New Rail Connector (2)

a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
,?°?v^@
{yam V SFp 1 ???(?
2009
S ?H
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?ry
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CON'PI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 2, 2009
Mr. William Wescott, NCDOT Division 2 Coordinator
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Wescott:
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusions, P-3309AA & P-3309AB
Greenville, NC
Attached for your information is a copy of each of the approved Categorical Exclusions
for the proposed railway improvements. This report records the determination that implementing
the proposed action will not have a significant effect upon the quality of the natural and human
environment.
Sincerely,
?41?11 gk---
Marc Hamel, Rail Project Development Engineer
Environmental and Planning Branch
MH/es
Attachments
cc/atta: Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour
Mr. A. D. Allison, II
Mr. Charles W. Brown
Mr. D.R. Henderson
Mr. C.E. Lassiter, PE
Mr. Don G. Lee, CPESC
Mr. Njoroge Wainaina
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS
1648 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 276999648
Mr. Ron Lucas
Mr. Peter Sandbeck
Mr. David Wainright
Mr. Travis Wilson
Mr. Pete Benjamin
Mr. Harry Hamilton
Mr. Marvin Blount
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

I
Pitt County
Greenville Northern Rail Connector
Greenville, NC
WBS Number: 41910
TIP Numbers: P-3309AA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.I
APPROVED:
Ak ?MMev?
? '7 J
-6-- ,-, Y-v g
Date David B. Foster, P.E., Rail Environmental Programs Manager
Rail Division
North Carolina Department of Transportation
,D
Date hn F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
lO
I
Pitt County
Greenville Northern Rail Connector
Greenville, NC
WBS No. 41910
TIP No. P-3309AA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February 2009
Documentation Prepared By EcoScience: a Division of PBS&J
nu k!'Aw ?6a2f
Elizabeth Scherrer
Project Manager
a
swe??
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Marc Hamel
Rail Project Development Engineer

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Pitt County
Greenville Northern Rail Connector
Greenville, NC
WBS No. 41910
TIP No. P-3309AA
Commitments Developed Throullh Project Development and Design
Q

I
?o
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
February 2009 Page 1 of 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

J
?O
a
a
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................1
A. General Description .............................................................................. ....................................... 1
B. Project Purpose ..................................................................................... ....................................... 1
C. Existing Conditions .............................................................................. ....................................... 1
1. Route Classification ................................................................ ....................................... 1
2. Existing Facility ...................................................................... ....................................... 2
3. Accident Analysis ................................................................... ....................................... 2
4. School Buses ........................................................................... ....................................... 2
II. AL TERNATIVES ..................................................................................... .......................................2
A. No Build Alternative ............................................................................ ....................................... 2
B. Build Alternative .................................................................................. ....................................... 3
1. Proposed Improvements .......................................................... ....................................... 3
2. Design Criteria and Typical Section ....................................... ....................................... 3
3. Right-of-Way and Access Control .......................................... ....................................... 3
4. Drainage Structures ................................................................. ....................................... 3
5. Traffic Conditions ................................................................... ....................................... 3
6. Estimated Costs ....................................................................... ....................................... 3
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study ....................................... ....................................... 4
III. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................ .......................................4
A. Community Characteristics .................................................................. .......................................4
B. Land Use and Economic Effects .......................................................... ....................................... 5
C. Social and Community Impacts ........................................................... ....................................... 5
D. Historic and Cultural Impacts ............................................................... ....................................... 5
1. Archeological Resources ......................................................... ....................................... 6
2. Historic Architectural Resources ............................................. ....................................... 6
E. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ........................................................... ....................................... 6
F. Natural Resources ................................................................................. ....................................... 6
1. Physical Resources .................................................................. .......................................8
a) Physiography and Soils ................................................. .....................................8
b) Water Resources ........................................................... .....................................9
c) Summary of Potential Impacts to Water Resources ..... ................................... 11
2. Biotic Resources ...................................................................... ....................................... 11
a) Terrestrial Communities ............................................... ................................... 11
b) Aquatic Communities ................................................... ................................... 12
c) Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................. ................................... 13
d) Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ................................... ................................... 13
3. Jurisdictional Topics ............................................................... ....................................... 13
a) Waters of the United States .......................................... ................................... 13
b) Riparian Buffers ........................................................... ................................... 14
c) Permit Issues ................................................................. ................................... 15
d) Protected Species .......................................................... ................................... 16
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...................................................................... ....................................... 19
H. Traffic Noise and Air Quality .............................................................. ....................................... 19
1. Geodetic Markers ................................................................................. ....................................... 19
J. Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. ....................................... 19
K. Construction Impacts ............................................................................ ....................................... 20
Greenville Northern Rail Connector iv TIP P-3 309AA Categorical Exclusion
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .........................................................................................20
A. Comments Received .................................................................................................................... 20
B. Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 22
1. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................22
V. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................23
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. USGS Topographic Quadrangle
Figure 3. Build Alternative
Figure 4. Design Criteria and Typical Cross-Section
Figure 5. Community Impact Area
Figure 6. NRCS Soil Map Units
Figure 6a. Pitt County Soil Survey
Figure 7. Surface Waters and Wetlands
APPENDIX B: SCOPING LETTERS
APPENDIX C: USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORMS
NCDWQ WETLAND RATING WORKSHEETS
JD FORM
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Population Change ..................................................................................... ....................................4
Table 2. Population by Age Group and Median Age (2000) ................................... ....................................4
Table 3. Population by Race .................................................................................... .................................... 5
Table 4. Median Household Income (1999 Dollars) ................................................ ....................................5
Table 5. Federally Protected Species listed for Pitt County ...................................... .................................. 16
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County ................................................ .................................. 18
Greenville Northern Rail Connector v TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL CONNECTOR
io
o
in
0
0
in
ID
u
0
i
1
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division (NCDOT) proposes to add a railroad
track connection, known as a wye, joining the CSX Transportation line with the Carolina Coastal Railway
line to improve flow and movement of freight, as well as decrease motorist delays at crossings in
Greenville, NC (Figure 1). The proposed project is located in central Greenville approximately 0.3 mile
southwest of the intersection of West Tenth Street and Green Street (Figure 2). The project study area
(PSA) has been defined by NCDOT as an area approximately 400 feet in width surrounding the proposed
project (Figure 3).
Currently, there is no railroad track connection to permit train traffic moving southbound to eastbound.
Southbound train traffic is hauled through the CSX Transportation/Carolina Coastal Railway railroad
crossing to a small switching yard located between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. Freight cars
maneuver in and out of the railroad sidings as they connect cars to build eastbound trains. This operation
often occurs during peak travel times, blocking the railroad crossings at Fourteenth Street, Howell Street
and Arlington Boulevard. Recent study data show that Fourteenth Street carries approximately 16,000
vehicles per day and Arlington Boulevard carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day; therefore, this
railroad operation has significant impact on vehicle traffic.
B. Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to alleviate traffic congestion by improving movement of freight and
decreasing motorist delays at crossings at Fourteenth Street, Howell Street and Arlington Boulevard. The
project also increases safety by reducing the opportunity for rail and vehicular conflicts. Fourteenth
Street and Arlington Boulevard are both major east-west traffic corridors through Greenville. Both roads
are designated connector corridors, intended to carry high volumes of moderate speed traffic through and
across the Greenville (Greenville 2004). The two major employers in Pitt County, Pitt County Memorial
Hospital and East Carolina University, are within two miles of the PSA. In addition, eight primary and
secondary schools exist within two miles of the PSA.
C. Existing Conditions
1. Route Classification
The PSA contains portions of four roads: Thirteenth Street, Fourteenth Street, Beatty Street, and Pitt
Street. All of the streets, with the exception of Fourteenth Street (SR 1703), are local access streets in
what is predominantly a residential area with some scattered commercial uses. Thirteenth Street, Beatty
Street, and Pitt Street have vehicular traffic volumes of 219, 3,481, and 12,680 vehicles per day,
respectively. Fourteenth Street (Crossing Number 641 614E, Milepost AA 149.9) is considered a major
thoroughfare with average daily traffic of 14,406 vehicles. The Pitt Street and Beatty Street crossings are
equipped with crossbucks, with Fourteenth Street also equipped with gates, flashing lights, and bells.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector I TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
Thirteenth Street does not have a crossing in the PSA. None of the crossings are used by public transit
vehicles or emergency vehicles.
Arlington Boulevard, to the south, is considered a major thoroughfare with 22,000 vehicles per day. This
crossing is equipped with crossbucks, gates, flashing lights, and bells, and averages 4 trains per day.
2. Existing Facility
Current zoning in the immediate vicinity of the PSA is commercial/industrial with some scattered
residential (Greenville 2004). Two existing railroad lines intersect in the PSA: CSX Transportation and
Carolina Coastal Railway. Portions of three existing wyes occupy a large portion of the southern half of
the PSA.
CSXT operates a north/south main track through downtown Greenville. The line runs from Parmele,
N.C. to Elmer at Kinston, N.C. Typical railway traffic includes CSXT Train 727, which travels south into
downtown Greenville. There the train is broken down and rebuilt at the existing switching yard. The
rebuilt train then proceeds north and then east on the existing wye at the CSXT / NS interlocking and on
to the PCS Phosphate facility at Aurora. At times, PCS phosphate will send trains with 100 to 150 loaded
rail cars through Greenville. When the longer trains are switched within the sidings, vehicular traffic is
blocked at the Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and Fourteenth Street crossings.
At the PSA, 24-hour train volumes average 5 (Fourteenth Street), 4 (Beatty Street), and 8 (Pitt Street).
Blockage of the crossings averages four to ten minutes, with queues ranging from5 to 25 minutes.
Vehicles delayed per day average 1,754 at Pitt Street, 47 at Beatty Street, and 768 at Fourteenth Street.
3. Accident Analysis
Since accident data has been collected, five accidents have occurred at the 14'n Street crossing. There
were injuries involved in one accident and all involved property damage. The vehicles involved did not
stop at the railroad crossing, or drove around or through the gate.
One accident has been recorded at the Arlington Boulevard crossing. The accident involved a fatality
when the automobile driver stopped and then proceed across the track.
No accidents have been reported at the Pitt Street or Beatty Street crossings.
4. School Buses
The railroad crossing at Fourteenth Street is on a school bus route. Data on number of school bus trips
per day is not available.
II. ALTERNATIVES
A. No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative was considered but eliminated from future consideration. Based on current
trends, traffic and safety problems would continue to get worse. The No Build Alternative does not meet
the primary purpose and need for this project.
Greenville Northem Rail Connector 2 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
I
I B. Build Alternative
1. Proposed Improvements
Detailed engineering designs have not been completed but the preliminary design consists of construction
of a new wye connection track near the CSX Transportation/Norfolk Southern crossing at grade (Figure
3). The existing highway/railroad at-grade crossing at Pitt Street will be removed.
2. Design Criteria and Typical Section
Please see Figure 4A, Typical Section, for proposed track dimensions.
The freight design speed for the track is 25 miles per hour, which allows a maximum curvature of 10
degrees. The proposed design specifies 2.75 inches of superelevation, using 186-foot spirals, to achieve
the design speed of 25 miles per hour on the 10-degree curve.
The proposed connector will also use #15 Radio Controlled Turnouts to eliminate the need for freight
traffic to stop before using the connector.
The Pitt St grade crossing will be closed.
'a 3. Right-of-Way and Access Control
Right-of-way to be acquired for this project is being provided by the City of Greenville. Roadway
control-of-access issues are not applicable to this railway project.
4. Drainage Structures
A need for an appropriate number of small culverts is anticipated to provide cross-drainage for the
project. The specifications for these drainage structures will be provided with the final design plans.
5. Traffic Conditions
i?
Current average daily traffic at the Pitt Street crossing is 12,680 vehicles per day and eight trains per day.
A 2007 level of service analysis recommended closing the crossing. The crossing condition geometry is
Poor, surface condition is Good, and sight distance is Good.
Current average daily traffic at the Beatty Street crossing is 3,481 vehicles per day and four trains per day.
a A 2007 level of service analysis recommended adding gates and rail improvements. The crossing
condition geometry is Good, surface condition is Good, and sight distance is Good.
At Fourteenth Street, average daily traffic is 14,406 vehicles per day and five trains per day. A 2007 level
of service analysis recommended adding a median barrier. The crossing condition geometry is Good,
surface condition is Fair, and sight distance is Good.
6. Estimated Costs
The preliminary cost estimates are approximately 52,735,000.00 for new connection tracks, radio
controlled switches, right-of-way, and contingency costs. An additional $632,000.00 has been allotted for
new crossties.
I Greenville Northern Rail Connector 3 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
The North Carolina General Assembly has allocated $3.8 million for the Greenville Northern Rail Siding
Project and the Greenville Northern Rail Connector Project. CSXT has also discussed contributions
towards the overall project cost. Additional funding is currently being sought through the Federal grant,
"Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocations" and other sources.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The No Build Alternative was considered but eliminated from future consideration.
III. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Community Characteristics
The project is located in a well-established portion of Greenville. The land use within two miles of the
PSA is primarily used for urban development including a mixture of high, medium, and low density
residential with commercial/industrial interspersed. Some agriculture remains to the west of the PSA
along the city fringe. The project vicinity, for the purposes of describing the community, are the census
blocks which lie within planning regions G (west central) and H (central) as defined in the Greenville
future land use plan (Greenville 2004) (Figure 5).
Fourteenth Street bisects of the PSA, running east-west. Fourteenth Street, Arlington Boulevard south of
the PSA, and Tenth Street north of the PSA are major cast-west travel corridors for Greenville connecting
the more residential and growing southeast to Pitt County Memorial Hospital and other major employers
on the northwest side of the city. Other streets in the immediate vicinity of the PSA provide local access
to existing neighborhood commercial establishments including a grocery/shopping center and a planned
focus area centered approximately at the intersection of Charles Boulevard and Fourteenth Street
(Greenville 2004).
In general, the community in the project vicinity is younger and poorer than Greenville as a whole with a
higher minority population and a population that is not keeping pace with the growth of the surrounding
city (Tables 1 to 4). Many facilities within the project vicinity serve the community including four
recreation centers, government offices, a park, eight secondary or primary schools, two libraries, as well
as the East Carolina University campus.
Table 1. Population Change
Vicinity Greenville Pitt Count North Carolina
1990 9469 46305 108480 6632448
2000 9321 60476 133798 8049313
2006 estimated NA 71211 145619 8856505
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000) and North Carolina Slate Demographics (2008)
Table 2. Population by Age Group and Median Age (2000)
<20 ears 20-44 Years 45-64 ears >64 ears Age
Vicinity 2997 (32%) 3576 (38%) 1670 (18%) 1570( 14%)
Greenville 16602 M 29194 (48%) 9370 (16%) 5310 (9%) M
Pitt County 29953 (22%) 56388 (42%) 25976 (19%) 17082( 13%)

North Carolina
2193360
27%
3078043
38%
1808862
23%
969048
12% 35
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000) and North Carolina Slate Demographics (2008)

Greenville Northern Rail Connector 4 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion I
I
Tahle 11 Pomdation by Race
Vicinit Greenville Pitt Count North Carolina
White Black Other White Black Other White Black Other White Black Other
1439 7942 88 36768 18179 937 70643 35921 1360 5008491 1456323 163823
1990 1% 66% 33% 2% 65% 33% 1% 75% 22% 2%
188 37133 20649 2694 83061 45019 9934 5804656 1737545 403852
2000* t 2% 61% 34% 5% 62% 34% 4% 72% 22% 6%
2006- 43083 23801 6314 88501 49072 11056 6224663 1892469 614049
estimate NA 61% 33% 6% 61% 34% 5% 70% 2l% 9°/a
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000) and North Carolina State Demographics (2008)
•2000 and 2006 White = White Only and Black = Black Only
Table 4. Median Household Income (1999 Dollars)
vicinity Greenville Pitt County I North Carolina
17884* 31322 32868 39184
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000) and North Carolina State Demographics (2008)
-Average of Census Tract (CT) 1 Block Group (BG) 3, CT 1 BG 4, CT I BG 5, CT 7.01 BG 1, CT 7.01 BG 3, CT 7.02 BG I, CT 7.02 BG2, and
CT 7.02 BG 3
B. Land Use and Economic Effects
This project is consistent with existing zoning and future land use plans (Greenville 2004). The project is
not expected to alter land uses in or near the PSA. The proposed project will not decrease roadway
capacities; therefore, the area tax base and future economic opportunity should not be affected.
The project is anticipated to have a positive impact on the local community and the broader Greenville
community due to improved automobile traffic flow in downtown Greenville (see Scoping Letters,
Appendix B).
C. Social and Community Impacts
I The project will not displace any homes or businesses in or near the PSA. One empty warehouse to be
demolished, in the 400 block of West Fourteenth Street, was purchased by the City of Greenville to
prepare for the new Wye project. No change in the visual character of the neighborhood is expected to
result as tracks and another Wye are currently on the same block. The project is designed to speed
commutes along Fourteenth Street and Arlington Boulevard and as such may have some impact on local
travel though peak hour commuters are the target benefactors for the improvements. Access to facilities
in the project vicinity may increase somewhat.
O According to Wayne Bowers, Greenville City Manager, the project will not have a negative impact on the
West Greenville Certified Redevelopment Area or the Center City Revitalization Area (see Scoping
Letters, Appendix B). The City of Greenville supports the rail improvement projects and anticipates
positive impacts on the community.
D. Historic and Cultural Impacts
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 5 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take
into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The project
was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with
the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA procedures.
1. Archeological Resources
The N.C. Office of State Archeology was visited on March 28, 2008. No outstanding archeological
issues were found during map reviews.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
A map review was conducted in SHPO's Survey and Planning Branch on March 26, 2008. One listing
(PT 1728) near the PSA is the boundary of the Tobacco Historic District, which is included in the
National Register of Historic Places. The boundary is at Eleventh Street, approximately 500 feet north of
the PSA.
According to an August 1, 2008 letter from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
(NCDCR), there are several historic buildings within or near the project study area. It was recommended
that the area be surveyed to identify and evaluate any properties that are more than 50 years old to
determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (see seeping letter,
Appendix B).
Subsequent review by the NCDCR indicated that a circa 1925 Masonic meeting house (King Simmons
Lodge) is located on a parcel within the PSA, at 505 West Fourteenth Street. On February 3, 2009,
representatives of the NCDOT, FHWA, and SHPO agreed that there is no adverse effect to the property
since the railroad does not encroach on the property, and the Lodge is screened from the proposed rail line
by a privacy fence and trees (see Appendix B).
The proposed track centerline is approximately 90 feet southwest of the property, and approximately 125
feet southwest of the structure.
E. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The project is not expected to induce growth. The project is located in a mature and stable part of the
Greenville. Though Pitt County is expected to grow 14 percent by 2010 (North Carolina State
Demographics 2008) and Greenville is projected to grow 40 percent by 2011 (Greenville 2004), all the
growth between in Greenville between 1990 and 2000 occurred outside the project vicinity. The
Greenville land use plan targets the majority of the project vicinity for single family residential infill and
revitalized mixed use as well as recreational opportunities in he central business district. This project is
not likely to encourage either goal.
F. Natural Resources
Materials and research data in support of this investigation were derived prior to field investigations from
a number of sources including North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA)
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 6 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion I
r

D
D
U
digital data layers; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) county soil surveys for Pitt County
(USDA 1974); United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles (Greenville
SW [1978] 7.5-minute quadrangle); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) (Greenville SW [1982] 7.5-minute quadrangle); North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) documents (NCDWQ 2003, 2004a, 2006, 2008a, 2008b); and recent aerial
photography (USGS 1998, USGS 2003).
Plant community descriptions are based on the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) utilized by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). When
appropriate community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in the Manual, of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas (Radford et al.
1968), with nomenclature updated where necessary in accordance with A Synonymized Checklist of the
Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (Kartesz 1998). Terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife distribution and habitat use were determined through field observations, evaluation of
habitat types, and available supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 2006, Webster et
al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et al. 1994, and Palmer and Braswell 1995).
Jurisdictional wetlands were delineated using the three-parameter approach set forth in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Jurisdictional "waters of the
United States" other than wetlands were identified in accordance with the NCDWQ Identification
Methods for the Origin of Intermittent and Perennial Streams (NCDWQ 2005). Prior to submittal permit
applications, a final jurisdictional determination for waters of the United States will be required using the
"significant nexus" test set forth in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (USACE) "Memorandum for the Field: Coordination on JDs under CWA Section
404 in light of SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions" (USEPA and USACE 2007).
Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). USACE Routine Wetland Determination
Data Forms were utilized to document evidence of jurisdictional status and jurisdictional area
characteristics of wetlands (Appendix C). North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) wetland rating sheets and the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
(Wetland Functional Assessment Team [WFAT] 2007) (Appendix C) were used to conduct wetland
functional assessments.
A list of federally protected species in Pitt County was obtained from the USFWS (USFWS 2008). In
addition, files maintained by the NCNHP were reviewed on March 21, 2008 for documented occurrences
of state listed or federally listed species and documented locations of significant natural areas.
Field surveys within the PSA were completed in March 2008. The PSA was walked and visually
inspected for significant environmental features. Jurisdictional area boundaries were delineated with
sequentially numbered flagging tape. The boundaries were subsequently mapped using Trimble Geo XT
and Geo XH Differential GPS technology with reported sub-meter accuracy. The data were corrected
using GPS Pathfinder Office software and exported to MicroStation format.
Field surveys for this project were conducted by EcoScience Corporation (ESC) biologists Jim Cooper,
David O'Loughlin and Elizabeth Scherrer.
Greenville Northem Rail Connector 7 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
Mr. Cooper is a Senior Scientist with over six years of experience in environmental consulting. He holds
a bachelor's degree in natural resources, ecosystem assessment from North Carolina State University and
a master's degree in environmental management in wetland ecology from Duke University. He is also a
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist. His professional expertise includes wetland and stream channel
restoration, stream channel assessments and surveys, jurisdictional area delineations, Section 401/404
Permitting, and environmental document preparation.
Mr. O'Loughlin is a Senior Scientist with five years of experience in the environmental field. He holds a
Master of Science degree in forestry from North Carolina State University, with a minor in botany. His
professional expertise includes natural resources assessment, protected species surveys, computer
modeling, jurisdictional area delineations and environmental document preparation.
Ms. Scherrer is a Senior Scientist with nine years of experience in the environmental field. She has a
Master of Science degree in forestry from North Carolina State University, with minors in botany and
ecology. Her research involved the restoration of farmed wetlands on the North Carolina Coastal Plain,
with emphasis on the influence of microtopography on hydrology and plant communities. At Tall
Timbers Research Station in Tallahassee, Florida, she designed and implemented a study of red-cockaded
woodpecker habitats in the Apalachicola National Forest. Professional expertise includes wetland and
jurisdictional area delineations, stream characterization, plant and wildlife identification and community
mapping, plant community ecology, protected species surveys, and environmental document preparation.
1. Physical Resources
a) Physiography and Soils
The PSA is located in the Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods region of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (MACP)
ecoregion. The MACP is characterized by very low elevations and nearly level plains with many
swamps, marshes, and estuaries (Griffith et al. 2002). The MACP hosts a number of endemic and rare
species and, in general, supports a high overall biodiversity (Hall et al. 1999). The PSA is located in a
long developed area within Greenville.
Topography in the project region (equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS topographic
quadrangle map with the PSA occupying the central position) is generally flat with many streams.
Upland areas in the region average 65 to 85 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum [NGVD]). The
highest point in the PSA is approximately 58 feet NGVD in the northeast comer of the PSA (NCDOT
2008) (Figure 2). Moving south in the PSA, the elevation declines to approximately 42 feet NGVD
(NCDOT 2008).
The project region consists primarily of human dominated urban and suburban areas surrounded by
upland areas still in agriculture with lower elevations largely forested. The Tar River floodplain occupies
a large swath of the project region north of the PSA. Several tributaries of the Tar River are prominent in
the project region, including Greens Mill Run which passes within 0.5 mile of the PSA. The project
region immediately adjacent to the PSA is dominated by low to high density urban residential and
commercial development. Remnant natural vegetation is concentrated along drainages, parks, and
smaller open areas.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 8 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion

Based on soil mapping for Pitt County (USDA 1974), the PSA is underlain by three soil series: Exum
fine sandy loam (Aquic Paleudults), Rains fine sandy loam (Typic Paleaquults), and Bibb complex (Typie
Fluvaquents) (Figure 6). Rains and Bibb are considered to be hydric in Pitt County (NRCS 1996). Both
Rains and Bibb are consider Group D soils by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) which
is defined as soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet and a
very slow rate of water transmission.
The Exum series (0 to 1 percent slopes) underlies approximately 11.4 acres (77 percent) of the PSA and
consists of moderately well-drained nearly level fine sandy loams that tend to occur on broad smooth
divides in the uplands. The Exum series underlies all of the PSA except the southernmost border and the
southeast comer. Permeability is moderately slow, available water capacity is high, shrink-swell potential
is low to moderate, and surface runoff is slow. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches, and the
seasonal high water table occurs at about 2.5 feet.
The Rains series underlies approximately 2.6 acres (17 percent) of the PSA and consists of poorly
drained, nearly level fine sandy learns that occur on broad flats or slight depressions in uplands. The
Rains series occupies the southeast corner of the PSA. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity
is medium, shrink-swell potential is low, and surface runoff is slow or ponded. Depth to bedrock is more
than 60 inches. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface.
The Bibb series underlies approximately 0.9 acre (6 percent) of the PSA and consists of nearly level,
poorly-drained soils that tend to occur on floodplains in draws or depressions in uplands. The Bibb series
underlies a small portion of the southernmost boundary of the PSA. Permeability is moderate, available
water capacity is medium, shrink-swell potential is low, and surface runoff is slow. Depth to bedrock is
greater than 60 inches, and the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface.
b) Water Resources
D
i
D
The PSA is located within the Tar-Pamlico River basin. The Tar-Pamlico River basin encompasses a
5,440 square mile watershed drained by 2,355 miles of streams, and with 634,400 acres classified as salt
waters. It is the fourth largest river basin in the state and is contained entirely within the state. From its
headwaters within the eastern piedmont ecoregion the Tar River flows 180 miles southeast towards the
coastal plain ecoregion and Pamlico Sound. The river is called the Tar River from its source in Person
County to US 17 in the Town of Washington, a distance of about 140 miles. From Washington to Pamlico
Sound it is called the Pamlico River. The Pamlico River is entirely estuarine, while the Tar River is
primarily freshwater. (NCDWQ 2003).
The PSA is located within the city limits of Greenville approximately 1 mile south of the Tar River with
the closest named stream being Greens Mill Run approximately 0.5 mile east (Figure 2). The PSA is
located within the South Atlantic/Gulf Region in USGS Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03020103 and NCDWQ
subbasin 03-03-05 (NCDWQ 2004a). No named streams extend within the PSA; however, approximately
40 feet south of the PSA, an unnamed tributary (UT), identified as an intermittent stream on the county
soil survey, flows west to cast following a topographic crenulation or draw to Greens Mill Run (Figure 2).
At the east end of the PSA, another intermittent stream, UTl (Figure 7), joins UT to Greens Mill Run
south of the PSA.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 9 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
North Carolina streams are assigned a best usage classification by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries
receive the same classification as the streams to which they flow. In addition, waters receive a use-
support rating based on the best intended uses and how well the water body supports the designated uses.
Surface waters are rated as Supporting, Impaired, No Data, or are Not Rated.
The NCDWQ has assigned Stream Index Number 28-96 to the entire length of Greens Mill Run
(NCDWQ 2008a). Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage
Classification of C has been assigned to Green Mill Run and its UTs. Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary recreation
includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized
or frequent basis. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
WS-1 waters, WS-II waters, watershed Critical Areas (CA), or Trout (Tr) waters occur within 1.0 mile of
the PSA (NCDWQ 2007c).
Sub-basin 03-03-05 of the Tar-Pamlico River basin contains one major and two minor active National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted dischargers. In total, the three permitted
dischargers release over 17.5 million gallons per day (MGD). None of the dischargers are within the PSA
or drain directly to the PSA. The major discharger in the project region is the Greenville Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which discharges to Tar River approximately 2.4 miles north of the PSA.
Recurring nutrient-related problems have been documented in the Pamlico River estuary through the
latter half of the 20th century. The frequency of reports of diseased fish in the Pamlico estuary increased
significantly in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Nitrogen and phosphorous loading from non-point
sources have been targeted for reduction throughout the Tar-Pamlico River basin (NCDWQ 2004). Non-
point source pollution refers to pollution that enters surface waters through stormwater or snowmelt
runoff. Unlike point source pollution, non-point source pollution is diffuse in nature and occurs at
random intervals depending on rainfall events. Habitat degradation, including loss of riparian vegetation
and channelization and erosion, is a major water quality issue in the basin (NCDWQ 2004). Major non-
point sources of pollution within the Tar-Pamlico basin include stormwater runoff, forestry, agricultural
activities, rural residential development, and septic systems. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major
problems associated with non-point source discharges (NCDWQ 2004).
The PSA contains no streams listed as impaired on the NCDWQ 2006 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2006).
Greens Mill Run, downstream of the PSA, is listed as impaired on the NCDWQ 2008 draft 303(d) list
(NCDWQ 2008b). Greens Mill Run's use-support rating is listed as "No Data" in the basinwide report
(NCDWQ 2004); however, it is listed under impairment category 5 (impaired for one or more designated
uses by a pollutant(s)) in the 2008 draft 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2008b).
No water bodies deserving of special attention as denoted under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906; codified and amended at 16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982)) or
under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 (G.S. 1 13A-30) are located within the PSA.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 10 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion 1
I
i? c) Summary of Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the PSA may result from activities associated with project construction.
Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on water conveyances, riparian canopy
removal, in-water construction, fertilizer and pesticide use for revegetation, obstruction and redirection of
surficial groundwater flows, and pavement/culvert installation. In the absence of appropriate best
management practices, the following impacts to surface water resources could result from the
I construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation in the vicinity of road crossings and increased erosion in the
PSA.
• Alteration of surface water discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface water and
groundwater drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperatures due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface water and
groundwater flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in the PSA, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters and Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be strictly enforced
during the construction phase of the project.
Long-term impacts to surface waters along the selected construction corridor will be limited to surface
waters within the road facility footprint. Impacts to surface waters adjacent to the facility footprint will
be temporary and localized during construction. Long-term impacts to adjacent surface waters resulting
from construction are expected to be negligible.
I 2. Biotic Resources
a) Terrestrial Communities
The PSA is made up entirely of maintained/disturbed land. This community includes railroad beds,
residential/commercial yards, roadside shoulders, and a playground. Grasses and herbs dominate the
vegetation, with scattered trees within the yards. The herb layer, particularly in the most frequently
maintained areas, is dominated by opportunistic, invasive species like fescue (Festuca sp.), Carolina
geranium (Geranium carolinianum), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), chickweed (Cerastium sp.), vetch
(Vicia sp.), purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum), and sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata). Other
representative species in residential lots and roadside shoulders include clover (Trifolium sp.), wild onion
(Allium canadense), common plantain (Plantago major), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Less
frequently maintained areas promote a prominent shrub layer including privet (Ligustrum sinense),
blackberry (Rubus argutus), and wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), along with vines like greenbrier (Smilax
Greenville Northern Rail Connector I I TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
rotundifolia), Chinese wisteria (Wisteria floribunda), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
mixed in with natives including yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens). Remnant native trees that
occur in association with horticultural plantings include black walnut (Juglans nigra), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), red cedar (Jumperus virginiana), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), and loblolly pine
(Pines taeda). Natives remaining in the less frequently maintained areas removed from dwellings
included sweetgum (Liquidambar styracii lua), tulip polar (Liriodendron tulipifera), along with weedy
naturalized species like tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum
cuspidatum), and purpletop vervain (Verbena bonariensis). Decorative horticultural plantings along
residential or commercial property boundaries frequently include non-natives like crepe myrtle
(Lagerstroemia indica) and Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana).
Within the maintained/disturbed land, it can be expected that mammalian, avian, and reptilian diversity
will be limited to species adapted to fragmentation and disturbance; however, several wildlife species are
well-adapted to using the ecotone between herb dominated maintained land, remnant wooded areas, and
shrub communities. Maintained land may provide an easily-traveled corridor between larger forested
communities as well as foraging habitat for herbivores, granivores, and insectivores, but little cover from
predation. Species that readily utilize the open spaces of maintained/disturbed land include eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), rough earth snake (Virginia striatula), brown
snake, (Storeria dekayi), northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos), chipping sparrow (Spizella
passerina), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). Edge specialists and shrub thicket
denizens include squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern wood-pewee
(Contopus virens), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), and brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater). Species that tolerate human disturbance include blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) and gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), which can also inhabit undisturbed woodlands. Insectivores which take
advantage of food resources available this community include eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus),
Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern bluebird* (Sialia sialis), American robin* (Turdus
migratorius), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-
lined skink (Eumeces faciatus), American toad (Bufo americana), and least shrew (Cryptotis parva).
Herbivores that graze many of the grasses, forbs, and/or shrubs present include meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus jloridanus), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus).
Granivores that feed upon the seeds of grasses and herbs include mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis). Other wildlife which may frequent this community include carnivores such as red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis);
omnivores including American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), fish crow* (Corvus ossifragus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
b) Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities within the PSA consist of man-altered drainages and roadside ditches along with
small wetlands. Aquatic species that may be found throughout the PSA include amphibians such as lesser
siren (Siren intermedia), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), dwarf mudpuppy (Necturus
punctatus), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), and frogs. Frog species include green frog (Rana
clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), Fowler's toad,
squirrel treefrog, and American toad. Turtle species in the PSA may include spotted turtle (Clemmys
guttata), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrudrum), and eastern box turtle. Banded water snake
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 12 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
E
(Nerodia fasciata) and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) have adopted an aquatic lifestyle. No fish
likely occur in the PSA because of the intermittent nature of the open water.
c) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities resulting from construction will be to already
maintained/disturbed areas within the PSA. Impacts to this plant community are expected to include cut-
and-fill and temporary or permanent clearing within limits of proposed right-of-way.
d) Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable consequence of transportation development. Short-term
displacement of local wildlife populations will occur during initial construction. Some local species are
habituated to anthropogenic disturbances and are expected to move back into the vicinity once
construction is complete. Within and adjacent to construction limits, shifts in species composition may
occur in favor of species adapted to fragmentation and edge effects. The project would be constructed
along an existing transportation corridor, thus, no further bisection of habitats or wildlife corridors would
occur.
3. Jurisdictional Topics
a) Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharge into "waters of the United
States." Although the principle administrative agency of the CWA is the USEPA, the USACE has major
responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the CWA. The USACE
regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR parts 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the
Section 404 program. Wetlands are described by (33 CFR 328.3(b) [ 1986]) as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
?a As set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987),
wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence
of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Jurisdictional areas within the PSA were delineated and
a located using GPS technology during March 2008: As part of this effort, evidence that was used to
determine wetland boundaries was documented using the USACE Routine Onsite Determination Data
Form (Appendix Q.
As of June 5, 2007, the USEPA and USACE have issued guidance concerning coordination on
jurisdictional area delineations (JDs) under CWA Section 404 in light of the SWANCC and Rapanos
a Supreme Court Decisions (USEPA and USACE 2007). According to the new USEPAIUSACE guidance,
"waters of the United States" consist of traditional navigable waters and non-navigable tributaries which
exhibit a "significant nexus" with respect to traditional navigable waters. By regulation and the Supreme
D Court decision, wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters along with wetlands that directly abut
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 13 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
?i
the aforementioned tributaries are also considered "waters of the United States." Based on this new
guidance, project proponents that are submitting Section 404 delineations for which verification is
requested will have to submit an additional form, the jurisdictional delineation (JD) form for each and
every distinct water of the U.S. that is within the delineated area. The JD form is used to document that a
particular wetland or stream does or does not have a "significant nexus" with a "traditionally navigable
water."
Jurisdictional areas have been classified according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). The PSA contains one wetland area that
is classified as palustrine with a plant community dominated by herbaceous growth and with groundwater
saturation providing wetland hydrology (PEMIB). The PSA contains one jurisdictional stream: UT I.
UT1 is an intermittent stream contained within a well defined channel fed stormwater through several
culverts before reaching UT to Greens Mill Run south of the PSA. UT1 is categorized as riverine,
intermittent, with an unconsolidated bottom consisting primarily of mud with lesser amounts of sand
(R4UB3/2).
The Water Quality Section of NCDEM has prepared a wetlands assessment procedure entitled Guidance
for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina (NCDEM 1995). The most recent version (fourth)
of this procedure was released in January 1995. NCDOT considers this method a standard procedure for
assessing wetlands proposed for roadway impacts. For this reason, the "NCDEM" procedure was used to
rate the wetland identified within the PSA. The NCDEM procedure rates wetlands according to six
functional attributes: (1) water storage, (2) bank/shoreline stabilization, (3) pollutant removal, (4) wildlife
habitat, (5) aquatic life value, and (6) recreational/educational value. Completed NCDEM Wetland
Rating Worksheets are provided in Appendix C. This procedure was not used to rate the jurisdictional
areas that are bank-to-bank streams or canals or ditches.
A new wetland functional rating system referred to as the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) is currently under development. NC WAM provides functional ratings for general wetland
types determined to occur in North Carolina. Each assessed wetland is rated relative to the "reference"
condition for its specific wetland type. Ratings are qualitative and expressed as "High," "Medium," or
"Low." The NC WAM product includes an overall rating for each assessed wetland, a rating for each
primary function (hydrology, water quality, and habitat), and a rating for sub-functions. See Appendix C
for the NC WAM form that assesses the wetland within the PSA.
b) Riparian Buffers
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian
Buffers for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) provides a designation for uses that
cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Tar-Pamlico Basin. The Tar-Pamlico Basin Rule applies to
50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured parallel to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The City of Greenville also enforces the 50-foot buffer rule for the Tar-
Pamlico River (Greenville 1999).
Changes in land use within the buffer area are considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes within
the riparian are defined as being Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or Prohibited. The
Exempt designation refers to uses allowed within the buffer. The Allowable designation refers to uses
that may proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no practical alternatives, and that written
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 14 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
N
authorization from the DWQ is obtained prior to project development. The Allowable with Mitigation
designation refers to uses that are allowed, given there are no practical alternatives and appropriate
mitigation plans have been approved. The Prohibited designation refers to uses that are prohibited
without a variance. Exemptions to the riparian buffer rule include the footprint of existing uses that are
present and ongoing.
An intermittent stream listed on the county soil survey just outside of the PSA, UT to Greens Mill Run
(Figure 7), would require a 50-foot wide riparian buffer that would extend into the PSA.
c) Permit Issues
Permits
At the time of preparation of this document, only preliminary plans were available for this roadway
improvement project. A final permitting strategy cannot be developed until a final construction footprint
has been determined and construction impacts are firmly quantified; however, due to the inclusion
wetlands and streams within the PSA and subject to USACE approval, it is likely that permits will be
required for any proposed alternative encroachment into these jurisdictional areas. Potential permit
requirements would include a USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14, and issuance of a Section 401
Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ. Under NWP 14, the discharge cannot cause the loss of
greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States and any stream channel modification, including bank
stabilization, is limited to the minimum necessary to construct or protect the linear transportation project;
such modifications must be in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation
policy that embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and mitigation sequencing. The purpose of
this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the
United States, specifically, wetlands. Mitigation of jurisdictional area impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
These three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
i?
sequentially.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities for averting impacts to waters of the
United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USEPA and the
USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Certain unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional areas are expected due to the nature of the project; however, use of appropriate BMPs per
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Design Standards for
' Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized to avoid as many wetland impacts as practicable.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse impacts to
waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications
and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All
practicable efforts will be made during the project design phase to minimize unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 15 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
Compensatory mitigation is normally not considered until it has been demonstrated that anticipated
impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided or minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. It is recognized that functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action as part of the "no net loss of wetlands" policy. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h),
NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 0.1 acre of
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total stream impacts.
Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; (January 15, 2002), the USACE requires
compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are
minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and value of the impacted
aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all avoidance and minimization opportunities have been
implemented. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation, enhancement, and creation
of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous
to the impacted site. A final determination regarding compensatory mitigation rests with the USACE and
NCDWQ.
Once on-site mitigation has been evaluated by the NCDOT On-site Mitigation Group, off-site mitigation
may be explored. In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District", July 22, 2003, the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP),
may be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory
mitigation requirements for this project.
d) Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such listing
are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). As
of January 31, 2008, three federally protected species arc listed for Pitt County (USFWS 2008) (Table 1).
Table 5. Federally Protected Species listed for Pitt County

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat
Present
Biolo ical Conclusion
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E No No Effect
Tar Rivers in mussel Elliptic; steinstansana E No No Effect
C :=aangcrca. A [axon' in Ganger or extinction tnrougnout an or a stgmncant potion or its range." (lb U.S.C. 1X32)
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 16 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
a Picoides borealis(Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Endangered
i? Family: Picidac
j Date Listed: October 13, 1970
In Primary nest sites for red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) include open pine stands greater than 60 years
X011 of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed
hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989).
a This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches, and a
black-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades
may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 2006). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature
southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf, slash, and pond pines (Thompson and Baker
1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years that
have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in aggregates, which are
referred to as clusters (USFWS 2003). The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity
entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active
nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by frequent natural
or prescribed fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick
understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat for RCWs in a larger survey area within 0.5 mile of the PSA was identified by
limited ground surveys and with the use of recent aerial photography. No pines of sufficient age
exist within the PSA. Areas within 0.5 mile are made up of concentrated, long-lived
developments with only a few scattered large pines and no pine stands that provide foraging
habitat. NCNHP records document no occurrence of this species within 2.0 miles of the PSA.
a Trichechus manatus (West Indian manatee)
Endangered
Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: March It, 1967
The manatee is a large, gray or brown aquatic mammal that averages 10 to 13 feet in length and weighs
,a up to 1000 pounds. This species occurs from Brazil to the West Indies to the east coast of the United
States. During summer months manatees migrate from their Florida wintering areas as far north as
coastal Virginia. Reported occurrences in North Carolina are greatest from June to October. These
mammals inhabit warm waters, both fresh and salt, where their diet consists mostly of aquatic vegetation
(Linzey 1998, Clark 1987, Webster et al. 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The manatee rarely occurs in North Carolina inland waters; although there have been recent
sightings in the Tar River. The PSA provides no deep water habitat suitable for the manatee.
NCNHP records document an occurrence of this species approximately 2.1 miles north east of the
PSA on the Tar River.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 17 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spinymussel)
Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: June 27, 1985
Preferred habitat of the Tar spinymussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, circumneutral
water over a silt-free, uncompacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate (USFW S 1992).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The PSA provides no perennial waterways. No suitable habitat for this species exists within the
PSA. A review of NHP records indicates that no known population of this species occurs within
2.0 miles of the study corridor.
Ten Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed by the USFWS for Pitt County (USFWS 2008). FSC are
not afforded federal protection under the ESA of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing. FSC that are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern by
the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species (Franklin and Finnegan 2006, LeGrand et al. 2006) are
afforded state protection under the North Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. Table 2 summarizes FSC listed Pitt County,
and indicates whether suitable habitat exists for each species within the PSA. An occurrence of southern
hognose snake is recorded approximately 2 miles southwest of the PSA. An occurrence of grassleaf
arrowhead is recorded approximately 1 mile east of the PSA near Greens Mill Run. No other occurrences
of FSC species are recorded within 2.0 miles of the PSA.
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Present State Status*
American eel Anguilla rostrata No W l
Carolina madtom Noturus uriosus No SC(PT)
Eastern Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii susurrans Yes SR
Pinewoods shiner L thrurus matutinus No W2
Roanoke bass Amblo lites covi ons No SR
Southern ho nose snake Heterodon simus No SC
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia mason. No E
Green floater Lasmi ona subviridis No E
Yellow lam mussel Lam silis carioca No E
Grassleaf arrowhead Sa ittaria weatherbiana No SR-T
'State Status (Franklin and Finnegan 2006, LeGrand et al. 2006) :
W I= Watchlist, includes species that are known to be declining in North Carolina; species is rare but relatively secure
W2 = Watchlist, includes species that are rare to uncommon in North Carolina, but arc not necessarily considered to be declining or otherwise
in trouble
SR= Significantly Rare
SC= Special concern
T = native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
E = Endangered, any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is
determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be an 'endangered species'
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector IS TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion 1
SQPT) = Special Concern proposed Threatened
"Obscure Record - the date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain
...Historic Record- the clement is either extirpated from the county, or there have not been any recent surveys to verify its continued existence
As of August 8, 2007, the USFWS removed the bald eagle (Haliaectus leucocephalus) in the lower 48
States of the U.S. from the federal list of Endangered and Threatened wildlife. The bald eagle is
a protected by Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), as amended. This
law provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except under certain
a specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce of such birds.
The Tar River provides a large, open body of water that provides feeding habitat for bald eagles near the
a PSA; however no large emergent trees remain to provide nesting habitat within the PSA. Areas within
0.5 mile are made up of concentrated, long-lived developments with only a few scattered large trees and
no good habitat for bald eagles. NCNHP records document no occurrences of bald eagle within 2.0 miles
a the PSA.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The PSA is not located in a designated hazard zone and is not included in a detailed flood study. As such,
the proposed project will not have any significant adverse impact on existing floodplains or on the
associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties or buildings.
O H. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
Traffic noise analysis procedures are outlined in 23 U.S.C. 109(i) Highway Noise Standards, 23 CFR 772
a Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, and the NCDOT Noise
Abatement Policy. These procedures discuss noise abatement for Type I (new location, substantial
a reconstruction, and new through lanes) and Type II (maintenance or rehabilitation of existing facilities)
projects. The NCDOT noise abatement policy applies only to "Type 1" projects for state, federal or
federal-aid highway projects. This project can be considered as a Type 11 improvement project that does
not substantially alter the existing facility or add new track locations. It is neutral from a traffic noise
perspective. No detailed traffic noise analysis is required.
The proposed railroad improvements involve the addition of a new wye, the removal of an existing wye,
and the removal of yard tracks and a yard office within the existing right-of-way. These are considered to
be air quality neutral and are exempt from project-level analysis of local CO impacts (see 40 CFR
D 93.126). No detailed air quality analysis is required. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Greenville and Pitt County are currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants.
a I. Geodetic Markers
The project may impact one geodetic survey marker named "AMMONIA NCGS 1966" (Greenville SW
USGS 7-minute quadrangle, 1981). The marker; a traverse station disk set in a concrete monument, is
a located in the northeast quadrant of the CSX Transportation/Carolina Coastal Railway railroad crossing,
in the center of the PSA.
J. Hazardous Materials
A hazardous materials inventory was performed to identify potential sources of toxic or hazardous
materials and known sites involved with the usage, storage, transport or disposal of such materials
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 19 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
consisting of a file search of records from appropriate environmental agencies. Based on the file review,
there were two properties within the PSA with the potential for hazardous waste onsite. The Greenville
Public Works Garage at 1500 Beatty Street appeared in multiple databases. The site is listed as a
conditionally exempt small quantity generator of hazardous waste, appears on the state hazardous waste
sites list, and has underground storage tanks (USTs) identified, including leaking underground storage
tanks (LUSTS) (EDR 2008). A second site Allied Petroleum at 615 West Fourteenth Street has a
registered above ground storage tank. Ten other storage tank sites (UST, LUST, or AST) have been
identified within 0.25 of the PSA (EDR 2008).
K. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with road construction. These are generally of
short term duration, and measures will be taken to minimize these impacts. During construction of the
proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will
be removed from the project or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Measures will be taken to allay
the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents. The noise levels will increase during construction, but will only be
temporary. Sediment and erosion control standards will be implemented during construction. The
NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit recommends using 3:1 or flatter roadway side slopes to establish
vegetation and assist in erosion control.
No serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area are expected. Traffic service in
the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption, but every effort will be made to ensure the
transportation needs of the public are met both during and after construction. During construction, it is
likely the railroad crossing will be closed temporarily in the PSA.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies (a copy of this
letter is in Appendix B). Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written comments were received.
The comments are included in Appendix B of this report.
City of Greenville
Patricia Dunn, Mayor
Wayne Bowers, City Manager*
David Brown, City Engineer
Harry Hamilton, City Planner*
Linwood Hines, Life Safety Services
Chuck Owens, Emergency Medical Services
Pitt County
Dr. Beverly Reep, Superintendent Pitt County Schools
Noel Lee, Director Pitt County Emergency Management
Mark Owens, Chairman, Pitt County Commissioners
Carolina Coastal Railway
Douglas Golden, President
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 20 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
O
N
i?

I
I
I
I
I
I
M

I
CSX Transportation, Inc
Donald Joyner
Nelson High
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Renee Gledhill-Early, Environmental Review Coordinator, State Historic Preservation
Office*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Al Hodge, Division of Water Quality
Amy Simes, Transportation Liaison
David Wainwright, 401 Unit*
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Travis Wilson*
NCDOT Board of Transportation
Marvin K. Blount III
NCDOT Division 2
B.E. Eatmon, PE
C.E. Lassiter, PE
NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Tom Norman, Director.
NCDOT Highway Design Branch*
Art McMillan, PE, State Highway Design Engineer
NCDOT Human Environment Unit*
Mary Pope Furr
Drew Joyner, PE
Matt Wilkerson
NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Philip S. Harris, III, PE
NCDOT PDEA Branch
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Branch Manager
NCDOT Rail Division
Marc Hamel, Rail Project Development Engineer
James Harris, PE, Engineering Manager
Jason Orthner, Senior Project Engineer
Arthur Petteway, PE
Paul Worley, CPM, Director
NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Mike Bruff, PE
Behshad Norowzi, Northeast Planning Group Supervisor
Atefe Northcutt
Elena Talanker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
William Wescott
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chris Militsher c/o Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service*
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor
Greenville Northern Rail Connector
21 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
B. Public Involvement
May 2005
In May 2005, representatives from CSX Transportation, the City of Greenville Public Works Department,
and the North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division met to discuss the Rail Improvements
Study for the CSXT/NS Interlocking in downtown Greenville. The purpose and need for the project were
defined, and locations for the new wye and yard track were established.
February 2008
A Transportation Safety Study meeting was held in February 2008 at which preliminary outlines of the
project was displayed for the public's information.
August 26. 2008
A Local Officials Meeting and Citizens Informational Workshop was held from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. on
August 26, 2008 at Thomas Foreman Park - Eppes Recreation Center in Greenville. NCDOT staff and
consultants presented the proposed improvements, answered questions, and received comments about the
project. The format of the workshop was informal with handouts provided and aerial maps on display.
Approximately 27 people attended the workshop. Before the public workshop began, a briefing on the
project was held for public officials. Workshop comments focused on traffic congestion, increased rail
and roadway efficiency, and preservation of downtown Greenville neighborhoods. Participants were
generally supportive of the project because of improvements in traffic flow in the downtown area. One
comment was concerned with the condition of the tracks and pavement at three downtown crossings (at
Evans Street, Tenth Street, and Fourteenth Street). The State Railroad Agent has been notified to
investigate these concerns.
1. CONCLUSION
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by improving safety and intersection
operations. It is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and environmental
consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
changes in land use are anticipated. No residential or business relocations are anticipated. The project will
not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations. There are anticipated to be no
adverse effects on public facilities or services, nor is the project expected to adversely affect social,
economic, or religious opportunities in the area. There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities,
or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of National, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Right-of-way acquisitions or easements are not anticipated from land protected under Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The project is an air quality and traffic noise "neutral" project. No sources toxic or hazardous materials
are located within 0.5 mile of the PSA. The project is not in a designated flood hazard zone.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 22 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
M
I V. REFERENCES
Clark, M.K. 1987. West Indian (Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus Linnaeus). Pp. 18-21 In
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part 1. A Re-evaluation of the
Mammals, ed. by M.K. Clark.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoc. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Dyer, R.W., A. Hecht, C. Raithel, K. Terwilliger, and S. Melvin. 1987. Draft Atlantic Coast Piping
Plover Recovery Plan. Prepared for the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Team for Region
5, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 13 pp.
I Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 92 pp.
Franklin, M.A. and J. T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 137 pp.
O Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(Mid-Atlantic Bight): Atlantic and Shormose Sturgeons. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
a Report 82(11.122). U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 28 pp.
Golder, W.W. and J.F. Parnell. March 1987. The shorebird no one sees. Wildlife in North Carolina
a 51(3): 22-23.
a Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omemik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. McPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina
(color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). United States
Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Greenville City Council. 2004. Horizons Greenville's Community Plan. (online). Available:
http://www.greenvillenc.gov/uploadedFiles/Departments/Planning_Comm_Dev_ Dept/Informatio
n/I Iori zons%20Comprehen s ivc°/`20PIan. pdf
'a Hall, S.P., M.P. Schafale, and J.T. Finnegan. 1999. Conservation assessment of the southeast coastal
plain of North Carolina, using site oriented and landscape-oriented analysis. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC.
I?
v
Hamel, Paul B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 367 pp.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 23 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S. P. Hall, S. E. McRae, and J. T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division
of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 104 pp.
Linzey D.W. 1998. The Mammals of Virginia. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, VA. 459 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC
for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and Movements of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) and other Anadromous Fishes of the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Final
Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 153 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 1996. Hydric Soils: Pitt County. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Technical Guide, Section II-A 2.
N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2008. LIDAR Contours and Elevation Data (Pitt
County). (online). Available:
http://www.nedot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/ContourElevationData/. North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). 200 L CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal
North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
NC.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Assessment Report.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004a. Tar-Pamlico River Basin Water Quality Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 24 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004b. "Redbook" Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
I? N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Identification Methods for the Origin of Intermittent
i and Perennial Streams. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and
Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). . (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/Gencral_303d.htm. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008a. Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS)
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.html). N.C. Department of Environment and
a Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008b. Draft North Carolina Impaired Waters List
(2008 303(d) list). (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdt/General_303d.htm. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008c. List of Active Permits (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/BIMS-020508.xls. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Biennial Protection Plan: List of Significant Natural Heritage
Areas. 2005. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Raleigh, NC.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Pamell, and R.P. Teulings, and R. Davis. 2006. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
a University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
o Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Ross, S.W. 1997. Shormose Sturgeon: Acipenser brevirostrum Lesuer. In Endangered, Threatened, and
Q Rare Fauna of North Carolina, Part IV. A Reevaluation of the Freshwater Fishes. Edited by E.F.
Menhenick and A.L. Braswell. 106 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
a Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 25 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting habitat
requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and Management of the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream
Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007.
Jurisdictional Determination Form Instruction Guidebook. 60 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. United
State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 96 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007.
Memorandum for the Field: Coordination on JDs under CWA Section 404 in Light of SWANCC
and Rapanos Supreme Court decisions. 7 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Tar Spinymussel Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis): second revision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,
GA. 296 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Pitt County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/entylist/PITT.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Digital Orthophoto Quarter-Quadrangles. (online). Available:
http://seamless.usgs.gov/. United States Geological Survey.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Hurricane Isabel Damage Assessment and Recovery Effort.
(online). Available: http://seamless.usgs.gov/. United States Geological Survey.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Wetland Functional Assessment Team (WFAT). 2007. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
Draft User Manual: Version 5.0. 99 pp.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 26 TIP P-3309AA Categorical Exclusion
D
l? Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
r Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting habitat
requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and Management of the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
I? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream
Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007.
Jurisdictional Determination Form Instruction Guidebook. 60 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. United
State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 96 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007.
Memorandum for the Field: Coordination on JDs under CWA Section 404 in Light of SWANCC
and Rapanos Supreme Court decisions. 7 pp.
a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Tar Spinymussel Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S.
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 34 pp.
a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis): second revision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,
GA. 296 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Pitt County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
a and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/PM.htm].
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Digital Orthophoto Quarter-Quadrangles. (online). Available:
http://searnless.usgs.gov/. United States Geological Survey.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Hurricane Isabel Damage Assessment and Recovery Effort.
(online). Available: http://seandess.usgs.gov/. United States Geological Survey.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 27 TIP P-3309AA
Wetland Functional Assessment Team (WFAT). 2007. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
Draft User Manual: Version 5.0. 99 pp.
Greenville Northern Rail Connector 28 TIP P-3309AA
m
a
!a
a
a
D
a
a
a
a
0
'a
PROPOSED
CONNECTOR TRACK
ORIG
ORIGINAL GROUND
FIGURE 4A
PROPOSED CONNECTOR TRACK
TYPICAL SECTION STINGCL MAIN XITRACK YARD PROPOSED Dl YARD TRACK 2

ONG
NO
FIGURE 4B ORIGINAL GROUND
PROPOSED YARD
TYPICAL SECTION
a
IN
.• for 7{ !
!-?- J
_' - SITE
LOCATION
v; • ;;
Olin
J!f J,
?03
- - !'? 9 Lake
...T ! L rud+Ae.. ' ,'n?-'? : ? f •. Luke d? ?urvit
Cull,
yr, ? ?! t - ,yam; ! r v. { ,-r 1 ? r 1 ray`'
•+ir ?, i.•ri (?11 ^ Y..i??Af. ?II I Oy ?. *O_ ? l w ? ? "' !
NN_??AA??1{ ? 1 I , ?' ? ? yr ? , ?c ?tS? ` j l ' €. ` i.rw•+y
X, 000,
yi ? _ l:: ?I ?rxcwwcbf ?6_? ,(..,?wnadr
_ yy ??,-Vi irrtlTl' I(• .?) 1 T u? T.. 4, ...pM1+
ap
-v! FLUS
2 MILES 0 2 MILES F
SCALE: 1"=2 MILES
SOURCE 2003 NDRTN WOLNA ATLAS AND GAZETTEER, u- ?3 e5
Prepared by: Cl ent; Dwr. 3y: Cad 2y: FiC3 Rw
GREENVILE - DC
NORTHERN RAIL CONNECTOR Cate
DELINEATION vale. MAR 200
SITE LOCATION AS 5"°""
CSC Project No.:
PIT COUNTY, NC
06-324.D4
• f
r?
r-.,.
l a t' I
^'?: NORflvI" - - -- _4. J18.?, --- ---v r - ?. -?- •- Ff•/•... ?? , -i
Routh 4re+4vAl+ /-. 1..
scb
4. ?F re Sts
A G,REENVILLE
N 1 1 I` {SI z r • Fr?ld
I I 1- ' r Scrh
4
?i I M ifr.+,f :s. ?t •r? mOt? $kO?} r'? r 1
$`sl' 1_11 l ^l ,yt 11 '? * <. ?,?' ?• ?., ll ,1
jr ?it 0
2000' 0 2000'
1 I?
SOJRCE- u$GS 1 5 WNUi[ CUAORANLIE (NOCN1 40UHn !
pared hy:
GREENVILLE rL ?c
NORTHERN RAIL CONNECTOR Date
DELINEATION "AR
,- 2
"'y"""` sc,,e I ,, USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
as s, OWN
?I - -- t.S-' Protect N--.:
^v6-32e.C4
ii
49
.I,.._ 1f IR'4^ _ L
Y'..J?I?? } ,?," of 1^.SI I'* '1-i •,- ?sl R - _ "v, ?`.v „?. ? ?-, x_
?. ??•?r" _ ` `?s k?' I;?v ,:f ia: (_ T? r ? w -1• _ _ q r?b?
1 #?--11 L ,?,
>Ms y' ' ?' ` f' p
14Tysr
. .?Y ?? ?'.. - - , k ?.. r a ' Gib 1 r P T ,ii,?• _
-33
(' g
a: g W ARLINGTON BV
LEGEND
PROJECT STUDY AREA
r, .`- r a ? Si 1, y k
0.25 0 0.25 CIA BOUNDARY CENSUS BLOCK
J.,
r_ 1 MILES
F„l-l r,,;,
FIGURE
COMMUNITY IMPACT AREA
APR 2008
GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL CONNECTOR 5
RAIL DIfIISIDN
mcPITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1 - 1500
06-3? 4.0.9

1w..

a.
w 4
?

? f

i

AftE

W
N
d3 1 4
r 4"A
a
v <
a ?
Z >
w o
W CI) ?
U
L
w rh.
00
w
w
LL
w
0
0
O
iL
17
s
C7
Q
N
?
< O
u D
J
,

O
U

N W
Z
z
O Q
z
J
O
Z
? =
Q Q
U
z O
J
O W Z
N

Z Z
L
-'
O
z
W
W

4

O

/
1
l L
f`
-
':NP.f? J t" 4 L?
? , ^ ? c ?:? .. '/ ? ? w tit... `{„JS?f. ??+?,? .• *. ? e ,
r •
I _ ? `• a T.^`? ?,'?, tt;- 47 2 , 4,. .
4r/ 1
i4pir
J r Iv. ix
ma Ot
T W ma O
m 6 / W o it
(E uj
co
m
O /
w .' ? ? Ir I,
I
O m
W
l7 CD
CL
c>
m Ica
I
O

}

W W
Z
G7 O z

3 = U JO
f J ce
H Q
J
O Q U
`
Ln Z
a

O
} W
x
--? Z ?-

Z O
J U

H
a Z
W
W

Z- C7
m
V
0
C
r?
ol.
C c C LV t ? ; :? r ?4
0

Q
,s
L -
APPENDIX B
SCOPING LETTERS
April 3, 2003
Mr. William Wescott
Washington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washinuton, North Carolina 27330-1000
Re: Greenville Northern Rail Connector. TIP no. P-3 30)AA. Greenville. Pitt County
Dear Mr. Wescott.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division (NCDO I') proposes to add a
railroad track connection, knoyvn as a wye, Jolmng the CSX Transportation line with the Carolina
Coastal Railway line to improve flow and movement of freight, as well as decrease motorist
delavs at crossings in Greenville, NC (Figure 1). The proposed project is located in central
Greenville approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the intersection of West Tenth Street and Green
Street (Figure 2). The project study area (PSA) has been defined by NC DOT as an area
approximately 400 feet in xyidth surrounding the proposed project (Figure 3).
Currently, there is no railroad track connection to permit train traffic moving from south to east.
Southbound train traffic is hauled throu?o11 the CSX Transportation/Carolina Coastal Railway
railroad crossing to a small switchino yard located between Arlington Boulevard and I Lowell
Street. Freight cars maneuver in and out of the railroad sidings as they connect cars to build
eastbound trains. This operation often occurs during peak travel times, blocking the railroad
crossings at Fourteenth Street. Howell Street and Arlington Boulevard. Recent study data show
that Fourteenth Street carries approximately 16.000 vehicles per day and Arlington Boulevard
carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day; therefore.. this railroad operation has significant
impact on vehicle traffic.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project. This letter
constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the project. It is desirable that you
respond by June 15, 2008, so that your comments can be used in the preparation of a Federally -
funded Categorical Exclusion in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
fhe follo\xing describes the general features of the study area, as well as anticipated impacts.
Existing Land Use
the project is located in a well-established portion of Greenville. The land use within two miles
of the project study area (PSA) is primarily used for urban development including; a mixture of
high, medium, and low density residential with commercial/industrial interspersed. Some
agriculture remains to the west of the PSA along the city fringe. The PSA contains portions of
four roads: I'hirteenth Street, Fourteenth Street. Beattv Street, and Pitt Street. All ol'the streets.
with the exception of Fourteenth Street, are local access streets in what is a residential area with
some scattered commercial uses. Current zonin<; in the immediate vicinity of the PSA is
commercial/industrial with some scattered residential (Greenville 2004). Two existing railroad
lines intersect in the PSA: CSX Transportation and Carolina Coastal Railway. Portions of three
existing wyes occupy a large portion of the southern half of the PSA.
Water Resources
The PSA is located within the city limits of Greenville approximately l mile south of the 'far
River with the closest named stream being Greens Mill Run approximately 0.5 mile cast (Figure
I ). Field surveys within the PSA were completed in March 2008. The PSA was walked and
visually inspected for significant environmental features. Jurisdictional area bOUndarles were
delineated and are pending verification. Two wetlands and an intermittent stream were identified
on the site.
Threatened and Endangered Species
As of .January 31, 2008, three federally protected species are listed tirr Pitt COtlllty (Table 1).
Table 1: Federally Protected Species listed for Pitt County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Present
Red-cockaded wood ticker Pic•uirle., llnr-eahi Endangered No
West Indian manatee 7ric•hcchus muuutus Endangered No
Tar Rivers inymussel Endan"'ered No
Cultural Resources
A preliminary search of the North Carolina State I listoric Preservation Office's (SI IP0) files did
not identify any significant archeological or historic places within the PSA. SI IP0 will make the
final determination if the protect will affect any properties that may be eligihle for the National
Resister.
Thank you for assisting us in this study. If further information repardim, the proposed action or
the environmental analysis process is required. please contact me by phone at (919) 828-343 or
by email at olou?hlin a ecosciencenc.com.
II

1 Sincerely I
' David O' LouOhlin
Senior Scientist
I coScience: a Division ot'PBS&J
Attachments
cc: Marc Hamel, NC'DO f Rail Division

F
L

N ? -
- ?I
I Fy ? ?
ar.;r ''? q,.a XC
SITE
LOCATION
?QENOn MI
41
?r'M 1 •L River
1
Rfl.. 43
* r.rd
Oak
Ile
r rry 1
)) rr
^? ? ? ? 4cvsdv - Fr ! I ?y w[5??' Sf i
1411, . 1
j? 1?Rnef3lh ID t wad
S? js3?3 r° 1y > ypcG .«. 10
_` aY11A? r_cl
. y.
? s• r
2 MILES 0 2 MILES
SCALE: 1"=2 MILES
SOURCE: 2003 NORTH CAROUW AYVS AND G42MEER, p. Q a 03
1? { t_
-L ,
GREENVILE TA DC
so- NORTHERN RAIL CONNECTOR Date:
?,?VF? ??u??111Fit DELINEATION Sca,e: MAR Zoo
EcoScience
Corporation SITE LOCATION AS SHOWN
ESC Project No.:
0f-3?4 04
? s,`_ J
-.b--.a-----Itas',?iert _ y -
11 f i ua ?? 1hM 5x Tower
T PROJECT STUDY
k AREA
j -- ,

?M
s1w
%
Jr)
:fie
i ?'?\?\ ' i• t?T??_ •? J - I'1 F ? , - -?•._ ?+ ?• •s v'?'1C?d7Yr?? 5\s-? _
?+ /.7 ' is y..•_ - I- 77'•- '? ' -'_?^
200' 0 2000 z • ; ,- ?y d ??.`'
SCALE: 1 =2000' M.,
SOURCE. USG`. 7.5 MINUTE OUADRINGa (ROCKY MDUN() -- •, d . • •'' , ?!/
Prepared by: CI ent: U'?'I' FjY' 1(-kd Py' FIGURE
GREENVILLE 1L Do
NORTHERN RAIL CONNECTOR Date
DELINEATION MAR°°g
Scale: 2
EcoScience USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
AS SHOWN
Corporation SC Project No-
City of Greenville
North Carolina
P.O. Box 7207 - Greenville, N.C. 27835 7207
I'1 N1 %%4GER'S OFFICE
August 13, 2008
Ms. Elizabeth Scherrer
Mr. David O'Loughlin
PBS&J, Senior Scientist
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Ms. Scherrer and Mr. O'Loughlin:
' R I' TIP No. P-3309AA and P-3309AB, Greenville Northern Rail Connector and Siding,
Solicitation for Scoving Comments Related to the Proiects
' I Iii City of Greenville supports the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
plans to minimize the impact of rail operations on Greenville residents and visitors. The City is a
' member of NCDOT's steering committee developing solutions to the issues caused by CSX's
':ail yard operations in the City. Arlington Boulevard and Fourteenth Street, in addition to being
major corridors in the City, are also critical to emergency responders as these two roads are
' I i i rect routes to Pitt County Memorial Hospital from the eastern areas of the City.
froth projects are important to reducing the impact of rail traffic on the local transportation
' iictNvork. The City, however, desires to have TIP No. P-3309AA, the Northern Rail Connector,
built first due to the impact this project will have on minimizing road blocks associated with rail
? and operations. Both projects are necessary to meet the needs of CSX and Carolina Coastal
Railway to move freight efficiently as well as the needs of the City which are to minimize
-lockages on two of its thoroughfares.
he Rail Connector Project Study Area (P-3309AA) is within Greenville's planning and zoning
dr,isdiction (ETJ). 1be Rail Siding Project Study Area (P-3309AB) is located immediately north
I'the City's ETJ. The City's ETJ limit is approximately 1,450 feet east of the eastern right-of-
,,? ay of NC Highway 11. Based upon the general location maps provided in your letter dated
July 17. 2008, the southern portion of the study area may extend into the City's ETJ in proximity
,iates Subdivision.
i lic l,ro}ict.; will have a positive impact on area properties due to improved automobile
rallic flow on Fourteenth Street, Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and other crossings as a
:Suit of the improvements.
Ms. Elizabeth Scherrer
Mr. David O'Loughlin
Page 2
August 13, 2008
The projects are not anticipated to have a negative impact on local designated historic landmarks
or the National Register Historic District fronting Greene and Pitt Streets. With respect to the
two local landmarks in proximity of Fourteenth Street, no Certificate of Appropriateness is
required unless the improvements directly impact a designated property or the structure(s)
located thereon. Mr. Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban Development Division, is your contact
concerning local historic landmarks and can be reached at [phone].
The projects are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the West Greenville Certified
Redevelopment Area or the Center City Revitalization Area and are not in conflict with the
adapted plans for said areas. Mr. Rees is also your contact concerning the West Greenville and
Center City Plans.
The projects are not in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan (I lorizons: Greenville's
Community Plan) or any addendum to said plan.
The two projects will significantly improve the traffic flow of motor vehicles and trains, and this
will have a positive effect on the local community and wider Greenville area.
Sincerely,
Wayne Bowers
City Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council
Merrill Hood. Director of-Community Dcvelopnienl
Wesley 11. Anderson, Director of Public Forks
Doc4 77956,
July 21- 2008
City of Greenville
North Carolina
P.O. Box 7207 - Greenville, NC 27835-7207
Ms. Elizabeth Scherrer
Mr. David O'Loughlin
PBS&J, Senior Scientist
1101 flaynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604

Re: TIP no. P-3309AA and P-3309AB, Greenville Northern Rail Connector and Siding;
Solicitation for Scoping Comments Related to the Projects
Dear Ms. Scherrer and Mr. O'Loughlin,
['he Rail Connector Project Study Area (P-3309AA) is located within Greenville's
tlannine and zoning jurisdiction (ETJ)
The Rail Siding Project Study Area (P-3309AB) is located immediately north of
Greenville's planning and zoning jurisdiction (ETJ). The Citv's ETJ limit is
approximately 1,450 feet east of the eastern right-of-way of NC Highway 11. Based on
the general location maps provided in your letter dated July 17, 2008, the southern
portion of the study area may extend into the City's ETJ in proximity of Pinewood
Estates Subdivision.
tie referenced projects are anticipated to have a positive impact on area properties due to
mproved automobile traffic flow on Fourteenth Street, Arlington Boulevard, Greenville
3oulevard, Tenth Street and other crossings as a result.
' Vhe projects are not anticipated to have a negative impact on local designated historic
andmarks or the national register historic district fronting Green Street and Pitt Street.
ith respect to the 2 local landmarks in proximity of Fourteenth Street, no certificate of
appropriateness is required unless the improvements directly impact a designated
,roperty or the structure(s) located thereon. Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban
Development Division, [phone], is your contact concerning local historic
' i_:ndrnark
1
The projects are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the West Greenville
Certified Redevelopment Area or the Center City Revitalization Area and are not in
conflict with the adopted plans for said areas. Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban
Development Division, is your contact concerning the West Greenville and Center City
Plans.
The projects are not in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan (Horizons
Greenville's Community Plan) or any addendum to said plan
The subject projects and the resulting improvernents to the railroad system will
significantly improve traffic flow and will have a positive effect on the local community
and broader Greenville community.

Harry V. Hamilton. Jr.
Chief Planner
Community Development Departmenl
City of Greenville, NC
Office [phone]
Fax [phone]
CC: Merrill Flood, Director of Community Development Department
Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban Development Division
Doc# 776307
- .iii I .. 1_?, t, „;?n .?•r
th (. I?I. vans, Sc•crctan-
' trct• t-rntc, 1)cputt• Scrretan-
1 tigtlst 1, 2008

r

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pctcr R ti.unll,, I k, 1,Imuot,II i(, q
( )fticc of Archncs And I hstonv
17111%11 Icl r)f 1 iistoneal Resources
I)acid Knx)k Director
David O'Loughlin
Elizabeth Scherrer
I :c( )Science
1101 1 [a% nes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Greenville Northern Rail Connector, P-3309,1.•x, (,reenvillc, Pitt Counn•, FR 118 1731
(treenville. Northern Rail Siding?, P-3309-113, Greenville Pitt Counn-, F'R 08-17.15
' i )car dlr. O'Loughlin and Ms. Scherrer:
' I Bank vo u for your separate letters of Jule 17, 2008, concerning the above referenced projects. We have
:arched our maps and files and determined that neither of the projects is likely to affect archaeolo0cil
)urces.
' have deternned that the Greenville Northern Rail Siding (P-3309.113) as proposed will not affect any
,roric srrtictures. However, there are several historic buildings -within or near the area of potential effect for
(,reenvtlle Northern Rail Connector (P 3 309.1A). 'T'hus, we recommend that the area be surveyed to
iitif? :w(I cv:lIIIte :ir1? ht'Opcriit•, that ars nrtre than }fifty (;11) v-(,:In? t)1d tr) clerernmic thcir cli!rtl)
ilir% ft r
pit i 1--11, Iii, , i . Al 11 11 ?, ...-.,I
,I\ isorl Council on Iistoric Prescl'yatioil's Rcgu.lamms, for Compliance with Section 1110 codified at 36 CFR
art 51)f?.
ink Voti for your coopcrat.ior) and consideration. If Vou hay c cjuestior)s concerning the above comment,
Ir:wt Prllee (;leclhill FIrlcv, environtnental review coordinator, at 919-_80.17-6579. In all future
„ . his project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
' ?incerely,
' Peter Sandbeck
AT Pope Furr, ! 'CI)O'1.
' c I lamel, N(:I)O"I'j RR

?,
O K
Sul) 29. ?008
Nil NIORANDI NI
' \1r Da%Id 0'1 oughIin. Senior Scientist. F.coScience
01 1iavncs Strcet { r it ??l t
?.lite Ifll `
' •Acioh. NC 27604
' Ahem Rail Connector in Pitt Count
[olect. Picliminai analysis ut the project area indicate, that 'our project +Ill not impact an} perennial
!reams or juriufictional \\etlands. llo%\e\er. further investigations at a hi_aher resolution should he
ndirtaken to \crif\ the presence ot'other streams and or,jurisdictional m-ctlands in the area.
Thank coo for requesting our input at this time. fhe DO I i, reminded that Issuallce ol'a -l
Qu:Ilit\ Certification rcoluire, that appropriate measures he instituted to enurrc that eater q
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. I f s,IU hay c an. questions
additional Information, please contact David W'ain,,\ri?„ht at (9 19) 71 5-341 S.
c: William Wescott. I .S Arim. Corp; of'Engineers, W ashnl=u,n Field 011-10.
Chris Militscher, Em ir•onniental Protection ALenc\
t ravis W ilso n. N(' Wildlite RC,0lIFCe,, Commission
Garv Jordan, (IS Fish and Wildlife Scrvice
Garcv Ward. 1)WO Washington Regional O11ice
Filc Com
t,c,.rdlir,. ?ir,nr.ah:_l . h. t
',Mail Service Center Raleigh, Noilh Carolna 217659-1650
' 1 ;rabtree Boulevard. Suite 250. Raleigh. North Carolina 27504
ne 919-733-1796 i FAX [phone] Internet htte:l/h2o.enr state nc.uslnMet
Coleen Sullins. Director
Division of Water Quality
i'Ith( ,nnIll
1 }rtnnrllr

I North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elizabeth Scherrer
EcoScience: a Division of PBSJ
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 1, 2008
SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the
proposed Northern Rail Connector and Greenville Northern Rail Siding,
Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina. TIP No. P-3309 AA/AB
This memorandum responds to a request from the NCDOT for our concerns
' rc`tyarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project.
Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
rcviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with
c-rtain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
i1?c Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time we do not have any specific concerns related to this project. To help
' ilitate document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs
ire outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
NC Natural Heritage Program
Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601.
WWW.ncnlip.org
and,
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Memo
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
IX
Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
)roject. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Ralci,h Field Office
Post Office Bo\ 33726
Ralcieh. North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 2008
JUL 2 5 ZOOP.
David O'Loughlin
t EcoScience
1 101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. O'Loughlin:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed Greenville Northern Rail
Connector in Pitt County, North Carolina (TIP No. P-3309AA). These comments provide
information in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973), as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
Due to the urban nature of the project area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources are likely to be
very minimal. We believe that the project will not have any effects on federally threatened or
endangered species. As such, the Service does not have any specific concerns or
recommendations for the project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-
45211, c xt. 32.
Sincerely,
A-t7 PCIA-
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, N(

Ft-de vi }id tt: 171'=`. P-33(1(1.1 1 Cow w": Pitt
CONCI JZKL-\C'L FORM I4.?R VCN ",5\t IA Y OI f'Fl i':t'T5
1'Y/I cull. e5c.1,1prion,
On, 3 Februar% 20119 representati%cs of the
' Nortlk Carolina Department of Transpotiation 1N(_'37Ct1 1
Federal Ilighway :ldministration(1 [[?E':\1
C Nonh Carolina State, Historic Preservallon Ofticc (HPO)
? Chhcr
KevieWCd the suh,j4(;t project and agreed
? Thcrc arc no effects on the National Register-listed property:'propcrtics located within
Iftc project's area of potennal clfccl and limed on the revertie.
? Ihcre are no effects on the National Register-eligible. property,
pri>pcrtic-, luctitcd wittun
'he prnjeci's area of potential effect and Iisted on the; reversc,
There is an effect on the National Register-list;:d propcrty,properties toca:ed ? ithin the
pr,?ject's area of potential effect. The properly propcrt.es and the effect(;) are I.sted on
the reVerse.
? There is an effect (tin the National Register-c ig.bic propcr-ty.properties located w9111in dic
pri>je?t' area of potential etfcct, The propcrt*,- propert:es and effectl;s) are Iisted on the
CCU :;I'tiC.
? - 3 t. v 2"Jcx
i•'.,_ , •. , : tail N('T)( Y1 bate
ali I l
l?
' :?prrsctttative, IiPC} I%ttc
t sic Historic Preservailon t)f.iccr 15ste

F -dc ro,.? Aif" - 111'-- P-3309A A t 'nwr: t Pill
11ropen:cs within the area of putcimal ctt&t for which ti,.ere is no d'fect. lrnclicate if -.)i- peliv is
\,;ilomII i%'.r.L'istr--Ils[Cd INR) Or dct47,111 IIICd C! I" 1':)'C I
1'ropertie.: within tic area of pote.n::a': el'fec;t for which there is an cffcc:t inc!zzcalc prep er \ status
( \12 of 1)I ) cl_nd describe. the effect
KinL Simmons I odic (\R) \c) Adccisc I ftect
RCc 1 on(s> NN iti the effect is not adxe-.,,c; (i`.'appIicabIc-).
Kill ircl ni Kt ) ?'oc4 not ctlcroach on proPcrty llm, Kin, Simmons I o6gc I,-, scrccricd from
hrt?'.7, nt?t I;LI ?'.i:? "5 :111 i'11aCti tCT7CC !`.(:'<1 lrCCti.
II:It la 1ed: '1C'U()'l /
_ ?9,r 1' l i W t _ I? 111 ( ) Oje
APPENDIX C
USAGE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS
NC WANI FIELD ASSESSMENT FORMS
NCDW'Q WETLAND RATING WORKSHEETS
.ID FORNI
USAGE AID# DWQ # Site #WB06 (indicate on attached J
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET `y
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
' I. Applicant's name: NCDO'I' ? Evaluator's name: LS01). O'Lour Min
3. Date of evaluation: March 13, 2008 4. Time of evaluation: 12 Pm
5. Name of stream: UT to Greens Mill Run 6. River basin: Tar-Pamlico
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.002 sq. mile 8. Stream order: I"
9, Length of reach evaluated: 50 ft 10. County: Pitt
Sit
t
11
di
if k
601"N
77
379°W
35 12
S
bdi
i
i
if
nown):
.
e coor
na
es (
.
.
, v
.
u
s
on name (
any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach snap identifying stream(s) location): north of
' existin-, railroad bed in southeastern Quadrant of proiect study area
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
' 15. Recent weather conditions: normal temps. no rain
16. Site conditions at time of visiC partly cloudv, 55°F
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
' 'T'rout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed 0-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati on point'! YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
' 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'! YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? YES NO
21. listimated watershed land use: 55?; Residential 401/ Commercial '/ Industrial 30171 Agricultural
51% Forested Cleared / Logged 1i Other
22. Bankfull width: 3' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of'stream: Flat (0 to 217) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>109c )
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecorcgion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page ; provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
he evaluated clue to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there arc obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (.e.g.. the stream flows from it pasture into a forest), the stream may
he divided into smaller reaches That display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream ,each must ranee between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of file highest quality.
' Total Score (from reverse): I I Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
' quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream

(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max poilits) 0-5 0 4 0-5
O
Evidence of past human alteration
2 (extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5

O
3 Riparian zone

(no buffer = 0; conti(Iuous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discltars*cs = 0: no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
,.? 5 Groundwater discharge
0
3

U
(no discharge = 0; springs, sce p.s, wetlands, etc. = max points) - 0-4 0-4 (1
r? Presence of adjacent floodplain
6 (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oink) 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
Entrenchment / floodplain access

A'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 u
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 0
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA*

(fine, homoggcnous = 0: large, diverse sizes = max points) 0-4 0-5 NA
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

?•
(dee lv incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
E'
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0: no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5

14 Root depth and density on banks
0
3
4
0
Q
F„
(no visible roots = 0. dense roots throughout = max points) - - 0-5

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

(substantial impact =0; no evidence = Max po?intsl 0-5 0-4 0-5

1( Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

E~ i (no riffles/ripples or owls = 0; well-developed = max points) 0 - 0-5 0-6
11
Q
?
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
,
F- (little or no habitat = 0: frc ucnt, varied habitats = max points)
n
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
Q
.r. (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
w
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA* 0-4 0-4 N' A
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 4
0 5
0 0
5 0
>+ (no evidence = 0: common, ?tumerous types = max points) - - -
?: 1 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O (no evidence = 0: common, numerous types = ntax points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max )Dints)
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0; ahundant evidence = max points)
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
11
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TO"TAI, SCORE (also enter on first page) I 1
* These characteristics arc not assessed in coastal streams.
2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 03/13/08
Evaluator: ESC/O'Loughlin
Total Points: 10.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if = 19 or perennial i/.>_ 30
Project: Greenville Rail Connector
Site: UT
County: Pitt
Latitude: 35.601
Longitude: 77.379
Other: DOB 13
e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 3) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
2. Sinuosity ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
0 ®
Yes = 3 ?
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
16. Leaf litter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ?
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6)
20 . Fibrous roots in channel ® 3 ? 2 ? 1 ? 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ? 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?;
Other = 0 ? FACW = 0.75 ?; OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
items Lu and Cl focus on the presence of uplano plants, item La focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
stream does not continue beyond DOb13
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 03/13/08 Project: Greenville Rail Connector Latitude: 35.601
Evaluator: ESC/Cooper Site: UT Longitude: 77.379
Total Points: 22.5 Other: downstream from D01313
Stream is al least internitient County: Pitt
it , 19 or ererimal d -- 37 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 11.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
9'. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ®
Yes = 3 ?
_ man-mace ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = 6.0 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ? Yes = 1.5
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = 5.0)
20 . Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ? 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29t'. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?; FACW = 0.75 ?: OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
Other= 0 ?
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Stream does not persist upstream of D0131 3.
USAGE AID#
DWQ
Site ffWBo h (indicate on attached
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ;

II
Provide the following information for the stream reach underassessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: ESC/J. Cooper
3. Date of evaluation: March 13, 2008 4. Time of evaluation: 12 Pm
5. Name of'stream: UT to Greens Mill Run 6. River basin: Tar-Pamlico
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.002 sq. mile 8. Stream order: I"
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 ft 11). CnunIy: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.601"N, 77.379°W 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): north of
cxistiu railroad bed in southeastern quadrant of project study area

14. Proposed channel work (if any):

15. Recent weather conditions: normal temps, no rain

16. Site conditions at time of visit: partly cloudv. 55T
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation paint? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. DOGS channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? YES NO
21. Estinnued watershed land use: 5544 Residential
51/c Forested
22. Bankfull width:
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends
40% Commercial % Industrial 30% Agricultural
'7r: Cleared / Logged /Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of hank): 5'
Gentle (2 to 417H Moderate (4 to 101k) Steep (>10%-)
FrcLlucnt meander Very sinuous Braidcd channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification. etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. fo Comment, please call 919-876-5441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

(no flow or sawratiun = 0: strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
;
Evidence of past human alteration
2 (extensive alteration = 0. no alteration = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
I
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
5 Groundwater discharge

(no discharge = 0; s rin gs, seeps, wetlands. etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
ru••r 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood plain = 0; extensive flood . lain = max points) 0-4 0- , 0-2
f)
w 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

p"
(deeply entrenched = O; frequent flooding = max points) 0- 5 U- 4 0- 2 0
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4

3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
I I
(tine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes = max points) NA* 0-4 0-5 NA
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

?4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 0
W" 13 Presence of major bank failures

?4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
Ca
14 Root depth and density on banks
Q
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5 1

IS Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

(substantial impact =U; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

(no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
(little or no habitat = 0: fret uent, varied habitats = max points)
b
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
Q (no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA 0-4 0-4 NA
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

(no evidence = 0; common. numerous types = in ax points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
C.7 1 Presence of amphibians

O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
,? Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
D
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous tv yes = Max points)

r231 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
O
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Greenville Northern Rail Connector (06-324.04) Date: 3/13/08
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Rail Division County: Pitt
Investigator: DO, JC State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transect ID: Disturbed
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: XA03
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Artrrrclirturiu ?i,?urrle<t Stratum
S Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Acer rubruin T/S FAC 10.
3. Suli.r nigr•u T 0131.- it.
4. ('are.r .clrlr. H FACW 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Inundated
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Aerial Photographs Water Marks
Other Drift Lines
No Recorded Data Available Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required):
Field Observations: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: water at soil surface in pit
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bibb complex
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
U-Ili A IIIYR 3C 7.5YR i/S Few. prominent Clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Greenville Northern Rail Connector (06-324.04) Date: 3/13/08
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Rail Division County: Pitt
Investigator: DO. JC State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transect ID: Disturbed
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: XA03
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Andrupogon virginicus H FAC- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. f estu<•r! ,Vyp. H FAC- 10.
3. 1 I .
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0%
Remarks:
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Inundated
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Aerial Photographs Water Marks
Other Drift Lines
No Recorded Data Available Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required):
Field Observations: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: no hydrology
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bibb complex
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0 16 Fill* 10YR 4/2
I OYR -1/4 Loam sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: `Soil profile consists of fill material
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks:
11 1
Wetland Rating; Worksheet (xa)
Project Name Greenville Northern Rail Connector Nearest Road Pitt Street
County --Pitt Name of Evaluator DKO/ESC Date _03/13/08
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 0.5 mile upstream)
on pond or lake forested/natural ve,,etation 30
on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban 50
_X_ on intermittent stream impervious surface 20
within interstream divide
other Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series
predominantly organic humus, muck
or pete
_X_ predominantly mineral, non-sandy
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
X wetland width >1=50 feet
Wetland Type
bottomland hardwood forest
headwater forest
swamp forest
wet flat
pocosin
Water storage _3_
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 5
Pollutant removal 5
Wildlife habitat 1
Aquatic life value _3_
Recreation/Education I
g:irorn„/nwQ uhM fo„n/WQ WC11 MId K: ufng ron„
I ) Acer rubrum
2) Salix mora
3) Arundinaria sigantea
Flooding and Wetness
semi-permanently to permanently or
inundated
_X_ seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface
water
pine savanna
freshwater marsh
bog/fen
X ephemeral wetland
other
x 4 = _12-
x 4 = _20-
x 5 = _25-
x 2 = 2
X 4 = _12-
x I = 1
Total Score
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Version 3.14 (November 27, 2007)
Wetland Site Name xa wetland Greenville Northern Rail Connector Date 03/21 /08
Wetland Type Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh ? Assessor Name/Organization DKO,ESC
Level III Ecoregion Middle Atlantic Coastal Rain Nearest Named Water Body Greens Mill Run
River Basin Tar-Pamlico USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020103
Lo; Yes ?; No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.598 N. -77.379 W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure frorn reference, if appropriate, in recent
past (for instance, approximately 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 stroage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage. salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing. clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the wetland intensively managed? ",*, Yes [, No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
culverts, routine mowing
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area.
f- Anadromous fish
r- Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ Riparian buffer rule in effect
r Wetland adjacent to or a Primary Nursery Area or associated with a stream that drains to a Primary Nursery Area
Publicly owned property
f N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
( N.C. Division of Water Quality best usage classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Wetland adjacent 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? r 'Yes E No
Is the assessment area surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation 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 0.0). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of alteration.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over most 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], artificial 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. Refer to the NRCS Scope and Effect Guide (see User Manual
v1.0 Appendix G) for North Carolina hydric soils for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is
considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water.
Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A i A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B P 'q B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
fir q C r:; C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: intensive ditching, fill. sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms. beaver
dams. stream incision. sewer lines, soil compaction).
Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
Chec k a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
`n A i A A Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water > 2 feet
` B ? B Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water 1 to 2 feet
` C
.4 C
A Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot
L i
? D
"; D
Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 3- to 6-inches deep
I_ ' F_ Depu??;.ions nhl? to n omi watr-i __ 3-inches peep

I

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric
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 foot. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
= A Sandy soil
B Predominantly characterized by mottled (redoxymorphic features), mineral soil
C Predominantly characterized by other, mineral soil (no mottling)
D Gleyed mineral soil
' E Soil ribbon < 1 inch
F Soil ribbon ? 1 inch
G No peat or muck presence
H A peat or muck presence
I Peat or muck soil (histosol or histic epipedon)
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) 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
Check all that apply. Evaluation of this metric 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). Effective riparian buffers are considered to be 50 feet
wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont and 30 feet wide in the Mountains.
WS 5M 2M
A I- A r- A > 30% impervious surfaces with stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) (land use examples:
' industrial, commercial, and high-density residential)
B F- B f- > 30% impervious surfaces without stormwater BMPs
C f, C R, C 10 to 30% impervious surfaces
D r D F D < 10% impervious surfaces
E E f` E Old urban development (pink areas on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles)
F F f F New adjacent development
G Ro G I? G Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
H F F ? 20% coverage of pasture without riparian buffer
' I F r- 20% coverage of pasture with effective riparian buffer
J f- J f- ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) without riparian buffer
K r K r K ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) with effective riparian buffer
L r L F L ? 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
M r_ M r M ? 20% coverage of silvicultural land with disturbance < 5 years old
N N N Little or no opportunity. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic modifications that prevent drainage or
or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area condition metric
Is assessment area within 50 feet of a stream or other open water? (open water does not typically include man-made ditches or canals)
Yes No If No, skip to next metric.
Stream width (Stream width is normal flow width [ordinary high water to ordinary high water]). If the stream is anastomosed, combine
widths of channels/braids for a total stream width.
<_ 15-feet wide A> 15-feet wide " No stream associated with the assessment area
.A L Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the adjacent stream/open water?
Yes F., No
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 z 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland/Riparian Buffer Width - assessment area/wetland type/wetland complex metric
' Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT), the wetland
complex (WC), and the riparian buffer at the assessment area (RB) (if applicable). Riparian buffer width is measured from lop of bank
and need only be present on one side of the water body. The riparian buffer is measured from the outside banks of the outer
channels of an anastomosed system. Make buffer judgment based on dominant landscape feature. Record a note if a portion of
' the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
WT WC RB (if appicable)
L A L ? A "A >_ 100 feet
?,B ?;B LB From 80 to<100feet
' ??C
C C From 50 to<80feet
"J ??
D ` D L ; D From 40 to < 50 feet
`IE ??E r-4E From 30 to<40feet
?' F r', F I' F From 15 to < 30 feet
' J G L; G ?; G From 5 to < 15 feet
r?H `JH BAH <5feet
9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
L B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
rL C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland
area: the size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the contiguous wetland complex (WC), and the size of the contiguous,
forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User Manual). Boundaries are formed by uplands, four-lane roads, or urban landscapes.
An observed beaver pond forms a boundary if it extends across the entire width of the floodplain. Additionally, other wetland types
are considered boundaries for Column WT. If assessment area is clear-cut. select "K" for FW column.
WT WC FW (if appicable)
' A E A EA ? 500 acres
u B B B From 100 to < 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 E H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
L!J 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
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
u A Wetland type is the full extent (? 90%) of its natural landscape size.
E B Wetland type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
Check appropriate box(es). This metric refers to the landscape patch, the contiguous naturally vegetated area and open water (if
appropriate) that include the wetland type. Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture
agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. What size landscape patch is the wetland type either well-connected (Well) or loosely-
connected (Loosely) to?
Well Loosely
A A ? 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
rg.?C u C From 50 to < 100 acres
!?? D D From 10 to < 50 acres
t? E E < 10 acres
v F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
Check Yes or No.
. Yes '' No Does wetland type have a surface hydrology connection to open waters or tidal wetlands? (evaluated for marshes only)
Yes H
,:, No Is the assessment area subject to overbank or overland flooding during normal rainfall conditions?
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric
Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include permanent features such as fields,
development. Iwo-lane or larger roads (? 40-feet wide), utility line corridors wider than a two-lane road, and clear-cuts < 10 years old.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four to seven directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
u A Vegetation 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.
v B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions. but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
EC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non-characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species.
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species.
u
17. Vegetative Structure - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
u Vegetation present
Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for marshes only
A ? 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
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 thewelland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
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 Canopy sparse or absent
L.J
V A u A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B ' B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
u C u C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B u B Moderate density shrub layer
u c C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A T ! A Dense herb layer
B ?I B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
u Vegetation absent
21
1 B. Snags - wetland type condition metric
r-, A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape position).
Mu B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution - wetland type condition metric
u A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12-inches DBH) are
present.
F' 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
Include both man-made and natural debris piles.
F' A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape position).
B Not A
Vegetation/Open 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 open water and herbaceous vegetation in the wettest
season. Patterned areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.

' 22. Habitat Uniqueness - assessment area condition metric
V Yes E No Has the N.C. Environmental Management Commission classified the assessment area as "Unique Wetlands"
(UWL)?
II

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
VERSION 3.15 (December 31, 2007)
Wetland Site Name xa wetland Greenville Northern Rail Date 03/21/08
Connector
Wetland Type Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh Assessor Name/Organization DKO/ESC
Level III Ecoregion Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Nearest Named Water Body Greens Mill Run
River Basin Tar-Pamlico USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020103
Yes F-1 No Precioitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-deareesl 't5 59A N -7727q W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note below 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, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ? No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
culverts, routine mowing
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area.
? Anadromous fish
? Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
? Wetland adjacent to Primary Nursery Area or associated with a stream that drains to a Primary Nursery Area
? Publicly owned property
? N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
? N.C. Division of Water Quality best usage classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
? Designated NCNHP reference community
? Wetland adjacent 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
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation 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 v1.0). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence of alteration.
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], artificial 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. Refer to the NRCS Scope and Effect Guide (see User Manual v1.0 Appendix
G) for North Carolina hydric soils for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface
water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if
applicable.
Surf 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: intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver
dams, stream incision, sewer lines, soil compaction).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
?A ?A Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water > 2 feet
®B ®B Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water 1 to 2 feet
?C ?C Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot
?D ?D Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 3- to 6-inches deep
?E ?E Depressions able to pond water < 3-inches deep
4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric
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 foot. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
?A Sandy soil
®B Predominantly characterized by mottled (redoxymorphic features), mineral soil
?C Predominantly characterized by other, mineral soil (no mottling)
?D Gleyed mineral soil
?E Peat or muck soil (histosol or histic epipedon)
?F Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®G Soil ribbon ? 1 inch
01-1 No peat or muck presence
?I A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) 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
Check all that apply. Evaluation of this metric 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). Effective riparian buffers are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal
Plain and Piedmont and 30 feet wide in the Mountains.
WS 5M 2M
®A ?A ?A > 30% impervious surfaces with stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) (land use examples:
industrial, commercial, and high-density residential)
?B ?B ?B > 30% impervious surfaces without stormwater BMPs
?C ®C ®C 10 to 30% impervious surfaces
?D ?D ?D < 10% impervious surfaces
®E ?E ?E Old urban development (pink areas on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles)
?F ?F ?F New adjacent development
?G ®G ®G Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
?H ?H ?H ? 20% coverage of pasture without riparian buffer
?1 ?I ?1 ? 20% coverage of pasture with effective riparian buffer
?J ?J ?J ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) without riparian buffer
?K ®K EK ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) with effective riparian buffer
?L ?L ?L ? 20% coverage of maintained grass herb
?M ?M ?M ? 20% coverage of silvicultural land with disturbance < 5 years old
?N ?N ?N Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic modifications
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area condition metric
Is assessment area within 50 feet of a stream or other open water? (open water does not typically include man-made ditches or canals)
®Yes ?No If No, Skip to next metric
Stream width (Stream width is normal flow width [ordinary high water to ordinary high water]). If the stream is anastomosed, combine
widths of channels/braids for a total stream width.
®<- 15-feet wide ?> 15-feet wide ?No stream associated with the assessment area
Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the adjacent stream/open water?
?Yes ®No
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/Riparian Buffer Width - assessment area/wetland type/wetland complex metric
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT), the wetland complex (WC),
and the ri parian buffer at the assessment area (RB) (if applicable). Riparian buffer width is measured from top of bank and need only be
present on one side of the water body. The riparian buffer is measured from the outside banks of the outer channels of an anastomosed
system. Make buffer judgment based on dominant landscape feature. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or
disturbed .
WT WC RB (if applicable)
?A ?A ?A ? 100 feet
®B ®B ®B From 80 to < 100 feet
?C ?C ?C From 50 to < 80 feet
?D ?D ?D From 40 to < 50 feet
?E ?E ?E From 30 to < 40 feet
?F ?F ?F From 15 to < 30 feet
?G ?G ?G From 5 to < 15 feet
?H ?H ?I-1 < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
?B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
?C Evidence of long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive. but 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 type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the contiguous wetland complex (WC), and the size of the contiguous, forested wetland (FW) (if
applicable, see User Manual). Boundaries are formed by uplands, four-lane roads, or urban landscapes. An observed beaver pond forms
a bo undary if it extends across the entire width of the floodplain. Additionally, other wetland types are considered boundaries for column
WT. It assessm ent area is clear-cut, select "K" for FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
?A ?A ?A ? 500 acres
?B ?B ?B From 100 to < 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
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
?A Wetland type is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
®B Wetland type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
Check appropriate box(es). This metric refers to the landscape patch, the contiguous naturally vegetated area and open water (if
appropriate) that includes the wetland type. Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and
agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. What size landscape patch is the wetland type either well-connected (Well) or loosely-
connected (Loosely) to?
Well Loosely
?A ?A ? 500 acres
?B ?B From 100 to < 500 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
Check Yes or No.
®Yes ?No Does wetland type have a surface hydrology connection to open waters or tidal wetlands? (evaluate for marshes only)
?Yes ZNo Does the assessment area experience overbank or overland flooding during normal rainfall conditions?
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric
Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include permanent features such as fields, development,
two-lane or larger roads (>_ 40-feet wide), utility line corridors wider than a two-lane road, and clear-cuts < 10 years old. Consider the eight
main points of the compass.
?A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
?B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four to seven directions
®C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
?A Vegetation 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 different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non-characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
?A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species.
?B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10910 cover of exotics.
®C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species.
17. Vegetative Structure - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
® Vegetation present
Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for marshes only
®A ? 25% coverage of vegetation
?B < 25% coverage of vegetation
Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands.
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
?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 Canopy sparse or absent
?A ?A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
?B ?B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
?C ?C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
?A ?A Dense shrub layer
?B ?B Moderate density shrub layer
?C ?C Shrub layer sparse or absent
?A ?A Dense herb layer
?B ?B Moderate density herb layer
?C ?C Herb layer sparse or absent
? Vegetation abse nt
18. Snags - wetland type condition metric
Consider
?A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBI I, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). I
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution - wetland type condition metric
?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 I
Include both man-made and natural debris piles.
?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
Vegetation/Open 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 OB ?C ?D
22. Habitat Uniqueness - wetland type condition metric ,
?Yes ®No Has the N.C. Environmental Management Commission classified the assessment area as Unique Wetlands (UVVL)?
Notes

1

NC WAM Wetland Rat ing Sheet
' xa wetland Greenville Northern Rail
Wetland Site Name Date of Assessment 03/21/08
Connector
' Wetland Type Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh Assessor Name/Organization DKO/ESC
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y/N) YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
' Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Wetland may be a high-quality riverine wetland (Y/N)
1 Assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area subject to overbank or overland flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition X
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition X
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition X
Condition/Opportunity X
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) X
Particulate Change Condition X
Condition/Opportunity X
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) X
Soluble Change Condition X
Condition/Opportunity X
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) X
Physical Change Condition X
Condition/Opportunity X
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) X
Pollution Change Condition X
Condition/Opportunity X
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) X
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Uniqueness Condition NO
Function Ratina Summar
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
['his form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLE'T'ION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICTOFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Greenville Northern Rail Connector
State:NC County/parish/borou(?h: Pitt City: Greenville
Center coordinates of site (lat/lon- in degree decimal format): Lat. 35,602° N. Long. -77.38" W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Namc of nearest %vtuerbodv: UT to Greens Mill Run
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (1IUC): 03020103
® Check if map/dia;,ram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e. g.. offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites. etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALI. THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION 11: SUNINIARI' OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be " mnv t able treaters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. I Regiiired]
? Waters utbjecl to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presendy used. or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or forei-n commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION =404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S," within Clean Water Act (CWA)jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. JReyuired)
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that Ilow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Nun-wetland waters: dub= 184 linear feet: 5width (ft) and/or 0.01 acres.
Wetlands: xa=0.1 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of,jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OI-IWM (il'know'n):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not.jurisdictional.
Explain: Isolated wetlands xb and xc/xd.
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this Lorin, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous Ilow at (cast "seasonally"
(c.L., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation i, presented in Section III.F.
Si?CTION III: CNVA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNAVs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section iiI.A.1 and Section iii.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section iiI.D.L; otherwise, see Section Iii.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTE.RISTiCS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENTWETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established tinder Rapaaor have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TN Ws where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RI'Ws), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section ii1.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial land its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterhody' is not an RPW, or a wetland directl' abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. "Phis significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributarv, Section 111.11.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section lH.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IiI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN1V
W General Area Conditions:
Watershed sire: I Isquare miles
Drainaec area: I square miles
Avcrac annual ruinlitll: 49.45 inches
Average annual snowfall: 1.5 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flown directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are l (or less) river miles from
miles from RPW.
Project waters cross (it- scr%e as state boundaries. Explain:
Project waters are 2-5 river miles from TNW
P RPW.
Project from TNW.
waters arc 1-2 aerial (straig
Pr ht) miles
waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles front RPW.
Identify flow route to TNW': intermittent tributary (doh) to UT to Greens Mill Run to Greens Mill Run to Tar River
Tributary stream order, if known: 1.
Note that the histructional Guidehook contains additional information regarding swedes. ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the aril
West.
Flow route call be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which 11ows through the review area, to flow into tributary h, which then lluws into TN\4

(h) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
' Tributat_v is: ? Natural
? Artificial (ntan-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: culverted. recieves road flow.
Tributary properties with respect to top of hank (estimate):
Average width: 5 feet
Average depth: 0 feet
Average ale .lopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
' ? Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/'.r cover:
? Other. Explain:
' Trihmary condition/st: IIIht\ ?r._ .. hi hlv eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable.
'
Presence of run/nf
Ilc/Fool coniplr\es. Explain: Absent.
Tributary geonn•n s Relatively straight
' Tributary gradient (Jpprocnnate ,tter;.Lc slope): 2-•1
c t How:
Tribunary provides for: Seasonal flow
Fstimate average numhcr (it flow eyrnts in review arca/year: 6-10
' Describe flow regime: Intrrniittrnl.
Other information on duration and whose:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye for other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and hanks
® OIIWNI" (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the hank
? changes in file character of soil
? shelving
? vegetation matted down, pent, or absent
® Ica( litter distfnhcd or washed away
® sediment deposition
? water staining-
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OIIW'Nl.' Explain:
If factors other than the OI IW'M were used to determ
? Ili"ll Tide l..ine indicated by: ?
? oil or ,runt line along shore objects
? line shell or debris deposits (foreshure)
? physical markings/rharactcristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
? the presence of litter and debris
? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® the presence of wrack line
? sediment sorting
? scour
? nttrltiple observed or predicted flow events
? ahrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of TWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated hy:
? survey to available datttul;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g.. water color is cheat-, discolored, oily film: water quality: general watershed characteristics, etc.).
' Explain: Roadside debris is evident: roadside chemical runoff is likely.
Idcntil% specific pollutants, if known: !Bone.
A natural or man-made discontinuily in the OIiWM does not necessarily seer )urisdiruon it-, where the stream temporarily tlm%s underground. or where
' the OHW'M has been rcrumed by development or agricultural practices). W'hcre there is a break in the OHW'M that is unrelated to the waterbody's floss
regime (c.g , flow over a ruck outcrop or through a cubcrtr. the;wcncics will look fin' indi:alors od 11(m above and h6m the hreak.
Ihid
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply
? Riparian corridor. C'll tGWteriStieS (type. iIVCragc width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Hahitat fur:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn arras. Explain findings:
? O(hercnvironmcntally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirecth into TN AV
M Phvsical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Clmiuctcristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:luw.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
(h) General Fl,)w Relationship with Nun- fNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Fxplain: stunnwaler sheetflow
Surface flow is: Pick List
Charactcriuics
Subsurface tlrn?: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland AdiaCenC\ IMk-m inatiun with Non CNNN
? Directly abutting
? Not directly ahutling
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by hernt/harrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Rclatiumhip) (o I'NW
Project wetlands ;ire Pick List ri\et' miles from TNW.
Project waters arc Pick List ;icrial (straight l miles froth "I NW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate Iocalikin of wetland as w ithm the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland syStem (c."., water color is clear
ch:uaCtcristics;etc.). Explain:
Identify spcCilie pollutants, if known:
III-owl], nil film on Surface; water quality: general watCrSlICd
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Welland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian huller. Characteristics hype, average width l:
? Ve,C(ation type/percent corer. Explain:
? Hallam for
? Federally Listed Species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn arras. Explain findings:
? Other envirorunentally sensitise species. Explain findings:
? Agnatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the trihutarv (if an} )
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative mJltsts: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total arc hcing considered in the Cu mu liltiye analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size On acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size tin acres)
SummariZC overall hioloeical. chemical and physical functions being pcrliornied:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the'i'NW'). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW'
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for nom-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below. based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 111.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the trihutary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain lindings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IiLD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE. (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round arejurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e. g.. typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: intermittent DW'Q score, hydric soils, water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain.
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 184 linear feet5width (ft).
? Other nun-wetland waters: acres.
identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that now directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly rn indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data Sllpportin¢ this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that now directly or indirectly into TN Ws.
® WetLinds directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: surface connection to UT to Greens Mill Run. UT to Greens NMI Run has fish, no
vegeatation in the channel, and approx. 6 ft culverts.
? Wetlands directly abutting in RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for Jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.lacres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW', but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands. have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section M.C.
Provide acreage estimates fur jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.13acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to nun-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review, area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters."
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above ( 1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED I INTERSTATE OR INTR.A-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"'
? which are ur could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could lie used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 1.
l'o complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the In,imcimnal Guidebook.
j° Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and L•'PA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regardit{q C1Va Act Jurisdiction Follmvin,; Rapauos.
1I
I Identit:v water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
i' Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
' F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS ICHEUK ALL THAT APPLY):
? II potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not erect the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Welland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
' ® Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SlV,ANC'C." the review area would have been regulated based solcl on the
"Migratory Bird Rule' (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant NexuS° standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
® Other: (explain, if not covered above): xh and xc/xd wetlands are surrounded by non-hydric soils.
' Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area. where the stile potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture). using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non wetland waters (i.e., rivers. streams): linear feet width (ft).
' ? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
' Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where Such
a finding is required forjurisdiction (check Ziff that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e.. riycrs, streams) linear feet, width (ft).
' ? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
® Wetlands:0.13acres.
I SECTION IN": I)A"f :1 SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for.lD (check all that apply - checked items shall he included in case file and. where checked
and requested, appropriately rctcrcncc sources beloxv):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted bi or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Officc 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 I WC maps.
® U.S. Gcologtcal Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Grecnvife SW 1:24000.
® l1SDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. ('itation:Pitt CUnnIV USDA 1974 .
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite nanrc:Greenvile SW 1:34000.
? State/1-ocal wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:

' ?
? Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicablc/supporling scientific literature

? .
Other information (please specify):

B. ADDITIONAL CONINII;Ni'I:S TO SUPPOR'r,jD: dub seasonal RPW Ilows into the olkAe perennial RPW U1'to Greens Mill Run. vi
wetland ahhuts I1'f to Green` %lill Run. We could find no wrface Cunneen In het"een i`olaled wetland, xb and \tl/xd to am trihinarN The
itinlated %%cllmulti are tituruundid ht nom h%dric \oik.

1

1
u?
v. LLJ m w
N
O O r ? ..
Z
LLJ WWW Wo?J U - co CD
I _
{?j c 7 eJ W Z
= J Q ~ oo 'o
N
m
O W
IIII ' ?. - C. .Q ? O U ? a' 3 0 7 U7
Yii?4 ._- ? U d Z
? C W
LL
J
In In If,
CO CD -H
LC)
U
Q Q Q
;z 00
r
C) 0)
O Q
Q Q O
II z u ? v
tR (lVN
C, u. I- on LJ
M (n w N co w In Z
v Q
W
iJ W ° Q w?
L
W
O C) W
L (n m
O F
0 W O O Q
(n
D a
I
I
f o
0 $ v°
/ no
1 I^
I
R d.
ol?,
L'e I
L
O
R .-
/ _ ? I o
.ooo
oZ
??sn
r

Z M
M O
O Q
B 4')
.- O
M (D
M
F _ Q In
(L
n
ao
n
(n (? m o K, o n m
W N N N N N N N
N
n N
M Q
u N
a N
IT, Q
O N
Q
Z
_ p ? M1 N ? 7 N
S
I- ca
? n
M Q
o n
r
• m
o a
a vi
m
^i . ? V (D
Q _ I+ n n n ?
Z c:. O O ca cD (??. cD
' N
o ti _ ?
L a Ca'' a L J C', C

d tp U (y ? V
N

o
y1 r-
,?
n!
I.
l()
p) rr
(V r_
Q rr
CJ r?
M a?
T, ro
n M
`7 cD ? n
In
()

?
,
r '-
I(',
r- ? c?
'-

)
O v

? n (O
Z ? M O, lV O (? co (D a Q a I? (D ft) ? Q In ?1 V In O N O C ^ Q O

f- M
(T (D
M N
CD C
r, O
n M
O a
M (D
n ?
a O
(T a
n In
(? n
to a

n O

ro ¢]

ro O

? Q

N N

V N

N Q

N Q

Q u7

V n

cp .t,

W a

l ?

a N N

1
N W
- [T E C
` G - O O O O O U 0 0 0 0 -- -- ? r- f- n n f- ^ f- ?
? u
n
.
oC
Q ?
m
Q .-
4?
Q t
c'
? N
n?
Q CV
a?
Q N
c0
?t N
CC)
Q N
OD
Q N
CO
V N
?
Q N
of
Q N
Ql
Q N
CO
Q N
CO
Q tV
N
Q N
m
Q [V
c," N
f7
- cD W W W ?
c0 .-
a0 .-
(0 r-
0,7 m
Q' w

N

N

N

N N N tV N N N N

(V N N

N N N
Q
N
r
N
v
N
a
N
-r
N
q
N
Q
N V
Q
N
Q
N

N
Q
N
(, M
N a
Q
(Y} ?
.-
?
(D c0
N .
I r f
O
M
O
a0 (O
- M
M co n V' n .-
r" .- O N O O
z N O (A a; M M O V i
Q (D
O N
M n
Q a
O '
u1 III
(D Q r
? Q
to n
O r
GO N
N a ti)
LO Q
M N
? a
a Q
tD
_
H e?
N
r? r-
(D
(L N
? O
M a
fV a
N
?'

Q R
n ?
a r-
O O
f, In
ao r•
ao O
a ?f
cp ?

r- a
? O
IN Q f+D O M

O aO N
N O
n N
I
O
I?
? Q
? n

n Q
r Q
? Q
? V

n ?
? Q
n
n
r. Q
n Q In
n
n In
n
n N
r--
r_ I
If)
n
n V/
r-
n c(OD
n
n
n

n n
n
n (O
n
n cD
n
r? cD
r_
n cD
n
r-
n

n cD
n
n CJ
n

I- (D
n

n In
n

n Vi
n

n
z O ? w cc: cn (D (n O O (D (o O (v a? (D O cD O O O (c u cD O cn O cD cD co
0

H -

O N

O M

O ?

G In

O r?

O O

b N

0 M

0 Q

0

O
In
(D
O
n
CO
O
3

>

>

>

N
M

y

to

(p

n

oD

(T

O
Z 0 0 0 CJ (p (
O II
-- -?
O b
O .O
O ?
O -o
O
O
O U V U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
? ? ? ? ? ? 0 a ? ? a ? 10 a ? 11 D S?
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4. ? D b ? O

00
U
LL-
C?
Z
it i¦s r r M r r r M M M r w ? ?l:im iiiinim flips ?mim,=
-An, Aw j I I Aw -j!!w Mal mm ?? NNW 'Mo. ? ? ? ? m ? m m ?