20080052 Ver 1_Application_20080109

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality

o~~~ ~ a r~~Q~
~ - -!
January 11, 2008
Warren County
DWQ Project No. 20080052
Bridge 67 on SR 1507
TIP No. B-3707
Tar-Pamlico Ri arian Buffer Im acts
Site Zone 1 minus =Zone 1 Zone 1 Buffer Zone 2 minus =Zone 2 Zone 2 Buffer
Impact Wetlands Buffers (not Mitigation Impact Wetlands Buffers Mitigation.
(sq ft) in Zone 1 wetlands) Required (sq ft) in Zone 2 (not Required (using
(sq ft) (sq ft) (using 3:1 ratio) (sq ft) wetlands) 1.5:1 ratio)
s ft
1 2460 0 2460 N/A 1351 0 1351 N/A
Totals 2460 0 2460 0 1351 0 1351 0
* n/a =Total for Site is less than 1/3 acre and 150 linear feet of impact, no mitigation required
Total Buffer Impact for Project: 3811 square feet.
APPROVAL of TAR-PAMLICO BUFFER AUTHORIZATION with ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT PDEA
1598 Mail Service Centre
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, for the following impacts for the purpose of
replacing Bridge 67 on SR 1507 in Warren County:
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received January 9, 2008. This approval
is valid for the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0250). In addition, you should acquire any other
federal, state or local pernuts before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this. Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed below.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Strict adherence to the most recent version of NCDOT's Best Management Practices For Bridge Demolition and
Removal approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers is a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

O~OF ~ T ~~QG
~ ~
--I
© a{ •C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
2. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across the bridge
and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.)
before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of Stormwater Best Management Practices.
3. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between
curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to
surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
4. During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers.
5. The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing shall not be modified. Disturbed
floodplains and streams shall be restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
6. The use of rip-rap above the Normal High Water Mark shall be minimized. Any rip-rap placed for stream
stabilization shall be placed in stream channels in such a manner that it does not impede aquatic life passage.
7. The Permittee shall ensure that the final design drawings adhere to the permit and to the permit drawings
submitted for approval.
8. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP measures from
the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
9. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the introduction of other pollutants into the stream.
10. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
11. No rock, sand or other materials shall be dredged .from the stream channel except where authorized by this
certification.
12. Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
13. A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be maintained on site at the construction site at all times. In
addition, the Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the
Division Engineer and the. on-site project manager.
14. The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts to
areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
15. The issuance of this certification does not exempt the Permittee from complying with any and all statutes, rules,
regulations, or ordinances that maybe imposed by other government agencies (i.e. local, state, and federal) having
jurisdiction, including but not limited to applicable buffer rules, Stormwater management rules, soil erosion and
sedimentation control requirements, etc.
16. The Permittee shall report any violations of this certification to the Division of Water Quality within 24 hours of
discovery.
No°e Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit ~aEilra!!y
1650 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal OpportunitylAfflrmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

~~~ W A r~9
o ~ .~
yw•...~ ~
.._.T ~.5.-. I.~.._ ,.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
17. Upon completion of the project (including any impacts at associated borrow or waste site), the NCDOT
osed "Certification of Completion Form" to notify DWQ When
Division Engineer shall complete and return the enc leted.
all work included in the 401 Certification has been comp
18. Native riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the
growing season following completion of construcrion.
19. There shall be no excavation from, or waste disposal into, jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
ermit without appropriate modification. Should wasteri 11 be required since that is a direct impa c from road ~ be
P
located in wetlands or streams, compensatory rmtiga io
construction activities.
20. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in
order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control .measures
must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Coni ols oil ua ojects,emcluding ontractomowned or leased
construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pi (p ) P
borrow pits associated with the project. erated,
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, op
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining
Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accor ance w
the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
21. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands. or waters unless otherwise approved by
this Certification. You must
of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
If you do not accept any g etition that conforms
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearin , send a written p 6714 Mail Service
unless ou ask for a
to Chapter 150B of the Nort9 CTlus ertification and its cond Ons are final a d bindingHe~ Y
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 2769
hearing. This letter completes the review of tch Rob Ridings at (919733 981 der Section 401 of the Clean ater
Act. If you have any questions, please conta
Sincerely,
Coleen Su ins
Director
Attachment (Certificate of Completion form)
cc: Chris Murray, Division 5 Cnovirs nri1Eng~xiO rscRaleigh Field Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army iP
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources. Commission
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]ntemet: htt :tlh2o.enr.state.nc.uslncwetlands
.. . _..__ ~_,...~,,,,e~ _ Fn°~, Rxvcled110% Post Consumer Paper

e~~o~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Q'~t7
~(~`~~ ~
~'~~~
~! f1 ~ ~ /J
~,~ ~?~Q~gi1n,
,CqR~^~
DEPART~VIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERxoR
North Cazolina Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting. Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Mr. Rob Ridings
NCDOT Coordinator
Deaz Sir:
December 28, 2007
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
080052
Subject: Application for Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization for the replacement of Bridge No.
67 over Reedy Creek on SR 1507 (Davis Rd.), Warren County, Division 5. Federal Project No.
BR2r1507(1), WBS No. 33247.1.1, T.I.P. B-3707.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 87-foot, Bridge No. 67
over Reedy Creek. The project involves replacing the current bridge in its existing location, while using an
off-site detour to maintain traffic during construction.
The proposed structure will be a three span, 21-inch prestressed cored slab bridge with spans at 35-feet, 50
feet, and 30 feet. The proposed bridge will be approximately 115-feet in length with a cleaz roadway width of
30-feet. The substructure will be composed of end bents on 12-inch steel piles and interior bents on 14-inch
steel piles. The new approaches to the bridge will provide 11-foot travel lanes with 6-foot grass shoulders (9-
foot with guardrail). The grade will remain as close to the existing grade as possible. The proposed bridge
will span Reedy Creek; no bents will be located within the channel.
Please see the enclosed pre-construction notification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) concurrence letter,
permit drawings, and design plans for the subject project. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed for
this project in March 2006 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies aze available upon request.
IlVIPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (sub-basin 03-03-04). This area is part of Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit 03020102 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. Reedy Creek is the sole jurisdictional
resource within the project azea.
The section of Reedy Creek crossed by the proposed bridge has been assigned Stream Index Number 28-79-
25-5 by the N.C Division of Water Quality. Reedy Creek has a best usage classification of C NSW. No
designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or
Water Supply (WS-IIJ, waters occur within 1.0 mile of the study corridor. Reedy Creek is not listed on the
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. $UIl'E 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

. f
Fina12006 303(d) list of impaired waters for the Taz-Pamlico River Basin, nor does it drain into any 303(d)
waters within 1-mile of the project azea.
There will be no permanent or temporary impacts to jurisdictional streams or wetlands due to construction of
the proposed project.
IlVIPACTS TO TAR-PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER
Reedy Creek is subject to the Taz-Pamlico Buffer Rules. The USGS topographic map depicted an additional
unnamed tributary (LTTI) located approximately 90-feet from the roadway within the project area. However,
during a field visit on March 26, 2007, NCDOT biologists Erica McLamb and Chris Underwood confirmed
that the stream is located approximately 200-feet outside of the project azea. Construction of the new bridge
and approaches will not impact the buffers of the unnamed tributary. Construction of the new bridge and
approaches will result in impacts to the buffers of Reedy Creek. Buffer impacts aze described in Table 1
below.
Table 1. Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Im acts
Bridge Road Crossing
Zone 1 acts . ft 2460 0
Zone 2 acts . ft 572 779
Mitigation requirements Allowable ~ Allowable (impacts less than
(exempt, allowable or allowable with 1501ineaz feet or one-third of
miti ation an acre .
Approx~maiery a~ unear rcet of road crossing impacts
Under the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules, impacts to buffers resulting from the construction of bridges are
allowable. Impacts resulting from construction of the approaches are allowable because the impacts do not
exceed 1501ineaz feet or one-third of an acre.
Utility Impacts to Riparian Bu,~`ers
The sole utility in the project study area is an existing power line (3-phase power) located parallel to the road
on the southwest side of the project area. The existing power line will not be impacted by the proposed
project. There will be no impacts to riparian buffers resulting from the iemoval or relocation of the utilities.
No Practical Alternative Analvsis
The project area has been evaluated and there are no practical alternatives to replacing the bridge. This bridge
has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate
structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations. Because this bridge needs to be replaced,
impacts to the riparian buffers are unavoidable.
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 T973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website (updated
May 10, 2007) lists three species for Warren County. Table 2 lists the species and their federal status.
B-3707 Permit Application
Page 2 of 4

Table 2. Federall Protected S ecies in Warren Coun NC
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status* Biological Conclusion Habitat
Present
Bald ea le
g Haliaeetus
leucoce halos
Delisted
Not required
No
Taz in ussel
~ ~ Elliptio
E May affect, not likely to
Y
steinstansana adversely affect es
Dwarf Alasmidonta E May affect, not likely to
wed emussel
tr.- --~------' heterodon adversel affect Yes
L= CIIUSIIgCI'Ca
The bald eagle, though still listed on the USFWS website, was officially delisted on August 8, 2007.
However, bald eagle still receives protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The stream at
this location is not lazge enough to provide suitable foraging habitat for the bald eagle and there are no large
streams or lakes within 1-mile of the project azea, therefore, no surveys are required (G. Jordan, personal
communication, Apri13, 2006). The North Carolina Natural Heritage database indicates no known
occurrences of the bald eagle within 1-mile of the project area.
Surveys for the Taz spinymussel and the dwarf wedgemussel on March 16, 2006 by NCDOT biologists Karen
M. Lynch and Logan Williams. The project study azea does contain potential habitat for both species however,
no specimens were observed during the 2 man hour survey. Neither the dwarf wedgemussel or the Tar
spinymussel have ever been found in Reedy Creek. The dwarf wedgemussel is also not found in the receiving
stream, Little Fishing Creek. The Taz spinymussel has been recorded 24 miles downstream in Little Fishing
Creek, however, it is unlikely to occur within the project area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage database
indicates no known occurrences of the dwarf wedgemussel or Tar spinymussel within 1-mile of the project
azea. A biological conclusion of "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" has been issued. USFWS
concurrence (enclosed) was issued on Apri126, 2007.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Comnensator~iti anon
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 NEPA compliance stages;
minimisation measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, m;n;mi~.e, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's jurisdictional
stream and Neuse Buffer avoidance/minimi~ation activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimi ration
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented.
• A preformed scour hole located north of the proposed bridge will be utilized to reduce stormwater
impacts.
• The proposed bridge will span Reedy Creek with no bents located in the channel.
B-3707 Permit Application
Page 3 of 4

• The proposed bridge will be 28-feet longer increasing the floodplain under the bridge.
• The bridge will be replaced in its existing location minimizing impacts to buffers.
• Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
• All non-maintained riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall
be restored to the pre-construction contours and revegetated with native woody species.
Compensatory Miti ag tion:
NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to the Taz-Pamlico Riparian Buffers to the greatest extent
possible as described above. Mitigation in not proposed for impacts resulting from the construction of the
proposed bridge because all impacts are allowable.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of August 19, 2008 (review date of July 1, 2008) with a date of availability of
September 30, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in October 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
This project has been designed to comply with the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC
2B.0233). NCDOT requests written authorization for a Buffer Authorization from the Division of Water
Quality. We aze providing five copies of this application to North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR, DWQ) for review and approval. This project has
been reviewed for jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). There are no impacts to Waters of
the US, therefore none of the actions of this project fall under jurisdiction of the CWA. Therefore, no permits
pursuant to the CWA aze required.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. ff you have any questions or need additional information, please
call Erica McLamb at 715-1521.
Sicincere
`,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment w/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies) Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC Mr. Mazk Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, PE., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Jennifer Fuller, PDEA
B-3707 Permit Application
Page 4 of 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
20080052
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If 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: None
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number:~919) 733-3141 Fax Number: (9191733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

Bridge No. 158 will be replaced on existing location with an offsite detour. Heave duty
excavation equipment will be used such as trucks, dozers, cranes and other various
equipment necessary for roadway construction. __
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the. project. Each impact must be
listed sepazately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed sepazately 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 cleazly 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 maybe 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: none
Page 3 of 9

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, dyed 'n , floodin , draina e, 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) o
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nroiect:
Stream Im act acres): 0 ~ _ _
Wetland Im act acres): 0
en Water Im act acres : p
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Im act linear feet : 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
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: Expected pond surface area:
Page 5 of 9

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.
Mitigation is not proposed for this project
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
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
1X. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federaVstate) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
Page 7 of 9

XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I SA 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:
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).
None
IZ-31..
Applica~lAgery'f's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

United States Department of the Interior ' ~iE~>r'"~~~~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MAY 2 2006
Raleigh Field Office
Post OfEce Box 33726 1" ^" t?;. ~ sr !~
OIV,~I,;;; ~"r~:~~aAYS
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 PDEA~OFfICE ~F ~n^t;~=;A. EhVI~y~IENT
April 26, 2006
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Uear Ur. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 13, 2006 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 67 on SR 1507 over Reedy Creek in Warren County (TIP
No. B-3707) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). In addition, NCDOT has
determined that the project will have no effect on the federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus
lei~cocephalus). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on March 16, 2006.
The survey extended 200 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1507. Only the common
eastern elliptio mussel (Elliptio complanata) was observed. Based on the mussel survey results and other
information available, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. Also, due to
the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on the
bald eagle. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We
remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation 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) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected
by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
_,,,~
Si erel ~; ~`~
;~~
Pete Ben' n
Ecologica Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC

cn~n oan ic~T
NOT TO SCALE
TAR PAMLICO RIVER BUFFER
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
's~
~a
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT:33R~47.1.1 (B-3707)
BRIDGE N0.67
OVER REEDY CREEg
ON SR 1507
SHEET 1 OF 6 ll / 15 / 07
acvi~v rnv~~~ ~

Y
2Zn
vo ~,~
/mo
TO MARMADUKE
-3707
SR 1507
BEGIN
_i _ c
m
m
0
n
A
m

I
-L -
NOT TO SCALE
ITAR PAML~CO RIVER BUFFER
IL~~A~7I°~~I~T
END TIP PROJECT 8-3707
-L- STA 22+50.00
ro ~taxo
END BRIDGE
~~
-L- STA. 23+55.00
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSI~ORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT:33247.1.1 (E-3707D
FRIDGE N0.67
OVER REEDY CREEK
ON SR 1507
SHEET 2 OF 6 7 % 02 // 07

I ~u~~~~ ~,~~~zv~ I
~~JLB-~ WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
x~~~~ ~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1

~" " "
~~~~~~~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
® MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
- BZ - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
-BZ1 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 ft (9.2m)
- gZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 f t (6.1m)
-~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION
TB
~_ TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
- ~ - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- F -PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
---~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - N~ - -NATURAL GROUND
- ~(-- - f'PJf'EPTY LINE
-TOE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----Q ---- WATER SURFACE
X XX X X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
a
0
~m
& ABOVE
^ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAO
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSHI
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH/
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT. ®F TR.~NSID®RT.~TI®N
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWr1YS
WARREN C®UNTY
I'R®JECT:332~7.1.1 (8-3707)
BRIDGE N®. 67
®VER REEDY CREEK
®N SR 1507
SHEET 3 ®F 6 7 // 02 d 07

~~
o<
.~
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS

TRACT N0. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE N0.

OO FISHING CREEK LAND &
TIMBER CORPORATION ROUTE 3, BOX 621
WARRENTON, NC 27589
I

O2 ROBERT C. KELLEY
& MARY E. KELLY 210 TIMBERWOOD AVE.
SILVER SPRING, MO 20901
1

3 MARGARET MOSS 177 CIRCLE DRIVE
TEANECK,NJ 07666
1

4 ELMER W. HARRIS ROUTE 3, BOX 614
WARRENTON,NC 27589
I

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT:332~7.1.1 (B-3707)
G ~ I BRIDGE N0.67
OVER REEDY CREEg
ON SR 1507
SHEET 4 OF 6 7 d 02 d 07

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO.
STRUCTURE SIZE /TYPE STATION
(FROM/TO) ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(fTz) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ftz) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ft2)

1 BRIDGE - 21" PCCS
OAL = 115' -L- 18+18 to 19+83 X 2460 572 3032
, X 0 779 779

TOTAL: 2460 1351 3811 0 0 0
nev. rviay ~uuo

a KO & ASSOCWTES, P.C. PROTECT EEFE°FNCE N0. SHEE7 ND.
Consulting Engineers B '~~ 4
wu °aua o~atme pox wear xcne°s R1Y SHEET NO.
191f1 ~5os6 0.0IDWAY DESIGN NYDAAWCS
ENGINE9l ENGWEER
m
v
m
E
a
2
m
m

N=~
~~
aaat LANG ~ nem COIPONATION
O
tt
tt/ti
h
30 LF CUT/FLL '
CLASS 8 R~ RAP
EST, b TONS
ESi.JO SY FF
E i= ~ F
-- ------ --- ~-- ~~~~ ~\ F
_~ - __`__
. ; __~,~
~; ~~,
~,
~E\\ _ /
E~ ~ E.
JO Lf CUT/fLL
CUSS 8 RIP RAP
EST. IS TONS
EST. 30 SY Ff
ROEFNT C. EEELY
IYIN7 E.I~LY
O
G G~~
~~p0
50' RIPARIAN
J0' IOPARLIN
eilffEx
r H
r .,
a~
"„ ~ '' °t~
',~ 1
~. ~._
N y ~`~,
N i
'~,
_ ~ ,i~
N ~,.
x ~
tr N ~ r
ttitt
1
~~ c~,
loo o SUFFER SITE 1
I PLAN VIEW
50 100
SCALE: I°= 100` HORIZ.

GLI
D A
SP A ITCH
I Eat to so°Isl
o ~
Hirt 0= Ift.
-L- STA. YN00 TO 2]+55 LT.
MAIIPARET 11065
O
uL cur
oETaIL e
1 RP RAP
PREFORMED SCOUt NRLE
SEE DETAL A
ENO SNOUI.OER BE101
GUTTER AT STA. 20+05 LT.
D TAI A
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
c xot to soda
PLAN VEM
~~~~
~~ ~~
A
I
S(iIVE
~~~ MSFT.
o-tFt.
nANitl d•l k.
61 Ft
SECTN)N A-A
~~
P9Y~
_ ra Pv41 1 .d ...__..
J
.I~~
/. - :'
- / ~ /
Ei1tR r,xARROi
O
-azI.-RP ER-i01E1
-az z-- RPARWi BUFFFA - Z01E 2
AL.LOYASLE DiACTS ZONE 1
®g1AYABI.E DIPACrs 201Rs 2

IIJCOMPLE PLANS
no xm u°s rod i- ncoWmax
PRELIMIN Y PLANS
no xm u~ cmrnnurn°x
R2 M
~DAW tF /
TO E)DSTOlG SHALE
~% %;
~./ _
~-~ ,:~
"1 i c
1~ i
ltl'
i~1~:
1 I:
111
I 1'
Buffer Drawing
Sheets of _..._
~ N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT:332471.1 (B-3707)
BRIDGE N0.67
OVER REEDY CREEg
ON SR 1507
SHEET 6 Ole 6 , r~^~~ a ~~

See Suet i-A For Index of St>°ets ~~°~'~°~ ®1C N®~°~°~ ~~1[D ®~~~~
'' rt•++ R•~~~••~m ~* ~;,
IlIl
ll3
See Suet 1-B For Cornentlanal Symbols •~. 8 -3707 1
~
®
®
llY Y V' ll U' ll
ll ll A Il `~J~ ll A 1 V 1 ]~ ll
1 , rt~a wm~n r.~ww.an marm,

3s ~
r 33247.1.1 BRZ-1507 P.E.
~ -
'
~
`~
~ 33247.2.2 BRZ-1507 RNV 8 UTILITIES
'~ ~"
1
'
-
!!z!
.tsn
~
1= ~~
- WARRE11l CO U11 t T
~ a°~
I ~~ ~ ~
,
~}: Y
PROJECT
O -
~ s n,
i
-
M ~~,
~ '~
s, ,~ '\ ~ `~
~ LOCATION: Bridge No. 67 over Reedy Creek on SR 1507
I _ 'y
'1 rssr
m
I
~
`
r1 -„1
6r7 I, 1511
i ,ti .
-,
•
L' f
-~ ~~ ~~
'~ 1so~: u
TYPE OF WORK Grading, Drainage
Paving and Structure
se ,
V Y~1 ~-~ ~•jsli ' ~ ~
r' ~'- i
` x
W - , , ~
i ~~ ~--. ,I ~I rsdl;~T su ~~

~ ~ 1511 '-~ ~
I
~ '~~ ~ . r'. -_..?/ sD
~ ~. ~ -~
vrClNrlY MAP
3
OPFS778 DETOUR ROUTE ~--~----a+ ~
,,~Q
"
rU
END TIP PROJECT 707
THIS PROJECT rS NOT V/IflIDY ANY

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. ~ STA ZZ+SO.OO
TO EMBRO

O MARMADUKE

-
___
-- S 1

~
R
1507 `
- - _---.-
t
------
,.

;
~~~~
''~

'
_
. _
_
_-...-- -- - -
--
t ~
-- r,, 11
j
~ ~ ~ ,
,~.
SR 1501....-.:- ',;,%~ (~
1
1+1

;.~,
~i
`~
t END CONS UCTION

BEGIN TIP PROJECT B 3707 , ~
`~ ~ STA.23 55.00
STA IS+00.00 BEGIN BRIDGE END BRIDGE
-~ STA.18+46.00 -U STA.19+61.00 CLEARING ON THI PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS ES ABLISHED B Y METHOD III.
NCDOT CONTACT.• CATHY S. ROUSER, P.E., ** DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT, VERTICAL A GNMENT

_

ROADWAY DESIGN -ENGINEERING COORDINATI N

AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIRED. ,
PRELIMINARY PLANS
oo Nor u9e wn rnNm,v~rioN

V GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH I g0ASSOCIATES, P.C. HYDRAULICS ENGDIEER DIt7SI0N OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2008 = 215 LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT &3707 = 0.120 mi

3707 = 0
ECT B
022
u
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE TD' PRO , Consulting Engineers
ia~ r same o-sm, aoz rwy~ nc yeas
rois~~i~
Fos
ADT 2028 = 515 J
-
.
m
, roeF srgnmwxn srECmranoxs
PLANS DHV = 10 9o TUTAL LENGTH OF TD' PROJECT 1~3T01 = 0.142 mi. r.a
srcac+ruRE:
50 25 5D 100 D = 60 YO RIGHT OF WAY DATE: Brian A. Wiles. P.E.
x
ROADWAY DESIGN
T 7 % August 17, 2007 rnolecr ~rcn~

PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
rrsr 3% DUAL 4% ENGI11tEF.R + rs-
O la to zo ,. V = 60 MPH LETTDIG DATE:
r ~ August 19, 2008
v PROFILE (VERTICAL) FUNC. CLASS. =RURAL LOCAL p~ Ps
SIGNATURE: SrgrE tIICHWAY DESIGN c,rnvaco
c
m
v
r
V
S
e
~~
~~
n
o.
a
i
°a<
a,
o i,

y
Note.' Not to Scale
*S U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering
5°fl°.~'d°E ~]F N~fB'J[°]H CAFb~]LIN.~
F9IVY~~~N ~F ][~YGII~W~Y~
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.•
State line
~._
County Line
Township Line
Cif
Line
y
Resenation Line - - - - -
Pro
ert
Li
p
y
ne
Existing Iron Pin P
Pro
ert
C
p
y
orner -~
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Line -x-x-x-
Praposed Woven Wire Fence e~
Pro
osed Chain Li
k F
p
n
ence e
Pro
osed Barbed Wi
F
p
re
ence E---
Existing Wetland Boundary ----ti----
Proposed Wetland Boundary .~

Existing Endangered Animal Boundary ~-
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary

BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or lLti Tank Cap p
Si 0
gn
Well
Small Mine ~
Foundation
Area Outline ~
Cemetery
B
ildi
u
ng ~~
S
h
c
ool
Ch
h
urc
Dam
HYDROLOGY.•
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r-----~
Jurisdictional Stream _~s_-J
Buffer Zone 1 _ ~ , _
Buffer Zone 1 _~ ~,_
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream ,
Spring ~-~/~
Wetland ~,
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
RAILROADS.•
Standard Gauge $$
ax rxwsnwr~vAr
RR Signal Milepost ~
~nsr u
Switch []

RR Abandon
d awrai
e ~-
RR Dismantled
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker Q
Existing Right of Way Une
Proposed Right of Way Une ~•.~~
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Woy Line with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Access --(~~`,--
Proposed Control of Access . ~,~
Existing Easement Line -_E-_
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - e
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- _roE_
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement- -poe-
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement -rue-
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.•
Existing Edge of Pavement --
Existing Curb -
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut ~
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill F
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut -
Curb Cut for future Wheel Chair Ramp - ~
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail T
Existing Cable Guide
il ~ ^
ro
Proposed Cable Guide
il n n n
ro
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
I~EGETATION
Single Tree {~
Single Shrub a
Hedge ~.,-
Woods Line
Orchard fl Q f? 4?
Vineyard ~~rare
EXISTING STRUCTURES.•
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Bax Culvert cac
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Woll - ~ c~c
MINOR:
Head and End Wall ~-~ ,p-~
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge }~.--~
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB ^~
Paved Ditch Gufler -----
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer ,
UTILITIES.'
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
Existing Joint Use Pole -~
Proposed Joint Use Pole .~
Power Manhole p
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer 0
USG Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frome Pole
Recorded lVG Power Line
Designated lVG Power Line (S.U.E.'
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole -•
Proposed Telephone Pole ~•
Telephone Manhole 6
Telephone Booth p
Telephone Pedestol p
Telephone Cell Tower ,~,
USG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded LVG Telephone Cable r
Designated l6G Telephone Cable (S.U.E.`)- ----*----
Recorded U~G Telephone Conduit rz
Designated lLG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.'t ----n----
Recarded U'G Fiber Optiu Cable ^ ~-
Designated IJ~G Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.y- ----*^^---
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Wafer Hydrant ~
Recorded lYG Wafer line
Designated l~G Water Une (S.U.E.'~- - ---.----
Above Ground Water Une uc parer
N:
N Satellite Dish p
N Pedestal p
N Tower
USG N Cable Hand Hole
Recorded l4fa N Cable ,r
Designated lLG N Cable (S.U.E.') ----r----
Recorded WG Fiber Optic Cable -~ Fo-
Designated lbG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.`f- ----rw---
GAS:
Gas Valve 0
Gas Meter
Recorded lbG Gas Line o
Designated USG Gas line (S.U.E.') ----6----
A6ove Ground Gas Line ivc c°°
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout ~
lLG Sanitary Sewer line B
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer uc san~rary sa.ar
Recorded SS Forced Main Line ,~
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.`) - ----~____
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole ~
Utility Pole with Base ~
Utility Located Object o
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown l4G Une „~_
llG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
AEG Tank; Wafer, Gas, Oil
USG Test Hole (S.U.E.`) ~
Abandoned According to Utility Records - AATUR
End of Information E.0.1.

~~ ~x
~~ aE
Z
~ ~~
~ ~ as
>z Cc]g
~~ a
}
J
~- _
m ~ o
a ~ ~o ~
N
y
z°
W ,. j
I
0
Z
0 ~
~ N
1- Q
N
Z H
O u
u ~
~ a
Z J
W I
~~r
L O
a
4 ..T"~~.Y~ t..l~ Z
,,.
t ~,`
~ ~~ ~ ~
'~,~ K~~
'~ r ~..`'` ~ ~
;~
~•~ ~ `. y~
`` t F ~
~ f4.
m ',
,~ 4
~ ~ ~ ``11
.~ ~!~ ,I F
J
W 1~/1
~< ~`
~~ Ig
~~ \
~~~
O~
Jw~
2

Al JI =
~
~
~
o

chi
. y

g

~ ~
/- z W
~
o

JI-,b Z Jl-,Z
m
AI AI
~~
~~
r
)..
~BZ 1 /~ -~~
y~•~ Y
_- 11 LII'IG
.~ f. 't..
~ ._ /^
BZ ~~~ lei-../
m
8~
~~
o_
!7
~~ /
~ ~ W UI
~~~~ \
~~~~ ~ ~ y
~ ~I~
b~ r
~ ` O
~e
~ O
~ O
O ~Md ~S'£i+1 t-10'
W Q
O
oc
a ~
Z ~
m J
T ' ' tJ
~~ ~ I ~'I
~~ ;
I 11
I ~ ~ `I
I 4~ 'J
r.
I .:,
gL4r .
~'~ \ y
~`
//
/ W
E
~~
a
b
~~
~
!~ ~
i
~ 5
~ ~ ~
t
i
,~ I
~'
I r
~;
}
`~ I 1
~
S ~ ~
~

~'
~ `
~.
~ :

~
~
~
I i
1 F
I
~ ~
,
'
I ~
~
`x 1 `,I ,~
a
x
W
o
J
~
O
Z `~ < ~
W w
a
W
J

rta,so'sn~u+ca god -~-
~Nd 11.'r9~Ll i-19-
~ O
~s
B7. 1//
BZ 1-./
~;~s
Y .... ~
r ~_ ~: `
- ~.
LHF ET
2
~B1
~~
~m~R
R ~'~ ~ ~~-
~~ ~
~~ O
,r S
~~ i
~~
~~M~. d~
it
~40~~~~~
~ c~s~ 4
~~~ aaia
~~~
~ _ l K ~` __
~~
N

a ~~
U ~I
N
8}
~r
U~Uayll
~~~ a
~~~~~~~
~~
M
M
u6p•40-ysd-fipa-~
SNOISIA3il
~ + t ~
^o
0
o~
ya ~ +
N
N
N
°` u

/92/01

~ {t
10/26/2007
r:\roadway\pro~\63707_rdy_pfl_05.dgn
5 /!4/99

_.
. 1
~ j

.. i_ i.
// t I
~~ ~ ~ L ~ ~'
N

~

i _,

_

i

I

_
,_

/
4 1
J ..._
W . : ~ ~ .

? ,., _.
,-

' i ~
_ ~
_ :_

''
;
,

'
,

to A _
A t

.' ,.
I
~

Ow

k N `
f , r
-+
V i:.
_ "'

.r
OD
~~~~ .:
rr
ry~~~
~ i
i r
~~~~

~~
~r _
~~
r _ _

~o
~
~ _.
_ a
~
`

~
z

N
O

N

1

N
G1N
CH ,i
N _ ~ ;.
x xfi, ,; '~ ,
,
~ n
_
o
~° ~
A L m
~°
"

~
:.
~~~ ~
C
n
N

W aw

~
_ ~
A
p
ro
F n
~ _
,
2 3 .J6
o
N
A 'b ~ ~

I g~ ~i ~
~
o = ~
r ~
~ a~ 9

; ' e,~
~
N r ~~
~~ ~~ ~

Warren County
SR 1507 (Davis Road)
Bridge No. 67 over Reedy Pond Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1507(1)
WBS No. 33247.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3707
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a
~~~ ~ ~
h~ f;,~^y
~~~~~
o~ Jq N ~ ~ ~ ~~,8 [1
n
ps~~ST~~Q(/,gL~ry
.,~e~^'~
080052
APPROVED:
~~ ~7
to Gregory J. Thor e, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
~ D~ _
Date
ivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Warren County
SR 1507 (Davis Road)
Bridge No. 67 over Reedy Pond Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1507(1)
WBS No. 33247.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3707
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 2006
Documentation Prepared By Ko and Associates, P.C.
CARO~~~
SS a ~: 9
SEAL
X661
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Shannon L. Lasater, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Manager - Ko and Associates

4
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Warren County
SR 1507 (Davis Road)
Bridge No. 67 over Reedy Pond Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1507(1)
WBS No. 33247.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3707
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #31 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Pernut 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/Division 5
The project will be coordinated with the Director of Transportation Services for the Warren
County School System and the Director of Emergency Services before construction begins so
appropriate changes in school bus and emergency service routes can be made. The Director of
Transportation Services has requested a temporary bus turn around at a driveway located about 1
mile north of the bridge on SR 1507. The existing driveway will be suitable with the addition of
gravel and possible pipe replacement. This can be included as part of the special provisions of
the construction contract. See discussion on page 3 of the CE and in the Appendix.
B-3707 -Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
March 2006 Sheet 1 of 1

Warren County
SR 1507 (Davis Road)
Bridge No. 67 over Reedy Pond Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1507(1)
WBS No. 33247.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3707
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 67 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
The bridge was selected for addition to the TIP in 1996. At that time, Bridge Maintenance Unit
records indicated the bridge had a sufficiency rating of 37.0 out of a possible 100 for a new
structure. The bridge was determined to be structurally deficient.
Immediate repairs were needed in 2000, and the timber floor and joists were replaced. Also, a
number of the piles have been repaired or replaced over the years. The resulting bridge repairs
were considered to be a temporary solution.
The latest bridge safety inspection in 2005 indicates the timber caps and piles are soft to a depth
reaching 1 inch, and several piles are delaminated and decaying. The bridge currently has a
sufficiency rating of 49.3 and is no longer considered to be structurally deficient by NCDOT
standards. However, in January 2006, NCDOT Bridge Maintenance and FHWA engineers
reviewed the safety inspection results and agreed that the bridge is a good candidate for bridge
replacement because of its timber construction, deteriorating caps and piles, and the need for a
permanent improvement. The replacement of this structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 67 on SR 1507 (Davis Road) over Reedy
Pond Creek in central Warren County. SR 1507 is classified as a Rural Local route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System. The existing bridge, as shown in Figures 2A and
2B, has an overall length of 87 feet, a total width of 26 feet and two 9-foot travel lanes. The
existing two-lane bridge has a creosote timber deck on creosote timber joists supported by timber
caps, piles and abutments. There are 25 feet of clear roadway width. SR 1507 has a current
pavement width of 18 feet with two grass shoulders approximately 8 feet wide in the area of the
bridge. The roadway approaches are tangent and on slight downgrades toward the bridge. The
vertical sag occurs on the north approach just off the bridge. Sight distance is good to the north
and south.

Overhead electrical lines parallel the existing bridge approximately 20 feet to the east. There are
no utilities attached to the bridge.
The structure was constructed in 1961. The current posted weight limits are 9 tons for single unit
vehicles and 16 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. Bridge No. 67 has abed-to-crown
distance of approximately 13 feet. The estimated traffic volumes on SR 1507 are currently 300
vehicles per day (vpd) and are projected to be 500 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes
include an estimated 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 percent dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The posted speed limit is 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge. Development in the
immediate area is almost exclusively woodland. One metal building approximately 1000 feet
south of the bridge appears to be a hunting club facility. One accident was reported in the
vicinity of the bridge in the most recent three year period.
Public school buses cross the present bridge two times per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 67 with a new bridge approximately 100 feet long with
a clear roadway width of 28 feet. The final bridge length and width will be determined during
final design. New approaches to the bridge will provide 11-foot travel lanes in each direction
with 6-foot grassed shoulders.
B. Build Alternatives
The studied alternatives were: (1) to replace the structure at the existing location with an on-site
temporary detour on the west side; (2) to replace the structure on new alignment west of and
parallel to the existing location; and (3) to replace the structure at the existing location, utilizing
an off=site detour. These alternatives are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5.
Alternative 1 replaces the existing structure at the existing location with an on-site temporary
detour on the west side. The estimated cost of the temporary detour is $675,000. While targeted
for 60 mph, one horizontal curve limits the design speed to 50 mph. In addition, Alternative 1
will require a design exception for the vertical alignment.
Alternative 2 replaces the existing structure on new alignment west of the existing bridge at a
cost comparable to Alternative 1. While targeted for 60 mph, two horizontal curves limit the
design speed to 55 mph. In addition, Alternative 2 will also require a design exception for the
vertical. alignment.
Alternative 3 (preferred) replaces the existing structure with a new bridge at the existing
location, closing SR 1507 to through traffic during construction and utilizing anoff--site detour.
While targeted for 60 mph, one horizontal curve limits the design speed to 50 mph. In addition,
Alternative 3 will require a design exception for the vertical alignment.
2

The possible off-site detour route (Figure 1) includes SR 1509 (Warrenton-Embro Road), NC 58
and NC 43, a distance of 7 miles. The bridge on SR 1509 is posted 19 tons for duals and 28 tons
truck-tractor, semi-trailers. These postings exceed those on Bridge No. 67. In accordance with
the NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects
(April 2004), the average delay per motorist using the off-site detour is estimated to range from
five to less than ten minutes for a construction period of 12 months, which falls under the
Evaluation (E) range of the Guidelines. The Evaluation (E) range suggests that 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 Director of Transportation Services for the Warren County School System did not indicate a
problem with the off-site detour alternative. One school bus crosses the bridge two times each
school day. The Director of Transportation requests a temporary bus turn around located at a
driveway about one mile north of the bridge on the west side of SR 1507, see Figure 7. The
existing driveway will be suitable with the addition of gravel and possible pipe replacement.
This can be included as part of the special provisions of the construction contract. See further
discussions in the Appendix.
No comments were received directly from the volunteer fire departments serving the area,
Warren County EMS, or the Warren County Sheriff's Department; however, the Warren County
Firemen's Association indicated all of these agencies could work with any of the alternatives,
including anoff--site detour and the closure of the road to through traffic. Based on these
comments, the off-site detour is considered appropriate.
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 1507. Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance Unit indicates that additional rehabilitation of Bridge No. 67 is not feasible due to
its age, timber construction, and deteriorating condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3, replacing the existing structure with a new bridge 100 feet long with a 28-foot
clear roadway width is the preferred improvement. The approaches to the new bridge will have a
pavement width of 22 feet with 6-foot grassed shoulders. This will provide two 11-foot lanes.
The targeted design speed is 60 mph. With a 60 mph design speed for the vertical curve, the
existing grade at the bridge will have to be raised 7 to 8 feet. This amount of fill would preclude
the replacement of the bridge in its existing location with minimum impacts. With a 30 mph
vertical design speed, the south end of the existing bridge would have to be raised approximately
2 feet. There is one horizontal curve with a design speed of 50 mph. It is recommended a design
speed of 30 mph be used for the vertical alignment and a design exception requested for both the
horizontal and vertical alignments. The estimated design year 2025 traffic is 500 vehicles per
day.
3

The Division Off ce and FHWA concur with the recommended improvements.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost for the recommended proposed improvement is $685,500. The current
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $646,000. The estimated costs of the alternatives studied are shown in the following
table:
Table 1: Estimated Costs
Alternative 1
Existing Location
On-site Detour
West Side Alternative 2
New Location
West Side of
Existing Bridge Alternative 3
Existing Location
Off-site Detour
(Preferred)
Structure Removal $ 30,600.00 $ 30,600.00 $ 30,600.00
Structure $ 277,200.00 $ 277,200.00 $ 277,200.00
Roadway Approaches $ 167,360.00 $ 505,700.00 $ 167,360.00
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 121,840.00 $ 274,000.00 $ 121,840.00
Engineering and Contingencies $ 78,000.00 $ 162,000.00 $ 78,000.00
Temporary Detour $ 675,000.00 NA NA
SUBTOTAL $ 1,350,000.00 $1,250,000.00 $ 675,000.00
Right of way/Const. Ease./Util. $ 32,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 10,500.00
TOTAL $ 1,382,500.00 $1,270,000.00 $ 685,500.00
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 percent is included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 percent for engineering and
contingencies. Estimates reflect 2006 costs.
4

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (LJSGS) topographic mapping (Inez, NC
7.5 minute quadrangle, 1971), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) mapping (Inez, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1995), and recent aerial
photography (scale 1 inch=100 feet).
On September 29, 2000 the study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for significant
features. For purposes of field surveys, the study corridor was assumed to be approximately
1700 feet in length for Alternative 1, 1950 feet for Alternative 2 and 600 feet in length for
Alternative 3. The corridor width was 200 feet from centerline to the west of SR 1507 and 100
feet from centerline to the east of SR 1507 for all three alternatives to ensure proper coverage.
Plant community area calculations are based on cut-and-fill boundaries for permanent impacts
and construction easements for temporary impacts; jurisdictional area calculations for impacts on
streams are based on approximate bridge widths. Actual impacts will be limited to construction
limits and are expected to be less than those shown for right of ways. Special concerns evaluated
in the field include potential habitat for protected species and wetlands, and water quality
protection in Reedy Pond Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names generally
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968), with adjustments made to reflect more
current nomenclature. Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Wetland
jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as
expected population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of
available habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980, Martof
et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Water quality
information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 1998,
1999). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing of federally-protected species
with ranges which extend into Warren County (June 16, 2000) was obtained prior to initiation of
the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federally- or state-
listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor 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
5

and more plastic soils, aze common. Topography includes broad, gently sloping uplands and
moderately dissected landscapes, with narrow convex ridges and steep valley slopes (Daniels et
al. 1999). Topography of the area is characterized as gently rolling with steep azeas along major
streams. The study corridor is located within and adjacent to the floodplain of Reedy Pond
Creek. Within the study corridor, a gradual, shallow slope on the northern bank, and a steep
bluff on the south bank characterize the floodplain. Elevations in the study corridor aze
approximately 250 to 350 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS Inez, NC
quadrangle). The broad floodplain and bluff extend out of the study corridor to the east and
west.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has not mapped soils in the major part of Warren
County. Dominant soil series in the eastern portion of the Felsic Crystalline System aze Pacolet,
Cecil, Appling, Vance, and Helena in the uplands and Congazee, Chewakla, and Wehadkee in
river terraces and floodplains (Daniels et al. 1999).
The Pacolet series (Typic Kanhapludults) is a very well drained, moderately permeable group of
soils formed from weathered acid crystalline rock. Slopes aze commonly 15 to 25 percent. The
Cecil series (Typic 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 (Typic Kanhapludults) is very deep, well drained, and moderately permeable,
and found 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 (Typic Hapludults) consists of well-drained, slowly permeable soils that
formed in residuum weathered from acid crystalline rock in the Piedmont. This series is found
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 azeas on side slopes. Helena soils are formed in forested areas from mixed acidic
and basic rocks. The Congazee series (Typic Udifluvents) consists of nearly level, well-drained
soils on floodplains, originating from fine loamy material washed from soils on uplands. The
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 below the ground surface. The Wehadkee series (Fluventic Haplaquepts)
is nearly level, poorly drained, and typically found on floodplains. Wehadkee soils aze formed of
fine loamy material, and the seasonal high water table is approximately at the surface. (Daniels et
al. 1999, USDA 1970).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service considers the following soil series to be hydric in
Warren County: Chewacla and Wehadkee silt loamy, where frequently flooded; Worsham (Typic
Ochraquults); and Helena soils with Worsham inclusions. These series aze saturated for a
significant period during the growing season, and support woody vegetation under natural
conditions (USDA 1997). The Worsham series (Typic Ochraquults) is nearly level or gently
sloping, poorly drained, and occupies small areas at the heads of drainages, at foot slopes, and in
slight depressions. Worsham soils aze formed from alluvial and residual material, and the
seasonal high water table is approximately at the surface (USDA 1970).
6

The soils of the flat floodplain area of the study corridor appear to be of a uniform type and
texture. The surface texture is sandy and the entire solum appears to be well drained, with no
hydric inclusions found during the field survey.
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-03-04 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (DWQ
1999). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03020102 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast
Region. The section of Reedy Pond Creek crossed by the subject bridge has been assigned
Stream Index Number 28-79-25-5 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1997).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Reedy Pond Creek is awell-defined, second-order Piedmont stream with low flow. During the
field survey, water depths along the study corridor varied from 8 inches to 3 feet. The stream is
entrenched, with 3 to 4 feet between the water surface to the bankfull line along the study
corridor at the time of the field visit. The depth of the stream channel apparently holds the water
table well below the soil surface in the adjacent floodplain. Water clarity was moderate to low
during the field visit, with visibility to within 18 inches of the surface. A slight tannin stain, due
to organic matter in the water, was apparent. The channel width ranged from 8 to 22 feet and
was approximately 20 feet in width at Bridge No. 67. Within the study corridor, the creek
exhibits weak to moderate sinuosity and a weakly developed riffle and pool sequence. The
substrate ranges from coarse sand in riffle areas to mud in pools. The 300-foot length of stream
in the study corridor included several areas where the banks were undercut, and trees had
collapsed into the stream. Bank erosion is apparently an active and ongoing process in this
stream, perhaps intensified by sedimentation from agricultural and/or forestry operations
upstream. The floodplain contains mixed mesic hardwood forests. No hydric soils were
observed.
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 Reedy Pond Creek (DWQ 1997). The designation
C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to wading, boating, and other
uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The
supplemental classification NSW denotes nutrient sensitive waters that need additional nutrient
management because they are subject to excessive growth of microscopic and macroscopic
vegetation (DWQ 1997). No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1 mile
of the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (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 study
7

corridor is summarized in the Tar-Pamlico River basin management plan (DWQ 1999). Reedy
Pond Creek has not been sampled nor rated for its support status. The Taz-Pamlico sub-basin
03-03-04, containing the entire Fishing Creek watershed including Reedy Pond Creek, supports
major discharges from the towns of Warrenton and Enfield, and from the Scotland Neck WWTP.
Total permitted flow for the major and minor dischazgers is 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD)
(DWQ 1999). There are no direct discharges into Reedy Pond Creek.
The DWQ 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 N.C. 2002 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 standazds violation may
be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of
impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric
deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Cazolina'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 aze listed on the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. Streams are
further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2002 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. The Reedy Pond Creek is not listed on any section of the Final
N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list or the Draft N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list.
3. Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Proposed project alternatives include complete bridging of Reedy Pond Creek to maintain the
current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime. 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. 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 azeas 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 dischazges into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Reedy Pond Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts
resulting from construction aze expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources, NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" (BMPs)
will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.

4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The bridge structure is built entirely of timber. Therefore, there is little potential for components
of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the United States." No temporary fill is expected to
result from removal of the existing bridge. 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
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: mesic mixed hardwood
forest (Piedmont subtype), and urban/disturbed land. These plant communities are described
below.
a) Mesic Mined Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
Mesic mixed hazdwood forest occurs in the flat floodplain north of Reedy Pond Creek and
continues up the fairly steep slope on the south bank. This community is described by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) as occurring on lower slopes, steep, north-facing slopes, ravines, and
occasionally well-drained small stream bottoms, on acidic soils. Under natural conditions these
forests aze uneven-aged, with the canopy dominated by mesophytic hardwoods. At the Reedy
Pond Creek study corridor, the canopy includes river birch (Betula nigra), white ash (Fraxinus
americana), beech (Fagus grandifolia), white oak (Quercus alba), tulip-poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Dominant species in the midstory aze red maple
(Ater rubrum) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), with scattered flowering dogwood (Corpus
jlorida), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), winged elm (Ulmus alata), American holly (Ilex
opaca), and sapling-sized willow oak (Q. phellos) and northern red oak (Q. rubra). Shrubs
include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and blackberry (Rubus argutus). Vines aze spazse to
common in more open patches, including muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), cross vine (Bignonia capreolata), and
poison ivy (Rhus [Toxicodendron] radicans). The understory includes frost aster (Aster
dumosa), queen-of--the-meadow (Eupatorium fistulosum), beggar-ticks (Bidens sp.), and
cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) in sunny spots, with Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), broadleaf uniola (Uniola latifolia), Nepal
microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) under the canopy. The area has appazently been logged in the past, as
eazly-successional species are common, and more valuable oaks are rare or present in the sapling
stage. As the floodplain rises approximately 100 feet on the south side of Reedy Pond Creek, a
larger component of even-aged pines and immature oaks becomes apparent.
b) Urban/Disturbed Land
Urban/disturbed land occurs along the right of way of SR 1507. This roadside area is
approximately 20 feet wide. The roadside margin is planted with bluegrass (Poa sp.) and fescue
9

(Festuca sp.). A few weedy species, such as nightshade (Solarium carolinense), honeysuckle,
and cocklebur are also present. The roadway and margins are elevated above the level of the
surrounding floodplain, but no ditching or other drainage construction is present.
2. Wildlife
No tracks or other signs of mammals were observed during the field survey. Some characteristic
mammals which are expected to frequent wooded floodplains in the Piedmont include southern
short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), eastern
chipmunk (Tamias sd~iatus), beaver (Castor canadensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
and long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata).
Bird species that were identified during the field survey are Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncos), Carolina
chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), and turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura). The wooded creekside might be expected to also support habitat for other
species, including great blue heron (Ardea herodias), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
barred owl (Strix varia), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were documented within the study corridor. Species
that might be expected in this habitat are eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Fowler's toad
(Bufo woodhousei); five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon plaryrhinos), scarlet king snake
(Lampropeltis triangulum), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and copperhead (Agkistron
contortrix).
3. Aquatic Communities
An unidentified frog was the only aquatic amphibian or reptile observed during the field survey.
Reedy Pond Creek provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles including
eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Typical amphibian species for this habitat type include dwarf mudpuppy (Necturus punctatus),
green frog (Rana clamitans), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), and gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis). No mollusks or
arthropods were observed. The NHP has documented the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus
lewisi) in the study corridor, just upstream of Bridge #67, and notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta) approximately 1.6 miles east of the study corridor.
No sampling was undertaken in Reedy Pond Creek to determine fishery potential. Small
minnows were seen during visual surveys, but no larger fish were noted. Species which may be
present within Reedy Pond Creek include eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), white
shiner (Luzilus albeolus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus
natalis), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis).
10

4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Plant Communities
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present
within the projected right of way. Permanent impacts are considered to be those impacts that
occur within proposed cut and fill boundazies. Temporary impacts are those impacts that occur
between right of way boundaries and construction easements.
A summary of potential impacts to individual plant communities at Bridge No. 67 for
Alternatives 1-3 are presented in Table 2.
Alternative 1 calls for a temporary detour west (upstream) of Bridge No. 67. Permanent impacts
to plant communities resulting from bridge replacement in Alternative 1 are generally restricted
to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments, resulting from
improvements in road grading. Approximately 69 percent of this area will impact disturbed land,
with 31 percent affecting mesic mixed hardwoods. Temporary impacts for Alternative 1 involve
a 1700-foot long easement, 165 feet wide at its widest point. This easement allows for
construction of the temporary detour west of the existing bridge. These impacts aze comprised of
approximately 78 percent mesic mixed hardwoods and 22 percent disturbed land. After
completion of the bridge replacement, the temporary detour, including fill, roadbed, and bridge
structure, will be removed and the affected area replanted. Total impacts for Alternative 1 are
over twice those for Alternative 3, and approximately 2/3 of those for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 calls for relocating the bridge to the west of the existing roadway. The existing
Bridge No. 67 and adjacent roadway would remain in use during construction of the new bridge.
Temporary impacts result from a construction easement and right of way for the new roadway
approach segments and bridge. Permanent impacts consist of grading and fill for the new
roadway segments. Approximately 80 percent of the area impacted consists of mesic mixed
hazdwoods, with smaller impacts to disturbed land on the existing roadway margins. Alternative
2 has the highest permanent impacts of the three alternatives due to its long project corridor and
the relocation of the permanent roadway. At the completion of the new bridge and approach
roadway, the existing Bridge No. 67 and adjacent road sections would be dismantled and
replanted. This would involve 0.53 acre of pavement and 0.85 acre of grassy right of way, for a
total of 1.38 acres to be replanted.
11

Table 2: Potential Impacts to Plant Communities -Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Plant Community (Acres)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3(Preferred)
Detour West of Bridge No. 67 Replacement Bridge Off-site Detour
Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total
Mesic Mixed 1.78 0.24 2.02 1.50 1.77 3.27 0.46 0.24 0.70
Hardwood
Urban/Disturbed 0.51 0.39 0.90 0.25 0.62 0.87 0.08 0.39 0.47
Land
TOTAL 2.29 0.63 2.92 1.75 2.39 4.14 0.54 0.63 1.17
12

Alternative 3 involves replacement of the bridge in place, with anoff--site detour. Permanent
impacts to plant communities are identical to those in Alternative 1. Temporary impacts are
limited to construction easements ranging from 100 feet to 115 feet in width. Of the impacted
1.17 acres, 60 percent consists of mesic mixed hardwoods. Temporary impacts to plant
communities are less for Alternative 3 because the off-site .detour produces no additional
temporary impacts.
From an ecological perspective, impacts resulting from replacing Bridge No. 67 in Alternatives 1
and 3 are minimal. No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created, only narrow
strips of adjacent natural communities. Alternative 1 would require at least temporary incursion
into mesic mixed hardwoods, resulting in the removal of a few mature trees. However, on
completion of roadway improvements, temporary detours will be removed and natural
communities will be restored. Alternative 2 would impact a larger portion of mesic mixed
hardwoods than the other two alternatives. Its impact on the disturbed roadside would be about
equal to that of Alternative 1. In addition, Alternative 2 would have much larger permanent
impacts on both community types, totaling 2.39 acres. These impacts may be partially offset by
the reclamation of 1.38 acres of land occupied by the existing bridge and adjacent approach.
Roadside forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species into local natural
communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing roadsides is kudzu. The
establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as practicable will limit the
availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
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 permanent
improvements will be restricted to or adjoining existing roadside mazgins. Construction noise
and associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to be inconsequential for Alternative 3,
with longer recovery periods expected for Alternatives 1 and 2. After removal of temporary
bridge structures and associated fill, the area will be replanted. Potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitats will be avoided by bridging the systems to maintain regulaz flow and stream
integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect
benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream habitats from increased sediment during
construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
c) Aquatic Communities
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitats will be avoided by bridging the systems to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and
suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream habitats
from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
stringent erosion control measures.
13

E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Reedy Pond 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). Reedy Pond Creek can be characterized as a perennial stream system with
an unconsolidated bottom of mud and/or sand.
Wetlands adjacent to Reedy Pond 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). These
areas are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing
season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping indicates that areas adjacent to Reedy Pond Creek exhibit
characteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous forest system that is seasonally flooded
(PFO 1 C) (Cowardin et al. 1979); however, the site visit failed to verify this description. No
areas included in the study corridor (outside of the stream channel itself) were found to contain
hydric soils. Very little evidence of hydrology, such as drift lines, siltation, or topography, was
noted. Hydric vegetation was sporadic and mixed with upland plants.
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. This rule does not apply to portions of the
riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. Any change in land use within the riparian
buffer is characterized as an impact. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for
the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15 A NCAC 2B .0259) provides a
designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Tar-Pamlico Basin and
affect their nutrient removal functions. Expected activities involved with project development
include roadway crossings for Alternatives 1 and 2, and bridge replacement for all three
alternatives. Total riparian buffer impacts along the banks of Reedy Pond Creek (measured
parallel to the stream) range from 100 to 165 feet. In addition, stream buffer area impacts range
from 0.11 to 0.19 acre (linear distance times buffer width). These impacts are designated
Allowable with Mitigation within the riparian buffer, if a determination of no practical
alternatives to the proposed use has been granted by the Division of Water Quality prior to
project development. In addition, requirements for the Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program for
the Tar-Pamlico basin must be met. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy:
Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 2B.0260)
outlines the requirements for mitigation. Mitigation may be performed by payment of a
mitigation fee, donation of property or interests in property, or riparian buffer restoration.
Buffer and stream areas and reaches affected by Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are given in Table 3.
14

Table 3: Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
JURISDICTIONAL AREA WITHIN RIGHT OF WAY
Jurisdictional

Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred)
Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total
Stream linear 20 26 46 26 26 52 0 26 26
distance (Feet)
Stream area 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.07 0 0.01 0.01
(Acres)
Riparian buffer 105 60 165 95 65 160 70 30 100
lineaz distance
(Feet)
Riparian buffer 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.08 0.03 0.11
area (Acres)
Wetland area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Acres)
15

Linear distance of "stream" impacted by each alternative is obtained from the width of the
bridge. Stream area is bridge width times stream width at the point of the bridge, and describes
the amount of stream surface that would be impacted by shading. Linear distance of riparian
buffer permanently impacted by each alternative has been determined by the width of the cut-and
fill boundaries for road approaches. Linear distance to be temporarily impacted has been
calculated from the width of temporary easements and proposed right of ways. Both distances
were multiplied by two to include both stream banks. Buffer area is calculated by multiplying
buffer linear distance by buffer width (50 feet).
All three alternatives result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.01 acre of waters of the
United States, due to shading. Additional permanent encroachment beyond design plans will be
avoided. Alternative 3 avoids temporary impacts to waters of the United States.
No jurisdictional wetlands were detected within the study corridor in the floodplain of Reedy
Pond Creek.
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.
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP)
No. 23 (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to expected minimal impact.
DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 23. However,
authorization for jurisdictional impacts through use of this permit will require written notice to
DWQ. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and
associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031
issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required
if this general permit is utilized.
3. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not recommended for this project due to the scope of project
impacts. Required permits must be obtained from the Division of Water Quality prior to project
initiation. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Fill or
alteration of streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H
.0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
16

F. Protected Species
1. Federal-Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such
listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq. ). 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 throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (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 LIKELY TO
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered ADVERSELY
AFFECT
MAY AFFECT,
NOT LIKELY TO
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered ADVERSELY
AFFECT
Dwarf Wedgemussel -The dwarf wedgemussel is a small bivalve, 1 to 1.5 inches long, shaped
like a rhomboid or trapezoid. Its shell is olive green to dark brown with a bluish to silvery white
interior grading to cream or salmon toward the junction of the two valves. Little is known of the
life history of the mussel. A fish species or group of species functioning as a host for
reproductive dispersal is not known. The dwarf wedgemussel is apparently a favored food for
muskrats in winter. Once ranging from Canada to the Neuse River in North Carolina, the dwarf
wedgemussel is now known only in the Connecticut River system, parts of the Choptank and
Potomac Rivers in Maryland, and the Tar and Neuse River systems in North Cazolina. Causes
for decline are generally attributed to stream channelization, sedimentation, and degraded water
quality. This species is now known from Neuse Basin in Orange, Wake, Johnston, and Nash
Counties; and from Tar River Basin in Granville, Vance, Johnston, Franklin, Halifax, and Nash
Counties. In North Cazolina, the dwarf wedgemussel occurs mainly near the fall line, in deep
runs over coarse sands, in streams with moderate flow. It may also be found in gravel or mud
bottoms with submersed aquatic plants or under overhanging vegetation, especially just
downstream of debris and on banks of accreting sediment (TSCFTM 1990).
Reedy Pond Creek is a shallow Piedmont stream with low flow. It exhibits a weak to moderate
sinuosity and a weakly developed riffle and pool sequence. A coarse sand substrate exists in the
riffle azeas, and may provide suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussels. Mussels may also occur
in the muddier pool bottoms adjacent to submerged logs and other debris. However, the shallow
depth of the stream and lack of submersed aquatic vegetation may be detrimental to continued
17

survival of the species. Sedimentation of the waters of Reedy Pond Creek may also be harmful
to molluscan habitat. A cursory inspection of the substrate revealed no evidence of dwazf
wedgemussels, and no relict shells were found in the study corridor.
The project site was most recently surveyed for the dwazf wedgemussels on March 16, 2006.
Surveys for mussels were conducted from approximately 200 meters upstream to 400 meters
downstream of the bridge crossing, and no dwarf wedgemussels were found. However, one
species of mussel (elliptio complanata) was found. According to NHP records, dwazf
wedgemussels have been documented in Warren County within the last 20 years. NHP records
do not document the presence of dwarf wedgemussels within 1 mile of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT
The study corridor contains potential habitat for dwarf wedgemussels. NHP records document
no occurrences of dwarf wedgemussels within one 1 mile of the project corridor. Given the
survey results, it is appazent that the dwarf wedgemussel does not occur in the project area.
Based on an NHP record seazch and habitat surveys conducted during field investigations, the
project is not likely to adversely affect the dwazf wedgemussel.
Tar Spinymussel -This small 2.4-inch mollusk has anorange-brown to dazk brown shell of
irregular oval shape. The interior of the shell is pink and iridescent bluish white. Two or more
linear ridges extend across the inside of the shell. Most specimens have from a few to 12 short
spines, 0.2 inch in length, arranged in a row along both valves. The spines probably help to
anchor the mollusk to the substrate in its Swiftwater habitat. Details of natural history and fish
hosts are little known. The Tar spinymussel is endemic to North Carolina. Its historic range
probably included most of the Tar River drainage, but only two isolated populations are known
today in this river system. The Taz spinymussel has also recently been found in the Neuse River
drainage. Preferred habitat is chazacterized by fast flowing, well-oxygenated, silt-free water with
nearly neutral pH and a gravel or coarse sand substrate. This habitat is usually associated with
shallow water. The Tar spinymussel faces habitat degradation from siltation, which destroys the
gravel and coazse sand riffles in which it occurs. Industrial and sewage effluents also degrade
water quality. (TSCFTM 1980, LeGrand and Hall 1999).
Based on the habitat requirements of the Tar spinymussel, Reedy Pond Creek has limited
potential for harboring this bivalve species. While coarse sand substrates occur in some shallow
riffle areas of the stream, the waters of Reedy Pond Creek contained in the study area are neither
fast-flowing nor silt-free. Based on the floodplain vegetation, sandy loam texture of the soil
surface, and tannin staining of the water, it might be expected that Reedy Pond Creek has an acid
pH value, rather than neutral. No Tar spinymussels were observed during a cursory inspection of
the creek, and no relic shells were seen during the site visit.
The project site was surveyed for the Tar spinymussel on March 16, 2006. Surveys for mussels
were conducted from approximately 200 meters upstream to 400 meters downstream of the
bridge crossing, and no Taz spinymussel were found. However, one species of mussel (elliptio
complanata) was found. According to NHP records, Tar spinyrnussels have been documented in
Warren County within the last 20 yeazs. NHP records do not document the presence of Tar
18

spinymussels within 1 mile of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT
The study corridor contains potential habitat for the Tar spinymussel. NHP records document no
occurrences of Tar spinymussel within 1 mile of the project corridor. Given the survey results, it
is apparent the Tar spinymussel does not occur in the project area. Based on an NHP record
search and habitat surveys conducted during field investigations, the project is not likely to
adversely affect the Tar spinymussel.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC) in Warren County. 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). A list of FSC species
occurring in Warren County is given in Table 5.
Table 5: Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat State Status**
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis No SC
Pinewoods shiner Lvthrurus matutinus Yes SC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes SC
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata No SC
Heller's trefoil* Lotus helleri No SC
* Historic populations not seen since 1979
* * State Status Codes:
C -Candidate SC -Special Concern E -Endangered
SR -Significantly Rare PE -Proposed Endangered
T -Threatened PT -Proposed Threatened
W2 -Watch List: rare, but taxonomically questionable
W3 -Watch List: rare, but with uncertain documentation
WS -Watch List: rare because of severe decline.
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for species listed. NHP files
do not document any occurrences of FSC species within 1 mile of the study corridor.
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)
19

(Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under the North Carolina
Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seg.) and the North Cazolina Plant Protection Act of
1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records document the occurrence of the Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi) in the study corridor, just upstream of Bridge #67. This amphibian
has a state status of SC (a species of special concern). The notched rainbow (Villosa constricta),
a bivalve, has been documented by the NHP about 1.6 miles east of the study comdor. The
notched rainbow's state status is SR(PSC), or significantly rare and proposed as a species of
special concern. Neither species was observed during the course of the field visit.
NHP also documents a significant natural heritage area, the Fishing Creek Aquatic Habitat, on
the northern bank of Reedy Pond Creek at the bridge site. This area is registered by the NC
DENR as a Natural Heritage Area, based on occurrences of raze plant and animal species, rare or
high quality natural communities, and special animal habitats.
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.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on February 22, 2000. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and on April 28, 2000 an NCDOT staff
architectural historian reviewed these photos. There were no structures within the APE over fifty
yeazs of age. The photographs were shown to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) in a
meeting on June 1, 2000. At that meeting HPO staff concurred that there aze no National
Register-listed or National Register-eligible properties within the APE for this project and a form
was signed to this effect. Copies of all correspondence aze included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their September 12, 2000, letter (See Appendix), the HPO stated, "There aze no known-
recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has never
been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological
resources. We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be
damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should
be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities." A survey was conducted on
November 26-28, 2001 by NCDOT Archaeologists. The results of the survey indicated the
20

proposed project would not impact any archaeological sites that are on or are eligible for
inclusion on the NRHP. The survey report was reviewed by the HPO and in a letter dated
January 30, 2002, stated " We have reviewed the subject report and note that is meets our
guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. Since no archaeological sites were located
as a result of this work, no further archaeological investigations will be necessary for the project
as planned." A copy of the January 30, 20021etter is in the Appendix.
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. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed project.
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.
The proposed project was coordinated with the US Department of Agriculture (See Appendix).
The proposed project is excluded from the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) in so much as
it is in an area for which no soils survey exists. The proposed project is to replace the existing
structure in the existing location; no additional land or farmland will be converted.
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
21

Environmental Policy Act. Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease due to the replacement
of the 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 aze 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 Reedy 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.
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 IlWOLVEMENT
NCDOT developed a "start of study" letter describing the study alternatives, which was mailed
to local officials and agencies. Due to the lack of development in the vicinity of the bridge, no
public meeting was held for the community. Property owners located along SR 1507 (Davis
Road) were notified in a letter dated July 28, 2004, that the NCDOT preferred replacing the
bridge at its existing location, closing SR 1507 to through traffic during construction and
rerouting traffic to other local roads (Alternative 3). No adverse comments were received and
one property owner with land adjacent to the bridge agreed with the selection of Alternative 3
with the off-site detour.
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
N.C. Department of Administration -State Clearinghouse
22

*NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Wildlife Commission
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
County Manager, Warren County
Chairman, Warren County Commissioners
*Superintendent, Warren County Schools
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.
23

REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Cazolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Daniels, R.B, S.W. Buol, H.J. Kleiss, and C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina.
North Cazolina State University Soil Science Department, Raleigh, North Carolina. 118
Pp•
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
LeGrand, H. E. and S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Raze Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Pazks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Cazolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of
Parks and Recreation. 1999. North Cazolina Natural Heritage Program Biennial
Protection Plan: List of Significant Natural Areas 1999.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Cazolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
24

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 Fishers of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 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, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (SCFTM). 1990. A report on the
Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Hydric Soils: Warren County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section II-A 2.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation 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.
25

.. 130a 131J ~
1318 -
Wamn Pldro 1 "'1' L' <~
1=16 -" ~ _ 13~o I:
~~
NORl1NA - ~ _ ~t -
MP.IAW 6'%P; ev°i _ _ _ 159
__ (1ti8~ ~~ MACON y~ __ t=lo 1'I ~
~_- 139 '.00 /01.135
_ I=Ol _
J i
1EU51 El.'61 1332 ~ _
I~ r,se
"__ C~> I~~s
_ ~0 ___
ise3
o Iso 15_u
~~
t536
-y =_.
_ ~/
A ,~ WAIIRENTON ~ i `02 ;f , - -
WP. 9.6 Isod lU
.. ~,~ q~ ~

•• • I

~ _
_
.1533 5.
•1532
/
I --Tj 1 ~ 6:~0 ~ '•56\ 4 1, i=C'~', ~ 531
_
-
EI11bI. ~ _
1516 ~ '
-
' -~1 ~~ ~ ' BRIDGE
=07, I=09
~NO
67 ~_

lsca
- ~
~~•1532
FIah1!p
•
_
~! I_m . -., ---- - _
1121 ~~ f
__ t5i ---
- 160u
-
• - 16::0
-_
~ ~~
. G
tet" 1 _
_
1601
^-' ~ ~ 1606
/
160 ~
•. a3 j Memgduk. ~ - ~ ~ " 1512
-
~ • _ _ p~~
iY % _ ^ 9
_ ~ `~
~
-
-
151 1 _ '
.. \~
~ ~ T
~
_
1650 ~ ~

~1
\ 8 I,
~ 15r'
1533
~~ NiN t - I S
=^/ _

1.
_ _ _

16:. _ _
.,1 1631 __ 15_l 00' -' 7=1_
' _
- 1605
l 160'9 - -
~ ~ 1513
-
711 '
- . "
.i• ;_133 - .
160 ,512
1612 150' ,~
' -mMewn ~ i
//I 16` Creak -- ,-_ _ 1518
1622 _-/~ - _ I` I51~
I ~ I
1512
~ \ / ,\ ~ loge __. 1513 ~~ 15
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
a
R IE N

~~
- -.
' `r~ DTGRTS CARiOL.II~TA D)BaPAA~~TI~t~'P OR 17tANBPORTA'PEON
PAOJ®['P D6Vffi.ClI~P1T AND
~~ •~.
»VAO~AL AIQA1.788 '1RAI~
BRIDGE N0. 67
SR 1507 OVER REEDY POND CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
B-3707
VICINITY MAP
0 I 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE tIrMLES) FIGURE I

„a,,, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
c*''d TRANSPORTATION
~, ~~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
"`'~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE N0.67
ON SR 1507 OVER REEDY POND CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
B-3707
FIGURE 2A

d,,,,,, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~k TRANSPORTATION
a ~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
~"a~'"'6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE N0.67
ON SR 1507 OVER REEDY POND CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
B-3707
FIGURE 2B

PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.67 ON SR 1507
" OVER REEDY POND CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
B-3707
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 300
2025 ADT = 500
TTST = I%
DUAL = 2%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 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 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 28.Oft CLEAR
8' MIN. 6' I I' ~ i I' ~ 6'
of ~o~
2,y
~9' WITH GUARDRAIL
12' DES. GRADE
~ POINT
Og _ .02 .02 _ .Og
4:1
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
~Q-

3' II' ~ I
II' 3'
GRADE
i POINT
i
_ A2
-
.02
_
V
FIGURE 6
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
NOTE:
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE:
EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED. nPPRnvFn RYA ner~.

PROPOSED DETOUR CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.67 ON SR 1507
" OVER REEDY POND CREEK
WARREN COUNTY
8-3707
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 300
2025 ADT 500
TTST = I%
DUAL = 2%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 60%
DESIGN SPEED: 40 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE: I I °45'
NO SPIRALS
MAXIMUM GRADE: 9%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 64 Kcrest = 44
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 3.0 fit GRASSED t5.Ofit WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 10.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 24.Oft CLEAR
3' 3' 10' ~
.02
10' ~' 3'
GRADE
POINT
~5' WITH GUARDRAIL
DETOUR APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
~d-
i r- -~
DETOUR BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
I
2' I o' ' I o' 2'
GRADE
~ POINT
i
.02
~
-
.02
u ~ i
___~_ n
FIGURE 6A
NOTE:
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE:
EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED. eppRnv~n Rv. n~TC.

xc=t ~.
ra~ ~~~~. STAVE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1 ~~ DEl'ARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~.;~ ~f~=
~: ~ x~~,
'~
.,F~
,~
;,
!. ~u'

TIP B-3707
Warren County
~.. ~~;
~~~.
-,.~ ;.
~- . ~_ =,
_- "~~' t
'4 ' .~
~•:T ~~ f'.iy
~'t,
K a
~~ r~.
~:
~~ , _ .
J~ . ~+~
~<
N ~ School Bus Turn Around Location
E`.~
~~:.: ~" .
~ North Carolina Counties
V1larren
Map Sources:
0 750 1500 Feet North Carolina Department of Transportation Figure 7
~ Maptech, Terrain Navigator
Warren County
Ko & Associates, P.C.

APPENDIX

boy ~ ~ r
~QPP~~ENT OP Tye/yt
o p
g
9
M1gCH 9 ~~a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Pwt Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.8726
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 corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to mininnize 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

appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
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 recammend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. 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 .oros of
Engineers ~xletland~ 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 anoff-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, 'and Federal
Species of Concern (ESC) 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.

COMl-ION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
wAx.E courrTY
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 masoni FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus ~ FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana ~ _FSC*
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac .Rhos michauxii Endangered
Cazolina least trillium Trillium pusillurn var. pusillum FSC
WARREN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis ~ FSC
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasrnidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata _ FSC
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Vascular Plants
Healer's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Red wolf Canis rufus EXP~
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafnesquii ~ FSC
Waccamaw killifish ~ Fundulus waccamawensis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
January I5, l999 Page 45 of 49

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,
1~~7~~
. 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:~2brdgwar.ren

~~ +U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIGE: 198A•J51.15911324
M
PART I (TQ be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
~(~r`~ ZCj -- C7U.
Name Of Project Q, ~ ~ r~ O ~j Federal Agency Involved r"e J~' ( rt i c.U AC., m ~ n
Proposed Land Use [, I f .County And State i' C!
i3r e i came ten r`- . G
PART 11 To be cam leted b SCSI : ~.; ~:~• ,Date Request~Rece~i~ved By, $CS
Does the site contain prime unique statewide.o~ local important'farinlaod7;.'~'"`(;'"1',=~~~ '~:NO:~~;
. (/f no, the.FPPA. does not app/y - do nor camp/ete additionalparts;of't~s: foi•~)~'.`:~.7. ,~1::~. ;Ac~es~lrr'(igated
;.. ~,;;~ :..:. , Average Farm Size ~".•;;:s;;?'•;.;
~ - _ _
.Major Crop(s) -' - : i
. ~ x . _ _ .~,~`s~

- -

'r:. s:
':Name Of~ _ : S ` .... lf:._ _
.Land Evaluation , ystem sed
:.:..
.. .~ ... .:'~. ..,.n
. ' ..
.~.
.~.. ~ ~ ~~
:.T!~'}'t." ':>i! _:Z. :i~ :lr~ e~.IF J..:~R: ..A` -•~T'~,'.'
uu
.. ...... ..... ::. r '
.:kt :'I.::Y ~'f.
_ '.i~:', s,,.t.. _ _
~ .farrttable Land Ire ovt Jurisdiction .t. z ~;:
. s.'+u i ~J :~j`hi~A...:~ ::t. i _ ..1~ ~ti h~;~yYra•s'. s a{`
_ 'P
_
etc...>.. : ~ . z~.~.~..-~.:+Y?.

ame Of ne, ^F Syptem;-- ';;T,Y~-~
~ Local:S Elssessmen 'Y`:~.~

._
::~i _:. .`.ice--. .f.~.n--- .a. sSl`Tek ...: • r.~.
~!!~r~~.
~~R.ir j.~~'.2~.~..L~~y':i.J .~>, t..r.r ~'..

... .acs.,.. ~.~, ,#!I~~F~!:i~ ''F ~..M•h• Amount Of Farmland As Definedia;~PPA ~ ~
'•'~•'v++..~~~~~~ :'~~+•,'.s_ ,`.' ~ '.J. -i »o •.L'rx'~Y'.lr-`..i'.'J.::
_ ! r. _
r ~:

Ac
.~.,,

Hate' ~ nd V Nation RetumedrB~~SC91';,,^~:
'`~ .
- ~^',e' '~a54Cw 4::.-Y•>ti:tti._,..~-.r: •_ c rP •rs.

~Sl: _=J~<~i`~C~

~ •~
.f` _ _lM •. .~(.•

c ~=F'~3ST~P'T:. .:aF~. -
Alternative Site Ratin
PART I I1 (To be completed by Federa! Agency) Site/k Site Situ' Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly I ~ ~
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres I n Site 1~ 3 (p I~ 3
PART IV (Ta lie com~ leted by SCSJ ianddl=valua#~on lnformaLoiri'~~`
es q ' '~Ll, ... - $;;.C~N~~+'.-".r:..
~•A: ;:T,btal'Acr Prime'-Arid`Uni ue~Farmland.:"~.t~r. ~`~""~~ .~z ~--
e d ocal Imo rif~.F' land" ''"
B. Total Acres Statewid Ah L p rta arm ~::i'~':- ~
t?,'.i':Y:r`~s~~'
.•:~
~`'~t:~'~:' ~,-.~r,
- ~"«~- ~+: ;~~ '~!°''~
~.'...='^+,u..~,a
'~'~
t':~'~~_~'.~i`:
~- ,. y~~i?~~ ~=,::?' w `
~i.'1.::[~.i., '=1:

>. - ~..,.,.;~~_ _ ~--
'=Y , -3; - . '-~ '~`• ;~.'~' _~~~n
....~ ;~~'•~'~ iP.. F.:

:~:~i-i;:a -~:.. .
~::} _'
-
C: Percentage:Qf Farmland In County-0r Local Govt. Unit T.o Bi:L''iiiverted-~'~
:
:so7i= ~-'gi ~~t,.';:'=~~
~ ~ re?S.:"~S':'s?~l'{~'~`
..:Ts. ~ ~i"~%~'~':'!•v~~..~s+*: -~LL;~~...'3.+y _ - _
.:~-.•--~-. - -
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or riigfer-Ftdative:Value ~~^''~°SL_.^"`y~',``
- ~`•"`~i>a ~-~ ~~ "`i: :~ ~ ~~~=~•' - - ^'tr-~~'.i: `:'•~=>-" '
P T V o.be corn leted.b SCS Land. Evaluation Criterion. ~~::~:~;~:" '„°,•~~R-
-'Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted •(Sca/e of0 to.~ 100Points) ` :'w~;';;«"'~~
.. ~,,....':~, -
- ... ::`.~='~~
.. ~+ -
~ ~~W--
PART VI (To be completed by Federa/Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These critrria an explained in 7 CFR 658.5!61 Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use ~
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use ! 0 I Q 10 I C7
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 2D 5~ ~
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government O O O
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area I (' 15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services I I (i 5 f 5
7. Size Of Present Fans Unit Compared To Average I D ~J S 5
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 10 O O
9. Availabili Of Farm Su ort Services ~ O Q O
10. On-Farm Investments O ~ D a
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services I O O ~ D
12. Compatibili With Existin A ricultural Use IO O O
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 (pGj 6Fj
PART VI I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Parr Vl above or a local
site assessment! 160 ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ C)
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 ~ I
I
was H Local Jlte lass essmeni useor
Site selected: I Date Of Selec*_ion Yes ^ No ^
Reason For Selection: ~ r" ~p. ~ NCr~ ~iy.~ ~~~
~s ~ ~
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING _

~!~9* ~~ F ~J'
- 9J~
~ J

hIORTH CAROLINA DEPARTFdENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
t ' =~~ ,~
ar
.r.~~
JAMES B. HUNT JR. ;t ~ F'
~~=GOVERNOR " ~~ MEMORANDUM: ~ At~st 21 2000
'~~ "` TO: Melba McGee /~' . •~;' ~ ~;
~ ~BIL1 ~'HOLMAN'` `','/ i/ s~i
~' ,:?SECRETARY, ~ ~y. - FROM: David Harrison°%!~ 1~ ._ ....'~~
z ~J
kt, ~ ~~s:Tkr°""
r:: ~: "~°-~ ~`~ _=-'` `_ SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects B-3500 (Person County); B-
~~~~- ~ 3654 and B-3655 (Harnett County); and B-3706 and B-3707 (Warren County).
~~ DAVID S. YOGEL a'
..DIRECTOR
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of=wayfthe
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
T^--
161Q MG11 SERVICE CENTER. RAI.EI :H. NnRTw ~'enni Iwle 77 F.00_1 E.7G

~~
~d ..~ A ~.
~.~ 2~.
w.,.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
January 30, 2002
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
~,~
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
NCDOT, Division of Highways
~ 1
FROM: David Brook ' ±~~J;.,..f ~ ~,t .t~ J ; ~ 1`' i~ ~~`,~ ~v
'~
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey Report for Bridge #67 on SR 1507 over Reedy Pond Creek, B-3707,
Warren County, ER 01-7362
We have reviewed the subject report and note that it meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior. Since no archaeological sites were located as a result of this work, no further archaeological
investigations will be necessary for the project as planned.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Presercration's Regulations fox 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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
-. - -. _. ,,. ., .... .c, o ~...:, c.....:... r...,or Rni~ioh 77699-4618 f9191733~4763 X715-4801

.a~~ ATE °'~
• w•u,n.
mouw~'`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservatian Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 12, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
i
,` /
From: David Brook ~~ )
Vii'. •`-.~1~'lflsz~
Deputy State Histonc Preservation Officer ~-
Re: Bridge #67 on SR 1507 over Reedy Pond Creek, B-3707, Warren County, ER 01-7362
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
There are no known-recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the
project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of
archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed
prior to the initiation of construction activities.
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
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fas
ADMIDTISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RF.CTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801

._~_
Fedora! ~ id ~BRZ-1507(1) TIP ;#B-3707 County: Warren
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 67 on SR 1507 over Reedv Pond Creek
On June 1, ?000, representatives of the
©~ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Q~ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
0~ 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.
Q~ 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
egister 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, DOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
If a survey report is prepared, a tinal copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

a
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Q~~ ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
~~..~
~CDENR DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
September 21, 2000
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
TO: Drew Joyner, Project Engineer
DR. PHILIP K.MCKNELLY DOT
DIRECTOR
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Review of ScopingSheets -Bridge Replacement on SR 1507 over Reedy
Pond Creek
REFERENCE: TIP B-3707
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for several rare species of
aquatic animals from Reedy Pond Creek in the vicinity of the proposed bridge
replacement. Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), state listed as Special Concern,
has been recorded right at. the bridge; notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) and North
Carolina spiny crayfish (Orconectes carolinensis), both proposed for state listing as
Special Concern, have been recorded downstream.
In order to protect these species and other aquatic organisms, we strongly recommend
_ that all best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation be strictly
_ followed and that all concrete used in the proj ect be fully cured before being allowed into
contact with the water.
/sph
e~,
m~
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTERS RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1 6 1 5
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EgUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/109'o POST-CONSUMER PAPER

.r-~ (~ \~
WARREN COUNTY FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.

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
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 impacts 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.
`vVith these considerauous in mind, I recom.:.cnd `~k2at you follow the altern :fives you oLtlin ed for
study. Also, please note that there aze regional water system transmission lines on the east and
west sides of the current bridge.
B-3707
This azea 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 for 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. Gazdner, Jr.
President
FOUNDED
1981.
P. O. BOX 563 WAR•REIVTON; N.:C. 27589

~-
Transportation Services
Joseph Muatian, Director warners County Schools
Wendy Young, Supervisor 109 Cousin Lucy's Lane
Post C~1'ice Hox 110
Warrenton, North Carolina 27589
phoae(252)257-3184 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:
(zECE/~c~
O
ACT o
~~ 2p40
c;~..
,~ r ~~ .~~
~,;i h:OPM~ Sg
~,IALYS~~
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
averrge of S students per trip.
ffI can be of any assistance, please give me a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
Joseph Mustian

Coordination Regarding School Bus Turn Around
Source: E-mail Correspondence
Dated September 22, 2005 and July 28, 2005
From: J. Wally Bowman, PE
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:12 AM
To: Mark Reep
Subject: Re: Bridge 67 on Davis Rd (SR 1507) over Reedy Pond Creek (B-3707)
The Division is OK with this approach. We'd prefer the contractor to perform any work in the "turn-around
area" in lieu of our own state forces. Although it is outside the project limits, I believe it could be addressed
in the Project Special Provisions giving the address, scope of work, method of measurement and pay, etc.
We've done similar work before on off-site detours without plans. I'll let our Construction Engineer, Mr.
Tracy Parrott, know about our conversation.
From: Mark Reep
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:48 AM
To: 'Mike Penney'
Subject: RE: Bridge 67 on Davis Rd (SR 1507) over Reedy Pond Creek (B-3707)
Denise Swanner from the Warren County Schools Transportation Department followed up with me on the
school bus turnaround needs during the B-3707 construction period. The school system can turn around in a
private drive as long as the bus wheel base stays in the road right of way. She visited the project site this
morning and located a suitable driveway location in a wooded area about a mile north of the bridge site on the
west side of the road. A school bus can back into this driveway and turn around while staying in the road
right of way. This location can meet the school bus needs if gravel is added to the driveway to cover an
exposed drainage pipe. She also knows this property owner. This seems to be something that the Division
Office could do with their forces, or could be taken care of easily with the project. It may require some
easement if the gravel extends outside of the right of way.
From: Mark Reep
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:15 AM
To: Denise Swanner
Subject: RE: Bridge 67 on Davis Rd (SR 1507) over Reedy Pond Creek (B-3707)
As we discussed, Ko & Associates is assisting NCDOT on the replacement of Bridge 67 on SR 1507 (Hugh
Davis Road) over Reedy Pond Creek (B-3707) near Embro and Marmaduke. Of the alternatives considered
for the bridge replacement, NCDOT's preference is to construct a new bridge at the existing location, close
Davis Road during the construction period, and detour traffic off-site using existing roads (NC 43/ NC 58/
Warrenton-Embro Road). The traffic delays may range from five to seven minutes. Based on our
conversation, the school system currently has one high school bus (two daily trips) using the route to pick up
students on the north side of the bridge. (From previous correspondence in the year 2000 from the school
system, four buses used the route). Our records show that SR 1507 has a current pavement width of 18 feet
with two grass shoulders approximately eight (8) feet wide each in the area of the bridge. Thank you for
helping us by looking at this road to determine your needs for buses to turn around near either side of this
bridge during the eight to 12-month construction period.

.,.SWf s
r-~
w+~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART~I' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 14, 2004
Dear Property Owner:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: B-3707, Bridge No. 67 over Reedy Pond Creek on SR 1507 (Davis Road)
Warren County
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North
Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has studied three alternatives for the
proposed bridge replacement project (location shown on attached figure). Existing
Bridge No. 67 is a two-lane structure, constructed in 1961. The bridge is 87 feet long
with a cleaz deck width of 25.3 feet. Bridge No. 67 has a sufficiency rating of 48.0 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.
The three alternatives studied for this bridge replacement project are:
Alternate 1 replaces the existing structure at its existing location with an on-site
-temporary detour on the west side. Alternate 1 will cost $1,107,500 (includes
$575,000 for a temporary detour).
Alternate 2 replaces the existing structure on new alignment west of the existing
bridge using the existing structure to maintain traffic during construction.
Alternate 2 will cost $995,000.
Alternate 3 replaces the existing structure with a new bridge in the existing
location, closing SR 1507 to through traff c during construction and rerouting
traffic to other local roads. Alternate 3 will cost $635,000.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE W14AN.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC

a
~..:
Do-Nothing and rehabilitate the existing structure were also considered but these
alternatives were not considered feasible. In consideration of the cost and the low traffic
volumes on SR 1507 (140 vehicles per day), Alternate 3 is the preferred alternative. In
the North Carolina Department of Transportation 2004-2010 Transportation. Improvement
Program, this project is schedule for construction later this year. During the construction
period, estimated to be 6-12 months, SR 1507 at Bridge No. 67 will be closed to through
traffic.
If you have questions concerning this project, please contact me at (919) 733-
7844, extension 260. If you desire to submit a written comment, please respond by
August 31, 2004, so that your comments can be considered and included in the
environmental document for the project.
Sincerely,
Michael Penney, P.E.
Project Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Attachment
MP/jw

v