb{
PlymouN, NC 37f
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
� Festuca sp. 75 Yes
2. Ranunculus repens 10 No
g Taraxacum officinale 5 No
4 Trifolium repens 5 No
5. Plantago major 5 No
g. Fragaria virginiana 2 No
� Verbascum thapsus 2 No
8.
9. _
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover: 52
Woodv �ne Stratum (Plot size: 30 �
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FAC
FACU
FACU
FAC
FACU
FACU
104 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 2�
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: _
Remarks: (If obseryed, list morphological adaptations below).
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1 �B�
0.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species � x 1 = �
FACW species � x 2 = �
FAC species 15 X g= 45
FACU species 14 X q= 76
UPL species � x 5 = �
Column Totals: 29 �q� 121 �g�
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4•��
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3- Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Probiematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: UPL 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 6/1 98 10YR 6/4 2 C M Sandy loam Disturbed soil
4-18 10YR 4/3 95 10YR 5/8 5 C M Sandy loam
'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Q Histosol (A1) � Polyvalue Below Surtace (S8) (LRR S, T, U) T❑� 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
� Histic Epipedon (A2) ,Q Thin Dark Surtace (S9) (LRR S, T, U) u 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
� Black Histic (A3) � Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
� Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) � Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _�❑I Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
�Stratified Layers (A5) �✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) u Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) � Redox Dark Surtace (F6) (MLRA 153B)
D 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) � Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) � Redox Depressions (FS) � Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) � Marl (F10) (LRR U) � Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surtace (A11) � Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
� Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ,Q Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D✓ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) � Umbric Surtace (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) � Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) � Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
D✓ Sandy Redox (S5) f] Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
�✓ Stripped Matrix (S6) � Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
�✓ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

"., .:
�: . _
, ,a,.= � ._
�; „�� ;.�.- .
���� � `�',pf _
,, . p .t .
,� ,
} _ -
S..r � . _ �r� : .�.. "; � .. - � � .
- : . . � �' � . . . � . _
_ � - ., � ��� •.. .�. ' . -. � ,�.�•'.. `
;r ..
ir'- "':k• .
... M4�u't'� .+,f�'.
> jrv �
"'" �, ::.� ��
_; ,
� ..� . ♦.'Ih!
� � ' ' i.T� �
�� .t
b. .. ..wt. . .. ..
.. ' . . .. - : .� :' .. . . , � . � .
• . ._. y �. . , �
M ( � .
� ..i1 1 � .' . . . • .' ..
1
�'::"w,�,d. `s�:;.w �.�,�� r��c4:�?�du .�77�i;A'"�,
�"rsr. s. �' ' ; ' �,
�'Md M _ �u.� '� M+ .y ..
a� �� � �71' �A'� .i.: I'k b�� � � �, vM4�.
� I
��,i'. �i_'..�.�.. ...i. f f �_.q�S�2'.. . r . �1 �..�.
Phrnu I. Prupu,ed Sl���ing Area, Vicw Southwrat.
.. . -----:=5:.
•-�: ��..�. �'� . . . � .- . - ... � -� �.. - ..`- .�--.: ..�.
,- . ` . . K vr_ _ ` �' ,
� '�1 ' � ��� � - � �-
_ $A . . ' e` S . •l . � 'F
_ -. : -� 'w`. � � ' �; � r ) 'l:
� ' . - . . � ... a 1�F s�. 4 �� ::b:w,e �'.
. it.. T d va.,far . > �.,
..� t . 2 r . ...` . �, _'
;" , Y. vrs e r "�'" � ry ' I���.� '`s�a��J'., tl I�at�
r.,;_ � ..; ��rv �J' z.,+_^, L -,L� e � :.� �.,. .
..''? w ',I�rq ./"'j=�la� 'ti .a, ,`' w. 9 Yk" a f,:, .
"+Y�: .`�"s„yrr�6' ' 't`.n�. ° ,'T'a " 4 � �y
— �� — . t _�a .. � �a -� , . _
Phvtu'_. I'rupu,cd Stagin`_:Arr�e. A�ic�� tiouthc�i,i.

Attachment G
Proposed Compensatory Mitigation & NCWAM Form

From: Vico Construction Corporation
To: Kaylie Yankura
Subject: RE: Plymouth, NC - Wetland Mitigation Credits
Date: Friday, April 13, 2018 3:05:14 PM
Good Afternoon Kaylie,
In response to your inquiry, we offer the following:
We have over 600 Non-Riparian, 200 Riparian, and 3000 LF Stream Credits.
We do differentiate between Non-Riparian and Riparian credits. Non-Riparian credits are priced at $
25,000.00 per credit, and Riparian credits are priced at $ 37,000.00 per credit. We service HUC
Codes 03010205, 03010203, and 03010107 in North Carolina. There is no minimum credit
requirement for purchase.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to provide
mitigation services for your project.
Beverly M. White
Manager - Accounting / Sales
GDSRB
P.O. Box 6186
Chesapeake, VA 23323
Email: �dsrb2la��mail.com
[phone]
[phone] Fax
From: Kaylie Yankura [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 2:10 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Plymouth, NC - Wetland Mitigation Credits
Good afternoon,
We are involved with an upcoming project located in Plymouth, North Carolina. Proposed impacts
associated with the project total 0.13 acres. Does the Great Dismal Swamp Restoration
Bank/Timberlake Farm have wetland credits available for purchase? If so, can I obtain details
regarding pricing and whether we would need to round up to a quarter acre?
Thanks,
Kaylie

[�earWater
__ ��-_�Y��.�.::}Fv
32 Clayton Street ���
Asheville, NC 28801
Office:828-698-9800
Mobile: [phone]
kavlie(�cwenv.com

From: Vico Construction Corporation
To: Kavlie Yankura
Subject: RE: Plymouth, NC - Wetland Mitigation Credits
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:41:55 AM
Yes, that is correct. You may purchase 0.13 credits from our mitigation bank. You do not have to
round up to anything. Thank you.
Beverly
From: Kaylie Yankura [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 7:41 AM
To: Vico Construction Corporation
Subject: RE: Plymouth, NC - Wetland Mitigation Credits
Hi Beverly,
Thank you for the information! Just for my clarification, are we able to purchase 0.13 credit, or
would we have to round up and purchase 1 credit?
Kaylie
From: Vico Construction Corporation <vicoacctC�eaviola.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 3:05 PM
To: Kaylie Yankura <kaylieC�cwenv.com>
Subject: RE: Plymouth, NC- Wetland Mitigation Credits
Good Afternoon Kaylie,
In response to your inquiry, we offer the following:
We have over 600 Non-Riparian, 200 Riparian, and 3000 LF Stream Credits.
We do differentiate between Non-Riparian and Riparian credits. Non-Riparian credits are priced at $
25,000.00 per credit, and Riparian credits are priced at $ 37,000.00 per credit. We service HUC
Codes 03010205, 03010203, and 03010107 in North Carolina. There is no minimum credit
requirement for purchase.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to provide
mitigation services for your project.
Beverly M. White
IVlanager - Accounting / Sales
GDSRB
P.O. Box 6186
Chesapeake, VA 23323

Email: gdsrb2(c�gmail.com
[phone]
[phone] Fax
From: Kaylie Yankura [mailto:kaylieCa�cwenv.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 2:10 PM
To: vicoacctCa�eaviola.com; eavCa�eaviola.com
Subject: Plymouth, NC - Wetland Mitigation Credits
Good afternoon,
We are involved with an upcoming project located in Plymouth, North Carolina. Proposed impacts
associated with the project total 0.13 acres. Does the Great Dismal Swamp Restoration
Bank/Timberlake Farm have wetland credits available for purchase? If so, can I obtain details
regarding pricing and whether we would need to round up to a quarter acre?
Thanks,
Kaylie
�ee�r����I/ater
�� ��
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Office: 828-698-9800
Mobile: [phone]
kavliela�cwenv.com

JSACE AID #
Project Name
ApplicanUOwner Name
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
County
I-1 Yes 6a No
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
NCDWR#
Plymouth Municipal Airport
Plymouth Municipal Airport
Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Roanoke
Washington
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NCDWR Region
ude/Lonqitude (deci-deqrees)
W1
KAY, BWY/CEC
Conabv Creek
35.817027. -76.757453
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salYintrusion, etc.)
• HabitaUplant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? � Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? �Yes ❑No If Yes, check ail that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNR)
❑ Publicly owned property
� N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listecl stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes � No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes � No
Does the assessment area experience overbank floodinq durinq normal rainfall conditions? � Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area 6ased on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
�B �B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage-Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surtace water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surt Sub
❑A �A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
�B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically; alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. �A ❑A Majority of wetiand with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
�C �C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
�C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. �A Sandy soil
�B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. �A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soif ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. �A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surfl and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
�A �A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at IeasY one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
�A ❑A �A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C �C ❑C Z 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E �E �E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F �F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment arealwetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
�Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
bufferjudgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A z 50 feet '
�B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet .
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet �
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by tlitches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels[braids for a total width.
�s 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
�Yes �No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
�Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area —wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only) '
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A z 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
�F �F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condilion metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
�A Evidence of short-duration inundation (� 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, withoul evidence of inundalion
�C Evidence ot long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or mae)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant grow[h since deposition).
❑A Sediment deposition is not excessive, bul at approximately natural levels.
�B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland typelwetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each oolumn. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates threa aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the welland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) ('rf applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaivalion areas. If assessment area is dearcut, select "K° for the FW column.
WT WC FW(ifapplicable)
�A ❑A ❑A 2 500 aaes
�B ❑B ❑B From 100 W< 500 acres
❑C �C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D �D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E �E ❑E From 10 to <25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G �G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
�H ❑H �H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
�I ❑I �I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
�J �J �J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is Gearcu[
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland rype conditfon metrie (evaluate for Pocosi�s only)
�A Pocosin is the full exlent (Z 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin typa is < gp% of the full exlent of ils natural landscape size.
13. Connecttvity to Other Natural Areas — landseape eondition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each eolumn). Involves a GIS eifort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether lhe wetland is well connected (Well) and/a loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
nalwally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are tormed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors lhe width of a four-lane road w wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasWre and agricutture), or open water > 300
feel wide.
Well Loosely
�A ❑A t 500 acres
�B ❑B From 100 to < 5p0 acres
�C �C From 50 to < 100 acres
�D ❑D From 10 to < 50 acres
�E �E < 10 acres
❑F �F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
�Yes �No Wetland type has a surtace hydrology connection to open waterslsVeam a Utlal wetlantls.
14. Edge Effect —wetland type condition metric (sklp for all marshes and Estua�ine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS etfort with field adjustment. Estimate distance 6om wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
rwn-forested areas t 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regulaAy maintained utilily line corridors, and clearcuts. Consider
the eighl main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cul,
select option'C'
❑A 0
�B 1104
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metrle (skip for all marshas and Pine Flat)
❑A VegetaUon is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
�B Vegetation is diiferent from reference condilion in species diversity or proportions, but stlll largely composed of native species
characteristic of lhe weUand type. This may inGude communilies of weedy native species that develop aftei clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but rwt dominant, over a large poAion ot the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely aitered from reference in composition, a expected species are unnaturally absent (planled stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), a exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metrie (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
�B Vegetatio� diversity is tow or has > 10°k to 50% cover o( exotics.
�C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 �o cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
�Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
�A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
�
AA WT
o❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
�❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
c� ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
o �A ❑A
� �B ❑B
� ❑C ❑C
� ❑A �A
.c �B ❑B
� o� o�
� DA ❑A
_ ❑B ❑B
❑C ❑C
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density shrub layer
Shrub layer sparse or absent
Dense herb layer
Moderate density herb layer
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
�B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
�A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not A
21. VegetationlOpen Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
�A ❑B ❑C ❑D
'i ��--, �a�,. ,, I1
� �,�Q'�, .. M, ���°t'�� t �5�� . ,�` 3' �f'��1 �� F{ f ... ��yr��� ��I.'tl6
T � � ,{
� � .� \I�1� v�� ��1 'i �� � ! vt11� � .f���'? � ��'i
/wj J, �, tV�, a` � M� � jt� Iti i .
'Y `�"�/ 't;�,l.[� �}��{i ,.� I� \ — �� Y �r� �� , � �
, �• t� I�a� 1� �I �'V , i.il� �/'I`'���J �1rNi.� * �j�.� N
� �,; y ��,
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and SalUBrackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
�C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W1 Date of Assessment April 25, 2017
Wetland Type Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh Assessor Name/Organization KAY, BWY/CEC
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) �
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Sub-surFace Storage and
Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Particulate Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Physical Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating �ow