20081259 Ver 1_Application_20080819

~~~~
~ ~~~
~ ,,:,
'~~~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART7VIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 12, 2008
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers w~ r~ ,~~ ~ 5;9 ~ ~~;~~.~; ~_~ sI
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office ~ ~ ~.°~< (,,_.. ,~~; ~ ~ 9 ~~ 9 l i
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 ~ ~ ,:
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 0 8 ~ 2 5 ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~
~_ O~IR
~I w~-;vei ~ I~;; ~'Tt'
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer t'1C==~~1,..u~.r,n!ias c,~!~;~?'d?.?~4~~.~rl;;,a
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33, Section 401 Water
Quality Certification, and Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization for
the replacement of Bridge No. 20 over Fishing Creek on SR 1100 (Manson-
Axtell Road), Warren County, Division 5. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1100(8),
State Project No. 8.2410701, WBS No. 33246.1.1, T.I.P. Project No. B-3706.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 20 over
Fishing Creek on SR 1100 (Manson-Axtell Road) in Warren County. The existing 94-foot long structure
will be replaced on the existing alignment with a 120-foot long, single span bridge with a 72-inch
modified bulb tee pre-stressed girder superstructure. The proposed structure will have a clear roadway
width of 29 feet, with two 11-foot lanes, a 4-foot offset on the west side, and a 3-foot offset on the east
side. This structure will span Fishing Creek. The bridge approaches will have two 11-foot lanes and 6-
foot grass shoulders. The shoulders along the eastern side of the approaches will be widened to 9 feet
where guardrail is present. During construction, Manson-Axtell Road will be closed on either side of the
bridge just prior to the project site and traffic will be maintained via an off-site detour.
Please see the enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings, design
plans, email from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) dated October 15, 2007, and mussel
survey report for the above-referenced project. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for this project was
signed in March 2006 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies of this document are available
upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (sub-basin 03-03-04) and is part of Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit (HUC) 03020102. Water resources within the project limits include Fishing Creek and
one wetland. A Notification of Jurisdictional .Determination was issued by U.S. Army Corps of
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] RALEIGH, NC 27604
159u MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1598 WEB$fIE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

a ~
Engineers (USAGE) Regulatory Specialist Eric Alsmeyer for this project on October 26, 2007 (Action ID
No. 200320287).
Fishing Creek is awell-defined, perennial, Piedmont/upper Coastal Plain stream. The portion of Fishing
Creek that flows through the study area is assigned Stream Index Number 28-79-(1) (08/03/1992) by the
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and has a best usage classification of C NSW. Fishing Creek
is approximately 30 to 35 feet wide where it flows under Bridge No. 20 and has an average depth of 2 to
3 feet. During Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR)-related field visits (June 2005), water clarity
was described as being fair with some sedimentation, flow was moderate to fast, and the substrate was
primarily composed of cobble and gravel underlain by bedrock.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS I or WS II), nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Additionally, no portion of Fishing
Creek, its tributaries, or other surface waters within 1.0 mile of the project are listed on the NCDWQ
2006 Fina1303(d) List of Impaired Waters.
The only wetland within the project limits is located just east of the existing bridge, on the south side of
Fishing Creek. It is a riverine wetland that occurs as a linear drainage system. The wetland is classified
as a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded wetland (PFO 1 C).
Moratoria
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) previously recommended that a
moratorium for clearing and grubbing work to protect mussels that may inhabit Fishing Creek be applied
to this project between November 15~' and April ls`. This moratorium was one of several environmental
conditions recommended by the NCWRC via email correspondence with NCDOT on January 29, 2003.
This email was a response to a request by NCDOT for comments regarding a July 2002 freshwater
mussel survey, which rendered a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect"
for both the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heteredon). Since these recommendations were made, another mussel survey for these two species was
performed on April 25, 2007. Due to the reduced quality of the habitat and the absence of these two
species during the 2"d survey, an updated biological conclusion of "No Effect" was rendered. Based on
these updated results, NCDOT believes that the clearing and grubbing moratorium should no longer
apply. Gary Jordan of the USFWS, via email correspondence with NCDOT biologist Karen Lynch on
October 15, 2007, concurred with NCDOT. Therefore, this moratorium has been removed as a condition
for this project. _`
Permanent Impacts
There are no permanent impacts to jurisdictional~streams or wetlands associated with this project.
Temporary Impacts
No temporary stream impacts to Fishing Creek will result from this project.
A total of less than 0.01 acre of tem ora fill will be placed into the wetland. This temporary wetland
impact is associate with the construction of a 30-foot by 50-foot temporary work bridge, which will be
used to remove the existing bridge.
B-3706 Permit Application
2

Bride Demolition
The superstructure of Bridge No. 20 consists of an asphalt wearing surface on a creosote timber floor
atop steel I-beams and timber joists. The substructure consists of creosote timber caps and posts, with no
piers in Fishing Creek. The existing bridge will be removed without dropping any of its components into
Waters of the U.S. NCDOT shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge
Demolition and Removal.
Utility Impacts
There are no utility impacts to jurisdictional areas associated with this project.
IMPACTS TO THE TAR-PAMLICO RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER
Riparian Buffer Impacts
This project is located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is therefore subject to the Tar-Pamlico
River riparian buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259). There will be a total of 7,875 square feet of
permanent impacts to the buffers of Fishing Creek from the construction of the bridge (Site 1). A total of
4,900 square feet will occur in Zone 1 and 2,975 square feet will occur in Zone 2 (Table 1). These
impacts will occur along Fishing Creek within an area bounded by the right-of-way (ROW) boundaries of
the project to the east and west and the end bents to the north and south. According to the buffer rules,
impacts associated with the construction of bridges are Allowable.
The temporary work bridge spanning Fishing Creek will be constructed east of the existing bridge and
will result in Zone 1 buffer impacts. However, these buffer impacts occur within the area already being
impacted by the above-mentioned permanent bridge buffer impacts; therefore, duplicative impacts were
not calculated.
In addition to the bridge buffer impacts, a total of 630 square feet of permanent road crossing buffer
impacts will result from this project (Site 1). These buffers impacts occur in Zone 2 only. A total of 279
square feet of impact will occur between Stations -L- 16+43 and -L- 16+61. The remaining 351 square
feet of road crossing impacts will occur between Stations -L- 17+81 and -L- 18+13. According to the
buffer rules, since these impacts are greater than 40 linear feet, but equal to or less than 150 linear feet
(or one-third of an acre), they are considered Allowable.
Table 1. Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Impacts
_Type of Impact Bridge Road Crossing
Mitigation requirements
(Exempt, Allowable,;or
Allowable with Miti ation)
Allowable
Allowable
Zone1 impact (sq. ft) 4,900 0
Zone 2 Im act;` . ft 2,975 630
Total Zones 1 and 2 s . ft 7,875 630
Practical Alternatives Anal
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. Replacement of
this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations. Because this bridge
B-3706 Permit Application

needs to be replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers of Fishing Creek are unavoidable. In this case,
replacing the existing bridge on the same alignment and maintaining traffic off-site during construction
provides the least amount of impacts to riparian buffers.
RESTORATION PLAN
Any temporary fill placed into the wetland will be removed upon completion of construction. The
temporary fill areas will be restored back to their pre-project elevations. NCDOT will also restore the
affected portion of the wetland to its pre-project contours and re-vegetate, if necessary.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The temporary fill placed into the wetland will be removed once its purpose has been served. The
material will likely be removed by the contractor using excavation equipment. The contractor will be
required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland
location. The contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems
suitable in the construction of project. The temporary work bridge will be dismantled and removed from
the site once the existing bridge demolition is completed.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part
of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b) (1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the U.S. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream and wetland avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• There are no permanent impacts to any jurisdictional streams or wetlands.
• A filter fabric and Class B rip rap-lined lateral "V" ditch will be constructed along the toe-of--slope
northeast of bridge. This will act as an energy dissipater for storm water run-off prior to it entering
the riparian buffer.
• The new bridge will span Fishing Creek; therefore, no impacts will result from bents in the water.
• During construction, traffic will be maintained on an off-site detour.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of NCDOT's BMPs for Protection of
Surface Waters.
• Due to the project's location in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds will be employed.
• NCDOT will implement its BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal during this project.
Compensatory Mitigation
No permanent stream or wetland impacts will result from the replacement of Bridge No. 20.
Additionally, all riparian buffer impacts are considered Allowable. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed
for this project.
B-3706 Permit Application
a

r
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of its most recent update on January 31, 2008, the
USFWS website lists two federally-protected species for Warren County. These species and their
associated biological conclusions are listed below in Table 2.
Table 2. Federally protected species in Warren County

Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status Biological Habitat
Conclusion Present
dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heteredon E~ No Effect Yes, but
de aded
Tar River Elliptio steinstansana E No Effect Yes, but
s inymussel degraded
"E" -Endangered
The bald eagle was previously listed by the USFWS as a federally protected species for Warren County;
however, its inclusion on the county species list came after the CE was written. Due to this post-CE
listing, a survey for suitable nesting and foraging habitat was conducted on March 22, 2007 by NCDOT
biologists Jim Mason, Ashley Cox, and James Pflaum. The survey was conducted within aone-mile
radius of the proposed project site and took a total of IS man-hours to complete. No bald eagle nests or
individuals were observed during the survey. Additionally, there is neither suitable nesting habitat nor
open water suitable for foraging present within the survey area. Furthermore, a review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (GIS shapefiles last updated May 1, 2008)
revealed no known bald eagle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project study area. These factors make
it apparent that the proposed bridge replacement will not affect this species.
According to a 2007 Federal Register release, the bald eagle was officially de-listed in the Lower 48
States and removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife effective August 8, 2007 (72
FR 37346-37372; July 9, 2007). This species still receives protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act.
A survey for dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel was originally performed for this project on
July 9, 2002 by NCDOT biologists Jeff Burleson, Jared Gray, April Helms, and Tim Howell. No
mussels were found, but the reach of Fishing Creek within the project study area was considered suitable
habitat for both species. Therefore, a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect was assigned to both species. The USFWS concurred with these conclusions in a letter, dated
March 1, 2004, which is included in the CE.
Another, more recent mussel survey was conducted for these two species on April 25, 2007 by NCDOT
biologists Karen M. Lynch (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-165), Jay Mays (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-133),
Logan Williams (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-166), and Mary Frazer. At the time of this survey, Fishing
Creek at the Manson-Axtell Road crossing contained a natural grade control with an abundance of
bedrock and cobble, with sand, muck, and gravel on top. Immediately above and below the grade control
was unconsolidated sediment consisting of sand, silt, and a few boulders. Historic channelization has
adversely impacted this reach of Fishing Creek above and below the bridge crossing. During the 1.0
person-hour tactile/visual mussel survey from 100 meters (m) upstream to 400m downstream of the
bridge, no mussels were found. However, one species of snail (Campeloma decisum) was common.
Given the survey results, it is apparent that neither dwarf wedgemussel nor Tar River spinymussel occur
in the project footprint. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database (most recently on July 18, 2008)
B-3706 Permit Application
5

revealed no known populations of either species .within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, the biological
conclusion of both species has been updated to No Effect. This mussel survey satisfies the CE
greensheet commitment requiring a full mussel survey prior to letting and no further surveys will be
performed.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a review date of January 27, 2009, a letting of March 17, 2009, and a date of
availability of April 28, 2009. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in
April/May 2009.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: A request is hereby submitted for a Nationwide Permit 33, issued under Section 404
of the CWA, authorizing activities associated with this project that will result in temporary impacts to
jurisdictional waters.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate that Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3688
will apply to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of this WQC. This project
will impact Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffers; therefore, written concurrence will be required. In accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500 (a) and I SA NCAC 2B, Section .0200, we are providing five copies
of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
NCDWQ, for their review.
Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization: The proposed project has been designed to comply with the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin Riparian Buffer Protection Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0259). Therefore, we
respectfully request aTar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization Certificate from NCDWQ.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information
please contact Mr. Jim Mason at either [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
.~+~~/Y~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/ attachment Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies) and TIP
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, P.E., Division Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Engineer, Division 5 Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO, Division 5 Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
w/o attachment (see website for attachments) Mr. Derrick Weaver, PDEA Consultant
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Engineering Unit Head
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
B-3706 Permit Application
6

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
20081259
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(11-any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification is not
required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII, and check
here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4), and the
project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern
(see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: ethome(a,dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local landmarks such
as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property boundaries and
development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan must include
a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, impervious surfaces, or other facilities
must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should include the appropriate USGS Topographic
Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps
may be included at the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is clearly defined. For
administrative and distribution purposes, the USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no
larger than 11 by 17-inch format; however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-
size construction drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans
are reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that the
project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 20 over Fishing Creek on SR 1100 (Manson-Axtell
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3706
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):.
4. Location
County: Warren Nearest Town: Middleburg (Vance County)
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): from Middleburg, take U.S. 1
North/ U.S. 158 East into Warren Count from Vance Countyl. Approximately 1.5 miles east of
county line, take right onto SR 1102 (Collins Road). Turn right onto Manson-Axtell Road• bridge is
approximately 1.8 miles south of intersection.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists
the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): °N °W
6. Property size (acres):. Please see attached drawings
Name of nearest receiving body of water: Fishing Creek
8. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The River
Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admire/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the
time of this application: Manson-Axtell Road is classified as a Rural Local roadway. Land use within
the protect vicinity includes residential, agriculture, and forested.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: See attached cover
letter for proiect description. Heavy duty excavation equipment will be used such as trucks dozers
and other various equipment necessary for bridge and roadway construction.
Page 2 of 8

11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Bridee No. 20 is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. Replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this project
(including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include the USACE
Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and certifications were
issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits, certifications or other useful
information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and buffer impacts, along with associated
mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project, list and describe permits issued for prior
segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work, and
provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to wetlands,
open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be listed separately in the
tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to
indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed, and
must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all
streams (intermittent and perennial) should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are
proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as
appropriate. Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly
for wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is
needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: See attached cover letter.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to mechanized
clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts
due to both structure and floodinu.
Wetland Impact
Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number
indicate on
(
Type of Impact
(e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year
Fl Nearest Impact

herbaceous
bog
etc.)
oodplain
Stream )
(acres
ma) ,
, (es/no) linear feet)
Site 1 Temporary Fill Forested Yes 0 ft <0.01

Total Wetland Impact (acres) <0.01
Page 3 of 8

3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.02
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary impacts.
Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam construction,
flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib walls, gabions, etc.),
excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and profiles showing
the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included. To calculate acreage,
multiply length X width, then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on
ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream
Width Before
Im act Impact
Length
(linear
feet) Area of
~ act
p
(acres)

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0.00
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic Ocean and
any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to fill, excavation,
dredQin~, flooding, drainaee. bulkheads_ etc_
Open Water
Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters ~f the T i S rP~„lt;na f,-,,,,, rt,P ,,,-,.;A,.*•
Stream Impact (acres): 0.00
Wetland Impact (acres): <0.01
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.00
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) <0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): _____
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and the size
of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only applies to waters that
have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Page 4 of 8

8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be included
above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should be described here
and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of draw-down
valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond, local
stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area:
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and financial
viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and
explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts were minimized once the
desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be followed during
construction to reduce impacts. See attached cover letter.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500; mitigation may be required by the NC Division of
Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to freshwater wetlands
or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits,
published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when necessary to
ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including size and type of
proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource will be considered in
determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation
that may be appropriate and practicable include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project;
establishing and maintaining wetland and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as
streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing,
or preserving similar functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order for
USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application lacking a required
mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An applicant may also
choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for
Stream Work in North Carolina, available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide as much
information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions and/or map, if
offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet) of mitigation proposed
(restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view, preservation mechanism (e.g., deed
restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a description of the current site conditions and proposed
method of construction. Please attach a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Page 5 of 8

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at [phone] to
determine availability, and written approval from the .NCEEP indicating that they are will to accept
payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For additional information regarding the
application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP website at
httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please check the
appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.00
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.00
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.00
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public
(federaUstate) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note: If
you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA coordinator at (919)
733-5083 to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a copy
of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to required state
and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide justification for these
impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein, and must be clearly
identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a map, whether or not impacts
are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ Regional Office may be included as
appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (Neuse),
15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC 2B .0250
(Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes® No ^
Page 6 of 8

If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation b a lying the buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 4 900
' 3 (2 for
Catawba) 0
2 3,605 1.5 0
Total 8,505 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2
extends an additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation of
Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC 2B
.0242 or .0244, or .0260. No buffer mitigation is required All impacts are considered Allowable
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss stormwater
controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If
percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed
impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater
generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most
recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: N/A
Page 7 of 8

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired construction
dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may choose to list constraints
associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on work schedules (e.g., draw-down
schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or
other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
~-~ 8 ~t2~a8
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

s,w SfATt
w,,..,n,
r...
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael Easley
GOVERNOR
Lyndo Tippett
SECRETARY
October 16, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO: Jennifer Evans, P.E., Consultant Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
FROM: Cheryl Gregory, Environmental Specialist
Natural Environment Unit
SUBJECT: Protected species survey report for the Tar River spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana) and dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) for replacement of Bridge No. 20 on Satterwite Rd. (SR
1100) over Fishing Creek; Warren County: Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1100(8); State Project No. 82410701; TIP Project No. B-3706.
ATTENTION: Derrick Weaver, P.E. Consulting Engineering Unit Head
Project Development- Central Engineering Unit
The following memorandum addresses the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), federally protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for Warren County. The most recent mussel survey was conducted on April 25, 2007 by NCDOT
biologists Karen M. Lynch (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-165), Jay Mays (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-133),
Logan Williams (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-166) and Mary Frazer. Fishing Creek at the SR 1100 crossing
contains a natural grade control with an abundance of bedrock and cobble with sand, muck and gravel on
top. Immediately above and below the grade control is unconsolidated sediment consisting of sand, silt,
and a few boulders. Historic channelization has adversely impacted this reach of Fishing Creek above
and below the bridge crossing. During the 1.0 person-hour tactile/visual mussel survey from 100 meters
upstream and 400 meters downstream of the bridge, no mussels were found. However, one species of
snail (Campeloma decisum) was common. The original survey for this project was completed on July 9,
2002 by NCDOT biologists Jeff Burleson, Jared Gray, April Helms and Tim Howell. Similar results were
found during the 2002 survey, no mussels were found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Given the survey results, it is apparent that neither dwarf wedgemussel nor Tar. River spinymussel occur
in the project footprint. However, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists a known location of
Tar spinymussel approximately twelve "river miles" downstream in Fishing Creek at the SR 1609
crossing (August 1999 record). There is an impounded reach of Fishing Creek between the subject
project and the SR 1609 crossing approximately nine "river miles" downstream of the project crossing.
Several known populations of yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata) and Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
which are Federal Species of Concern and are state endangered, are located along Fishing Creek near or
at state route crossings SR 1117, SR 1118, SR 1600, and at SR 1609 (August 1999 and October 2003
B-3706 Mussel Report
-1-

records). The two records within 5 miles include the Atlantic pigtoe (2003 record) which is located in
Fishing Creek near SR 1117 approximately 3.6 river miles downstream of the project and above the
impounded reach of Fishing Creek. The SR 1118 yellow lance record is also above the impounded reach
of Fishing Creek approximately 5.2 river miles downstream (Figure 1). Precautions must be taken to
prevent harm to downstream populations.
The following green sheet conditions should be followed in order to protect downstream populations of
freshwater mussels in Fishing Creek and its tributaries. NCDOT concludes that as long as the remaining
conditions are followed„project construction will have "No Effect" upon these species.
Environmental Conditions:
1 Tl,o,- :„11 1, mn fns- 1 .a hT.' l 1. 4 TAT 1. 1 G
~c°rc'c xnvrur b b b
~,,.-1 A..ril 1
~caxo-z-cprrlT
Following a-mail correspondence (10/15/07) with USFWS biologist Gary Jordan, this moratorium
has been removed from the environmental commitments of this project.
2. Weep holes shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the stream.
3. NCDOT resident engineer is responsible or providing a written invitation to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Nongame and Protected Species
Branch, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to construction.
4. The erosion control plans for Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B.0024)
must be used because this project occurs within the Tar Pamlico Riverbasin. These plans include the
following requirements:
• Sediment and Erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing activities. No sediment
from either, bridge demolition or construction activities, shall be allowed to enter the flowing
stream.
• "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" will be defined on the plans, which consist of a 50-foot
buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
• The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations in the
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", as specified on the plans,
work will progress in a continuous manner until complete.
• Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade establishment.
• Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses
~~}A}' ~A 1Pttin2iinlPrr it ;~ a + a rl. + „ 'r 1,1 1, >,'+ + . '~1,• .1. ~ it
The survey addressed in this memo will serve as the pre-letting survey. Due to the lack of
suitable habitat at the site, no further survey is needed. Commitment No. S has therefore been
removed from the Environmental Commitments.
6. NCDOT will make every reasonable effort to minimize the time of road closure.
8-3706 Mussel Report
-2-

7 ~
Figure 1. Federally Listed Species Survey for 8-3706
ce Bridge at SR 1100 over Fishing Creek in Vlharren County
Legend 0 1.25 2.5
f --I I I-~-
~-- US Highway }[ TIP Bridges
State Route ---- Major Hydrography
- NC Highway Hydrology 24k
- Interstate ~ Hydrology 24k
- Roads Non System ~ County Boundarywiih Shoreline
'' ' Railroads Animal Assemblage
~ Plant Q Vertebrate Animal
• Animal Q InvertebrateAnimal
~ Special Habitat 'Natural Community
Natural Community Nonvascular Plant
mbpow Vascular Plant
5 Miles
9/25107 NCDOT
~~
L - NORT PION
l~rlina Mggon
R
VPNCE ~/ ~ ~~~
t f
Ff~nderso~ ~ VUBRREN TJ
i~'v r J ~ H.6LIFAX
.L.
K~laell r FRfWItLIN
f CenlSttille Ste.
ASH
CC: Jim Mason, Environmental Specialist
Natural Environment Unit-Project Manager Group
File: B-3706
B-3706 Mussel Report
-3-

Re: upper Fishing Creek, B-3706
Subject: Re: upper Fishing Creek, B-3706
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:14 -0400
From: Gary [e-mail]
To: "Karen M. Lynch" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Cheryl L. Gregory" <[e-mail]>
Karen,
I.am'fine-with you removing the moratorium language .since it is a "No;<:
effect" determination. If I remember correctly, this site appeared to have
channelization effects from the past??? Is that correct?
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] ext. 32
Fax [phone]
gary [e-mail]
"Karen M. Lynch"
<[e-mail]
e.nc.us> To
Gary Jordan <[e-mail]>
10/12/2007 01:42 cc
PM "Cheryl L. Gregory"
<[e-mail]>
Subject
upper Fishing Creek, B-3706
Hi Gary,
We have a bridge replacement on upper Fishing Creek in Warren County
(Satterwhite Rd. SR 1100) At least 2 mussel surveys have been done by
NCDOT (conducted in 2003 and 2006) and no mussels have ever been found.
Relevant mussel info: Natural Heritage Program lists a known location
of Tar spinymussel approximately twelve a~~river milesa€^ downstream in Fishing
Creek at the SR 1609 crossing (August 1999 record). There is an impounded
reach of Fishing Creek between the subject project and the SR 1609 crossing
approximately nine aEceriver milesaE~ downstream of the project crossing.
Several known populations of yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata) and
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) which are Federal Species of Concern and
are state endangered, are located along Fishing Creek near or at state
route crossings SR 1117, SR 1118, SR 1600, and at SR 1609 (August 1999 and
October 2003 records). The two records within 5 miles include the Atlantic
pigtoe (2003 record) which is located in Fishing Creek near SR 1117
approximately 3.6 river miles downstream of the project and above the
impounded reach of Fishing Creek. The SR 1118 yellow lance record is also
above the impounded reach of Fishing Creek approximately 5.2 river miles
downstream
Our BC is No Effect. An offsite detour will be used.
~ ^f ~ 1(1/ 1 F/2007 'i ~ 15 PM

Y'- • '
t ,~
- ~~
1`
~~ Y~. r)
~ ; ~ ~• ..
' , i
~ti
~ _ _
' '~
• ~
~' _
'y '~ ~. . 't '-~
. , ''~.,_
,~' ~ ~~~''~~ SITES ~I & 2 `~ 1 -~~, ~~' `~
t~, v,,11 .. ~~ •\.r..~ f r ,1
j \\\ ` ,
....,~ ~{ ~•~,~ `,` ~t J \t _ `,mss ti
1'F w`
. _ ... f ~t -i ~. I
-~~ ~ ! ~
~~ ;~
j _.
f~,; f , ~ ~
._
a -~ fJ. _~ . ~ ~ }..
a ', __
. ~ .....
NOT TO SCALE ~ ~~
o ~ ' - .. .. ~~~..
1_1 ~' ~'4 - ~ - ~ - - .
m
WETLAND /SURFACE WATER N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
4
WARREN COUNTY
E ~ ®~ ~ °~° ~ ®~ PROJECT: 3326.1.1 (B-3706)
~~
~.
m~ BRIDGE N0.20
~~ OVER FISHING CREEg
~m 1°Jl~~
ON SR 1100
~o
~~ SHEET 1 OF ~ 6 ~ 23 ~ 08

oa

TRACT NO. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE N0,

4 -JOHN EDWIN ROYSTER &
SHIRLEY A, ROYSTER 54 ROSE LANE
HENDERSONo NC 27536
I & 2

N. C. I)~I~T. ®1F 'I'I$ANSI~®I~~'.~'1(°I®N
I~IVI9I®N ®~ I-II(B~ [][WA~'~
W~IBI$]EN C®YJN~~
I~I$®~IEC'I°: ~324~.g.]L (~-~S~IiD
G ~' ~I~II~G~ N®. 2®
®VEIB FISIFIING CI8]E~~
®N 5I~ bfl~®

z

Q ~
~ o
o
~ O
~ N
O7
4 ~ ~ Rl N
~
~ ~
x O .,
~' G. U .:
0
z
o
z
w O m
M
5 3 o
`~

o
a.
w
U
z
~
w
x

z
a
~cE~
m
~
~ ~
~
~ --
z~o
Cn ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ a E ~
N
'
U R ~ E F-
Q W U -
w

W ~ C U C
Q
E_"
.N m at°~
~ X~
wU E

w a
U
Q
N
W
~
~ ~ n
~ F- E
} ~,
~ C
N ~ Q U
Q ~ ~ ~
~ a

~ rn
F- a ~ ~
Q 2 ~ ~ m
d U ~

H ~ m~
~ ~~ 'c `~ ~
~
W ~ m N «f
t a~
v
a~iU~
O U
Z Q c

J
a
~ ~
'ro -c
_
~ C ro~
W N
~ --
J >
W

F-
W N

"O
C
a
C

T
= (
tl ~ O O
H LL ~ v V O
V
C N
C
C
C .-.
cU _ Rf ~
ELL ~~
m ~
a
o

~~
J
Q ~
m

m
Y

~ Q m
7 ~ ~
~
U
i N -
N
~
O
d
~
Cn Q
a. m
f-
~
W O
~
~ X
Z o
c7
~

~ W
O
O t N
o
C O
O r r
~ ~ O O
~ ~ h N
W O
O n
J J

In Z
T N J
~
O
F-
SHT 3 OF 6

I x/23/2008
~:\Hvarnuiics\dan\oermits\surface water\83706_Hvd_orm_wet04_tsh.dan
C011tTRACT: TIP PROJECT: B 3706
z :
o
b v „ v
Q ~ N y
y O ? Z
('~
O z ~ x
y ~ ~ m
a ~_, ~, ~
y G1 ~ O
= m Z

'Tf ~ ~ ~

0
~
D
m O
A

~
Z ~

~
5

~

~ n

~
Z

~ A f
a p ~ v
~ N Z 2
m
~
47 ~1 m ~

~ Z
n
b ~
~ ~ c
~7 V rn

v

N

~ O

n c
0

~6

x
~~
x
ti
o+"-, ~
o~
~ ~
~~
y ~
'b
~n
by
~~
~~
~~
b~
~o
b
o~
sr
y~
~z
o~
A
a ~'
~nn~
r
7~
~z
V
rn
b
ti -
y
0
a
N ~ b
..1 y
~ ~
t ~
N o
~
z
~'
y
®
~ n

~
~ ~
0
~
C d
c~

®
~'~
n
B
o b
a
o
~ z~ d y z z o
~ ~
~x~
~ z a
~ ,~
zz
~ ~ ~ z
~
~
o
o ~ o x
ho
b z x ~
y y 8 ~
P
~ C=1
~ V ~"~' 'ry 7y
~' a

0 0
°° z
O
0
~Sia
x~ ~

ti
~ o
0
~ ~
y
o
y
N
,~ I~ - /~ h~
~~ } { ~ ~ I
~ _ " ~_-~ m
o
°
`
' ~~
~~
~
3~ a
c
1_ _
u
-_- °
V
S
C~ ~
- ~N tlM • y ~ ;~
~
e

!
-_ \
~
~-;~ _

IN ~L '~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
~
a -_~ - ~
~' , i

R/W PLANS
io+oo
15+00
H
0
~''
r
n
y
W b
~ ~
O
O~
..
o
rn .~~.
-~ ~
Q
Z °°
vb
~ A.
c~
/~ A
~.
nD °°
rn~
2p+00
~ rn
~_
~~
~b rn
a .y, 'A
c ~ 250
O ~
y
Od
O
a
~~

~~
o
n ti
~ ~
~. x
o °,
o ~
o- `"
0
O ~
n ~ ~
a ~
o ~ ~ '~
x ~ ~~
a
z ~~
N
O
n
O ~~
a ~ ~
'^r
y
k °~
~o

0
O

m
Q 31
N
i j
z
~'
m

c~ o
__
z
o m pm
m
z
~ z

~ ~~

az
m
y O
N ~~
o0
~j
N
m
a ~-~
m~^
o m N m~o
~trf
A 71
~~ ~ orv
j

_.-°

_._. _ R1 m A
Q timO
ZA ~ n '~
D rAm

'~ I
O
VI70 'vA
{ a 1
yo C
~ ~ ? i
Z I`\'~~
--
oo E-
§§ r
~ N
Ex
m
r
_
o ~ -mom
fT7 a~n
m={a
z
o y V -~ ~
~ *~D
00
~
m
n
o°-o D b y T

n z ~ __--Z ZB ~ ~n i~'2'§

on ~_
~ ~~
lZB m~ u

.+
~ ~ / !,
,.
.

- -

-
_-_.___~~ _,.

y
~~:r~
~
_ _ N3 fIJ ~
9NtH5lJ Z -
~o
o -.,"r _ -_---
n .,. ti. ~w rfr
100
.,~ `
.~
° ~r r ,"r ,~..v
m~ a
r
°O+v -I Z ZB ~ z
A D
~~
r
p
O n
~
o~
v
~9f Z

9
~~
~z o~~W y
~n o
~

m
~~ ,
,x m
~~
~
m o N
A
_ ~ ~ m~ p
m
~
---- - -- - ~I
\ x
~ 0
~m~o
1, y
/ ~
n
r ,
y
` -<

~ ~
o
z D T
~~~~OOOp
r~y
p

~~ n ap ~ ip
~
$n-i ~
rD Iii.

0 „
o ~
<r ~ Z
vii Son ~ ~ fit

ti
x o y ~ ~ N
n ~ =

~~
T
. -- ~
-- - - -

z
`~ C~

~
~
~
z
® ®
;~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
CS7
z
~
® C
z

®
~
~ ~
®
'~9
~
~
~
® ~

O
~ z
~ x
~
~
y

z
v G QQ
~ Ip
i? ~IiI II
} illy I
~ I I III II
I I II
?;
11 I ~ ~ e" ~
f I ~I'Il ~ II
IJ ~'~ F I'I~ I
(}I~,~~II° II
} I II
(~ I I ~~
(~ I I `~ I
I ~ I
~ III II
II .I II
II( III I .
I I PPP 15
4 ~ II r
Ili I I j
I ~ I I 14
I,.Plld II L.~~
I;~,~~ ~~
I I I '.' I I i L~
'I~ Im Ic
~ ~~ ~
l
/II 11
,~ II
I III I I ~`
III II I I
~I III 'I I {
II I I 41
i ~- I ~
lII II'~ I
FIT~II I
rl Ii I
~IIj I
III I
II I '
I~~ I~ l
I~ I
I ~ I III 1
f~ '• I,'
C 1
1I{ 1
1111
III 1
~_I 1
1
IB

N ~ 1~
1a h
n ~' ~ ))
-' - C
my 7
~p Xm
as ~
<~ ~o ~
ti 2
m ~
~ N
F
m
u~ _
xz
m~1
ors
D m r
r~~
(7
~~
~i

O ~_~
.p >z
90
~~
NN
~~
m r^
~~
m
N
m
N
-mc
z
-POT 10tO0,00
1Ot00
~~
~~
o~
~a
~o
~~
~o
op
~O
o ~^
mr
rr
r p,
~~- ~- _
- ~~
_--~_
ri
~;~
n O
~ v~
°z
<<<3
~ o ~~
r i,~
fy :"'~"~
-L- PC`/4t2q~j~.
<r'
~'~ ;~
m~o ~~cg ~
~
°
~~m
z°n
z vi J ~~
4 o~ ~~

`''

,
m
~mo ~~~ m ~{
<
:;15+00
nv
pcm 4'i o
•4
m
i
f
,
a ti NG~r
~ r
~.- 31 O m m
i..
i.~'i TZ ~ x i. ~. ~/~
~
~~ 't. ~~~ ~~
`
yy II

a~
r

g
~ ~
~ 3s
I

~
p
c~ 3' 2, y.
m
m oz

r
n 29
`I F F
2
m
~~

~~

~
~ 02 02
10
g IY IY
~
~ 01 OZ
~ 35

2 00 OZ
a 60
/tte // ./~.,. ru
~l ~ / J
~r,j ~~ - ~`te~
/ /.-.ff.i ~J L10~
/.mil ' /
fA 10 \~///
`;, r- ~~
1 ~'~ I
111 ~ ~ (\
~1~ ,
\C ~i
I i1
< L
~ ~1 I G m
\1 w 1 s ~
1 m 1 `~ ~ ~# G+ ~
1 (~ 1 m ~ O uNi
~11 ~ 1 ~ fr1N F-~ O :~
111 11\ ~~ wo~^m x 1
~\ 1 I~ t^ ~ ~ OA y ~,
111 \ ~ N~ ~ ~
A ~
111 t~. ~' N
~? m
111 ~ z° a
0 111 1 \ ~^
1 11 ~1 t ~ ~
111
\ ~r O Z
1 11
111 1 ~ ?~ v+58.5 g
I 1 ~ `~
1 ~
~..~` 4 ~ c
~ 111 . ,
~ \ 11 ~1 c. ,- ,O
~ r11 ~ f
1111 1 '
~ 11111 ~ 1
1111\ ~ 1
`, r
,t
1111`
1111' ~ ,`
~ 11d \ T11
`1111 ~~ ~ 1 1
~, 1 n11° 1
1 111
3 11 1111 `1 1 1 CI ~,
t, 1r11~
111 1 1 'i
1~ 1
1~~111~ ~I I '~
~~ ~, .~
~~
~~ 1i~1i11" ~' 11 ~ ~; ~ o 0
r u1i1 ', 1 f' b ~f
~' ~ ' 11 ; ~ 1 ~ ~r~ 23+84168 ~ ~ g ~ i ~ ~ ~
;_ ~
~_ I <<%
11', s :~~ ~~ ~ Z
11 i~ 1 1 ~, ~~~ ~ a ~ ~ °
11'~ ~ ,., ~ oe ~ 0 7y
~~~ ~ 11,1 i 11 1 1 ~ p ~-] c r" 7
' f ',
1~11.~ 1 1 ~" ~ ~ x ~ ~ i
m CA ~ ~ ~ -A
n ~

R/W Revlslon 4//8/2008 Changed owner names Parcels land 3,revlsed Deed Book and Poge for Parcel 2.
dgn\p rm~ts\surf ace water\63
a_r-:
.dgn
7/99
_ ~ ------- ~' I /" I ~ l ~~IIII II I I I I I I I .~I
-
I ~/ / ~r~l ~4I11 Il~ I `n-L-I POT I/~
I / ~ ~ I IvI z A Ili v r I I ,- I I l0-fOp
-- - - - - / /' II= I ~ I r I I I I
/ 3 I I
/~ /, / ~ III ~ ID I / I I l ~ ~'o
f ~- //~ / ~ ~ I I Its II j I ~ _ I~ I Im I I I I :v~ I~ ~~
-- - -- -1 / "°'~ ~% 1i lll~ ~I / I ~I ~ I l m l I I I ~>
/~~m.- / / .5 ~A'jl% ~I/ 11 `~ I lr ! Nf I I' ',-< o
- - ~ / / / ,'I ~ I I ~~ III] l I 1 I ml I I / ~~, '~o
- ~ / / ~ ~ ~ - ~r ~ ~ / /" f~ I I I~o ~I ~'~I ~ I J I m l ~'y;~ / - om
i '
I l• // / ~ l ///3a~7 ~I ~ I~ 1~5~~., I 1 I I ~,' R f i
I / I ~ I / I I I y I ). I I I I I `1'~ I I
I / ~ / ~ [/~ III ill 11 1 I I I I/ I I
/ ifl I ~. ~I Ic I / /
~ / / fir/ l ~/ !~ it 11-'I I i ~I `?. I I ll ~ ~/ / / ~ ._ ,
I l ~ 111 •II /l, I I t o / I I ~--
I I /l // // '\ 4I~ !I~ II /1~1 I I I I I" ~ I I
/
-~ ~= ~ / l '~F` ~ III I \
~ I ~~ II,II ~II n k) 1 ~ / ~ I A vv ~~ ~_
/, ~ , C ~~~ ,,i,~>~ < i III I ,''( ~ ~~- _.~-
__ /". ~ I I I I I \~ ~ ~ ._ _ r:.
~ z`
.._ - , l I ( ~. ~~ ~rrl` ~p.'"'.r-~ _
J ./ / ~ ~ r 1 Im r Ic f I t `
~
_ _ ~
_ ~

_ __

,/ ~- ' I' ~v o 111 I
Y I I ~ ~~ l / A ~
~7 ~ \
'
I '~~ , ~
- ~
., -' ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ I v I I i
1 I I I ~
,~ / ~ ~ ~
I
f,~
I 1, I rl ~ ~ _ _
,
( ~ I -
'
~
~ . / ~ s I I I
/I .,,
'' v f , ~ y•~

-

-
/
~~ i - -_ I

~ 1 ~ I ~ I I

v~ ~ I f

~ , ~i(~ ~ ~ '~
f
~I ~,

'
I , ~h I ~
~~'
' ~
'~ / li=` I
' I
' 1'~' ~1 II - say-
~ X~ ~~

- G7
m -
,

v __
, IzZ
/ ;
mo ~
- I
I
i~ I
~ L I II\
.
V I I ~
I' /
,
I
I 1 ~
,~,
, ~;I L~'.- -'~ v1 ' ~' r -:`~.~
-L- P~
1
~+
= ,
/
i .ti /
_= I _
, ,
1
4
i
24271
)
I
~ z '

~
~ ~ z~

/
!
<.
~
11

I
~, }-mt
\
r
/
~
~ i
_ .
}
'~~ ~/
,~
V -
_ gym
1
1 `, ~~/ I ~
I ~f~l \fI~
I I I
~`~ ~'~ ` `~
~mN~ /
r-
~/
~'
~m$AA'~ ~ ~4` •' t'
\ ~ J
d
15+00~, '~
~`
-~
I ~~ /
m
m / I ~\ _ -,
1 \ '
y
Q ~
_
rn ca ,
_ ~ r
~ ~ / m
~ ' --
/ c
m
~.~,
\ r r I ~ ~ _

~.

°~
Ir
3
70
ox
~ 35
"C
I

OO 3, 2, y,

m oz

29
~ F F
2
m
~~
2
~~

0
~ ~ OZ 02
io
$ IY IY
_ = Oi 02
35
~
a o0 oz
60
r ~ ~ a
1 I r I / I ~ ~ ~ I ~1 I , ~.. ` .ir ~ . '" ,..e~' ~6-t`~ 'L~ - , e -I
_ _ ~
\ ~ \ j~n _- ,. - ~ ~ I _ Y I, ~ 6EG1~1:!50G wl5 frv ~ ~ i `O-':"~"` 1~
~. 1
\ __ 1 - - r Ali
,I ~ 1
~ II' I ~/
- -
~ ~ ~ rnm-r`.~ ,I y'. Ir 1 _ ,~qy ~ ~' ~ ~' e'7 Gr' ~ \5~I%I
i
_~ _
mil; _
/ r
_Z - -ten ll f' ~ ~~ n -, y i ~ ~ \~~
n~'''~ -L~B__ - _ - ~w~_ - I ~,2' .J ,!~J : ,~A.. i0~ _ - ~ - ~~ \\~btisff////
1 - -- -, _ rc~~
1 f '
"T t Z8 my I L ~ y~'0 _ _ ,
/ ,.
o_ A { _
i \, _
_ iii------L~•~ ' ~ _ C
rz ~ -, ~?,_- ,/ _ _ oz
~~ -
~ - _ T ~ i
T .^ 1
_. _ -- _
00 ~cr - ~ ~- ~ _ \
,,.
_o ~ `` - ,ter d l l l I +~ \ ~'
1
GOD _ _ . Z ~ \ - - . l / ~I ! 11 ~' - _ ^~C ., \
-i r - - ~ ~l ~ ~I I _ ,
aim _ - ~ .1 ~. / 1 FI ~. ~~ 70 / ~, \ - ~ -.~._
~o ~ _- ~ ~ ~~ Af ~ ' / ~
~~ crn ~~7C~\"\ \ \\ \ _~ ~~;~ ~ - Z `) g 1 ~ of rLQ'~~
`\'< \ \O~~r \ I1`,\\~~ ; -~-,ok _ `~1 ~ ~, / -ors,, '~ c„I o \ ~'
,_ o
o ~ ~-4 I L, ~ o v v ~T at vvm/ /-~ ij~~ , '" ~1 ,. h7, -~ 1~ ~ _ m ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 1 ~;Iv
~' ° _~o ~ '~ ~~ ~' I ~\ `-CA V v A VVi ~.~s4' ~ ~ - ~1' ~ 1ArA ~ I I vmi.mao ° ``^` 'F f ) I I '
~ \/
~~ o~m{ ~ ~~ \~I I ~~\ \ ( ~~Itl / m: `+ ~ /~ `11~- .1 `{ ~l, -jmNm ~ ~ ~ ~ / /~
"< (_~ 1 \ ~ Z V `\! eS Y i~ .\~ '\I ~hr. ~' ~'- X11 _ _ .
~o~ mon ~ ~ 1 '~ ~G)V A / i~ ~ ~\ ~1 PI I 'm ~ ~ ~ ~.
~xp _n ~ ~ 1 I 1 ~~ ,1 \ \im~ ~ rnE \\ 1\ -ol -~ _°z D `: ,\ \\ ,
o° '~ ~~ri I I II I ! 1 f / ~~ ,~~~t, v., 111 4, _ m_ \ \
+~_ Ate/ ~ / / /rm ~m i~~ .~vUII ~ u~ ' ~V I V
I 11~ {_~ ^~ma 11 r _ 1 f
I V _ I
o- ~ 1 I I / 3' I~~ sue. ^~, \\ \lu 1\ ~<. ` I I -r5s`~~~, 1.1
m ,/
1' I ~ i ~ ~ y 11 _ s I '..A. ,~
i i i 1 ~ ~ A 1'1A v r ,
_ i \
1 ~. ~ ~ \
r-- _--. __. i / ~ ~\~,,\ \ll\111, ~~ 1 `,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1
-_ ~i ~ ~ ~-~ ~V I~ 1\ 1 .. ~ t~ ~ 1 _.
// i~ I \I1AA V1111 ~ ~ ~ A\ t-
- / V ~ 111' ~ ~ A ~ ~`
~ ~ ' "- ~ _ -- ,~', v,vv ` v I1y~1 r 1 11 l ~~~ `y I'I ~ it /
~, ~ , y~-v ~ ~v ~ v v 1, 111 v ~ i ,,~~ I
•. _.. ' ~ _~ ~ \ \ \ 1111 _'\ \ \,\ \
r,+ _ \
\ \ ~ 0
~ Cr0 A ~ \ 11 II ~ i / (
oa z ru ~ ~ , \ \ \ \ 1 '; 1 1 1 1 , ~ I I r 'ti
~ ® ~ v 1 rv 1 v v1i~~1 1 \ °s, ~I ~ 1 I ?~~ 3+849, ~ p g ~ ~~ rnl
® ~-+ ~ ~ 1 , ~ 111 1~ ~ -*L ~ ~ R° ~ ,.., ~ o
~d ~ x ® I ~ ~, I ~ ` 11'1 A 1v av ~~ ~~'~~ i ' ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4; , , 1 1 ~ ~' / ~ ia' q
d. ~ 33
Z ~ ~ °

6/23/2008
R:\Hydrn~lics\dgnopermtts\surfece water\83706_hyd_prm_wet06_pf105.dgn

O

I

I

J
N I
BE IN AD
ST l2 50
PVC STA l2 5.00 EL - 3 .95 '

_ 1
k
W ~ ~ ~
II

~ ~

'~ STA 14+1 0

E = 36.s1

>,
x
cn
F rn
~
nli
llu
I T

o ~
k ~-
~
70

r z~ me
n n mm
r" / ~ ~
O~
ox
>D
N
2
Z =~ T ~ ~ A 6+3 .90 Z
~m o rn V1 I
_~
mO ate,
<-I g m
.. '
um C ~ = 32 ~ N
^~ o
N < m

rn
~ l - - - -~ Q~rn~ ~

z
oo$~
0
rn '~ rn
u
s ~
N I ~ ~ ~
,~ j . c an s5 ~ ~,~
J w

~
ti
~1N
1 n
~Cn2

x o ~
`
1~ \ -•.
N ~
\
ll

"
~ to k rn
~o
e+so
T.
\
~?
rn ~

I

II m
L. = 3 L0 ~~ \\ ~ I II II

\ 2
R7 N
~ ~
W
~`

IJ ~
~ 2
° ~ m

` rn
p +50 T.
E .= 34 .0
PVT ST 20+ 5.00
EL 3 .49'
N E DG ADE
-r 2/
Q
g~g~~~~~~ rn
~
~~~rnmrn~,~,~ y
zzz ~ ~,
ooo~~o
~~~
C ~
7
min ~O
~~~ mc~~~v
y ,
~
, ~
N rn~°~~m~z~ m ~ ~ C ® ~ ~ ~
2 ®
~
2 Pro (`~
~
® !~
~
2 ®®
~
n
II II p p u p u ~~ II D /
y
y
~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ z
c
C
~
~
0

CN Ul A Cy O N C.y N ~ n
OO
o
~
1 1-/~
y ~y W ~
~ I
~ \~~ ~. ~-1 ® ~]
~ ~
~ 7
~p~
b
S Z f
~
~ o
w +~~
N
`cg~
° ~
to n ' Z ~' C7
® ~ ® 1~+ ® ~ ~ p
C Q
~ ~
S ~ p
yd~
~
L,~
~ ~°n
~
"C (7 '[ C] ~C (~
~
~
~
®
o m ~
~~
~~
~~ z ~
~
k
~
o
~
i ~ ~ ® p.
~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~C"d ~a
i
~ ~ o' `' 3 ~r ~~
w ~
~ ~ ~
~ ®
z ~ m
~ b ~' o
n

-- ~. r
1 ~ :I
~ I ~ l- ^.~
1 ,
~. ~ ~ ~ j
1 i -.. -.='.--fit} r. i
~ - ,-. ~ `1 ~ `~
- ,1~ ~ 1
~, ~, _
~_ ,, _ - - .
. -- J r
~`
~~~
~ _:. ,_
~, _ ~ -- .
r .NOT TO GALE. ~ - ~;-~- _~- ~ ::~~_ ~
TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BUFFER N. C. DEFT.®F TRANSP®RTATI®N
m DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
WARREN C®UNTY
N
g ~ ®(~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ 1f~R®JECT: 3326.1.1 0-3706)
a~ `~-~
'° BRIDGE N®. 20
~~
®VER FISHING CREED
°" ° ®N SR 1100
Vag
~a
~= o SHEET' 1 ®]F (~ ~ % 30 % OS
:CY

E
a
0
may
0

TRACT NO. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE NO.
O C. G. CORDELL I
O JOHN EDWIN ROYSTER &
SHIRLEY A. ROYSTER 54 ROSE LANE
HENDERSON, NC 27536 I
O FLOYD B. McKiSSICK, JR. I
O JOHN EDWIN ROYSTER &
SHIRLEY A. ROYSTER 54 ROSE LANE
HENDERSON, NC 27536 I

N. C. ®E]R'I°. ®1F ~[°I8ANSIR®Ia'1CA~'I®N
I~IVI~I®N ®1F ~II~1H[W~~~
]fDIB®d1EC7[°: ~3~4G~.I.I 11~°~9Ql~D
G ~ I ~IBIID~IE N®. ~®
®~lEIB ~I~I-IING ~CI$)EIEI~
®N 5][$ bl®®
~>FI~~ ~° ~ ~>F 6 ~ // ~~ ~ ®a

Z
N O
r
~
acn ~z~ Vr
to
F- > e
f
~
W
O~ ~mOZ u
.
~_ ?~~O O
C7 ~
QS ~
pmW o
c
t+I
~
LL Z N O
z ~`M'
N
LL
zOv
iF-
w
Q
~~
V~=
W fn _
d - ~
W
O W ~
0
0 O
a

Z
go

N
V
d
.~

a
Sl
N

N

3
v
a~
U
C
.~
f0
U
a
E

-o
a`
m
a
E

N
L
F

N
Z Wrv
w O x
w ~ N
w
~ Q
m ~ w ,.. .
W O
N
J
~
O o
F-
W
J
m
N
Vr W N
Z ~
O
~ ~ ...
C
G
W n
~
O o
N
J
~
_
~ °
° r ~
O r N M
W

[0 N
U
Q
~ ~
rn
~ N

~
~ ~
0 Z
O _-
N
N ~
c'' O
M
~
/
I.L - J

Q _
w
~
~
O
O
O
O v ~
C
G N v
~ W F
~/~
~
V/ J Q

v W
a ~ o X
°- ~ m

~ Q~
w Oo x X
~
~ ~
U
_
M
W
O
~ M
~ ~ }
O n tD GD
~ O O
M O

Z ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
O
H
Q
J
J
J
H
ti

W O
a ~,,
J
Z

w
0
w Z
w

N _
Y
Y
~ 0~0 Q Q
w
~ ~
_ m m

~
r ~
W ~
W

~ ~ 3 3
fp ~ ~ O

m O O
~ ~
O
Z J
W ~ Q
F
N O

//29/2008
R:\~ydrauiics\dgn\permits\huffier\B3706_Hyd_prm_buf04_tsh.dgn
Co & Associctes, P.C.
C01~TRACT:
~„
~o ~o 0
-~ ~ o ~ N ~
~ T
O I o m o o x
rt7 = v
rn O ~ i n
N ~ ~
n -- o p o o a
Z
r D
(A
~ o° °o
D D
z ~ v o b
n
(~ ~ ~ N N tTf
^' = N O ~
~~ + II u u II iI II ~
'~ b
~ o o~ cn o~ o cn ,o ~
C ~ ~ N
o y
~ ~ 3~ o o U' o a
n " ~
D _
nn
Z ~ O
G1
x y R7
~ O
y ~a
b ~~
x ~b
~~ ~
y o~ y
~ ~ n ~
V n y
o°, y
~ ~ ~
o °~ '~"y
U
II II II
~ O o
~ O 'r
~ W V
~ ~ 3
N
IQ ~ Q ~ a
S ~ S R7 ~ ''
IV ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q
N a N~ ~ o_ x
o°'y oo b ~''' ~~
~o ~ oo a ~ n
_`3~
osT~~
3 8g~O2a
m 0 b y ~~ 7
a~ ~~~
yfD o odn ~°,
ny°,D yD 8~yb
a~
zo ~~ g_ 57
2 ? ~ N j ~
n ~'
z '9
~~~ T
1177
.,i
I C~ ni
~ ~I
~~
I ~' c
~a ~
~~
I ~b ~
~~
m fn
yb
z' ~'
~' ~sn~aan®.mP p.,,
Y~y'9 4Pp.
J'
Y; ~ ~ z
~~ z ~ O
~ ~ ~
z 8 ~,$
q
0
4P, t'ok .mW7,~a ~~
O~
~ ~~
TIP PROJECT.• B 3706
09/08/99
z :
o
b o

O
~ N y

O Z ~
Z
n ,~
Z Z
~ D X
m
F`l C
a ~, ~, ~_
y ~ ~ O
~ m Z
1~,
W Q ~ T
b ~ < A
C ~ ~ z
~
a ~ m D m
y p ~ v
b a
~
Z
2
~ fi m
° ~
G~ ,,.
b
Z b ~ n
I ~ C
~r1 y m fly ~1

Z ~ ~
a
N b

~
O
c7 o n
O
~b
z
a

O
~ ~
ti ~
rr~ Z
•v~~J (~1yyy
~J
y ~
~ b
.b
xn
by
x
h
y
b~
~o
b

~ `If ~
® N
n

~~ ~ ~ W ~
s~ ~,~~' ~ z ~ ~

a ~
c
C ~
z "Z~ t%9 ~ ~ 8

~r
y
°x ~ ~ a
~ ~
z

O
~ ~``__~1Q , ,, , _,~`
y
a
b O O
p ~ C
~ ~
ti ~
~ ~
y
~UW PLANS
~~
i0
s
b
a ~
b
O 25+pp
n
y
'~
W
~ y
~ b
W ~'
O
• •
C~
A
rn °~
~ vb
~' /'~ N
w • Oq
~ V~
A
rn ~.
~9
Q
A,
fy
O
dQ
f0
N
O
0
ti
O
A
0
A~
O
lZ.,
O
NJ
ti
c`to
a•
~ ~
~ ~
c~n c~
~ n
O l
l
ti
o J
j ~
~ ~
a ~
t ~
Q~

~~
~ e~
~
~
z
~

~~

n ~~
O ~~
~
~
~
~

w
N N ~
A A 9
P p. o
N -' y
..~{{
W 99
3
m ~
~~; V ~
~o°~
~ ~ A P
~ z is
R, ~ ~ ~
m
-1 ; o
r ~
y>

i~ e°~
I u lc
cn
n ~
D ~
r-
m
II
O
O
S
O
fV
O
REVISIONS
R/W Revlslon 4/18/2008 Changed owner names Parcels land 3,revlsed Deed Book and Page for Parcel 2
rmlts\buffer\83706_Hyd_p m_buf 05_psh04.dgn
O
O
m
m
N
a:
~~ liil l
j ~I$ I~
~~ II~I3 II
', I I III I
~, I III'a II
~I,,~Iilo II
ll I
IIII~ II
~ II~ 2I~
I I III
I
~ I I ~I~ I
~ II~ III 1~
II I Ir
I I I~h;~ II II
tiJ4~lLL' II.`V~~
~ I I ~ ~~"
~ I I ~~
'r o _ I-
y,, I~,-
~~ I i i 1~
I
III I ~]
'III I I I ~~
III I I ~~
III I I ~!
illl l I I 4`
lI ~r I f
f t ~~ i i {
IIII I I ~'.
I ~ I
II ~
II I ~
~ I I ~ I
I
I II I ~ j
A '09 ~ j
~ I 1 ~
~I 1 ~~~
I ~ ~ m li

~ ~
D D
D
m
r
m

~
~

-I
In D

m
m
_
3
a

y
rn
m
~

m
~
~"
0
Z
m
m
T

m
D
0

Z
m
m
~

~1
z
0
N
0
Z
m N
0
Z
m N .-~
N .-•
N~
x;
O KE
N n:
~'
<C
~L
~~

~

°
V~
~ f

m
F- ~ ~ ' T
J m
r
r
m r ~ N
'* O i 1191
11 O 4~-{ Z
m
~' Z
I O

a ~
o0~
,.,
~
~ S m
moD
u Z z
v z
'--
a ------z ze---~

~
v °4
~'_
W ~ __ t ze--
w i~.~-
y7 N33NJ JNINSiJ /~

L
11 ~ m
O _4i ,may ~zvl_~4;.~U `M'r.i~-~`ir'~..
~
zm
+ ~ 1 .p n z ze-
o
~ z
~ o m ~,
i ~
+ > ; =i ~
S y 9~ `Z
Z
a
~9

v
~ ~--4
fr m~rj
mom
r
Imo
a_
~vn
D -1
n°
vIz
m
m
N r
In m-I~ m I
fxm
D N
mho ~~ rt
~ T ~ ~~
m ~ `~ ~ n
~ T
mm
0
~ ~ n
o y
m 4 ~
L ~ ~ L a -_DI
1
m D ~ ~ Z
~, ~ o ~ m
+ ~ " o -.rD
~ e ~ ~ ,_
z m ~~
~ 1 vi¢ @pC~
~ O D' N a o -~ I u n
~ i~ _
Z o ~-
m ~~ J-

® ~ ~ ~
®
~
~
hy.~
''d'
H' ry
\ , ~ F--1
1

~~ ~ ~
z z ~ ~ ~ ~

®
® z
~ ~ ~ ~ ®

.,
~ ~ ~

z
''11 In 1~
II I
Ii 1 1
III 1 1
-1~ ~ `

~~m I N~ ~
poi ~ D ~N r~
Gl 7o x o ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~T
m7mcp ~ O ~- ~~ ~„
~ D ~t a
~ ~ ~_
m > m •~
pG1~E m ~ nn ~m
m'ti ~ N ~ j'n -a -i
D„~ ° ~ IV ~, ~ ~
rO y o m
~ ~ .+ m ~ rn
~n E
X N r
m ~}
Ns v1Fr
zz mc~'».
m8 orzm
< ~ y m r
O A~ TIC ~
o° n o
~~ ~~
So"
a~
-L- POT 1Ot00.00 I
10f00
~;
n
mm a~
VI ~ D
fffnnn ~ O
m ~
~ n n
0
N O O
O~
~^r
r a,
z
~~ --- -
-- ~~~
r.+"."'~~- _ .. f... ' Ir,:irt;irlvr~l; rG,.rV ,rti:irti.i
~ t
;~
~ O
o ~ ~S
P `'' `,`i
r ~ F3 ,~
ti~
4~~
-L- P4 Y4f2427~-.
s ~t, f~
map clams ;~ Fr t ~.{
rfjl n m z O ',~ c`o ~ l 1~
~r~ ZNN GG ~ iJ~
~ f~ z o Q~ ~ `4'., r, ~
N ~ D '~..~„~ r
v ( ~ ..~.~_I ' f
/J J
/ 1~i ~ , ~'
1 . N li`{ N ~1
•.,~`~ t'rl- m ~.1'j6+2437 1e r
O ~ ~ J!}' f. -~
S 6~r15 .'~ r~"~' x Z,9~
N'.5~. ~ ~~~ r::_
,r:;f`~!

~ i
~ 3
~ to
az
i 35
~
I
~
_
j' 2 4'
rn

m oz
29
f F

~
~
Z

~C g OZ 02
fl1 r
-{ ~ ~r i°

o Ol O1
~ 1 35
00 02
i 60
~:iM/ N33N7 Nr.~~ ter- r ~rl~"'~ ~ .._ . ~
ij ~ ,..~-~- ~ ie
,1",~' ~ t to
~~~,~ \
/~ ~
~ _,. to
~~i
~ ,.~1 `
~; 11
' .. m ~
~ Y
.
1 Fy i s ~ m
i 1 \ ~1 I m~ D •

\~ F.
111 \~~~ .,

~ ~ •\
,~ ~
' s o \
~ m
\ ~
}.
\
i~ N
o
1
.
Z I `a m ,"-
\I ~ I
,
1 u
~ v
~
.
1 1
11 117 1 ~~

z'• m
n
O

\1
~ 1
~ N
1
`1
11 NN~-i O ,
1\ ~o
f'. -~ ~' N m ~*1 R

z

~ 1
wo~~ rn
z
N ~

1 1
1 }
~

111
1 _
~' l m ti ~
1 , ^ o n
~
1
111
111
111 ~ r 1
1 ,`\ m
1 \ ~1
111

r 111 1 r;.
1
1 ~~ pC 21+58~`C

o

H
'
~
1
-1~
1

~ '
1111
1~~~ 111 {,
~
I,, ~
~ ~ 1
>7, 1
1„1 y
~ f:
1 ~

~ .1
1;11~~ ~
~ 11
,,
~~
1 ~

1
'
~1
~ ,
,
1111 `_ , ,
1
1 1
1 ~~~ ,
1 ~'~
,
z 11
I II11,F x.11
11
~~
~ ,1 ..,
,
1 .~
'

~ 1
~
III 10
IIII~I~1 I I' ~
~
° '
~IiI 1 11 S1
~ /.~~ 0 9

`~
1111 1 11
1
1 -L' PTi Z3+g4b8
{3 O
g ~
Z ~
~ ~
I
~'1 111` ~` ~` 1
,~ ~
F~~ ~ p ~
c ~ ~ ~
~ m ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~~ 1
1
1111 1 '~
1 1 _ rw'rr/

` ~ ~ C r!i
~ ~ ~
`~ = o

~,
.
1 r.

~ 1
Cli
~d
~

~
1
~1 1i11 1 j
i
~
n b
~ r
Z ~
Ae can z~ _~ "_
§~ ~

?H3/2008
~ ics\dgnpperm~ts\surfece eater\83706_hyd_prm_uet06_pf105.dgn

1

' -

1 I
'
BE
ST 1N
l2 AD
50A
PV C STa /2 5.00 EL - 3 95 '

I
H
~o ~
I ~
n
~ ~ +
~ ~
0
VT S'Ta /4+/ .00

E = 369/

>,
M
I II II II II
m~
_am

1C ~

U1

- '~
=p

ox
mw
n n m
m
/
rn
~ N

mz
o < D

-T
m

c~
Z
~
a

-
6+3
90
z
~
~m
o~
m 0
• m o
~,~
j .~
:. c

w
~ -
g

I7
w m
o ~ j = 32 rn0
(/~
N
D
r

-

n

--
- ~~~ .
~ yy~N ry
~ ~ ~ V
Z I I ~ II
~^ ~ ~ ~ W

w ~ ~ c an ss. I~~
~ ~~
ti 1N
~; ~ n~~
~`~
~cn2
~`
• o ~ ~ '~

Y
1~

~

`

1

n
N \ y
1
\
\ ~
1.1
ZII

M

M

~1
rn
8 +60
L.= 3 T.
I.0 ~
\~
~
~
II ~ I
I II
rn
~
\
\
rn N
~ ~
w

<~ ~ g

,, a
z

~ rn
o
2 +50 T.
m
E .= 34 .0
_ PVT ST 20t 5.00
EL
E 3 .
DG 49'
ADE
2/
.0 Q
g~~mmmooo rn

~ozaz ~
~~~~
~ ~
~
~~~~°
` z
~
~
~~~R'ca rn~
rn~o
~~,
~
~
n
rrn~o~rny~
n
o rn
~
6~ '~' ~
®
2
~ ® ~
oa~
~
Z
m ~ re "~
®
~
~' ~
~
'~
~
~'
~ ®
~
~
II II II II II II II II II C 1
~
I
y
~
6j Z ~ 0'+ r
~ ~ ~+
r ~
_
N°o~rno°O~acNn~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ z ® ~ b zg o

~U1N~~~~~V~j 1 ®C7 8 i. ~ G~ C9I c w~ ~ m

~
~
~ o a
~
~ ~
~ y
ca ~ ~ ~
a
€d• ~
y ~
~t~~ ~~''~

~ ®
~ Z
~N
~ m
~
V1

n
z~ ~n
~ '^ U _

t '~

REVISIONS
R/W Revlslon 4/18/200& Changed owner names Parcels land 3,revlsed Deed Book arty Page for Parcel 2.
zoos
oadw
04.dgn
IS'LLC -~ -
~~ M'"~ PINC
- BL-2 10+91.T2
_L_ POT 12+90.09 ~
L
N ~
x
O ~ Z
m m~
~~
d `$yz
N O v~ A
C'1 ~ O
~ 4 eNi ~ N
h~ ~n
6 ?
>Z't9C _
M----- M,65~61.666
~z ~ m
~ I ~
m o5 x
J- J- ~ ~ A ~_ ~x=1`
m
p ~ rp D d
U~ = o oo-
ii ~ mr
N
~°, U y a Z '~ n
Z o ~-L 20 nyi
a ..I __
o° c n
~'~ m mr t29 my
w.- o_
~rt _._,
_ ...
C~ ~ ,, ,I~s, ..~
S ~ ~ s loon ... `
~ m ,-~ .~,
°, Q ..,~ . ~ , ~-~
..00 _~+. r;__. l 8. .._~_
r frI
+ O m +~ D ._ Z ZB-~
o` Z o' o -
I ~ ~ ~r
~ s i ~_~+~
G ~ ~9I 2
9 F9 ~ z
~~
=i o e ~ c r
~ ~ C N
9 ~
mm
m~
~ `~
p ~2 D
m <
~ ~ o ~~ r
D O Z
~_ _TT
~ ~4 "'m Rl
_. D ~ ~ + j ~
t ~ n it D_
o Z m ~ ~Cr
i , m ~ n
m vz~ °
+ D ~ "~x~ a mn
y a ao ~I x
o p ~_
Z ~ T
9 N rt
N ~~
m
~~
T
0
T
m
x
m
0
N
~~
r
~ D
D Z
x x
° `~ v
D O
m m
x
'~ I~I~
i; .I
~III~,
i~
i
i
f'S
v .-~
w
j6+~ 10
~10
i~._ a, r
,..
f.:~ ri.it __~_.._..-
~.~.1~~ C
~,.: j
1.10
~ 1 1~
y 1
~ ~ ~~
~1
Nf -1 O
moo
mom m
o~v x
~ ~ o ~ ~,
D -.I Z 1
~ n n 1
m ~ ~
o D
z r
1`~~~s m ~1~11
-L- POT 1Of00.00
m
IW
Z
v
O -+
-i -v
~ -°
D 0
~-
IJ (ml
+~
w~
0
ow
ov
0
o•
4
11' 9;
~ 3
to
oz
35
D
I
~
_
p
G7 '~ 2 4
rn
~~
rn
29
"i F F
O
2m

~ ~ 01 02
!
~{ g IY IY
~ = O1 OZ
O 35
A

? 00 07
a 60
M
M
om~~~Opb
II II II II N II II o
$~g88nw,`Q~+
b `• T V;
m a 4`~Qc~r N~
~ t;~m
C
m
O ~~~oD~
II II II II II ~
cn~N~ly°
~~~~w~
~~
~~~
• .A
Z
g
.~
~ O
n yy
O !i"
0
a
! 0 ~'
K Q. Vi
;~a ~
0° O
i
~$ ~
°°' H
A ~
n~
n :'d
n
ro
p8~
h
4
m
~z
+..'~
~~
r
~~
~z
g A
m Q
Zf
p> ~ ~
K
,~O ~ (~
AN v
Z = ~ n
Z o
33 0
is
_~
a N -p "!
Z
0

J/1/2008
-:\rood..oy\pra~ \83706_Rdy_pf]_05.dgn
5 /14/99

O
, I i; .I i ii ,{,
~ I
;,
~
t
.

j '' I

I
lir
,
~'

' ~
, . I ..
I {-, I .
~

_
;;

~
I

I
i~ i ; ~. I' i~ - __ I.I i I li
.I
i~

I i
rl

I
~
I

~

i

:
I

~

t

i'
r

i
,.

I ~

t I
~

i
I

L

i

' I

~

~

-

~

I

t
I

r
~

I
~.

. 1

i

I

I

I

~,

J

I t

..
I + ~

~ I'I ~ ~I
',i

I i
~

I

L

i I

. I

~'
I

11

~
'I

i
i

~ I ,

r

I

~
t
l -t

I ._

I

I

I

,

i

i
-
,
f I

~
. I I

~ I

_i

l I I ~.., { { li _
~ ..f I I

i l

~

~
,t 'rt' I I
_} ~-~-

' i
I I r:_ I i [

i
+
I ~ ~ ~ ''. ~
i I

t ~
I
~ ~ I ~
~ '. t ~ i ~, i
i ~ ~
I ~~. _ I
'..
1~
_ ~
~. ~
~~ I
f..•~.

ll 1 I
{4t
t ~
i ~ ~
I I I

' ', .: i '~ :
. 'r.
I ' I l r+
'-
, L..
. .
..+.. _ _L
~ .. Y t 7 t-t
I t"~

~ t
~

{ ~~~
..~, ~ ` I I _
t I I {. i i
'i 1, I
I

I
+
,
` L ~...._.
I ~ ~ , ~
1 ~ -
j ~ .
f- t

I ~ ~ ~

I I I .., ~, , ,
i ,

I
t r

1- t

~ I .,

-

t
I i

, I t .
t
~ ~I
,
I~ I} I '
11'.

~

I
I ~
'. Irl
.
1 i I
{.
i
I I•
.I i.l l I I
, I I I ~ I r
_ I
: I
'~ t ' :_ I I r I
I

.

'
I{I it

r
I' ,
I.

I _I ',

ii _

i

I

,

' rl

i

. I t

r Ali - -

~ I. 11 ~,
II ~II
i ~~+ ~ .; ~I'
I rI
~
I I
- t ,.
I , i . ~ 1
t r ,
~~
, ~
I
i ~
~ I I I ~
'~
I'
I I
I
I f-, I
~ i
t
I i'' I I
I I
I

I
~`
I I
L' j I .I , i'
I I:I '~
I 8~ IAIi AQ " '{ ' ~'
{ ' + I ,11 ' - I

,.
' , '' ,;!; } I 'II ~' }

I
_
i SI' _l2 D.
_, ~t ', I,II i.:~l , 'I I ,I' 'i I
I ,,
~,
I,,

' ,_,,I ,
, I
t i t ~
Il

I? ,:
k,
I+

+

Pl/G
~
ST A ,~

Z

.~ ,

EL

t I
'
f
5
,+
I

1
~
I
i,{
..
~,
t
I I

,
I

r

~
I
I
it I i 1 41 '~ I ~ Il l I {f1 fi i Fli-i I~;1 Ii~ ~f li' III' ! 'II I' i r
I
'
I I

I rl
1 L.
I
I'
f

I ,

I Irl
ff
i
I I
~
1
I
I it
Y ~
~~

I
I 1
1
ii I
'
t

I ~ ~ '
I
J I
;
I I I
+ i
ii II t +I 1 k i
i I} # r I I
.
, I
~
i
I I
II, II I, i
, i +
I ,i
W I
I # i I i i~ I I
I I t ~
~ i) ~.+, ~I L } ' ~i I I
I ,
f
I t
t
_ .I_ t I
~ i ~
~ , +
I I I+
r II
;r }
i j

'
~
'

I t I
,

I I -
I

~

~
I I
i
1 1
'
~
~ :
I ~

I
~~
`
I
,
;.<, .
~
c.,f
I
f
t
:
I I
~
i
I
~
{
t
{
I

1
+
I
t

t'
i
~

'
F 'I
~

~~ _
~
,
~ I ~~ iL ., ~ ,, :. A.
f : _ _
{, ~ I
~ ~
,
~ I,
~~ j '
~ ~
III I ,I Il.l.. + IiI_ I I~ I I % .. ~ -t ~~ + II~,'i 'IIf I
!~~ 1 I ~ ~I
~ ,I~ +I' -
~
I I, it f I L 1 II
l
{ r ~ II
I i~' I ~
'r i I I I I
~ :I ;I
~ I+ ' I'~t I
il Ir I ~ II I , I + { I i
A
I :

.

t
,L
II

}.I , I

. ~ ~
'

I'

.i
. I. ~

L'

.

l4 I

l7

I

~

I

I

-

I

I

-

,
~ I ii I,1 . I i:~ _ . I_, 11 ill ill
Iii li } I ' it I I

,I
_

I
~
~

~

~ I

I

I .
~ E

I = 363

'
'

i ;I
~

~1 I

' ~ '

~
_
I
I
t~

~

I

~t i
I
i
I

I

l{

I

~
I

I

I

r

rl
;
-

`I

~

I

I r

I

'

,t
.

I

.
,1,

'

,

I~

I
I

I
r

}

~

+ _

-`

I

I

I

I
.~ ~ , 1
I r I
~ I.
~ I ,+, . I
ill ,
~ , II ., .: ,: ... ~
~
~L ,I
~ I ~ it

_ it ;I ~
~~
I
# I
I ~I~~

' '~~ III ~.1 -
~ , _ ~ I ~,_,
;I
~
,

f ~~ ;:

I

>~
_ r

I ~,; ~

I
' _ I
I+ t i I I t ~ I
I I i ~
~1 ' ~
' 1 +I I
r
I I,tI, ;I
I ~I I I

r
I '
~ } i
~ ~ ~ I' I' y~ !il n ~i i
II I Ii I I
~I,~ II 4 I~ ~ I ,~~ ' ;
.; ~
I
L
r i
a ~
I
~~~
~ I ~li
I
I
I I
I
I I
I ~
~ i
.
~~
I
~
k~
I
- ~
, ~
T, _
' ~,
'

. , I I

. ?i

i
~ ~;
{ t

D

IPA. t i L'
'
._

~
II

l

--
'

i ~ 1r1 , ~ ~ I

I ~ ~,

I ''

-

I I ,

i I ~

..,
`~

,
f

I .
.': m,c= _~
I
i '
.+
{
I
~
I i I
[_
I I, -
~~ i ~ i k I
"~ ,I ,:I I
I I I I m ~ ~I I ~ .tl f I I
ti ~ I 1 i i ?

~'' I `
I t ,
~'~i ~~'I
W ,
~
I
li
~~+
f r
ft
I
'f--
! ,
-~ .
I
I
' i1 ~
I ~

i , ,
~
L.;
;
~ l ~ .
N
I~

f l
.r
;~ Inl
{ml
,
~I;
_ I
L....t "
I::
:: ail
I I
I~
!. I
(
I ~ m

' .(,/~

r
V r ~ I

~I ;
I 1

{ It 1 I
!. ~
! i

~
~I
' ~
~ ~
} + ~ { I

~ 111
I

i

,.

.

'

~
'i i "~
. I i~ I
~i E ..I'
I ~i I~~ j ~ I
I. ~ I; III i
I i
I I
; I I{
I
'I 1r ~~~~
~
~ ~ ~

I

,

I

I

~ i

~

I
m
.Z. I
:
{ I .;
i
~
~
I
~ ~
~
I~ ~
~ ~. ~~~N
I I t. ~ l I , ~ ~ I , I I I I

~ i~
oo~ _. ~

.
I, I 1
,I i

z

I

I

i

I ,

i
I

I ~~ f` .
~ ~ 95 I
I , I L~ t ~ , ~
I
I -r,
~ ~~
~
f ~ i~ y ::
I: I
I

J

I II I~ ;t ; I i I ~ ~ :. :.

I

ii I I

I

I

~

I

' I

I

'I

,

I

I

I

I ~

I

I

I

3

I ~

I

I

~

I

I
I r

r I
a

I

~

~

I

I

.

.

.

I II

-.

I
z

.~ .
, ,
I I
1
~ II ~
lil
~
. ~
~ ,
II
I
,~
~,,
y
{,
I
~ {
~ '

t ~ +60
~.

3 7l
1.6~ I I~

I ~ I
~ ~
~ + I
~ ,~

III III
~
ttlll~
I ~

I

.
I

.
I II

I
~.I~ I
~ I I
I I
III... I
~I +

I I
i
;;
I

~
i { 1
I
l ,
1 I I I
I I I
~
I
~ , 1 I

~
~ ~

1 I

I I

I
I_. I
I

II'

i ._..
I ,!

'
,i
I I
I I
I

tr]
II
~
i
I

I

! i
t

I i

. I
II ,
I; ~I I ~

,
I

N

I

I I:
r

I

I- ,

.

~

I
o

~

i

r

~

'
_

~

.
1
I _
(
' ~
I ..
I 1 ~ k 1 1' I i
~ i
'

~ -

I

i

~
, , i

~:

I
is

~

-:

I

t

.:I

1

2

X

1

\

I

r

!

~ I

~

I

1

I

~

;
I I'.

:

. I

I

I I

I

i

~..

l

~

Ii ~ I

I

I

~

r

~

i it

I

I

I

{ I
I i

I

i I

,

I

.

I

I

'

.
I I I I ~ 50 LI ; I ~ ,I i
' ; . I
I
i '~ I 9 { ~ ' I
~ ~ I r l
I
' , I
!
+; } f
I
`' I{
~ 1! ~
~
~ ,a,:.1. ~,,
/ aI
~
~'
I
i
;
I
;

~
I
''

~
j
~
~ I
I I
'
~~i
I!, I
I I
I
I,
~ ;
~~I
,
.
`
I
f;
I I_ I. ~
i I
I
~i+ I 1
i
,
I i
'
;
i ~ i ;i
I
i li
'~
~
I I i
t I ~ I tI
IE 31
,
o ~ ~, I
:

~ II I
I I ~
1 ~ ~
'I
I ,
rI
I
,I
~
#
i

I a I
I
~

i

I
,

i
I

~
I,
I

~
I

I
i I ~,

+ I
,
I l
I I ~ I

~ +?

I ~

~

~ I

I

~

;,

I

I

I

I .

gg~w~mrnoo
mmrn~,
~
~
_
i _
I '
T-
_
~
~1
-
-
-
-
-

_ i
n
nv,cncn ~
~~~ ,,,
rn
mm
c
c 1
,

~
~o
y
~ y
2
~~~~~,
1
O

i

i

I

I

,

I
,

' ~
1
~ ~
n

rn
n
~
rnoz r
n ~

~

i

I

}

~

+

,

N I

I ~~~
a
~ o
c
rn
2
m
c
~

_

- I

`

I

I
I.) ~
~
I ~ ~` m~o
~m rn~ m
o~` ~~rn
~Q j I ;,
; I
I
I
I
i
~

I
z II I ~ ~
~
~ ~ 2 ~ ~ I I ' ~ ~ I r ' I
I
..1
' 0~ I I i I . I
I
I I ~
I i~
!

~

I

~+ rn

~

; I I
' I
~
I
I

I ~

1 I

I i

,
'
1

I
I
i II II II II II II II II II C ~ ~ i ' ~ ~
'
~ ~ ~
X ?
.'

,
li
~ I.
' I

II ~
~
I 1
'

i
II
i

'
C

~ ~ L I

i I I

,I

A

N r
'

II

~

CyO la \ Cy~~
W N n
~ rnotb.l, cn
O ~

i I

I.
I

`

I

i

f

I

I

..

.

I

I

I

I

I

o

z

W N

~+o~+ ~tN o ~

I ~

"~

~

S~
f
Ao

W

~

`Cn "Cn ~n ~ I
{ 1
~I
I
C
~H
m~ I ~
I

I

7
11 ~

~I ~ rn

II

+ i

~

,

I

I

Q

R°

~
c
G1

z

O

~

z
r I

I

cn
~ ~ ~
~

I I

I

"
t

~

I

I

i

I

~

i m

=

a
~N

m

z

m

n

m
~ '

,

i

~
i

,

~

c a
I

I I l Z
~c

,,

~ t I l'

II i}

I I ~ .1

I I
I
t
~ ~ ~ ~

~
,

~ t I~~i I I, i

; t

f

' (. !

~ I II I~

;I ~ I

I ; I I ~o

~ `~ ~ro

~
, 1 ,, ,
, + i+ ~, , ' ,, I
I ., ;,I ~,, L ,, ~ I I fFI I ~11 I II I ; ~

~a
n
~

Warren County
SR 1100
Bridge No. 20 over Fishing Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1100(8)
WBS No. 33246.1.1
T.I.P. No. 8-3706
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~11'I'Itl )VI~:D:
~ 8 0l
1)+~ c' ~Z Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
.C ~
1-+~~c' ,lohn F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Warren County
SR 1100
Bridge No. 20 over Fishing Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1100(8)
WBS No. 33246.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3706
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 2006
Documentation Prepared By Ko and Associates, P.C.
1
J ard, P.E.
Pro ct Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~~ 11I'~~1 L , LA~.~'~„"" l A
Shannon L. Lasater, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
N 1;14P,~~~jry•~,
y~N~~ "I
1CESu~n;~._ ~9
SE Al.
4asi
-O
~~N 1. Wa~;.

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Warren County
SR 1100
Bridge No. 20 over Fishing Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1100(8)
WBS No. 33246.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3706
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
PDEA/Hydraulics/Roadway Design
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to this project.
Highway Design Branch
The 10-inch water main on the west side of the existing structure is the only line serving the
Axtell community. Any impacts to or costs associated with the water line resulting from the
bridge replacement will be coordinated with the Warren County Public Works Director,
Mr. Macon Robertson (252-257-3645).
Highway Design Branch/ Division 5
1. There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing work between November 15 and April
1.
2. Weep holes shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the stream. This is a
standard NCDOT commitment.
3. NCDOT resident engineer is responsible for providing a written invitation to visit the site to
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Non-game and Protected Species
Branch, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to construction. This is a standard
NCDOT commitment.
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
March 2006 Sheet 1 of 2

PROJECT COMMITMENTS CONTINUED
Warren County
SR 1100
Bridge No. 20 over Fishing Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1100(8)
WBS No.
T.I.P. No. B-3706
4. The erosion control plans for Protected Aquatic Species must be used. These plans
include the requirements listed below. These are standard NCDOT commitments.
• Sediment and Erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing activities.
No sediment from either, bridge demolition or construction activities, shall be
allowed to enter the flowing stream.
• "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" will be defined on the plans, which consist of
a 50-foot buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
• The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations in
the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately prior to beginning
grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", as specified
on the plans, work will progress in a continuous manner until complete.
• Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grading
establishment.
• Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses.
5. A full Mussel survey extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream
shall be conducted prior to letting unless it is determined that no suitable habitat
exists within the full range.
6. NCDOT will make every reasonable effort to minimize the time of road closure.
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
March 2006 Sheet 2 of 2

Warren County
SR 1100 (Manson-Axtell Road)
Bridge No. 20 over Fishing Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1100(8)
WBS No. 33246.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3706
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 20 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 31.9 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This project replaces Bridge No. 20 on SR 1100 (Manson-Axtell Road) over Fishing Creek in
western Warren County, immediately southwest of Soul City. SR 1100 is classified as a Rural
Local roadway in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The existing bridge, shown in
Figures 2A and 2B, has an overall length of 94.0 feet and a clear roadway width of 19.2 feet.
The existing two lane bridge has five spans with creosote timber floor on steel beams and timber
joists supported by creosote timber caps and posts. SR 1100 has a current pavement width of 19
feet with two grass shoulders approximately 10 to 12 feet wide each in the area of the bridge.
The roadway approaches are short tangents and on downgrades toward the bridge. The vertical
sag occurs at the bridge; however, the bridge structure itself is flat. Sight distance is good both
to the north and south.
Utilities in the project area include water, telephone, and power lines. Approximately 26 feet
west of the centerline, there is a 10-inch water line on concrete pillars. This line is the only line
that feeds the water tank for the Axtell community. Approximately 23 feet east of the centerline,
there is a 6-inch water line on elevated steel bents. This water line is not currently in use. Seven
feet farther east, there is a buried telephone cable that transitions to an overhead line as it crosses
1

Fishing Creek. Still farther east is an overhead power line. Utility conflicts should be
considered high.
The structure was constructed in 1953. The current posted weight limit is 9 tons for single unit
vehicles and 15 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. Bridge No. 20 has abed-to-crown
distance of approximately 21 feet. The estimated traffic volumes on SR 1100 are currently 800
vehicles per day (vpd) and are projected to be 1400 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes
include an estimated two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and three percent dual-tired
(DT) vehicles. The posted speed limit is 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.
There is no development at the project site; however, residential. development and community
facilities are located in the vicinity of Soul City, north of the project. Residential development
also exists near the intersection with SR 1114 (Watson Road), south of the project.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of this bridge during a recent three year period.
Four public school buses cross the present bridge two times per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 20 with a new bridge structure 105 feet long with 28
feet of clear roadway width. The grade of the roadway over the new structure will be
approximately 6 feet above the grade of the existing bridge. The approaches to the new bridge
will have a pavement width of 22 feet with 6-foot grassed shoulders.
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
The studied alternatives were: (1) to replace the structure on the existing location with an on-site
temporary detour on the east side; (2) to replace the structure on the existing location with an on-
site temporary detour on the west side; (3) to replace the structure on new alignment west of the
existing location; and (4) to replace the structure on the existing location, closing SR 1100 and
utilizing anoff-site detour (see Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6).
Alternate 1 replaces the bridge on the existing location with an on-site temporary detour on the
east side. The estimated cost is $1,465,000. Alternate 1 will require a design exception for the
horizontal and vertical alignments.
2

Alternate 2 replaces the bridge on the existing location with an on-site temporary detour on the
west side. The estimated cost is $1,288,750. Alternate 2 will require a design exception for the
horizontal and vertical alignments.
Alternate 3 replaces the bridge on new alignment west of and parallel to the existing bridge at a
cost of $1,355,000. Traffic would be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
Alternate 3 will require a design exception for the vertical alignment.
Alternate 4 replaces the bridge with a new bridge in the existing location, closing SR 1100 to
through traffic during construction, and utilizing an off-site detour at a cost of $780,325.
Alternative 4 will require a design exception for the horizontal and vertical alignments. The
proposed off-site detour route uses SR 1113 (Liberation Road), SR 1112 (Axtell-Ridgeway
Road), and SR 1100 and is approximately 7.1 miles long (see Figure 1).
In accordance with the NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Brid e
Replacement Projects (April 2004), the average delay per motorist using the proposed detour for
Alternate 4 is estimated to range from seven to nine minutes for a construction period of six
months, which falls under the Evaluation (E) range of the Guidelines. The Evaluation range
suggests an on-site detour is justifiable from a traffic operations standpoint but must be weighed
with other project factors to determine if it is appropriate. The condition of the detour route,
including bridges, is comparable to the route being closed.
The Warren County Emergency Management Services Coordinator indicates police and
ambulance services can adequately respond to residents in the vicinity of the project with an off-
site detour in place. Emergency fire response, however, may be delayed to residents living south
of Fishing Creek. These residences are approximately 1 mile from the Soul City Fire
Department and approximately 5 miles from the Cokesbury and Afton Fire Departments. With
road closure, any of these departments could reach homes south of Fishing Creek in
approximately 15 minutes. By maintaining traffic on-site, the response time could be shortened
by three to four minutes from the Soul City Fire Department, and the Fire Department Chief
prefers an on-site detour.
Other ideas have been considered to minimize delays to fire responders. Consideration was
given for locating a temporary fire station south of Fishing Creek, but this option was determined
not to be feasible. The most feasible option is to incorporate bridge design and construction
methods that reduce the duration of road closure during construction. NCDOT will make every
reasonable effort to shorten the construction schedule for this bridge replacement project.
3

The Emergency Management Services agency and school system will be notified prior to
construction so alternative emergency response and school bus routes can be developed. In
consideration of these factors, an off-site detour is considered to be acceptable under the
requirements of the NCDOT guidelines.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but this choice would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic service
provided by SR 1100.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. The
existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
D. Preferred Alternative (Alternate 4)
The recommended replacement structure is a new bridge structure 105 feet long with 28 feet of
clear roadway width on the existing alignment. The grade of the roadway over the new structure
will be approximately 6 feet above the grade of the existing bridge. The approaches to the new
bridge will have a pavement width of 22 feet (see Figure 7) with 6 feet of grassed shoulders, on
each side. The design speed will be improved, yet limited to 30 mph for the vertical alignment
and 50 mph for the horizontal alignment. A design exception will be required for both the
horizontal and vertical alignments. This is preferred because it minimizes construction costs,
right of way costs, and stream impacts. An off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during
the construction period.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The total estimated cost of this project as listed in the 2006-2012 TIP is $1,376,000. The
estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on 2005 prices, are shown in Table 1:
4

Table 1: Estimated Costs
Alternate 1 Alternate2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4
With On-site With On-site New With Off-site
Detour East Detour West Location Detour
Structure
Removal $ 18,800.00 $ 18,800.00 $ 18,800.00 $ 18,800.00
Structure $ 249,900.00 $ 249,900.00 $ 249,900.00 $249,900.00
Roadway
Approaches $ 234,975.00 $ 234,975.00 $ 552,475.00 $234,375.00
Mobilization and
Miscellaneous $ 146,325.00 $ 146,325.00 $ 288,825.00 $145,925.00
Engineering and
Contingencies $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 190,000.00 $101,000.00
Temporary
Detour $ 675,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
SUBTOTAL $1,425,000.00 $1,250,000.00 $1,300,000.00 $750,000.00
Right-of--Way /
Const. Ease. / $ 40,000.00 $ 38,750.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 30,325.00
TOTAL $1,465,000.00 $1,288,750.00 $1,355,000.00 $780,325.00
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 % has been included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering and contingencies.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
The purpose of the natural systems report is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in
the immediate area of potential project impact (project corridor). Specifically, the tasks
performed for this project include an assessment of biological features within the project corridor
including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water quality; a
delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional areas; an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from
construction and a preliminary determination of permit needs.
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Middleburg,
5

NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) mapping, and recent aerial photography (scale 1:1200). Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS), formerly the Soils Conservation Service, soils mapping was not available for
Warren County. A discussion of typical soils found in Warren County is included based on
Daniels et al. (1999).
The project study area was visited on October 6, 2000 and revisited on December 6, 2004. The
study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Special concerns evaluated
in the field include: 1) potential protected -species habitat, and 2) wetlands and water quality
protection in Fishing Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following US
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) delineation guidelines (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions
were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al.
1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources
(NCDWQ 2004a, NCDWQ 2004b, and NCDWQ 2004c). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
At the time of the initial field investigation, the most current USFWS listing of federally
protected species with ranges extending into Warren County (dated June 16, 2000) was consulted
prior to the 2000 field investigations. The February 25, 2003 USFWS listing of federally
protected species (USFWS 2003) was reviewed prior the December 2004 field visit to ensure
that all federally protected species are accounted for within the project study area. In addition,
NCNHP records documenting presence of federally or state listed species were consulted in 2000
and again in December 2004.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is underlain by the Felsic Crystalline geologic formation within the
Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. Soil systems have been formed over
bedrock of granite, granite gneiss, mica gneiss and mica schist. Inclusions of more mafic rock,
with darker and more plastic soils, are common. Topography includes broad gently sloping
6

uplands and moderately dissected landscapes, with narrow convex ridges and steep valley slopes
(Daniels et al. 1999). Topography within the project study area is characterized as gently rolling
with steep areas along major streams. Within the project study area, the floodplain is
characterized by a gradual, shallow slope on the northern bank, and a steep bluff on the southern
bank. Elevations in the project study area are approximately 300 to 350 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) (Middleburg, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle [1982]).
The majority of soils in Warren County have not been mapped by the NRCS. Dominant soil
series in the eastern portion of the Felsic Crystalline geologic formation include Pacolet, Cecil,
Appling, Vance, and Helena, which occur in uplands, and Congaree, Chewacla, and Wehadkee,
which occur in river terraces and floodplains (Daniels et al. 1999).
The Pacolet series (Tvpic Kanhapludults) consists of very well-drained, moderately permeable
soils formed from weathered acid crystalline rock. Slopes are commonly 1 ~ to 25 percent.
The Cecil series (Tvpic Kanhapludults) consists of very deep, well-drained moderately
permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont uplands. Cecil soils formed from
felsic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont uplands. Slopes range from 0
to 25 percent.
The Appling series (Tvpic Kanhapludults) consists of very deep, well-drained, and moderately
permeable soils that typically occur on ridges and slopes of Piedmont uplands. Appling soils
formed in residuum weathered from felsic igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont
uplands. Slopes range from 0 to 25 percent.
The Vance series (Tvpic Hapludults) consists of well-drained, slowly permeable soils that
formed in residuum weathered from acid crystalline rock in the Piedmont. Vance soils are on
ridges and side slopes, with slopes from 2 to 25 percent.
The Helena series (Aquic Hapludults) consists of gently to strongly sloping, deep, moderately
well-drained soils that occupy small areas on side slopes. Helena soils are formed in forested
areas from mixed acidic and basic rocks.
The Congaree series (Tvpic Udifluvents) consists of nearly level, well-drained soils on
floodplains, originating from fine loamy material washed from soils on uplands. Chewacla soils
(Fluventic Dystrochrepts) are nearly level, somewhat poorly-drained soils on floodplains, formed
of fine alluvial deposits. The seasonally high water table is at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet.
7

The Wehadkee series (Fluventic Haplaquepts) consists of nearly level, poorly-drained soils on
floodplains. Wehadkee soils are formed of fine loamy material, and the seasonal high water
table is approximately at the surface. (Daniels et al. 1999, USDA 1970).
The NRCS considers the following soil series to be hydric in Warren County: Chewacla and
Wehadkee silt loamy, where frequently flooded; Worsham (Typic Och~aquults); and Helena soils
with Worsham inclusions (USDA 1997). These series are saturated for a significant period
during the growing season, and support woody vegetation under natural conditions. The
Worsham series (T}pic Ochraquults) consists of nearly level or gently sloping, poorly-drained
soils that occupy small areas at the heads of drainages, at foot slopes, and in slight depressions.
Worsham soils are formed from alluvial and residual material, and the seasonal high water table
is approximately at the surface (USDA 1970).
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-03-04 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and
is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020102 (NCDWQ 2004a). The bridge targeted for
replacement spans Fishing Creek with no direct involvement of additional streams or tributaries.
This section of Fishing Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 28-79-(1) by the NC
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) (NCDWQ 2004b).
2. Water Resources Characteristics
Fishing Creek is awell-defined, meandering Piedmont/upper Coastal Plain stream with moderate
to fast flow. During field investigations, water clarity was fair with some sedimentation making
the stream bottom difficult to see in pools. The stream averages 30 to 35 feet in width and water
depth ranged from 2 to 3 feet at the time of the field visit. The substrate is comprised primarily
of cobble and gravel underlain by bedrock. Segments of the stream west of the bridge are well-
defined, entrenched, and channelized with no floodplain in the northwest or southwest project
quadrants. Upland hardwood forest cover occurs adjacent to the stream on both sides. While the
northwestern quadrant is composed entirely of upland hardwoods, forest cover in the
southwestern quadrant borders an old pasture approximately 120 feet south of the stream.
Segments of the stream to the east of the bridge are less entrenched and enter afast-moving riffle
area before meandering out of the project study area. The northeastern quadrant is mainly
composed of maintained right-of--way with no floodplain. At approximately 70 feet from the
centerline of the existing bridge, upland hardwood forest cover resumes for the remainder of the
quadrant. The southeastern quadrant consists of a small disturbed upland hardwood system
functioning as a poorly developed floodplain. While hydrophytic vegetation was observed
8

•
throughout the floodplain, wetland conditions were observed only in a linear drainage system
along the toe of the southeastern slope. This system exhibited evidence of wetland conditions
including hydrophytic vegetation, presence of hydric soils, and evidence of regular and
prolonged inundation. Riparian vegetation is present on stream embankments throughout the
project study area.
The NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the draft NC 2004 Section 303(d) list.
The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired
waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric
and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards
violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown cause of
impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, non-point sources, and/or
atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's
methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section
305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially
Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the draft NC 2004 Section 303(d)
list. Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the draft NC 2004 Section
303(d) list, according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the
stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina
has developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and
benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. This section of Fishing Creek is not listed on the
draft NC 2004 Section 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2004c).
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 NSW has been assigned to Fishing Creek from its source to Shocco Creek
(NCDWQ 2004b). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and agriculture. The supplemental classification
NSW refers to waters needing additional nutrient management because they are subject to
excessive growth of microscopic and macroscopic vegetation (NCDWQ 2004b). No designated
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or
Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1 mile of the project study area.
The NCDWQ (previously known as the Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in
the Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDWQ 2004a). Fishing
Creek has a Biological Rating of Good-Fair. The Biological Rating is based on macro-
9

invertebrate sampling in Fishing Creek in 2002. Fishing Creek is rated as Supporting for
designated uses because the water is of high enough quality to facilitate aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, and agriculture. In terms of stream mitigation, Fishing Creek is
classified as a Warmwater stream (USAGE et al. 2003).
Eight National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permitted wastewater
discharge sites are located within the sub-basin, with a total permitted flow of 3.9 million gallons
per day (MGD). The largest discharger within this sub-basin is the Warrenton Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP), with a permitted flow of 2 MGD. There are also two general NPDES
wastewater permits, an individual NPDES stormwater permit, and ten general NPDES
stormwater permits in this sub-basin (NCDWQ 2004a).
3. Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project study area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water 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.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Fishing Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of these waterways. Long-term impacts resulting
from construction are expected to be negligible.
10

Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion
control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of
Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The deck for Bridge No. 20 is composed of timber, and the substructure is not located in the
creek; therefore, the bridge is expected to be removed without dropping any components into
waters of the US during construction. If a temporary on-site detour is utilized, it will be
constructed such that upon removal it will not result in any fill into waters of the United States.
NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource agencies during project planning to ensure
that all concerns regarding bridge .demolition are resolved. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities must be applied for the removal of this
bridge.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project corridor: (1) Mixed Mesic
Forest (Piedmont subtype); (2) disturbed/maintained land; and (3) early successional/
maintained grass lands. These plant communities are described below.
a) Mined Mesic Forest (Piedmont subtype)
This community approximates that of the same name described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
The Mixed Mesic Forest community occurs in the majority of the project corridor, especially the
northwest and southeast quadrants. The northeast quadrant contains a stand of Mixed Mesic
Forest extending from the edge of the powerline right-of--way out of the project corridor.
Canopy cover found on site consists of disturbance, adapted species including American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), black cherry (Prunars serotina),
tulip poplar (Lip°iodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red cedar (Juniperus
11

virginiana), and red maple (Ater rubrum). Herbaceous species consist of Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), water oak (Quercus nigra),
and seedlings of canopy species. Tag alder (Alms serrulata), river birch (Betula nigra), rushes
(Juncus spp.), red maple (Ater rubrum), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) occur along
creek banks and in the floodplain area in the southeastern quadrant.
b) Disturbed/maintained land
Maintained plant communities occur along the present roadside margins and within the power
line right-of--way which crosses the eastern portions of the project corridor in a north-south
direction. Invasive weeds and some shrubs are present in both areas. In higher portions of the
power line right-of--way corridor, growth of vasey-grass (Paspalum urvillei), crabgrass (Digitaria
spp.), blackberries (Rubus spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago
spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and winged
sumac (Rhus copallina) proliferate. In lower, wet areas within this right-of--way corridor, tag
alder, river birch, rushes, and giant cane occur along creek banks and in the floodplain area in the
southeastern quadrant.
c) Early successionaUmaintained grass lands
This maintained plant community occurs as an abandoned grass land pasture located in the
southwest project quadrant bordering the forest adjacent to the creek. This community is
dominated by herbaceous ground cover and small canopy species. Characteristic species include
loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, dog fennel, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), crabgrass,
fescue (Festuca sp.), and blackberry.
2. Wildlife
No mammal species were observed in the project study area during the site visits. Mammal
species expected to occur are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), and little brown bat
(Myotis lucifugus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor include American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) and bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata). Additional avian species expected to occur
within the project study area are Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), downy woodpecker (Picoicles
pubescens), red belly woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon),
12

northern bobwhite (Colinas virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaida Jnacroura), red-shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella
magna), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), brown-headed cowbird (Rlolothrus ater); indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis t3°iclzas), American goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
No observations of terrestrial reptiles or amphibians were made within the project study area;
however, heiptile species expected to occur within the project study area are eastern box turtle
(Terrapene ca~rolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), worm snake (Carphophis mnoenus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), brown snake
(Storeria dekayi), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and American toad (Bufo
americanus).
3. Aquatic Communities
No aquatic reptile species were observed within the project study area. Fishing Creek does,
however, provide suitable habitat for snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), river cooter
(Pseudemys concinna), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), queen snake (Regina
septemvittata), copperhead (Agkist~°odon contortrix), eastern newt (Notophthabnus viridescens),
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea cirrige~°a),
green frog (Rana clamitans), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
No sampling was undertaken in Fishing Creek to determine fishery potential. A limited visual
assessment of Fishing Creek was conducted at the time of this survey during which no fish
species were seen. However, this reach has reported fishing potential for redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus) (Fish 1968). Other species which may be present within Fishing Creek
include rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), and
margined madtom (Noturus insignis) (Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994).
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has developed a Significant Aquatic
Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance planning and impact analysis in areas proposed
by NCWRC as being critical due to the presence of Endangered or Threatened aquatic species.
Fishing Creek may be considered to provide Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
(NCWRC 1998), and coordination with NCWRC will be required to establish appropriate
criteria for the protection of rare aquatic species.
13

. ,
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Plant Communities
Proposed alternatives include both permanent and temporary impacts. Permanent impacts are
considered to be those impacts that occur within proposed cut-fill limits. Temporary impacts are
considered to be those impacts that occur within the cut-fill footprint associated with the
temporary detours of Alternates 1 and 2. Temporary impact areas will be restored to pre-project
conditions once construction is complete. Plant communities within the project study area were
delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each. A summary of potential
impacts to plant communities is presented in Table 2.
Alternate 4 will result in the least total impacts to plant communities. For Alternate 4, it is
estimated that of the 0.50 acre impacted; only 0.20 acre will consist of relatively undisturbed
areas (Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest). Alternate 3 avoids temporary impacts but will result in
the most permanent impacts to plant communities, approximately 2.81 acres. Alternate 1 will
result in 1.25 acres of temporary impacts and 0.50 acre of permanent impacts. Alternate 2 will
result in 0.97 acre of temporary impacts and 0.50 acre of permanent impacts.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal. No
new fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will result only in
alteration of communities bordering an existing highway. Much of the alignment is currently
bounded by a maintained right-of--way, a utility line corridor, and an abandoned pasture or grass
lands. Therefore, the proposed project may only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural
communities for Alternates 1, 2, and 4. Alternate 3 will fragment two small strips of land to the
east of the proposed bridge location.
Fishing Creek may be considered to provide Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
(NCWRC 1998) and coordination will be required to establish appropriate criteria for the
protection of rare aquatic species. Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments
resulting from bridge replacement will be minimized through stringent erosion control measures.
14

'~
"~
Li
CC
M
N
C~
b
~r
i.+

.Q
E
0
U
w
0
V
GC
a
C~
Q
.~..t
O
N
H

:~

O

d'

M i
~~
l~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'

i
N ~
..~
~ ~
Rt ~
t~ Q ~
~
~
O
M
O
O
O
N
O
~n
~ ~ O O O O
O ~
Q..

v~ a~
E-"
~,
H ~
p
O
~t
M
[~
fy ^-" ~--~ l~ ~
a ~ O O O O
f--a
~ ~
i.
V
~ ~
H
W ~
~ [~
\p O
O o0
O ~
l~
O H O O .-~ .--,
a

w

~ ~ ~

o
a~
a~
Q

u

o

0

0

0
y~ ~ O O O O
~~
do a

N
H
~

~ M O o0 N
O O O ~--~
N
E"+

~ '~
~ ~
O

~' a w-' "~
~
~ ~ . ~
~ -~ a
~ ~ ~
~ ~a ~
U ~ ~
te ~ ~ O
~ rr
--,,
~.J
.-.
~
a -fl
~ U
~
~
Q
w
~
cci O O O O
M O N ~
F.-~ O O O O
z,
y +~' ~'
~
R! Q ~
~:
O
O
O
O j
~ ~ M O N ~
~ O O O O
~
~ ~
O
~,

~.
~
O
O
O
O
O O O O
N
r
M ~O N •--~
~ ~ ~' ~ 00
E-~ O o '--~ N

3

M ~ ~+
°~' °'
~ -~ ~
~
~p
N
.-~
~ ~ ~ ~
w ~ ~ O O ~-+ N
~~ a
U
O

N

~ O O O O
O O O O
F'-~

~ 't7
~ ~
O
~
a "C3

~ .~ ~ -~ a
~
~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~
o
U ~
~ .a ~,
ti ~ ~° ~ H
O
r.., ~ y ~
~ U •~ ~ H
~ ~ N
~
w ~ vi
~,

Q x
w ~

Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements will be
restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances will have
short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns. However, long-term
impacts are expected to be negligible.
b) Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements will be
restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances will have
short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns. However, long-term
impacts are expected to be negligible.
c) Aquatic Communities
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the stream to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and
suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream habitat
from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
stringent erosion control measures.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Fishing Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33
CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates and field investigations confirm that Fishing Creek
is a riverine, upper-perennial stream, characterized by an unconsolidated bottom predominately
consisting of unconsolidated cobble and gravel (R3UB 1) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Vegetated wetlands subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United
16

•
States (33 CFR section 328.3) occur within the project study area. NWI mapping indicates that
areas adjacent to Fishing Creek exhibit characteristics of palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous
forest systems that are seasonally flooded (PFO 1 C) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Field investigations
indicate that there is one wetland within the project study area which occurs as a linear drainage
system along the toe of the southeastern slope (see Figure 3, Alternative 1). This wetland is
classified as PFO1C (Cowardin et al. 1979).
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 River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured perpendicular
to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Any change in
land use within the riparian buffer is characterized as an impact.
Land use changes within the riparian buffer are defined as being Ezempt, Allowable, Allowable
with Mitigation, or Prohibited. The Ezempt designation refers to uses allowed within the
buffer. The Allowable designation refers to uses that may proceed within the riparian buffer
provided there are no practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the NCDWQ 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.
All four alternatives avoid impacts to stream and wetland areas; however, three of the
alternatives (Alternates 1; 2, and 3) are expected to result in impacts to riparian buffer. Proposed
impacts to jurisdictional areas are shown in Table 3.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into "waters of
the United States" during construction. Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from
bridge removal. NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource agencies during project
planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved. In addition,
NCDOT's "Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities" will be applied for the removal of this bridge.
17

a~
~.
C
O
:w
V
...
.Q
.~
D
h
0
v
M~
rr
C~
a
0
a
Ki
a~
e~
H
i
~
~

~
i
~"' "'
~ 0 0 0
F
a~

N ~'
O +~'
~
~ a~
~ N
A Q G1
~
O
O
O
O
`~
~
0 a

H ~

~"
°
`r'
~
0
0
0
~
~ H
r-w
es
.
,
.
A
° ..
~ o ~
~
0
0
0
F

W

~ ~ c7
~ O ~
~ Q ~ O O O O

r.+
r.r ~
~
~ o a

H ~

°~ ~ o 0 0
8
H

~ ~ U ~ ~
L
rl ~
~ ^~"
~ V CJ
ei
~
C7 ~ ~ ~
cd N

..
° ~' Q ¢~
°
b
~ °
.~
ti
'~ a ~
~
~
~
a,

~
o
o I
c ICI
o
Ey
~' ~
~ N y
~
~ (~
~ ~ C7
~
O
O
O
O
~
~o ~
a

~'
s.
°
G
0
0
0
0

H
~ o o O
a~

M p
•~
a> ++
f7
y
~ .b ~ ~ O O O
~~-+ ~ ~
d ~ a

rx ~,
~s
s.
°
r.~

0

0

0

0
8
H

~
~
EI u
~
~ ~
U
~. ~
~
V ~
~
U
...r
a ~
a +~.+
~
Q ~
~ ~
~
o ~ ~
b ~ .~
... ~
' a
ti ~ ~ ~ ~

t
2. Permits
Replacement of this bridge is anticipated to result in no impacts to waters of the United States,
and will therefore not require a USACE permit or NCDWQ water quality certification.
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
surface waters of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Alternate 4 is not anticipated to result in impacts
to the riparian buffer. Impacts resulting from Alternates 1, 2, and 3 are considered to be
Allowable. These impacts may proceed provided there are no practical alternatives.
Implementation of Alternates 1, 2, or 3 will require written authorization from NCDWQ.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity
of waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of--way widths,
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
19

7
every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), NCDWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 1 acre of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial .stream
impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and
value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of
appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due
to the potentially limited nature of the project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated
with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and NCDWQ.
No need for mitigation is anticipated due to riparian buffer impacts associated with Alternates 1,
2, and 3. Riparian buffers associated with Alternates 1 and 2 will be temporary. Following
removal of the temporary structures, the riparian buffer will be restored to pre-project contours
and replanted with native vegetation. Alternate 3 involves replacement of the bridge on new
location. Implementation of this alternative will allow for removal of the pre-project bridge and
approaches, restoration of the riparian buffer to natural contours, and replanting with native
vegetation.
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federal-Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), officially proposed
(P) for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A) are protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any
species .which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
20

throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened",
but "closely resembles and Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federal-
protected species listed for Warren County (February 25, 2003 USFWS list) are listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Federal-Protected Species
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion
MAY AFFECT, NOT
Dwarf Alasmidonta LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
wedgemussel heterodon Endangered AFFECT
MAY AFFECT, NOT
Elliptio LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Tars inymussel steinstansana Endangered AFFECT
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf wedgemussel)
Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: March 14, 1990
The dwarf wedgemussel is relatively small, averaging 1 to 1.5 inches long. The shells are olive-
green to dark brown in color and are subrhomboidally shaped. The shells of females are swollen
posteriorly, while the shells of males are generally flattened (TSCFTM 1990). The preferred
habitats are streams with moderate flow velocities and bottoms varying in texture from gravel
and coarse sand to mud, especially just downstream of debris and on banks of accreting
sediment. This species was previously known only from a few, disjunct populations in the
Neuse River basin (Johnston County) and Tar River basin (Nash County). Statewide surveys
conducted since 1992 have expanded this species' range in North Carolina. This species is now
known from Neuse Basin in Orange, Wake, Johnston, and Nash Counties; and from Tar River
Basin in Nash, Vance, Warren, Franklin, Halifax, and Nash Counties.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT
NCNHP files have no documentation of this species within 1 mile of the project study area.
Stream habitat within the western half of the project study area is characterized by moderate flow
over acobble/gravel/mud substrate. Fishing Creek is a perennial meandering stream with the
potential for riffle-pool structure and occasional sand-mud bars throughout its reach. These
conditions provide suitable habitat for this species. A mussel survey was conducted on July 9,
21

2002 by NCDOT biologists. The survey found that dwarf wedgemussel does not occur in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 20. Based on an NHP record search and habitat surveys conducted
during field investigations, the project is not likely to adversely affect, the dwarf wedgemussel.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spinymussel)
Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: June 27, 1985
The Tar spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel that grows to approximately 2.5 inches in
length. The external shell of the adult is smooth, orange-brown to dark brown. and ornamented
by one or two rows of short spines 0.2 inches long. The shell is thicker on the anterior end and
thinner on the posterior end. Preferred habitat of the spinymussel includes relatively fast-
flowing, well-oxygenated, circumneutral water over asilt-free, noncompacted, gravel/coarse
sand substrate (TSCFTM 1990).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT
NCNHP files have no documentation of this species within 1 mile of the project study area.
Stream habitat within the eastern half of the project study area is characterized by relatively fast-
flowing, well-oxygenated flow over acobble/gravel/sand substrate. Fishing Creek is a perennial
meandering stream with the potential for riffle-pool structure and occasional sand-mud bars
throughout its reach. These conditions provide suitable habitat for this species. A mussel survey
was conducted on July 9, 2002 by NCDOT biologists. The survey found that Tar spinymussel
does not occur in the vicinity of Bridge No. 20. Based on an NHP record search and habitat
surveys conducted during field investigations, the project is not likely to adversely affect the Tar
spinymussel
In coordination between the USFWS, NCWRC and NCDOT, all agencies concurred with the
"not likely to adversely affect" conclusion as long as the following conditions are adhered to by
the contractor. These conditions should be followed in order to protect downstream populations
of freshwater mussels on Fishing Creek and its tributaries:
• There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing work between November 15
and April 1.
• Weep holes shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the stream.
• NCDOT resident engineer is responsible for providing a written invitation to visit the site
to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Non-game and Protected Species
22

Branch, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to construction.
• The erosion control plans for Protected Aquatic Species must be used. These plans
include the following requirements:
- Sediment and Erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing activities. No
sediment from either, bridge demolition or construction activities, shall be allowed to
enter the flowing stream.
- "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" will be defined on the plans, which consist of a
50-foot buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
- The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations in the
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately prior to beginning grading
operations.
- Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", as specified on
the plans, work will progress in a continuous manner until. complete.
- Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade
establishment.
- Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses.
Since the 2002 survey was completed, new protocols have been implemented. In addition, other
mussel species have been documented downstream. For these reasons, NCDOT will complete a
full mussel survey extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream prior to letting
unless it is deternuned that no suitable habitat exists within the full range.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 USFWS list (USFWS 2003) also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that
may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC
designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species
listed for Warren County (USFWS 2003) are presented in Table 5. NCNHP files have no
documentation of FSC species within the project study area or within 1 mile of the project study
area.
Several known populations of yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), which is a federal species of
concern and is state endangered, are located at SR 1118, SR 1600, and at SR 1609 (August 1999
records). The SR 1118 yellow lance record is above the impounded reach of Fishing Creek.
Project activities could potentially alter downstream habitat and promote "take" of freshwater
mussels; thus, precautions must be taken to prevent harm to downstream populations.
23

~ i
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern Listed for Warren County
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat State Status*
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Yes SC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri Yes SR-T
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus Yes SR
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes E
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata I~To E
E = Endangered; T =Threatened; SC =Special concern; SR =Significantly rare; -T =
Throughout (Amoroso 2002; LeGrand and Hall 2001).
3. State-Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P)
(Amoroso 1999, 1,eGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under the North Carolina
Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of
1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that no terrestrial or aquatic State-listed
species have been documented within one (1) mile of the project corridor.
The project corridor contains no rare or unique natural communities; however, the project
corridor is upstream of a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) known as the Fishing Creek
Aquatic Habitat (NHP 1999). The nearest portion of this SIV'HA is located approximately 12
miles downstream and carries a significance rating of B indicating ecological resources that are
among the highest quality occurrences in North Carolina (NHP 1999).
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal Agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded,
licensed, or permitted projects) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a
reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
24

B. Historic Architecture
Ko and Associates conducted a field survey of the APE on February 22, 2000. All structures
within the APE were photographed and submitted for review. The findings of the survey were
presented to an NCDOT architectural historian and the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
on June 1, 2000. At that meeting it was determined that no properties, including Bridge No. 20,
are considered eligible for the NRHP. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their October 18, 20001etter, the HPO stated "We have conducted a review of the project and
are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance, which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently
proposed." Given the limited scope of the project, no effects on archaeological sites are
anticipated.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle
route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
25

The project will not impact any prime or important state farmland based on a review by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Additionally, no soils survey exists for 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. Therefore, the proposed
project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from land protected under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. If vegetation or wood
debris is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations, the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and the National
Environmental Policy Act. Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease due to the replacement
of this bridge. The noise levels will increase during the construction period, but will only be
temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground storage tanks or
hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Warren County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This crossing
of Fishing Creek is located in a designated flood hazard zone, but is not included in a detailed
flood study. The existing upstream floodplain is rural, wooded or agricultural, and there are no
buildings in the project vicinity with floor elevation below the 100-year level. The proposed
bridge replacement will provide equivalent or improved conveyance compared to that of the
existing bridge; therefore, the project will not have any significant adverse impact on the existing
floodplain or on the associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine
whether minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation
determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income
populations.
26

On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Ko and Associates developed a "start of study" letter describing the study alternates which was
mailed to local officials and agencies. Also, a newsletter was developed that was mailed to local
property owners as determined from property tax records.
Citizen Informational Workshops were held on January 10, 2001 and March 7, 2005 at the Duke
Green House in Soul City. Four residents attended the 2001 meeting. One person supported
realigning the roadway approaches to the bridge as a better route for logging trucks. A resident
preferred Alternate 1, and another supported replacement of the bridge without road closure
during the construction period. Fifteen people attended the 2005 meeting. It was noted that
Warren County's Economic Development Commission is planning amulti-county industrial
development near Soul City and supports an improved bridge and roadway. A representative
from the County Emergency Management Services agency commented that the Soul City
Volunteer Fire Department would be delayed by an off-site detour. A neighboring landowner
supports anoff-site detour (Alternate 4) to minimize damages to his property. Several residents
asked for logging trucks to be prohibited from this highway and routed on nearby roads.
Another resident suggested adding a sidewalk to one side of the bridge. Others did not want the
road to be closed during construction due to longer trips, higher gas prices, and potential delays
for emergency vehicles.
IX. AGENCY COORDINATION
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
US Fish and Wildlife Service*
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service*
US Geological Survey
State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources*
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
County Manager, Warren County
27

Chairman, Warren County Commissioners
Superintendent, Warren County SchoolsX
Coordinator, Warren County EMS
Sheriff, Warren County
President, Warren County Fireman's Association*
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The comments are
included in the appendix of this report.
28

~:
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.). 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, US
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Daniels, R.B; S.W. Buol, H.J. Kleiss, and C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina.
North Carolina State University Soil Science Department, Raleigh, North Carolina. 118 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 169 pp.
Fish, Frederic. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in North Carolina. NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC
Hamel, P.B. 1992.. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
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. and S. P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, & J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004a. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004b. Basinwide Information Management System
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reports html [December 2004].
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004c. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
Waters List (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm [December
2004] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004. List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas.
Division of Parks and Recreation, DENR, Raleigh, NC
29

NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004. List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas.
Division of Parks and Recreation, DENR, Raleigh, NC
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1998. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC
222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on
the Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna. Pp.
50-52.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream
Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1970. Soil Survey of Warren County, North Carolina.
USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Technical Guide. Hydric Soils, Warren County,
North Carolina. Section II-A-2. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina; County Lists; Warren County (online). Available:
http://southeast.USFWS.gov/es/[e-mail]. U.S. Department of the Interior, US Fish
and Wildlife Service.
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.
30

.~ _
r~ 1 = ~ ~ 1311 ~

~~
l^ ~

i

I
?ao

mw
LL
,~
i ~ I !- ~ I~
t ~
1363
ti -- zv _
` 1_I '- :~
l`
,1~ ~~~~ ~`
r/
310 ~
Ic22 i~l'c ~~ ?29

,~l~
~

~~ I 1 X31

b

~
1 l
~)
1 ~' /) ~
~ _
.~_
5
~
~ 1e33 'j J ~Z
i=55 ~
'a z'1 .
,
~ , 210
l~afi

'~V./f' ./ OuvA 1221 2!9
` I 1 ~
~

''~~ I~~ 1365
13
'9 '~
' `'
55 .

DTny
I~
'
I,~o
_ I~3_
-
y
-i30F
c
"
- ~ l -:~
~,
~ J
Z -
- u

-

13
B • ~ 1_36 zze

~

2

s
'=''
- --
1
-

<~~~~ ~ 1~~
\t o
-
- _ . _ ..
_~~
~ -

~
~
~^
~ -' 2
Iz3a Iz a

1a~
1
~ ~
S
~
~~1

~
~
~ _
.
-
a

OR.111~OIM
%~~
~ 11 `
_ ~ I ~
~~~~ ~ 319 ~,~
\ ', 3,~ ~ 12 ~ ~ ~ ~~ Nowra -
ror. I,aw
c
1 ~ 1393
`
1 . C ~ - iee

`~
1
l
~~~' ""
I

~ 13°I 1364
-~~ - -
la-,~ - ;
~_.
~ AW
~?~~ 13
~
~; i~

BRIDGE

~

NO
20
COI

r
~ ,'~
I 3;A 14G0 ,
, ~d~-
~,~
'~~ ~ .
~ C
~
(1
~
U
~
r
i
ol _,-
~
`-
tee
-141a I ~
i
"~ - - -
- I

1
~ 13~'
•
C' ~ _
i
~ ~

P ~
~ ~ ilia !yy~
~a~~
~ -

,3~~ MIODIEBURG
~.~ 44 _ - F
- ~
-
~ } y

14=' I
~t,
! 11~'
~ J • ~ ~

-`__,
a<
1~ _
' I ~ I ~
~ ~
11G0
~~ _ ~
(
%,
1136
ss - , ~
~
' ~

~ 13 ~
~
~.~ 13'' y~ - - ~r
1~ 7fi00 7

ii)_
1501 ~ ,

_ I~ ', 112
lll8 711E

~ I'i 46 ~

~
1149 `\I/~ J

11429 1319

~ 151.W~
1 ~ ~ 114 `~

~
~
i31e 1506
y Iso2 ~ Ins r cool Lt'
''~ i .
- .3~ 218 .'~\ 750._ • ~ I 101
1505
I sse } eloeba. -
~ ~ I 1
~ -
~~
I:
ul?
O isae ~ /
/~ i ~'~
1501 ~15G3 ~ ~
1001. ~
112' ~
~
1605 185 437 1563 1 I
~ I ~Jt ~ I
N 1 1603 `l
G

~~ 1fiC3 ~
~
iW! .de
~~
~
112.
IfiOA ~

~

1G01 J
1601
511 ~ • Brorms ,. I Go
~ 1' _ - _
,24 1116 _
/ ~~~'--_

I51
ry `
-
215 '
/ IS_l
1513 ! I iT
-~
151 a ' J 113 ~ 04
•1y~6

. '....
.51 S
I 1
125 PrOVItlMgO g
yy~~
_. ?" _ ~ "`.if
,;

n
- r~ i~
_ ~_ ~: ~
- --
~- PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE
E ~k
EWeien
k __f ~.- `. a-~: .t a~~.ee
c.
w~ ~ 4 F R ~-k ., N Kil.. I N ' ~+ .„~1~, *`..
+ ..~~,,
~ ~ 1 F Ga0
` .. ~~~ I S} ~a...~,~. ~, Maiiewll ~JUSLte
ee as
~~ ~ O
N~Tg CAROI.IIdA DBpARTD~NT OR TRANSPORTATION
~~T DRVlO.OP~NT AND
~' •:.
>~iV~OIt~Nr 1'AI. ANALTB(8 >dRANf~
~~ ~. n d~~
BRIDGE N0. 20
SR 1100 OVER FISHING CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
B-3706
VICINITY MAP
° ~ ? s FIGURE I
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES)

~.
.- ~;a '
1 - ~ ~i
F ,1
y4 }, '= F ~ T 4 s~, ~ ~,
i ,~ 3r ~
.a,.~r tit ~<~~ k 3"'. ~ -E
~ 'Ir
y~ ,.wy.~
Fl.
.. ..~ w.
•-+vey,~
~ii
~f
~:
~~
~i
? ~ 1 -~ ~~~~ .~ ~ . , -,~fs;~~~~~ 1
3 ~~ - l

R~

1
..~ _~
-- _. 1 ~- ~" ±, .~~~"
~'-~

~ ~~ r
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 20 ON SR 1100
OVER FISHING CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
B-3706
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT =
2025 ADT =
TTST =
DUAL =
DHV =
DIR =
800
1,400
2%
3%
10%
60%
DESIGN SPEED: 60 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 fit/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE:4°I5'
NO SPIRALS
MAXIMUM GRADE: 6%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 136 Kcrest = 151
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE :6.0 ft GRASSED (9.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: II.O fit
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 28.Oft CLEAR
8' MIN. 6'
12' DES.
A:1
I I' ~ i I~ ~6,
GRADE
~ POINT
_ .02 _02 _ .08
?:/
~9' WITH GUARDRAIL
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
~ R'
i ~
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
3' i l' ~ I I' 3'
GRADE
~ POINT
i Az ~ .o: i
.02 .02 n
FIGURE 7A
dOTE:
iORiZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 2-06

PROPOSED DETOUR CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 20 ON SR 1100
OVER FISHING CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
B-3706
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT =
2025 ADT =
TTST =
DUAL =
DHV =
DIR =
800
1,400
2%
3%
10%
60%
DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE: B°45'
NO SPIRALS
MAXIMUM GRADE: 9%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 79 Kcrest = 61
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 4.0 ft GRASSED t6.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 10.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 24.Oft CLEAR
2' 4' 10' ~ 10' ~' 4'
~ ~ PO NT
3:t
.02 ~ .02
?:i
~6' WITH GUARDRAIL
DETOUR APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
~d-
~ -~
DETOUR BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
2' I o' ' I o' 2'
GRADE
i POINT
~ .oz
.02 u .oz i
.02 n
FIGURE 7B
DOTE:
IORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 2'06

~ i r
Agency Comments on Survey Results for
Tar Spinymussel and Dwarf Wedgemussel
Source: January 30, 2003 Memorandum
from Jared Gray to Teresa Hart of NCDOT
Judith Johnson, with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, concurred with the "not likely to
adversely affect" conclusion on January 29, 2003 as long as the following conditions are adhered
to by the contractor (per e-mail, January 29, 2003). These conditions should be followed in order
to protect downstream populations of freshwater mussels on Fishing Creek and its tributaries. As
long as the conditions are followed, it can be concluded that project construction is "not likely to
adversely affect" these species.
Environmental Conditions:
1. There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing-no work between November 15
and April 1
2. Weep holes shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the stream.
3. NCDOT resident engineer is responsible or providing a written invitation to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Non-game and Protected Species
Branch, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to construction.
4. The erosion control plans for Protected Aquatic Species must be used. These plans
include the following requirements:
• Sediment and Erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing activities. No
sediment from either, bridge demolition or construction activities, shall be allowed to
enter the flowing stream.
• "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" will be defined on the plans, which consist of a 50-
foot buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
• The Eorntractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations in the
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately prior to beginning grading
operations.
• Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", as specified on the
plans, work will progress in a continuous manner until complete.
• Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade
establishment.
• Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses

i ~
LJ~it~d states D~partll~~ll~t ®f ~ Il~~~»~r
FISH AID WILDLIiF)E 5)~RVICIu
Raleigh Fietd Ofllcr
Pose Otitee Box 53726
Raleigh, Noah Carolina 47636.3726
March l , 2004
F3rett i~eulner
Nortl, Carolilia Depal~ment of Tra~~sportat.ion
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
545 Mail Service Ccntcr
Raleigh_ North Carolina 276<)~)-154H
Dear Mr. I°eulner:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 5, 2004 which provided the I7.S_ Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North C'aroli.lla Department of
Transportation {NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 20 on SR 1100 over Fishing C'rcck
in Wan-en County (TTP No. B-3706) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
federally-endangered dwarl'wcdgemtissel (.llusmiclantu heterndnn) anti the Tar spinytnussel
(Ellrpaly srerrrst~l,zscrnit). Thcsc comments are provided in a.ccordauce with section 7 of the
1/nd~~lgered Species Act (F,SA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
llccording, to the information you submitted, a masse] survey was conducted al the project Site
nn July 9, 2002. Tl,e survey extended 350 feet upst.reasn and 3S0 feet downslrcatn of SR 11.00.
No mussels were observed. Your letter indicates that historic channeli~ati.ou has unpacted tlv.s
reach ol~Fishing Creek. NCDOT ha.s agreed to several environmental commit~-nents
rccolntnended by tl~e North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC} which would
n,inimi?e impacts to downstream mussel resources.
Please Holt: that the; Service generally regtrires that aquatic s~n-veys extend 100 meters upstream
and 40U meters do~nnlstreani of the project limits. However, given the Tact that no mussels of any
spec-its wcri observed in the area. that was surveyed, the Service will not request an additional
survey at this time.
t3ased ola the i~.~forliiation provided and other information available, the Service concurs with
your conclusion that the proposed h~idge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely
aCCcct the dwarCwedberntlssel and Tar spiny7rilssel, We believe that the requirements of section
? (a)(2) of the LSA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7
consrrllation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in
this review; (2) ibis action is subsequently modified in. a niatuier that was not considered in this
rcvic.u-; or {3 }anew species is listed or critical habitat determines;, that maybe a.ffectcd by this
iden~itied action.

u
Ln fimarc requests for concurrence, the Service requests that additional information be provided
to support your conclusions. The actual survey reports, not just ~- summary of a report, should be
included with your request. A copy of aaiy referenced document or co;z-eshondence (e.g. the
.Tanulry 29, 2003 email correspondel~ce wit11 the NCWRC) should be; ineltEded_ A map of the
project site would help facilitate our review. Also, for bridge projects, information on whether a.
streas~l will be completely spanned or will require in-channel bents would be most helpful.
The Service: appreciates the opportunity to review this project. IC you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 85fi-4520 (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
~~~, r~
/Garland ]3. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Als~r~eyer, USAGE, Raleigh, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Kravis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

. a
~dy n ~ ~
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
November 1, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore: _
Thank you for your August 15, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements in
Warren County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3706 Bridge No. 20 on SR 1100 over. Fishing Creek, and
2. B-3707 Bridge No. 67 on SR 1507 over Reedy Pond Creek.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent.practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility comdors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland. systems should use existing crossings.
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using

t F'j ~
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropnate, construction m
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Middleburg and Inez 7.5 Minute
Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the NWI maps
are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a
detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 .o s of
Fns PPr~ Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army_ Corps of Engineers
(Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Warren County. The Service recommends
that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the
respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project,
biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that
includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results,
should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.

~ b ~

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning, process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:10/31/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\Zbrdgwar.ren

~ .
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
wAxE coUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia ma.roni FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus ~ FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana _FSC*
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
WARREN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Red wolf Canis rufus Ems'
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamawensis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Januarv l5. 1999 Page 45 of 49

~ i s
+U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19Bd-d 51-15911324
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (TQ be comp/eted by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request t ~,~_ 2 ~ y bQ
Name Of Project ~y /~~~
~f Federal Agency Involved ~ 1 I j; C ~~ x
` I-{ ,C~
Proposed Land Use
~r~d ~~ Qe` .County And State
c~re'en rs• C.
.
PART I I (To be completed by SCS)
._ '
:.;art„ ,~, Date Request Received Ey SCS -`
-~y, ': -~ _ _~~: ~~~:.ti/"'c""-,
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? :' Ye~ No.
(lf no, the FPPA.-does nor apply - do not complete additional parts of_this form) . ,_p , ~ ~_ Acres ITngated
- '~ Average Farm Slze
~ __
:Major Crop(s1

_ - .Formable Land-In Gavt`Junsdict~on ~x;.~ ~~'~
.. ~ n
:-Acres: s ~ .,, '~ ,~ ~5 ~~ h
Y AmouniOf Farmland As Defiried~n FPPA
~
Acres ~ 1 y j _ - ~ ~ .z

,
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site /assessment System .,
i Date nd valuation Return
ey SCS
~ ~b
PART III
l
b
l
F Alternative Site Ratin
eted
y
edera
(To be comp
Agency) Site /K ' Site. Site E'~ Site
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly ~ , r] ~,4.'] L~, 2 ~ 'l
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site ~.4 ~ f ~ -] ,'2 ~ 1.47
PART IV jTo be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation lnformatfon ~'. ~~°Y~
.?lam. ._ l: i y ~ ~' ~
Ti. '}-..~~. . _.~ ~r~:~ ,~
.:~
.1 .:.. '~~ ~ ~ -.
1.:.h) Y•
A. _Total'Actea Prime-Ar-d Unique Farmland. » ~' YHT~ r'f ~ )'~, -.yam: ti a 'S - ..~~'F S~~.~r
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland E,>i} ~ ;' , : ~` ~ -: ~ = ~ •-
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted ~ =~ ; '~ :` `~ ~ ' ~ z~ ~-_ ', -
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higfier Relative:Value ~ `~' ` - _
.'ART V (To be completed by SCS) Land.Evaluation Criterion __ , .~ :.; ,,
~l~elative Value Of Farmland To Be Coriverted (Sca/eofOto f00Points) ` :'. ;,~~ ,
:~ ~ ..,r '. _ _
~: ~ _ -
+~`~.
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658-5(bl Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use ! l5 I I 1
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use (Q I ~ l C~ i O ! C7
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 2D . 2 2 2 2,
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 C,~' G"~ O O
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area ~S S, . S 5 sj
6. Distance To Urban Support Services I n ~ ~ p
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average Itj 5 Cj
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland IQ (~ Q O p
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services cj rj S
10. On-Farm Investments p ~j O G'
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services ~p D ~ D r_7
1 Z- Compatibility With Existin A ricultural Use ! D O O O
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 42 ~ Z 42
PART VI I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part VJ 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part V/ above or a Iota!
site assessment)
160
q-Z
~ 2 gg
4,L
4Z
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2linesJ I 260 I I ~
( __
vvas ,v vocal site .vssessment useor
tie ;,elected: Date Of Selec~ion Yes L7 No
Reason For Selection: ~
No So~~ 5u.~~ e.n~'~ ~~' o,^reo` . G~a,~e-es cyv-2 c. a~•reo~ ~s Gneu3ae~a
sti- v.1 clnaa ~.ec S ~ ~ ~S , ~-e. ~e\e,~~ "-~- Val,\u e w o v~.~\\ b ~ ~ 0 uJ .
`.j~,e se Sti•~S q'~`2. Y1 e~ ~ i w1C r ~e~~ V~ r \^e S,,i pY'b~~c.l ~~,,,. `Ci~thJ~ri

~ * ~
,,, ST~Tt ,,.~ ~ ~ - t'~
i i-
~ ~ I
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 18, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: Willianl D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook CS_ "V. ~ `'"'v '~
Deputy State Hlstonc Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey'J-: Crow,,Director
,~ ..
;'~ ^" +~ `
y
GPI ~_ ,) -
7
~_ r1 ,~ -.
'e ,:,7~- -. .
~r. ~:
Re: B-3706, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1100 over Fishing Creek. Warren County, ER 01-7361
Thank you for your memorandum of August 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance, which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC ?7699-4617 (9191 733-4763 T3-S6~3
.o~u~Fnr nr.v 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-46(9 (9l9) 733-7342 715-?6?1

r ~
Federal ,-lid #BRZ-1100(8) TIP #B-3706 Counn~: Warren
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Descr•iptlon: Replace Bridge No. 20 on SR 1 100 over Fishing Creek
On June 1, ?000, representatives of the
~/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
/North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
Q/ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
~~~ there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative; N DOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
~~~
Re e ative, SHPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
• If a survey report is prepared, a final copy. of this form and the attached list will be included.

r ~
:iS +rt
E .- ~ _
x~`~ ti:T
':~
~/
\,~J\
~~~ r
~~~~
~;~
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
•~~
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
Melba McGee
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTt.1ENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
<~ ~ '`L w ;~ J ~`'sn
~

/ p
`^
...
~^
- -
~:
_ ~
_.
~ /~ Aug
,>
- ;-

~f~ '+~ V ~ ''h w a
David Hamson`%i~ ~~~~~ :.~a~
~,
21, 2000
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects B-3500 (Person County); B-
3654 and B-3655 (Harnett County); and B-3706 and B-3707 (Warren County).
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of=waytthe
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the
soil series and not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within
municipal boundaries are exempt from consideration as Prime or Important
Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
Cc: William D. Gilmore
~, -
1(.tA M~rr Crotrr r-c r'crr-ro Onr rr~u •r"...... .-.~_. ..._ ..~.~.... .,~.

r •

~ y;~ ~.r
~
TransDOrtation Services
Joseph Mustia.n, Director Warren County Schools
Wendy Yoang, Supervisor 109 Cousin Lucy's Lane
Post Office Box 110
Warrenton, North Carolina 27589
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
September 27, 2000
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
NC Dept. of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
RE~E/~i
F~
DST
m ~ ,~ 2~p0
C~i,;•~
_~ ~ ..; P ,
'~: , 1'= ~ ~ , ~
~~'t`f ° LY 5`g g
This is in regard to your letter dated August 15, 2000 concerning B-3706, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1100
over Fishing Creek and B-3707, Bridge No. 67 on SR 1507 over Reedy Pond Creek.
We have three buses that cross B-3706, Bridge No. 20, a total of seven times per day with an average of
24 students per trip. On B-3707, Bridge No. 67, we have four buses that cross the bridge with an
average of 5 students per trip.
If I can be of any assistance, please give me a call at (252) 257-3 860.
Sincerely,
__.~-~-
~,.~~--
Joseph Mustian

~ r r
warren ~'ounty Sohool bus Garage
1311 warren ~Cains 12oac~
~arrentor~ ~1/~C 2 T.589
Wendy Young (252) Z57-3860
Transportation Supervisor Fax [phone]
.July 7, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD_
Environmental Management Director
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
This letter is in regard to Warren County B-3706, Replacement of Bridge No. 20 on SR
1100 over Fishing Creek. We had three buses that used that route last year. The bus
routes for this year have not been confirmed yet. If the bridge is closed we will need to
re-route our buses. It would be helpful if we could know well in advance of the closing.
This would give us time to contact parents before re-routing the school buses. If we
knew far enough in advance we could start the year by not routing any buses over that
bridge.
As with all bridge closings, we would need places far our buses to turn around. We
could best determine if we would need a turn around on one side or on both sides of the
bridge closer to the closing date. The turn around places would be based on where we are
picking up students at that time.
Thank you for your interest in the safety of our students.
Sincerely,
Wendy Young

~ w
.r-, ~ ~~
P. O. BOX 563
August 17, 2000
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
:~!Se'
<. ~°` . ~~
Subject: Warren County
B-3706, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1100 over Fishing Creek
B-3707, Bridge No. 67 on SR 1507 over Reedy Pond Creek
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for requesting my comments regarding these projects. I feel only capable of speaking
to the potential irnpacts to Emergency Response Units. There are no permits and/or approvals
required by this Association.
B-3706
This area is served by the Soul City Volunteer Fire Department, Warren County EMS and the
Warren County Sheriff Department. Your description indicates that you do not plan to give much
consideration to road closure to through traffic during the construction of the replacement
structure. If that is the case, there will be no impact to the emergency service organizations. If
you desire to change that line of thought, notification to these agencies prior to beginning
construction would prove very necessary. The most effected agency due to road closure would be
the Soul City Fire Department. If could delay their response in that azea in two ways.
^ Delay volunteer firefighters', which would normally travel that route, arrival time
at the fire station.
^ Delay responding fire apparatus which would have to travel an alternate route of
approximately five additional miles to serve areas of their response district.
With these cod;ideratioiis in r-dnd, i recorrriend that you f:,11ow the alterriati;~es you.ont?ined_fcr
study. Also, please note that there are regional water system transmission lines on the east and
west sides of the current bridge.
B-3707
This area is served by the Warrenton Rural Vol. Fire Department, Arcola Vol. Fire Department
and Macon Rural Vol. Fire Department, Warren County EMS and the Warren County Sheriff
Department. I feel that with prior construction notice to Warren County's Telecommunication
Center in the Warren County Sheriff Department, all these agencies can work with any of your
alternatives, including anoff-site detour route and the closure of the road to through traffic.
If you have any further questions which you would like far me to address or you wish to discuss
any of the above comments, please feel free to contact me, 252-257-3104 or [e-mail].
Sincerel ,
~~
Walter M. Gardner, Jr.
President
FOUNDED 1981
WARREN COUNTY FIREIs'IEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.

~ ~
~~0f yORTN 0490
y `; REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 20
o =, ON SR 1100 OVER FISHING CREEK IN WARREN COUNTY
q ~O
Y
P TIP NO. B-3706
O~
~~OF TAANSP
September 2000 NEWSLETTER Number 1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 20 on
SR 1100 over Fishing Creek in Warren County (see
attached map). The bridge replacement is necessary
to maintain the safety of those traveling this route as
the existing structure is nearing the end of its useful
life.
For approximately the next six months, the NCDOT
will be conducting engineering and environmental
studies to determine the most economical and
environmentally sound alternative for replacing the
existing bridge. Two alternates are under
consideration. These include (1) replacing the
bridge at its existing location while utilizing a
temporary, on-site detour and (2) replacing the
bridge at its existing location while closing the
roadway utilizing an off-site detour (i.e., detouring
traffic on other roadways) during construction of the
new structure. If an off-site detour is utilized as the
preferred alternate, the roadway will be closed to
traffic for approximately one year.
The current schedule in the NCDOT's Draft 2002-
2008 Transportation Improvement Program is for
right of way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2002
and for construction to begin in fiscal year 2003.
Please note that this schedule is subject to change.
The NCDOT does not plan to conduct a Citizens
Informational Workshop for this project. Please
consider how the proposed alternates may affect you
and use this opportunity to express any comments
and concerns you might have relative to the general
alternates expressed above.
The NCDOT has engaged the private engineering
firm of Ko and Associates, P. C., to conduct the
study. The results of the study will be used by
NCDOT to select a preferred alternate to replace
Bridge No. 20 that minimizes impacts to both man-
made and natural resources, while meeting the
public's transportation needs at a reasonable cost.

If you have questions concerning other
transportation projecfs, please call our Customer
Service Office toll free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU or check
our website for more information at
www. dot. state. nc. us
PLEASE ADDRESS COMMENTS OR CONCERNS
TO EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING:
Mr. L. Jack Ward, P. E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P. C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606
Telephone [phone] extension 107
E-mail [e-mail]
Mr. Drew Joyner, P. E.
Project Engineer
NCDOT - PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone [phone] extension 269
E-mail [e-mail]
ON SR 1100 LOOKING NORTH
PROFILE OF BRIDGE N0.20

r r r
Mr. Jack Ward, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606

r
d1,a SfA7F
,~3` ~6~
~C
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 21, 2005
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 20 OVER FISHING CREEK ON
SATTERWHITE ROAD (SR 1100) NEAR SOUL CITY
WBS No. 33246.1.1 B-3706 Warren County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the above
Citizens Informational Workshop on Monday, March 7, 2005 between the hours of
4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. in the Green Duke House, 119 Green Duke Drive, Soul City.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this project.
NCDOT proposes to replace the bridge on Satterwhite Road (SR 1100) over Fishing
Creek with a new structure. Four alternatives for replacing the bridge will be presented at
the workshop. During construction, traffic would be maintained by either using the
existing bridge, or a temporary structure as a detour on either the east or west side of the
existing bridge, or by closing and routing traffic to other local roads. It is anticipated that
right of way will be required for this project. Representatives from NCDOT will be
available to provide information, answer questions and accept written comments from the
public about the proposed project.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Michael Penney, 1548 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, or by phone at [phone] ext. 260, fax at
[phone], or E-mail at m enney(cr~,dot.state.nc.us.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in this workshop, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. To
request special assistance; please contact Mr. Penney as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON ST.
RALEIGH NC

~.
~ P
Re: TIP Comments Form: B-3706
Subject: IZe: TIP Comments Form: Jg-3706
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:40:46 -0500
From: Ray McIntyre <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Mike Penney <[e-mail]>
Good Morning,
Thank you for your comments and concerns. I am forwarding this email to Mr. Mike Penney, Project
Planning Engineer for this project to make him aware of your concerns and questions. Thanks.
"Dr.S.C. McKissick-Melton\" \"" wrote:
TIP Number:
ryB-3706...,...._.....
County(ies
Warren
Comment:* Please be sure #o fill in the comment box.
~~<b>I recently attended
'the informational workshop for replacemnt of Bridge 20 on
SSR1100 over Fishing
.Creek. I have been a resident of Warren County for more t
thirty years
Email A__ddress:*
__ _ ... ._ _...,_~__~.r.~:r~,.:..:,:.~~.~,r,~.'
scmckissick@aol. com~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Name:*
__.~_~... ..............,r_~......~,..._......r.,.~..~....~,..,t,...~.R~~.-
~Dr.S.C.~,McKissick-Melton
Street Address:*_
489 Liberation Rd~.~~~~~~.'....w.....~.~.:.~......,_.....~.~w.,.f
City:* State:* Zip:* ... ~...
(Manson
Ray McIntyre <[e-mail]>
TIP Coordinator -Eastern Region
TIP Development,Program Development Branch,Planning and Environment

_ _T
~~ ~
<b>I recently attended
the informational workshop for replacemnt of Bridge 20 on SRl 100 over Fishing
Creek. I have been a resident of Warren County for more than thirty years
and own a home less than a mile from the bridge in questions. I have several
concerns in relationship to closing the bridge,alternate 4. I will assume
this may be the option chosen because all other options cost almost twice
the amount. My concerns fall in three areas; 1) public safety 2) gasoline
prices 3) postal service. I have grave concerns that those most affected
by the closing of this bridge are poor and minority persons and the closing
of this bridge even for 6-9 months will cause undue hardship to those who
can least afford this major inconvience. Will EMS and fire be able to adequately
respond when the detour provided by NCDOT will be up to TEN miles each
way? Would this not cause the loss of life due to an untimely response
by EMS or fire? To my knowledge most of the persons on that side of the
bridge receive there mail at a PO box in Manson not Ridgeway or Norlina.
To travel over 20 miles daily to receive mail would be a serious problem
especially in a county that is near the top of the list of Unemployement
in our state. Lasty, the cost of gasoline is already starting to rise again
and there are predictions it will increase by up to 25 cents per gallon
within the next 60days. With this project slated by approximatley 2007
there is now telling how much gasoline will cost at that time. With your
planned detour almost 10 miles in each direction to reach your home. This
will cause a serious UNDUE HARDSHIP or financial ruin. As I stated earlier
these problems a putting the hardshiiip on those who are last able to absorb
this tramatic disruption in their lives just to reach their home. Thank
you in advance for your interest. Dr. S.Charmaine McKissick-Melton</b>