19960168 Ver 1_Complete File_19960221

401 ISSUED

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
February 9. 1996
Mr. !Mike Smith
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Smith:
RECENED
r EB 16 1996
ENWRONMEMTAL SCIENCES
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Person County, Replacement of Bridge No. 80 over Deep Creek on
SR 1734, TIP No. B-3015, State Project No. 8.2380501, Federal Aid
pct No. BRZ-1734(1).
Atta ed for'your infor ation is a copy of the project planning reports for the subject
pr, ect. The project is eing processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
ategorical Exclus' n" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
nticipate reque 'ng an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
P mit in ordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that a 401 General Water Quality Certification will apply to this project, and
are providing one copy of the documents to the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for
their review.
Tf you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone], Extension 315.
YFr ,
in Vick, P E, Manager
GEC/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, PE, Divisiou 5 Engineer

1
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FO !I ?' ?5 U !'I
TIP Project No. B-3015 FEB 6 C`
State Project No. 8.2380501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1 ; 34 1 WeTLArS?nrr?, <<:
a..?_
A. Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN PERSOP'_
COUNTY OVER DEEP CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 80 ON SR 1734 WILL BE
REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A BRIDGE 41 METERS
(135 FT.) IN LENGTH. TO FACILITATE DECK DRAINAGE. THE
BRIDGE WILL HAVE A MINIMUM DECK GRADIENT 0.3%. THE
BRIDGE WIDTH WILL BE 11.9 METERS (26 FEET). THE STRUCTURE
WILL PROVIDE A 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) TRAVELWAY PLUS 0.6-
METER (2-FOOT) SHOULDERS ON EACH SIDE. A 6.6-METER (-)-)-
FOOT) ROADWAY WITH 1.2-METER (4-FOOT) TURF SHOULDERS WILL
BE PROVIDED ON THE APPROACHES. DURING CONSTRUCTION,
TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project information."
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 80 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING
OF 46.0 OUT OF 100 AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 6
YEARS. THE BRIDGE IS POSTED 8 TONS FOR SINGLE VEHICLES
AND 15 TONS FOR TRUCK TRACTOR SEMI-TRAILER. BECAUSE OF
THE DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE NO. 80 SHOULD BE
REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
1
i

2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic .
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing,,or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way. where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
?. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing

zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas. kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
NO HIGH QUALITY WATERS, WATER SUPPLIES (WS-1 OR WS-II) OR
OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS OCCUR WITHIN 1.6 KM (1.0
MILE) OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA. THE PROJECT WILL NOT
IMPACT WETLANDS.
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO REQUIRE
A 401 WATER QUALITY GENERAL CERTIFICATION FROM THE
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF THE NATIONWIDE PERMIT.
3

THE SHPO REPORTED THAT IF THE BRIDGE IS TO BE REPLACED IN
THE EXISTING LOCATION WITH ROAD CLOSURE, AN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THIS
PROJECT. A HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY WAS NOT
RECOMMENDED FOR THIS PROJECT.
AS OF MARCH 28, 1995. THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE DOES NOT LIST ANY FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR
PERSON COUNTY.
ESTIMATED COST:
* CONSTRUCTION - $ 475,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY - $ 23,000
TOTAL $ 498.000
* COST INCLUDES 15% FOR ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
1995 - 60 VPD DUALS - 2%
2020 - 350 VPD TTST - <1%
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL HAVE A 26-FOOT WIDTH. THE
TRAVELWAY WILL BE A 22-FOOT PAVEMENT WITH 2-FOOT OFFSETS.
THE APPROACHES TO THE BRIDGE WILL BE A 22-FOOT PAVEMENT
WITH 4-FOOT TURF SHOULDERS.
THE DESIGN SPEED IS APPROXIMATELY 80 KM/H (50 MPH).
SR 1734 IS CLASSIFIED AS A RURAL LOCAL ROUTE.
SCHOOL BUSES DO NOT CROSS THE STUDIED BRIDGE.
A SINGLE PHASE ELECTRICAL SERVICE EXISTS ALONG THE SOUTH
SIDE OF`?SR 1734 THAT WILL REQUIRE RELOCATING DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
FARMING OPERATIONS OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA. ACCORDING
TO LOCAL RESIDENTS. MINIMAL INCONVENIENCES WILL RESULT IF
THE ROAD IS CLOSED BETWEEN OCTOBER AND THE FOLLOWING
APRIL. AN ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO ACCOMPLISH
CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME FRAME.
4
4
V
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements. the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact l
on any unique or important natural resource? +---+ ----
(2) Does the project involve habitat where +---+
federally listed endangered or threatened x
species may occur? +---+ ----
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary +---+
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable ---- -----
measures to avoid and .minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of x
U. S. Forest Service lands? +---+ ----
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water +---+
resources be adversely impacted by x
proposed construction activities? +---+ ----
(7) Does the project involve waters classified +---+
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ; X
High Quality Waters (HQW)? +---+ ----
5
•
4
(.S) Will the project require fill in waters of +---+
the United States in any of the designated ; X
mountain trout counties? +---+ ----
(9) Does the project involve any known +---+
underground storage tanks (UST's) or X
hazardous materials sites? +---+ ----
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
YES NO
' X
X
' X
(13) Will the project result in the modification X
of any existing regulatory floodway? +---+ ----
(14) Will the project require any stream X
relocations or channel changes? +---+ ----
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts X
to planned growth or land use for the area? +---+ ----
(16) Will the project require the relocation of X
any family or business? +---+ ----
6

(17) If the project involves the acquisition of +---+
right of way. is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor? ---- -----
(18) Will the project involve any changes in X
access control? +---+ ----
(19) Will the project substantially alter the +---+
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent X
property? +---+ ----
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on +---+
permanent local traffic patterns or X
community cohesiveness? +---+ ----
(21) Is the project included in an approved +---+
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in ---- -----
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an X
increase traffic volumes? +---+ ----
(23) Will traffic be maintained during +---+
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours? ---- -----
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, +---+
economic, or environmental grounds X
concerning the project? +---+ ----
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, +---+
State. and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action? ---- -----
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on +---+
properties eligible for or listed on the X
National Register of Historic Places`.' +---+ ----
7
s

(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks. +---+
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ; 1
refuges, historic sites, or historic +---+ ----
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in. +---+
across, or adjacent to a river designated ; X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion +---+ ----
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3015
State Project No. 8.2380501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1734(1)
Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN PERSON
COUNTY OVER DEEP CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 80 ON SR 1734 WILL BE
REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A BRIDGE 41 METERS
(135 FT.) IN LENGTH. TO FACILITATE DECK DRAINAGE. THE
BRIDGE WILL HAVE A MINIMUM DECK GRADIENT OF 0.30. THE
BRIDGE WIDTH WILL BE 7.9 METERS (26 FEET). THE STRUCTURE
WILL PROVIDE A 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) TRAVELWAY PLUS 0.6-
METER (2-FOOT) SHOULDERS ON EACH SIDE. A 6.6-METER (22-
FOOT) ROADWAY WITH 1.2-METER (4-FOOT) TURF SHOULDERS WILL
BE PROVIDED ON THE APPROACHES. TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED
ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
D to H. Franklin Vick, E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Jae Teresa Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
4F9/?6_ va?4& A.
Date Mi hele L. Jame
Project Planning Engineer
9

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 31, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 80 on SR 1734 over Deep
Creek, Person County, B-3015, ER 95-7199
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
G?i VE
EQ ? 51995
S
OVA O?
2y 0 1G?W P? ?
4 FNVIRd?
On September 8, 1994, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
In terms of archaeological resources, if the proposed bridge is to be replaced at the
existing location with either a temporary detour structure,to the north or no on-site
detour structure, then no archaeological investigation is recommended. If new
right-of-way is required to the south or if a temporary detour structure is placed to
the south of the existing bridge, we recommend that an archaeological survey be
conducted to assess potential effects on archaeological resources.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??P
Nicholas Graf
August 31, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
k6avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: . F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Michelle James
s.
Rex ` Bethel .
NORTH CAROLINA _ f - "b`° - M0
Serums > I Res 49 '
y Woodsdsle- 1 r
1fL -Cs _Vel((
i oncmd 'onghurst( I
;burg 1 : Rozborroo
'5; Brooksdale r
Roseville 6 Surl y
oIfsbmo 449 9 hprCks 158 r
dgevdl P R S S im0 rlaN
' 3 ush urdle r
out ..?? _..
IS Mona..
lr
1.2
1715 \
1740
2.5 V R.
742 N 1737 I? 1721
17
1715
1741 \
_ 2.4 Moriah-
1749 w
D ? 1735 w A N h .3.-,
V
•? - f-738 'y;-- X176
?
yam N ;{; 4
PERSON COUNTY 1736

V 1600 1601
'u, y-ndove
602
1476 1795 Red
0 1787 `o Mountain
a
3
.8
1471
.6
1729
?O
BRIDGE NO. 80 17
?k.•
1731 -
1734 1732
?
?
n 1729

a 1604 DURHAM COUNTY 607 1610

'
"U
.2 I ?O
t
r
r9

r
b' 1471
417
1
1471
1609
1603

1608
:;i•i
..
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
1470 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'.STATE::; PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Rougemont. .9 1614 ?. BRANCH
!?, ?Op 1601 UNIV
BRIDGE NO. 80
LEGEND OVER DEEP CREEK, SR 1734
PERSON COUNTY
'mL AL Aft -Ah-
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE B-3015
0 FIG. 1
A-Oro
0,6u.1
4 Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. SO over
Deep Creek on SR 1734 in Person County
. 1=1=8 16 IJ?

TIP No. B-3015
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1734(1)
State Project No. 8.2380501
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3015
f,.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
DALE W. SUITER, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
22 NOVEMBER 1995

Page
1.0 Introduction ..............................................1
1.1 Project Description ...................................1
1.2 Purpose ...............................................1
:.? :-,1etnodoio2v ............................................
1.4 Investigator's Credentials ............................3
2.0 Physical Resources ........................................3
2.1 Soils .................................................a
2.2 Water Resources ............. 4
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources ............ 4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ....................4
2.2.3 Water Quality ............. 5
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to water
Resources............ .......................5
3.0 Biotic Resources ..........................................6
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ...............................6
3.1.1 Disturbed Community ..........................6
3.1.2 Piedmont / Low Mountain Alluvial Forest.......?
3.2 Aquatic Community - Piedmont Perennial Stream..... ....7
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ...8
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ......... ............................10
4.1 Waters of the United States ...........................10
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters..10
4.1.2 Permits ......... .............................10
4.2 Protected and Rare Species ...........................11
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ....................11
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species...... 12
5.0 References ...............................................13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soils in the Project Study Area .....................4
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ...........8 f,ol
Table 3. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species Known
From Person County, North Caroiina ................... 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map showing the general area of the project .......... 2
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the project site with biotic
communities indicated ................................9
1
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project in Person County (Figure 1).
i.i Project Description
The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 80 on SR
1734 over Deep Creek. The exist inc- _ io1:= cf 'xa' l R^W) -f 1Q_ . ?
(60.0 ft) will be increased to 24.4 m (80.0 ft). The
replacement structure will include a 41.2 m (13.0 ft) bridge
with two 3.4 m (11.0 ft) lanes and 0.6 m (2.0 ft) shoulders.
The roadway will have 1.2 m (4.0 ft) shoulders.
Alternative 1:
The first alternative involves replacing the bridge in the
existing location. This would require closing SR 1734 during
the construction of the new bridge. Traffic would be rerouted
onto existing roads.
Alternative 1A:
Alternative lA involves the same existing location
replacement, but with an on-site detour located parallel to, and
immediately to the north of, SR 1734. The total project
length will be approximately 365.9 m (1200.0 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are
made for measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions are relevant only in the context of existing `f
preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria
change, additional field investigations wiii need to oe
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of the
project study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Rougemont, NC), National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
map (Rougemont, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project
study area (1:1200) and Natural Resources Conservation Service
soils map of Person County. Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR 1993) and from the
Environmental Base Sensitivity map of Person County (NC Center
NORTH CAROLINA ire ?,? .rte
Semir?, 4 11 i}- 49 ?.
• `. ? ooCSOde s t .
grl(:p,y MtIFMat tr
1 1 +
;burg ?{?. s Ra:boto
1. ' '?i•BrodcsCaq ? ..
r ? / .ate Swr..?...•*
etsoxxa =?. ?:aa .?.??
7
ce?neP + E S 0. N
3 asn orate ?.` Toeraae
t
® 7- t = j t
?r.1.2
---?'\
/ 1740 1715
2.5 _ %4
1737 17217
1715
DAI
,7-- 2.4 Moriah'
1749 r;
t? of ry
•9 1735 A TJ .?
' 1729
a o
1738 173\176a BRIDGE NO. 80 17
1731
'Q' I ?G 9 1732
` n 1729
tw
_ PERSON COUNTY 1736
? ? r ? T ? rrr. • ? rte. ? ? .?? • ?? ?
1 - ] '501 1 " 1604 `DURHAM COUNTY 1607 161e
Lyndove
1. t 1602 :9r 1471 l?f
1795 Ued 1771 •2 b' 1x71 9417
1474. 1609
1787 untain _ v
.8 .b .,g 1603 C16-
1 1471 ..i: 1608
•x687 ?^t;-77
O7• ;fib. 1470 1782 C4
STATE?•
ROtigemont. .9 _ 1614
1601 UNIY=
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 80
SR 1734, REPLACE BRIDGE OVER DEEP CREEK
PERSON COUNTY
B - 3015
• FlG. 1
IF
r
}
3
L T '?rs_s .99?) information.
for LjGUCrGp111 ?. til v1i%ativis :,^a -
in the study area was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) (1995) list of protected and.candidate species and
from the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats.
sere- a-1 -field s irveys were conducteu a1Or+= Tile zrv 3s='
alignment by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Hal Bain on 11
^' t Qwa mm-ii•i- t+-S and a their associated wildlife
AUgtiJ V I7 F j i I i+I ?.y: v
were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
usins one or more of the following observational techniques:
active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinaticns were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory 1987).
1.4 Investigators' Credentials
Investigator: Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: M.S. Degree Biology, Marshall University,
Huntington, WV
Expertise: Field Botany, Plant Taxonomy, Natural History
2.0 Physical Characteristics
Person County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province.
The topography of southern Person County is characterized by
rolling hills. Soil types and availability of water directly
influence composition and the distribution of flora and fauna in
any biotic community. The elevation at the project site is
approximately 122 m (400 ft.)
2.1 Soils
Soils in the project area, summarized in Table 1, are
primarily Chewacla and Wehadkee loams (Cw) in close proximity to
Deep Creek with some Georgeville loam (GeB) and Tatum loam (TaE)
on the upper slopes. Chewacla and Wehadkee loams are found on
nearly level floodplains. They are poorly drained and flood
frequently. Georgeville loam is a well drained soil found on
Piedmont uplands with only 2-6 percent slope. Tatum loam soils,
formed from weathered schist, are also well drained and found on
uplands. Tatum loam occurs on 15-35 percent slopes.
Chewacla and Wehadkee loams are listed on the county list
of hydric soils for Person County. Chewacla loam is listed on
the national list of hydric soils because it`is often flooded
for a long to very long duration during the growing season.
Georgeville and Tatum soils are not included on the national or
county lists of hydric soils (USDA Soil Conservation Service
1991).
?p
4
specific mapping
(USDA SCS 1991).
..1 .. .°. _ ._.. .. CL. GG 11 .. .. _ ?vv .
unit, percent slope and hydric classification
MAP SPECIFIC MAPPING UNIT PERCENT
SYMBOL SLOPE
Cw Chewacla and Wehadkee loam 0
GeB 1eorgeville 0-6
TaE Tatum 15-35
HYDRIC
CLASSIFICATION
i
Hydric Classification:
1 - Hydric soil, because of saturation for a significant period
during the growing seasons.
2.2 water Resources
water resource information encompasses the resource's
relationship to major water systems, physical aspect, Best Usage
Classification, and water quality. Impacts to water resources
are discussed, along with suggestions to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie
in the Neuse River Drainage Basin. Deep Creek originates
approximately 16 km (10 mi) northwest of the project site and
flows into the Flat River in northern Person County. At the
project site, Deep Creek is approximately 9.1 m (30.0 ft) wide
and 30.5 cm (1.0 ft) deep. Deep Creek has moderate flow, clear
water, a cobble-gravel to sand bottom.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage
classification for Deep Creek (DEM Index No. 27-3-4) is Class
WS-III NSW. Class WS-III waters are protected as water supplies
which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds;
point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted
persuant to Rules .0104 and .0211. Local programs to control
nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are
required. Deep Creek has also been assigned a supplemental
classification of NSW because the stream contains Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW). Because of this designation, the DEM
has placed limitations on nutrient inputs to this stream.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-
II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area.
fD
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAIN) is
managed by the DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling
for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sens_tive to verv
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and
overall biomass of these organisms are re;leczions o- mate:
quality. Deep Creek received a rating of excellent resulting
rT'?!^ a sample t?ker. at the point where SR 1715 crosses the stream approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi) upstream from the project
site (NC DEHNR 1991).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any,discharger is required
to register for a permit. One permitted discharger is located
on an unnamed tributary of Deep Creek near the town of Roxboro.
Little Huff, Inc. is approved to discharge 0.0140 MGD and has a
wastewater code indicating that it is an Aquifer Restorer. An
exact location of the discharger could not be found.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a
road closure during construction is almost always the preferred
environmental approach. It poses the least risk to aquatic
organisms and other natural resources. Bridge replacement on a
new location or a detour bridge usually results in more severe
impacts. Physical impacts will be most obvious at the point of
the bridge replacement. Since aquatic communities are sensitive
to minor environmental changes, biological impacts are most
likely to occur downstream from the area of disturbance. These
impacts are difficult to measure.
Project construction may result in the following impacts rip
to surface waters:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from erosion;
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal;
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction;
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal, and;
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize these and other
impacts to water resources in the study area. This can be
accomplished by protecting stream bank vegetation, installing
silt fences as well as other erosion and sedimentation controls.
6
ent the Protection of Surface
" T`^T ' °^O„t Pract:ceS f--
B s t :tang
8t°_s G.^.d $eCtme -, 4-on Co -c! " .?.e!
enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval should also be
strictly enforced.
3.0 Biotic Resources
.01 'L res:urces include agi:aii. and terse. t_ ial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems encountered
in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna
and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution
of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective
of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land
uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in
the context of plant community classifications. Dominant flora
and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Identifications and nomenclature of vascular plants
were made primarily with Radford et al. (1968). Fauna ,
observed during field investigations are designated with an
asterisk (*). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct biotic communities were identified in the
project study area. Community titles follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. A disturbed community dominates
the roadside, while a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
dominates the remaining natural area at the project site.
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
Disturbed or maintained areas were found along the roadside
as well as in an agricultural field located in the northeast
quadrant of the project. These areas are dominated by
herbaceous species such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
,japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), wingstem
(Verbesina alternifolia), Japanese grass (Microsteizium
vimineum), Panic grass (Panicum sp.), wood tickseed (Coreopsis
major), horse-nettle (Solanum carolinense), hairy thoroughwort
(Eupatorium rotundifolium), wreath goldenrod (Solidaizo caesia),
hawkweed (Hieracium sp.), heal all (Prunella vulgaris), common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), spotted touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis), throatwort sunflower (Helianthus
decapetalous), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus cuineuefolia), trumpet vine (Campsis
radicans) and jimsonweed (Datura stramonium). A few species
were present growing into the shrub layer including: tree of
Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), box elder (Acer negundo), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra) and winged
s rnp? 1 l i tla )
sumac m!? Rtu -
Avian species observed only in the disturbed habitats
included mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura) and northern bobwhite
(Colinus virginicus). Other bird species observed in the
Piedmont / Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (Section 3.1.2) probably
visit the disturbed communities on occassion.
3.1.2 Piedmont / Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
A Piedmont Alluvial Forest was found along the banks of
Deep Creek at the survey site. Various tree species are found
in the canopy of this Piedmont Alluvial Forest including river
birch (Salix ni ra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsvlvanica), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), white oak (Quercus alba) and shagbark
hickory (Car a ovata). Understory trees and shrubs include
hazelnut (Corylus americana), flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), beech (Fagus
grandifolia) and witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). The
herbaceous layer included many species, none of which were
dominant: greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), dwarf St. John's
wort (Hvnericum mutilum), wreath goldenrod, poison ivy, Virginia
creeper, ginger (Hexastvlis arifolium), Carex glauca, beechdrops
(Evifagus grandifolia), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila
maculata), Galium sp., Solomon's seal (Polvgonatum biflorum),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) and puttyroot
(Tipularia discolor).
White tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus) is the largest
mammal likely to be found in this community. Other mammals that
are likely to inhabitant this forest include: raccoon (Procyon
lotor), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)
and the southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris).
Avian species observed in the forests and forest edges of
the project area include: American crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos)
downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens), hairy woodpecker* r'
(Picoides villosus), red eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus),
northern carainai* 1Cardinaiis cardinalisi, summer tanager*
(Pigranga rubra), blue gray gnatcatcher* ( Polioptila caerulea),
ruby throated hummingbird* (Archilochus colubris) and American
goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis). There was evidence of yellow
bellied sapsuckers* (Sphvrapicus varius) in the form of
horizontal rows of holes drilled into trees.
3.2 Aquatic Community - Piedmont Perennial Stream
Deep Creek is considered a Piedmont perennial stream.
Ve_setation within the stream is very sparse and consists mainly
of smartweeds (Poivgonum spp.), water wi.llow (Justicia
americana) and water purslane (Ludwigia valustris).
Aquatic invertebrates found in the stream include a
3
freshwater mussel* (Elliptio sp.). crayfish* (Cambarus so.),
wate_ s ?_e.* (family Gerridae} he! grammite* (Cc ills
cornutus). Other species observed in or near the stream
include: dusky salamander* (Desmoenathus'sp.), an unidentified
darter* (Etheostoma sp.) and northern cricket frog* (Acris
creoitans). Pickerel frog (Rana svlvatica) is also likely to be
present along Deep Creek.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the subject project will
^urces described. A
myGc..S on tai V ''le biV:, }a1. a C -esV L V
related activities in or near these resources
to impact biological functions. This section
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
ecosystems effected. Temporary and permanent
considered here as well.
have various
ay construction
have the potential
quantifies and
terms of the
impacts are
Calculated impacts to terrestrial: communities reflect the
relative abundance of each community at the project site.
Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation
of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential
quantitative losses of these biotic communities resulting from
project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using a ROW
width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft.). Usually, project construction does
not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may
be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated impacts to biotic communities from
Alternatives 1 and IA. Values are given in hectares (acres).
Community Type
Disturbed
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Piedmont Perennial Stream
Alternative 1
0.04 (0.09)
0.08 (0.19)
0.02 (0.06)
IMPACTS
Alternative lA
0.30 (0.73)
0.26 (0.66)
0.02 (0.06)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.12 (0.28) 0.56 (1.39)
Note: Impacts for Alternative 1A were calculated anticipating
using 30.5m (100 ft) on each end of the bridge for construction
activities.
Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as
nesting, feeding and sheltering habitat for various wildlife.
These communities are indicated in Figure 2, an aerial
photograph of the project site. Alternative 1 will have the
least impact [0.12 ha (0.28 ac)] on the natural communities
within the project area. Although the current roadside shoulder
will most likely be destroyed, a similar community will be
41
Jr

I ? J ll, i
4; ?r7
?r
?i4.`

Yb` d 7
N
F rtiti
O
?t ?L
?Ti? ?F
t1a; i '
N i 3 ?S f
? `?.
J ,T

r ly { p.2M { ? f ?{+7{ ?6?. C r1

i??11?y+`
r S ?,

? + l
X `'
Nu `+,??y1
, .1
y 4n 7 t r{ s
r

4
S
y
l
i
St 1
t?
:
+ `.''r
t
t'J . }il,Cr% W

;
4ttr
4
?

r)
Ip?
H
iD
W '

I) ?s;
W
IN
;

r go
P
H
we •? x'`11

11 I• i? 111 '. --{ ' ;z,?'
?lmn '

p rn ?+ ) .. O

?r 0
'. IT I
0
1 p
1,
,
t
'
, 1
?

X O ??I
'i
J
G.?K,y efi•?it. ;Y
?. ,

rt

'

r-t
.
t
M1 •
N \
Ji
? t...

ITJ
ro
0
r' C 1
{0 lU
(U
;° za
FD (1
C1 cr
ra• ll'
n?
cn
t
11
3
r•
rt
r_
~1
!D
Gi
(7
0
i {r
1A I
'} r
I?
t' 1
!f+ 1
pf,
Fla
;:.., .. is,r
'I IT
J r?
!
Roo
eft, ; i I
? I
r 1?
I
10
created during the bridge replacement. The construction of an
on site detour (Alternative 1A) will cause considerable
destruction to the Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Alternative lA
will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing
faunal populations. Total habitat loss from Alternative lA
could oreach S (1. 1.9 Habitat ...,r.
0.6 ha 39 red . ien e^t--aces
wiidiife into smaiier areas of refuge, thus causing some species
to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Impacts to the aquatic community include degradation of water
quality, thus negatively impacting the aquatic organisms living
in the stream.
Table 2 indicates that surface area impacts to Veep Creek
will be the same, 0.02 ha (0.05 ac). However, Alternative lA
will certainly cause more damage to the stream than Alternative
1. Alternative lA involves the construction of a temporary
bridge and detour upstream from the current structure. The
construction and removal of this temporary bridge will cause
considerably more damage to this aquatic community than simply
replacing the existing structure.
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues: Waters of the
United States and Protected and Rare Species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal ,
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to f it e in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional
wetlands includes evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. No wetlands will be impacted by the
proposed project. Deep Creek is the only surface water present
in the study area.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are
11
anticipated from project construction. In ac:ordar,ce with
provisions of Section 404 of the CtvA, a permit w i 1 1 be :equii red
from the COE for the discharge of dredge or fill material into
"Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is
likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United
Sta_es fro- the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded
or financed in whole, or part by another Federal aaen-cy or
department where that agency or department has determined the
pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is included
within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for
the categorical exclusion and concurs with the determination.
In addition, this project will also require a 401 Water
Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance
of a Nationawide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States. Final decisions concernng
applicable permits rests with the COE.
4.2 Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the r'
provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA) of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered, Threatened, Protected Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. No federally-protected species are listed
for Person County as of 28 March 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1995).
r
12
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are six federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Person County. Federal candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of
its Provisions, including Section until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are
defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extir.cticn although
sufficient data currently does not exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species
are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal candidate species, the species status
and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the
project study area. This list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the
future.
Table 3. Federal Candidate Species Person County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance (mussel) T Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) T Yes
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T Yes
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater (mussel) E Yes
Lotus purshianus var. Heller's trefoil* SC
helleri No
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap SC Yes
s'

An asterisk (*) indicates that no specimen found in Person
County in twenty years. NC status was assigned from LeGrand
et al. (1993) and Weakley (1993):
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of
the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats indicates a population of Monotropsis odorata
along the Flat River approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi) west of the
project site. There are no other records of North Carolina rare
and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
ti
13
5.0 References
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,. Kansas. Allen Press.
inc.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. Washington, DC . 131 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical report Y-87-1, U. S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. Miss.
Lee, D. S., J. B. Funderburg, Jr., and M. K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolian Mammals. Raleigh,
North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H. E. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey and J. R. Harrison
III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptils of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E. F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolin
NC WRC, Raleigh.
NCDEHNRH-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base
anA T nno Tcrm (_hanv_oc in Water (C1L31 i tv, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards.
for North Carolina River Basins. Raleigh, Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NC WRC. 1990.- Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. Raleigh,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species.
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
r
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.

14
Radford A. E. , . E. Ahles and G. R. Bell. 1968. manuall of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Apprcxi:a icn. 'vo-:` CaioIin a Na',u we -age Drog-nm
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1991. North Carolina
Agriculture Experiment Station. Hydric soils list by North
Carolina county.
USDA Soil Conservation. 1991. Hydric soils of the United
States. Washington. D.C.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of Person
Cdunty, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural
He-itage Program.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985.
Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel
Hill. The University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
D
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT?iTION'
& J,
r
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
s?.
MATE.
12?
-:q 4
?
?

:6 REF NO.10? R00 M, -BLDG.
ti ,

tc
acAr+n3 Sx.?n- 'A7
?
FR 'R 'E NO'.I OH ROOM, BLDG..

ACTION
? NOTE ANDFILE a? ?
rPER OUR CONVERSATION
x
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ?, PER YOUR REQUEST
- % r_
? RETURN WITHMORE DETAILS
?'FO R YOUR 'PP,RO.VAL
;
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ?
FOR YOUR FORMATION
13 PLEASE ANSWER ?` FOR YOUR, OM MENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ?'SIGNATURE
?
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
?h IN VESTIGAT?E ;AND?REPORT
COMMENTS: y` z, n? I
1A .

f? WALE . SLhY 5

?,a SCAT£v
?d w,ra ui
?F MLLa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 80 on
SR 1734 over Deep Creek, Person County, B-3015
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for September 8, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MJ/plr ?5?J T) - 3-V
Attachment
ORA

s °
0
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 7-2b-94
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-3015
STATE PROJECT 8.2380501
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1734(1
DIVISION 5
COUNTY Person
ROUTE SR 1734
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 80 OVER DEEP CREEK
ON SR 1734. PERSON COUNTY
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: {$) , M
?? PJ Q?:tiZd?-' S
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET --11,
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 60 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 350 VPD
TTST <1 % DT 2 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 32.0 METERS; WIDTH 5.9 METERS
105 FEET 19.2 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH 9.1 METERS
FEET 30 FEET
OR
CULVERT - X METERS X FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ........................................ ji
METERS
FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 300,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $ 320,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ................................... $ 320,000

C
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USGS QUAD ROUGEMONT, T 173
SR 1734 IS CLASSIFIED AS A RURAL ROUTE.
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 7-26-94

NORTH CAROLINA

Roseville
'QSbor0 449 9
dQevill P
' 3 ush urdle
ont
II1 49 ri
5 4
?y
D0 o
sdole r?
sure 158 9 I
O N
berlake
Moria
`' ` 1.2
1715
1740
2.5 _
'v
1742 N 1737
? 1721 ? 17:
1715
1741
2.4 Moriah-
W '3 1.00
1749

9

735 fy
p?
1J p?
w C)
M

1729
8
1737
1738
1768 O

BRIDGE NO. 80 c)

17.

? I
"
9
Q 1731
'
1
V "
M ;
.
N1732

PERSON COUNTY 1736 N, 1729-??
I _ q t soo trot q 1604 rDURHAM COUNTY
o 607 1610
N ?y?ove s •
r u'
2. :7I ,o
1602 r9' 1471 ^/
1474 1795 Red 1771 -2 b
1471 1417
o ?o
1787 Mountain 1609
.8 6 .5 1603 cb_
1471 ::i°:: 1608
.6
1687
1470 1782 c
:STATE:.':
Rotigemont. .9 1614
1601 UNI
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
11N TRANSPORTATION
Vy,7 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 80
SR 1734, REPLACE BRIDGE OVER DEEP CREEK
PERSON COUNTY
B-3015
FIG. 1