19970052 Ver 1_Complete File_19970129

• J

JAMES B. HUNT 1R.
GOVERNOR
40118sl jED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 25, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
' f pd?
!1 If ji . -rJ7
6..d A.I -'•J
Subject: Chatham and Lee Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 51 over the
Deep River, US 421, Federal Project No. BRNHF-421(9), State Project
No. 8.1540701, T.I.P. No. B-2526.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 51 will be replaced at its existing location with a new bridge 11.4
meters (38 feet) wide and 146 meters (480 feet) long. Traffic will be maintained on
Bridge 50 by constructing a median detour and setting up two lane, two way traffic during
construction. No jurisdictional wetland communities will be affected by the proposed
project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the const>iction of the project.
ill apply to this
We anticipate the 401 General Certification (Categorical Exc usi)n)
olina
project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to th Car
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
9
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
AG/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr., P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
TIP Project No.: B-2526
State Project No. 8.1540701
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRNHF-421(9)
A. Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 51 on US 421 northbound. US 421 is a four-lane
divided facility with dual parallel bridges over the Deep River in Chatham and Lee
Counties. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge at the existing location. The new
bridge will be 11.4 meters (38 feet) wide, with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes, a 3.0
meter (10 foot) outside offset and a 1.2 meter (4 foot) inside offset. The new bridge will
be approximately 146 meters (480 feet) long and will be raised approximately 0.8 meters
(2.5 feet) to match Bridge No. 50, the southbound bridge for US 421. Traffic will be
maintained on Bridge No. 50 by constructing a median detour and setting up two lane-
two way traffic operations during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 51 has a sufficiency rating of 37.1 out of 100. The deck of Bridge No.
51 is only 8.5 meters (28 feet) wide. For these reasons Bridge No. 51 needs to be
replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
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 driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
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
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation 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
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
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.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
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.
2
T
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 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
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
4. High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures will be
implemented and strictly maintained throughout project construction.
All channel spans and bents of the existing bridge will be dismantled from the top
down; to eliminate possible water disturbance caused by traditional structure
removal techniques.
6. Coffer dams or other appropriate sediment control devices will be installed around
all channel bents to limit the amount of sediment disturbance during the removal
of the existing bents and the construction of new bents.
T
7. Bents in the river channel not required for the proposed bridge will be cut off at
the river bed. Bents in the river channel required for the proposed bridge will be
completely removed and replaced in the same location with new bents.
8. Mr. Tim Savidge of NCDOT - Planning and Environmental Branch, Mr. David
Cox of NCWRC, and Mr. John Alderman of NCWRC will be contacted by the
Resident Engineer when the contractor is ready to begin project construction.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 2,650,000
Right of Way $ 21,000
Total $ 2,671,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 7600 VPD
Year 2018 - 14,000 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide with two 3.6 meter travel
lanes and 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders on each side. A total shoulder width of
at least 2.4 meters (8 feet) will be provided, including the paved shoulder. Shoulders will
be increased by at least 1.0 meter (3 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
US 421 is classified as an Arterial Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be
completed. If the project consists 2ulX of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not
need to be Completed.
4

I I
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or X
important natural resource? El
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed 1
endangered or threatened species may occur ?
d
f
h ?
ill
h
ff 0- X
(3) romous
is
W
t
e project a
ect ana
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1 /3) acre
i X ?
ze
and have all practicable measures to avoid and minim _
takings been evaluated ?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands ? F] X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted X
by proposed construction activities ? J
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water X
FJ

esources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
R
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any
of the designated mountain trout counties ? X _
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks
(UST's) or hazardous materials sites ? E-I _ X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the project
significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area of
X
Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
0
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources ? u _ X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required ? F] X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
X
regulatory floodway ? F-1
5

X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel 1:1
c
hanges? __-
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or 1:1
X land use for the area ? (16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business ? FJ X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor ? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control ? X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land (?? X
use of any adjacent property? F1 _
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local ? X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/ or

Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in ?
X
conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing roads,
d
i
i X
construct
on, or on-s
te detours ?
stage
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or

environmental grounds concerning the project ? ?
X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CUL TURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or ? X
listed on the National Register of Historic Places ? _
6
V
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges ,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the _X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
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.)
Response to question 2 on page 5 - Endangered Species
The Deep River, in the project area, is suitable habitat for the endangered Cape
Fear shiner. Special project commitments and coordination with the USFWS have
resulted in a determination that this project is not likely to adversely affect the Cape Fear
shiner. [See attached Memo from USFWS.]
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: B-2526
State Project No. 8.1540701
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRNHF-421(9)
Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 51 on US 421 northbound. US 421 is a four-lane
divided facility with dual parallel bridges over the Deep River in Chatham and Lee
Counties. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge at the existing location. The new
bridge will be 11.4 meters (38 feet) wide, with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes, a 3.0
meter (10 foot) outside offset and a 1.2 meter (4 foot) inside offset. The new bridge will
be approximately 146 meters (480 feet) long and will be raised approximately 0.8 meters
(2.5 feet) to match Bridge No. 50, the southbound bridge for US 421. Traffic will be
maintained on Bridge No. 50 by setting up two lane-two way traffic operations during
construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X- TYPE II (B)
Approved
7- zo -A;;?
Date

Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
1-2-0.-'14 ?" I-i- y) e- Z:71, <I
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
q_ zg ? ? %?-
Date ivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
.?` N CARP ?.
ti l
L 2',66
?q•'•: VGIhl?-?'
010
8
j, learn n[to :Z /? • • e • _
87 f' z. Villa/ge JF Unn[ton; 15 r _
1/?.._.. .c?
a M'ga New
rHia A 17 IS Men B.n,., •,
Vernon So A
Joe Bonl! 3 so
d
B ire •,
t ea o ,
Crae i o00
90 Golosto 3 /. Cormtn ,•
Bennett C m BncMna •
Gull ,
w /Z ,•
Carp ton North,
H Colon
Br' •
M`3r. ) L
L E /
8 ,•
. ?? lemon 6 ? ,•
? Sprn[s
,• 40
i
;q ?100•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
t,-eQj TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CHATHAM - LEE - COUNTIES
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 421
OVER DEEP RIVER
B - 2526
0 mile 1 FIG. 1

QPPtNENT OF lye, United States Department of the Interior
o`" ym
H FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
ACH 33 Asa Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
September 18, 1996
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
ATTN: Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E.
V
F ?
SUBJ: Bridge Replacement No. 51 TIP No. B-2526, Chatham Co.
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your
August 19, 1996 technical report for the replacement of Bridge No.
51 on US 421 Westbound over Deep River, Chatham County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
Based on North Carolina Department of Transportation's adherence to
the five project commitments to protect the Cape Fear Shiner, the
Service concurs that this project is not likely to adversely affect
the Cape Fear Shiner, or any Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or
species currently proposed for Federal listing under the Endangered
Species Act, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act 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; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
ohn M. H ner
Supervis
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:9-18-96:919/856-4520:WP51\NCDOT\BRG51-CH.NE

r 10i1.3
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 12, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 50 on US 421 over Deep River,
Chatham and Lee Counties, B-2526, Federal Aid
Project BRNHF-421(9), State Project
8.1540701, ER 96-7197
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
cEI
S EP 1 5 1995
Z
DIVISIC q i
2C? HIGHWAY;.
0NMEt;;,
On August 29, 1995, Debbie Bevin 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.
Since the bridge is to be replaced at the existing location and the eastbound bridge
is to serve as an on-site detour, we do not recommend any archaeological
investigation for this project as presently proposed. Please notify us if project plans
change in the future.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
r
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 (ZR
Nicholas L. Graf
September 12, 1995, Page 2
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.
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,
/;Dav:i Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
LI
srnrz ,
STATE. OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
23 May 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 51 on US 421
over the Deep River, Chatham and Lee Counties; TIP
No. B-2526; State Project No. 8.1540701; Federal
Aid No. BRNHF-421(9).
ATTENTION: Bill Goodwin, Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
This document addresses four issues pertinent to the
development of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the
proposed project: water resources, biotic resources, wetlands,
and federally protected species. A completed Ecological Threshold
checklist for a Type II PCE is also included. The proposed
project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 51 on westbound US
421 over the Deep River, on the border of Chatham and Lee Counties
(Figure 1). The eastbound bridge over the Deep River will be left
in place. Bridge No. 51 will be replaced in place, with traffic
maintained on the eastbound bridge during construction. Project
length is 120 m (400 ft), and the proposed right-of-way (ROW)
width is 60 m (200 ft).
A field investigation was conducted on 4 March 1996 by NCDOT
biologist James Hauser to assess natural resources at the project
site. Water resources were identified and described. Plant
communities were surveyed, and wildlife populations were predicted
using general qualitative habitat assessments. Soils information
for the project site was obtained from the Soil Survey of Lee
County, North Carolina (Natural Resource Conservation Service,
1989). Water resource information was obtained from publications
of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(1993), and information concerning federally-protected species was
obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1 April, 1996).
Potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified and evaluated
based on criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
0
ifarrin to ?? •ll 4` /I
C ulcn held 7 .o\ 7 n '
' Rr Vd L,fr. /I alnnRlpe 7sl
1',7` ?\ HYOUT ?
/
tl WJSbMdi^1
t Sller City 7 n\eo ov%?.rn.;,7,dT l
902 +
C,non Splits) A A M ??eo"4-i[[•
15
Idle Bonle Mo 0" C'
I Dee ?? 1 j /;ywood •,
In __-_• • 90 Goidslo 1 I a/! . Gnrrh1I .' -
Sanford
e,•
L r,. E t
1lTOn 81,
'n r• Zngs .
?i ?
w Y Vi
to MI
\, )
?s 1
, dA ? If11
.
.
MI

I 1 l
71
1!1
!_f
C. k
10
. ^ w".f Grow

f
111f
1£9
^ 7 !i C1.
11M 14 if"
A 2AI ?
• 1111 1 7111

Lo
?1
S /
llti M'r' 1111 1t11
u
lilt f1?` Hsi a ?? \ L, P.. ti31 ll11 ` 1. Wag RIVER
1

UP

171
/? 1\ Awliod,

!414 Z ToTbn

?
'' ]I!! Jtl S L!t L1l1
C)L
1 I 1?_w 1'?
!
IJjl ^ 21 fL ll1 111Z 7 V1! L1? `
.
7124 , • '? \.} L7 7
ltll 1121 V ?
4
?y

GOLDSTONr. v
217, ]Il/_ ,
) -. e
717! • )117 1')I 7 1\77
rof, sss rf '.il
j t 1111.
;
•
1 f,? ? ? .1 1 ,
?1

w! llt+o ^ Co

JL lilt .
11121

21)2 10
lug Im
7141. •
? )117 1.7
? , 17
1111
0 ' 1 1 1f 71 \• `? 1111 _
1111
?
f 1::

? •1111 ICI
' 114L
)AL1
` r I .Lill.
y `
L•44 ??? 1lIZ ?y, t
, Is
1111
?! y log I; f
\ ?
Y
. S T '? d0 2 4 70
Ip • 1111 1 L 044
`

G.111
r Gwn
17
? ., o1/71 L1
•?
clfo'' 1100 W
111)
1W 0.9-d
f

o,' I-0 b ' u
^

77N_ 74 b
?°
1101 /L.i 1
L!11
f 1141 ll 1o0 .u p <s .n 7 0
L{U
?. ;'>
\; Lll
1101
?
,?

o
J
.?
, '
_ _
n.
OF
?T
,lrl° .
c o t? 1 ?U, .-'L -?1e1l.?.. 75

North Carolina Department of
i1? or .
Transportation
? •I
Division of Highways
Planning; & Environmental Branch
Chatham-Lce Counties
Replace Rrid1!c No. 51 on 114 421
Over Deep River
D-2526
Figure One

WATER RESOURCES
Water resources located within the project area lie in the
Deep River subbasin of the Cape Fear River drainage basin. The
Deep River, which originates approximately 113 km (70 mi)
northeast of the project, flows in a southeasterly direction until
it has its confluence with the Haw River to form the Cape Fear, 32
km (20 mi) downstream of the project.
The Deep River is approximately 30 m (100 ft) wide at the
project crossing, with an undetermined depth. The substrate
consists of gravel to sand, and turbidity is high. One large
sandbar occurs in the channel immediately downstream of the
existing bridge. A large quantity of woody debris occurs within
the channel due to flow disruption created by in-stream pilings.
River banks were approximately 3-4 m (10-12 ft) over water levels
at the time of the site visit, with evidence of overbank flooding.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage
classification of the Deep River in the project vicinity (DEM
Index No. 17-(36.5)) is WS-IV (09/01/94). WS-IV waters are
designated water supplies which generally occur in moderately to
highly developed watersheds. Under this classification, point
source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted, and local
programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of
pollution are required. WS-IV waters are also suitable for all
Class C uses, including aquatic life propogation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. A Water
Supply Watershed Critical Area occurs 0.8 km (0.5 mi) downstream
of the project area. There are no water resources classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi)
of the project area. However, the Deep River in the project
vicinity has been designated a Proposed Critical Habitat for the
Cape Fear shiner by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. HQW
erosion control standards are recommended.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BRAN), managed
by DEM, 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 monitoring sites.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these
organisms are reflections of water quality. Two BMAN sites exist
on the Deep River in the project vicinity. One site, 6.8 km (4.2
mi) upstream at SR 1007, received a rating of Excellent in
September 1987. A second site, 11.8 km (7.3 mi) downstream at NC
87, received a rating of Good in September 1987. These
3
classifications indicate a region of generally high water quality
and undisturbed aquatic communities.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program administered by DEM. No permitted
dischargers are listed for the Deep River within 6.5 km (4.0 mi)
of the project area.
The potential for water quality degradation resulting from
project construction is high due to the proximity of the project
area to surface water. In particular, construction within the
stream channel and along the banks may result in significant
impacts. Potential impacts to water resources include stream
substrate disturbance, increased sedimentation due to accelerated
soil erosion, reduced concentration of dissolved oxygen in the
water column, and water temperature instability. The gently
sloping topography on both sides of the Deep River suggests a
moderate hazard for soil erosion from exposed upland areas. In
addition, the steep stream banks along the Deep River indicate
that stream scouring of unprotected, disturbed banks will likely
be a primary concern. The length of the crossing will necessitate
instream construction activities which will result in resuspension
of substrate sediments. Sedimentation and substrate disturbance
can significantly reduce water clarity, light penetration, and
nutrient loading. Construction effects on water temperature and
dissolved oxygen content are attributed to the removal of stream-
side vegetation. Use of heavy machinery along streams also
increases the risk of accidental discharge of petrochemicals or
other toxins into surface waters.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the
project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines
should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project. This would include:
1) elimination or reduction of direct and non-point
discharges into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams.
2) installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth
berms to control runoff during construction.
3) placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites will reduce runoff and decrease sediment
loadings.
4) elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains
or adjacent to streams which would reduce the potential
of accidental discharge of toxins into water bodies.
4
.
Some degree of water quality degradation is probably
inevitable from project construction due to the necessity of
streambank and substrate disturbance. However, impacts can be
minimized through adequate planning which emphasizes the reduction
of disturbed surface area and by protecting exposed areas from the
kinetic energy of falling and flowing waters. Use of BMPs will
also help to ensure that impacts to water quality are temporary
and localized rather than long-term and extensive.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources within the project area include both
terrestrial and aquatic communities, with their associated flora
and fauna. One terrestrial community type was identified in the
project area and is defined as a transportation corridor
community. This community occurs as a linear strip which
intersects the Deep River at the proposed crossing. The landscape
immediately surrounding the project area is occupied to a large
extent by agriculture and forestland, interspersed with minor
development along roadways.
The transportation corridor community consists of areas along
roadways which have been heavily impacted and maintained by human
development activities. Such areas extend out approximately 15 m
(50 ft) on both sides of the existing roadway and border young
upland forests outside the ROW. Included also in this community
are the disturbed alluvial forests bordering the Deep River which
have been greatly degraded in size and structure. Significant
soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or
herbicide application, keep this community in an early
successional state. As a result, the community is dominated by
herbs and grasses such as fescue (Festuca sp.), crabgrass
(Digitaria spp.), and wild onion (Allium canadense). Important
associate species found further from the roadside include Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus argutus),
willow (Salix sp.), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), privet
(Ligustrum sinense), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), Queen Ann's
lace (Daucus carota), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), plume grass
(Erianthus sp.), and aster (Aster spp.). Several taller loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red
maple (Acer rubrum) which have not been recently cut occur along
the roadway embankment. Along the disturbed banks of the Deep
River are also found shrubs and scattered small trees of
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm
(Ulmus americana), and grape (Vitis sp.).
Wildlife expected in this community type consists primarily
of wide-ranging, adaptable species such as Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern harvest mouse
5

(Reithrodonctomys humulis), and eastern cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridanus). Bird populations likely include species
such as northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Predators found in this
community are the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), black racer
(Coluber constrictor), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis).
The Deep River is a Piedmont brownwater river community which
is characterized by a gravel to sandy substrate and warm, turbid
water. Flow varies seasonally and with preicipitation intensity.
Occassional overbank flooding occurs during storm events, scouring
the channel and depositing debris material. Shallow, flowing
habitats are interspersed with deeper pools where flow is slower
and debris is deposited. Scattered woody debris occurs within the
channel and along the shallow shoreline. Dominant fauna found in
these rivers or along the shoreline includes a variety of aquatic
and semiaquatic species. No fish were observed during the site
visit, but the river could provide habitat for resident species
such as shiners (Notropis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), green sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), carp
(Cyprinus carpio), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
Amphibians and reptiles expected to occur in this community
include green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentaria), queen snake (Regina septemvittata),
and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Impacts to the transportation corridor community will result
from project construction due to the clearing and paving of
portions of the project area. The impacted area is estimated to
be 0.7 ha (1.6 ac), based on the project length and ROW width.
Usually project construction does not require the entire ROW width
and certain portions of the project area are already paved;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
The projected loss of habitat resulting from project
construction will have minimal impact on populations of native
flora and fauna. The existing community is already highly altered
from its natural state, and residual species are well adapted to
such disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in the
transportation corridor community are generally common throughout
North Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
areas. It is unlikely that existing species will be displaced
significantly from the project area following construction.
However, to minimize the temporary effects of project
construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should be
revegetated soon after project completion to reduce the loss of
wildlife habitat.

Potential impacts to aquatic communities downstream of the
project area primarily result from increased sedimentation of the
water resources. Increased sedimentation during transportation
construction activities and road surface runoff after construction
are widely recognized as factors that can contribute to the
cumulative degradation of water quality. Downstream increases in
turbidity or toxin concentrations could have lasting detrimental
effects on the Deep River if not controlled. Effects will be most
severe at the point of bridge replacement, but could extend
downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity, as
sediment and toxins settle out of the water column.
Use of BMPs will ensure that sedimentation and toxic inputs
are minimized, so that impacts to water quality and aquatic
communities are limited. Other stream construction considerations
include:
1) minimizing in-stream activities during peak fish spawning
periods (April-June).
2) scheduling in-stream activities, when applicable, during
periods of low flow.
3) consideration of bioengineering techniques, where
possible, for streambank protection/stablization as
opposed to standard methodologies.
4) minimizing/eliminating the use of fertilizers adjacent to
water resources.
Overall, the proposed project should have only minor long
term impacts on downstream aquatic communities, assuming
precautionary measures are taken. Sedimenation may be high during
actual bridge construction, but erosion should diminish rapidly
following project completion if exposed soils are revegetated and
streambanks are stabilized. Local aquatic communities will likely
be temporarily impacted by construction activities; however
aquatic fauna should recover to predisturbance levels.
WATERS OF THE U.S.
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States", as defined in Section 33 of the
Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that
proposes to place fill material into Waters of the U.S. 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).
Wetland areas are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions
during all or part of the growing season.

Field surveys revealed that a small jurisdictional wetland
does occur in the project area. Hydric soils and hydrophytic
vegetation are present, and there is evidence of surface and
subsurface satruated conditions (e.g. surface water, soil
mottling, and oxidized rhyzospheres). Vegetation observed in the
wetland consists of sweetgum, black willow (Salix nigra), and soft
rush (Juncus effusus). This wetland occurs in association with a
small pond which exists outside the ROW in the extreme
northeastern quadrant. The small wetland area extends into the
project ROW and would be classified as PEM1E (Palustrine,
Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated) based on the
classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
The impacted wetland area is estimated to be 0.05 ha (0.10
ac) based on project length and ROW width. However, this estimate
assumes that project construction occupies the entire proposed
ROW, and so represents a maximum potential value. Impacted
wetland area could be significantly reduced if construction
activities are more limited.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a
permit will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or
fill material into Waters of the United States. Since the project
is classified as a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion, a Section
404 Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable for the
proposed construction. This permit authorizes activities that are
categorically excluded from environmental documentation, because
they will neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
environmental effect.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification
from the DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide 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. The
issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
The COE supports a policy of mitigation for wetland impacts
in order to achieve a national goal of "no net loss" of wetlands.
This policy defines mitigation to include avoidance, minimization,
and compensation of wetland impacts. These processes are to be
considered sequentially, with avoidance receiving the highest
priority. Compensation is considered only after all other options
have been precluded. Impacts to wetlands could be avoided with
minimal effort. It is not likely that bridge replacement will
require construction or fill at the extreme limits of the proposed
ROW. Therefore, careful placement of access and staging areas
should be sufficient to avoid wetland impacts.
8

PROTECTED SPECIES
Threatened or endangered species are species whose
populations are in decline and which face probable extinction in
the near future without strict conservation management. Federal
law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,
protects plant and animal species which have been classified as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or
Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the ESA require that any action which is likely to adversely
affect such federally classified species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other potentially
endangered species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
As of 1 April 1996, the FWS lists four federally-protected
species for Chatham and Lee Counties (Table 1). A brief
description of the characteristics and habitat of each species
follows Table 1, along with a conclusion concerning probable
impacts.
Table 1. Federally-protected species for Chatham and Lee
Counties.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E
Note: E - Endangered (a species that is at risk of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
T - Threatened (a species that is at risk of becoming
endangered in the forseeable future).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret,
Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Hyde,
Montgomery, New Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans,
Richmond, Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a
half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest
living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins
in December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald
9
eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks.
Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the bald eagle does not exist within the project
area. The Deep River in the project vicinity is not large enough
to provide suitable foraging habitat, and their are no surface
waters of sufficient size within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the project
area. In addition, none of the disturbed forests impacted by the
proposed project have trees large enough to provide nesting sites.
A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of
rare and protected species revealed no record of known populations
of bald eagle within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the project area. Thus,
the bald eagle will not be impacted by project construction.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 26 September 1987
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore, Randolph.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or
boulder substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow
pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water willow beds.
Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater, among large rock
outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The Cape Fear
shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other
periphytes.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North
Carolina. The strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in
Chatham and Lee counties from the Locksville dam upstream to Rocky
River and Bear Creek. Another population is located above the
Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third
population is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore
counties.
Bilogical Conclusion: Unresolved
The Cape Fear shiner is reported to occur within the Deep
River in the project vicinity. The proposed project area impacts
a portion of the Proposed Critical Habitat for this species along
the Deep River. Moreover, a review of the NCNHP database of rare
and protected species revealed that a known population of Cape
Fear shiner is reported to occur 16 km (10 mi) downstream of the
project area. A Section 7 consultation with the FWS and Wildlife
Resources Commission is required before project initiation to
assess risks to this species and to develop impact avoidance
alternatives.
10

Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven,
Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax,
Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee,
Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender,.
Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland,
Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) uses open old growth stands
of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris),
for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds
nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3
m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50 ft)
high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running
sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May,
and June.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within
the project area. There are no pine forests present with trees of
sufficient size and density to provide suitable nesting or
foraging habitat. All of the forests within the project area are
highly disturbed and support primarily hardwood species. A review
of the NCNHP database of rare and protected species revealed no
record of known populations of red-cockaded woodpecker within 3.2
km (2.0 mi) of the project area. Thus, the red-cockaded
woodpecker will not be impacted by project construction.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1988
Flowers Present: late July - August
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Granville, Lee.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with
fibrous roots and erect to spreading stems. North Carolina
11
A
currently has two known populations of harperella, one in
Granville and one in Chatham County. This plant can be found in
two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals and the margins'of
clear, swift-flowing stream sections, and the edges of
intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows in the
coastal plain. It is always found in saturated substrates and
tolerates periodic, moderate flooding. There is a preference for
sunny areas and this species is abundant where it is sheltered
from stream erosion, usually on the downstream side of large rocks
or amidst thick clones of water willow.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Habitat for harperella may exist in the project area. The
Deep River at the proposed crossing has a sand to gravel substrate
with steep banks. Though no rocks were apparent during the site
visit, rock outcrops may be present during periods of lower flow
which could provide protected shoreline habitats. Sandbars occur
within the river which may also provide suitable substrate and
disturbance. Surveys for this species should be conducted during
the plant's flowering season (late July - August) to determine if
individuals occur within the project area. A review of the NCNHP
database of rare and protected species revealed no record of known.
populations of harperella within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the project
area.
Eleven federal species of concern (FSC) are listed by the FWS
for Chatham and Lee Counties as of 1 April 1996 (Table 2).
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions until they are formally listed as Threatened or
Endangered. FSCs are defined as taxa for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not sufficient
data to warrant a formal federal listing. Table 2 lists federal
species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded
state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the
project area for each species. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the protection status of these species may
be upgraded in the future.
12
I . , ,.
Table 2. Federal species of concern for Chatham and Lee Counties.
Scientific NC
Name Common Name Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis
Alasmidonta varicosa
Fusconaia masoni
Gomphus septima
Lampsilis cariosa
Amorpha georgiana
var. georgiana
Isoetes virginica
Lilium iridollae
Lindera subcoriacea
Oxypolis ternata
Parnassia caroliniana
Bachman's sparrow SC No
brook floater T Yes
Atlantic pigtoe T Yes
Septima's clubtail SR Yes
yellow lampmussel T Yes
Georgia indigo-bush E No
Virginia quillwort C No
sandhills bog lily C/PT No
bog spicebush E No
savanna cowbane W1 No
Carolina grass-of- E No
parnassus
Note: T - Threatened
SR - Significantly Rare
SC - Special Concern
C - Candidate
W1 - Watch List
Surveys for these federal species of concern were not
conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare and protected
species revealed records of two North Carolina listed species in
or near the project area: Indian physic (Gillenia stipulata) (SR)
and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) (SR). Neither of these
populations should be impacted by project construction.
SUMMARY
The proposed project should have only minor effects on
natural resources and environmental quality in the vicinity of the
project area, given adequate preliminary planning. The project
area is already highly disturbed, and the proposed project simply
involves replacement of an existing bridge. The primary issue of
concern is the potenital occurrence of the federally-protected
Cape Fear shiner within the Deep River. A Section 7 consultation
will be required with the FWS and WRC to assess potential impacts.
Stringent HQW erosion control practices are recommended to protect
water quality and downstream populations of Cape Fear shiner.
Permits and water quality certification will be required from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management prior to construction initiation for
impacts to surface waters. Wetlands which occur in the project
13
,.
area can be adequately avoided. Impacts to populations of other
native plants and animals should be minor.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Gordon Cashin, Permits Supervisor
File: B-2526
14
01
. ,.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO

1-1 'Z
?I

? ?l
`v
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
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?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ? /
regulatory floodway?

(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
?d M SfAh o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOV[RNOR P.O. 130X25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 27, 1995
Af
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SI'CRI!IAKY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Chatham-Lee Counties,
US 421, Replacement of Bridge No. 51 over Deep River,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRNHF-421(9), State Project
No. 8.1540701, TIP No. B-2526
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 August 29, 1995 at 1:30 p.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 Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141, Ext. 238.
WTG/plr 04 1
Attachment
qV AJ
-A6 w ?

da
C41
17 - (36-? ) ?,?s jr,17
?xl ?? }? Z
9
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
72095
TIP PROJECT: B-2526____----___-- DIVISION: -------_-__--
F. A. PROJECT: BRNTEU-421(9) COL,NTY: Chatham
STATE PROJECT: 8.1540701 ROtT'I'E: US 421
DESCRIPTION: Bridge ?No• 51 over Deer River, on US 421
PROJECT PURPOSE: ___ replace obsolete brie --__-
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Goldston Quad ___-
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Arterial
1-1
~ 2S CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING r-rrGIN>?FIUNG AND cornING»clr:s) ............................. $ o", )'0,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION. UTII=S, AND ACQUISMON) ................... $ 9,?90.000
l , TOTAL COST ..................
/5(/
i
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 2,600.000
"D TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 16,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 2,616,000
f'
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ®(cIRCLE oNE)
IF YES, BY WHOM? _
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR ° o
y TRAFFIC: CURRENT 7600 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 14,000 VPD
??1 3 ??s TTST 15 % DUAL 3 _ %
VV-
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: four lane median divided - westbound lanes
^,??, f 1 f Ppk4OSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: four lane median divided - westbound lanes _
??s?- NIr\ 1o METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ------------------------------------------ 0
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -----------------------------------------]c
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER -------------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 127.7_ I.1E'I'm WIDTH 8.5 M=RS
419 FE Er 28 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH METERS WIDTH _ MEI-r:RS
-- FEET FEEr
Crulchlield M rds
?.? Sds Hope
of
bd
* Siler City
;c H? a ,A
t Vernon Springs I,
"g' Bonl eq1?3
I CBeea
kJk

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
'%,uo0V BRANCH
CHATHAM - LEE - COUNTIES
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 421
OVER DEEP RIVER
B - 2526
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
Fearnn toyJil
81 ?, Village-If arrinpton ? r51 r
Bynum
wdsonrdle/
P.ttshwo Jr ?y',l LU/m r
bz + a W om^ New
A M? eons el.
titiir
?Ir Me
50
moncure 1 AI'
Goldstor _3 Kz?v fcor,
90 Bennett C m Brlche ul toNwinv ew 42 ,?
4
L - _ _ Ic an
ll a:' .
?? ??•
4 Sbrd+ 11
Br
Tra 1 L
rI F ??

a M STATF u
RECEIVED
NOV 0 21995
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Project File
Bill Goodwin, RE-0&
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 51 on US 421
Westbound over Deep River, Chatham County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRNHF-421(9), State Project No. 8.1540701, TIP No. B-2526
A Scoping meeting for the subject project was held on August 29, 1995. The following
persons were in attendance:
David Cox NCWRC
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Eric Galamb DEM
Don Sellers Right of Way
John Taylor Location and Surveys
Beth Vanderburg Traffic
Theresa Ellerby Program Development
Peter Slipp Statewide Planning
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Jenny Summerlin Hydraulics
LeRoy Smith Roadway Design
Cynthia Joyner Roadway Design
Alice Gordon Planning and Environmental
Davis Moore Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the Scoping meeting and through
correspondence prior to the meeting.
This project will be designed in Metric units. The design speed will be approximately
100 km/h (62 mph). Utility conflicts will be moderate for this project. There are a telephone cable
and a water line attached to the north side of the existing structure.
The proposed structure will be 11.4 meters (38 ft) wide, with two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel
lanes, a 3.0 meter (10 ft) outside shoulder and a 1.2 meter (4 ft.) inside shoulder. The roadway 9

approaches will have two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes, 1.2 meter (4 ft.) paved shoulders and
shoulder widths of at least 2.4 meters (8 ft). The shoulder will be wider where guardrail is
warranted.
Mr. Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new structure approximately 146
meters (480 ft.) long will be required to replace the existing bridge. The new structure should be
built approximately 0.8 meters (2.5 feet) higher than the existing roadway grade to match the
elevation of the parallel structure carrying eastbound US 421 traffic.
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated that the Deep River is classified as Water Supply - IV.
Implementation of High Quality Waters (HQW) erosion control measures was requested. Also
replacement in-place using the eastbound bridge as the detour structure was suggested. Mr.
Galamb asked that there be no weep holes in the bridge deck over standing water.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that the Deep River may contain Cape Fear Shiner.
Mr. Cox agreed with Mr. Galamb's suggestion that replacement in-place using the eastbound
bridge as the detour structure was preferred.
Following the meeting, Mr. Cox checked the NC WRC's database of species occurrences
and found records of known populations of Cape Fear Shiner upstream of the project area. A
Section 7 consultation will likely be required.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known architectural or archaeological sites in the immediate project area, and no unknown
sites are likely to be discovered. Therefore, no architectural or archaeological survey will be
required.
One alternate will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 51 over the Deep River.
Alternate One - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place. Traffic
will be detoured onto the eastbound parallel structure, by constructing median detours.
Traffic will operate in a two-way two lane condition during construction.
The TIP cost estimate for this project is $ 2,616,000 including, $2,600,000 for
construction and $ 16,000 for right of way. Current construction cost estimates for this project
are as follows:
Alternate One
Construction $ 2,650,000
Right of Way $ . 16,000
Total $ 2,666,000
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in July 1997 and
construction to begin in July 1998.
WTG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants
,t
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Revised
10/31/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2526 DIVISION: Eight
F. A. PROJECT: BRNBF-421(9) COUNTY: Chatham
STATE PROJECT: 8.1540701 ROUTE: US 421
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 51 over Deep River, on US 421
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Goldston Quad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Arterial
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLuDING ENGIIEERING AND CoNTENGENCIES) ............................. $ 2,650,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, Ura II4, AND ACQUISMON) ................... $ 16,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ 2,666,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 2,600,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 16,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ...............................................................................:........................................ $ 2,616,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? 'YES OR CD (aRCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 7600 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 14,000 VPD
TTST 15 % DUAL 3 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: four lane median divided - westbound lanes
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: four lane median divided - westbound lanes
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE --------------- --------------------------- ?
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -----------------------------------------
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE ---------------------------------------------------------
4. OTHER -------------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
LENGTH 127.7 moms
419 FEET
LENGTH 146 mmms
480 FEET
WIDTH 8.5 mETm
28 FEEL'
WIDTH 11.4 METERS
38 FEET
w
I?I•
I?
1? IL
`
5
` ?? f
h 1144. I.a MII Vie
}
6
to o 7 21U 1 86 ? Cnek r GI .
'R 4 JI79 I"I q 2141. , 1G4
A
I I : ?, ^I y s 7L4
6
o .S
11
q JU4

Mayr t •s
242
214A
e chapel
2129 } ,4
8}6 71N ¢ 1
U 1' It
T 4 21-43 m RIVER
e ? 4 M1
r
'
k
1}1 \
71-41
'' ~ N. a S Toylore Ch. '1 .., 7]13 112! t 5 1131 IA
671
4e 14.LQ N
?
6
2211
1124. 2J1L
?, •> 2112 '1
.1 199S4 167] \
.
2172 I7 'e ! 4
2 21AZ
1
.
ia'
GOLDSTON f': .
i'+, 2121
,' 1177
• • '?
M1 • 2717 n ' Y 3 i
1M
POP. SJ 1' a?l
v , lJ
,1 1}24. .?,?., •n
n 1 a• i
.J .S

i

, M1 Co
re° 21Po 771/ .6 7
? Illt- m 1429 ?

't., .
1 1424 i o
U J v
a ?
, , 2.Llt
ll42 '? V 1 1-444 y
2244. `
.
2115 ? .7 . 2114 1.7 ? 67 J • 4?} 1 ?e
1621 4 _
S 6
LS44 ?\ P
14 /
I
?
M1' F%:
7..,
I:ae? 1.15
.s W ?'
L 1422
?214i .1 1+01
V. }
6?
? J
}k k
•
? i
?
f
t1n
7?' 301
T
\

•
11 rty6
LJ 4
Sn '
1.0 1167 L? Gum 4
? Gd6 1-4321,6
,?. ? •:i 1AM10Ck l4II 4?
1442 d6 Oepood
$
F_ q ^ 1.3.6.
_ 1lAY%?
4 Y 1.6. ` ry

's

.ra
14 10
146] w m 1.
1244 u 14Q? a to ., .d 2.0
\\ x 6 1-414
419
Lia
4a .
-
. .J

PAS

6 ...
"
xr.
s: .
MA1cm, E 1417 111.6
y
' ^
.uzl c

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CHATHAM - LEE - COUNTIES
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 51 ON US 421
OVER DEEP RIVER
B - 2526
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
?ft aa4a¦I