The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19970222 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970310 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY February 28, 1997 t ': 7 J I ,~) ()l ~ " ' J ,(.. {~ U S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Otftce P. O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ~\~~~ A TTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner Chief, Southern Section Dear Sir: SUBJECT: Union County, Replacement of Bridge No. 94 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 1937. TIP No. B-2649, State Project No. 8.2691501, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1937(1). Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.1 Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but pI' 0 to pI' ceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix (B-23) i sued December 13, 1996, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Se tion 33 . and appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction ~ect. We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing a copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review. (i) 2 I f you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood at (919) 733-7844 extension 306. JZu H. Franklin Yick, PE, Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFY/plr cc: wi attachment Mr. Steve Lund, CaE, NCDOT Coordinator Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design wlo attachments Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer Mr. John L. Williams, Planning & Environmental . Union County Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 Over Beaver Dam Creek Federal Project BRZ-1937 (1) S tate Project 8.2691501 TIP # B-2649 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION u. S. DEPARTEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL I-llGHW A Y ADiv1INISTRA TIO}J AND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTh.1E!'.i OF TRANSPORTATION DMSION OF I-llGHWA YS APPROVED: y~qf~ 5-16.15 Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch SV--s5 ~ C. ~ Date ~ Nicholas Graf, P. E. \ -. Division Administrator, FH'V A Union County Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 Over Beaver Dam Creek Federal Project BRZ-1937 (1) State Project 8.2691501 TIP # B-2649 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION May, 1995 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environment.11 Branch By: flUb ~ /J\..J luJ l;kI~ Date ~ L. Williams Project Planning Engineer -~~'/6-C;J l1J ct.., f'J C2- El//u II Date Wayne illiott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head .5~/'~1S X~ 9/. ~ Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager Planning and Environmental Branch "'"'''''''' .....,..,\ \\ CAR 0"'"" .... c-..~ .....A.. '( / " l ~'-J ,,'~\iHS)IO-ltJ..~ \ ,: ..., .,.('~ ":. ~ . . - : ; SEAL : : : i 6976 : = : ~ : = ~r"":.. .......$ .. C, 'f {If \ .' -<........ .. -:",,<9/'; .'P.~~.~\. .~ 'i>- .......... '~" V. p?,'t: ...... ,,' ....\\ """..,,,,.. Union County Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 Over Beaver Dam Creek Federal Project BRZ-1937 (1) State Project 8.2691501 TIP # B-2649 Bridge No. 94 crosses over Beaverdam Creek. It is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. The project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected. I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing replacement of Bridge No. 94 with a 4-barre1 reinforced concrete box culvert on new location (Alternate 1, Figure 2). Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment during construction. The estimated cost of the project is $605,000. The estimated cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $324,000. II. SUMl\1ARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters including strict erosion control measures. NCDOT will re-vegetate any abandoned corridors. NCDOT will implement all standard procedures and measures (where the above commitments do not supersede) to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. NCDOT will get a North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 40 1 Water Quality General Certification prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23. III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions. IV. EXISTING COl\lTIITIONS SR 1937 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Classification system. It selVes approximately 700 vehicles per day. SR 1937 (Old Pageland-~Jarshvi1k Road) is paved and runs in a north south direction in the vicinity of the bridge. Near Bridge No. 94, SR 1937 has 6.25-meter (20.5-foot) wide pavement plus approximately 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide grass shoulders. The vertical alignment is fair. The horizontal alignment contains a sharp cUIVe of approximately IS-degrees beginning immediately at the nOlth end of the bridge. This curve joins \vith another fonning a reverse cUIVe on the north approach to the bridge (See Figure 2). The existing bridge was completed in 1962. It is 25 meters (80 feet) long consisting of2 spans at 12.5 meters (40 feet) each. The vertical clearance is approximately 4.3 meters (14 feet) between the bridge deck and the streambed. The deck is 5.5 meters (18.2 feet) wide with 4.8 meters (15.8 feet) of clear deck width. According to Bridge }'1aintenance Department records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 25.3 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 6.3 metric tons (7 tons) for single vehicles and 6.3 metric tons (7 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The structure has less than 5 years of estimated remaining life. The current traffic volume of 700 VPD is projected to 1200 VPD for the year 2017. Truck percentages are 1 % TTST (truck- tractor semi-trailer) and 5<?/Q dual-tired vehicles. The speed limit in the area is 90 kmlh (statutory 55 mph). Between the years 1990 and 1993 there were t1u-ee accidents associated "'rith the sharp cUIVature of the road and the narrowness of the bridge. There is one school bus presently using the bridge twice a day according to Jerry Helms of Union County Schools. There are no utilities in the area that are likely to be impacted by the project. Y. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATES Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 94 \vere studied. Because the existing horizontal alignment is unacceptable, both alternatives are on improved alignments. Alternate 1 (Recommended) \vill replace the existing bridge on a new alignment, 678 meters (2225 feet) long, with a four barrel 3-meter x 3-metcr (10-foot x 10-1'001) reinforced concrete box culve11 (RCBC). Based on preliminary design, this alignment \vill improve an existing sharp CUlvature from a 116 meter radius (15 degree) CUIVC to a 350 meter radius (5 degree) cUIVe. This would raise the design speed from less than 50 kmih 2 (30 mph) to approximately 90 km/h (55 mph). It \....ill also improve sight distance thereby reducing the high accident potential. Traffic will be maintained along the existing bridge during construction. The estimated cost of Alternate 1 is $ 605,000. Alternate 2 would replace the existing bridge on a new alignment. 412 meters (1350 feet) long, with a four barrel 3-meter x 3-meter (to-foot x 10-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Like Alternate 1 this alternate would improve the sharp curvature. The existing cutve with 116 meter radius (15 degree) would be flattened to pro....ide for 159 meter (11 degree) curvature. This alternate will, however only provide for a design speed of 65 kmIh (40 mph). Since, the design speed would not meet the statutory speed limit, a design exception would be required. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The estimated cost of Alternate 2 is $ 573,000. \ 1. ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 Bridge Removal $ 112,000 S 112,000 9,000 9,000 288,000 267,000 5,000 5,000 86,000 82,000 75,000 75,000 Roadway & Approaches Traffic Control I Mobilization & Misc. I Engineering & Contingency I , I . I Total ConstlUctlOn 575,000 550,000 I RighI of Way I : Total Cost Estimate I 30,000 23,700 $ 605,000 S 573,700 3 "II. RECO~1ENDED IMPROVEMEl\lS NCDOT will replace the existing bridge as recommended in Alternate 1. This will include replacing the existing bridge on a new alignment, 2225 feet long. ,vith a four barrel 3-meter x 3-meter (10-foot x 1O-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). \Vhile this re-alignment is long for a bridge project, it offers tremendous improvement without significant environmental or social impact. This alignment will improve existing sharp curvature from a 116 meter radius (15 degree) curve to a 350 meter radius (5 degree) curve. This would increase the design speed from less than 50 km'h (30 mph) to approximately 90 kmJh (55 mph). It will also improve sight distance thereby reducing the high accident potential. The new roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide \\ith 2.4- meter (8-foot) grass shoulders. If guardrail is warranted, an additional 0.9 meters (3 feet) of shoulder will be required. Traffic will be maintained along the existing alignment during construction. The estimated cost of the project is $ 605,000 which is only $ 31,300 more than Alternate 2 (65 km/h, 40 mph design speed). VIII. TRAFFIC CONTROL Traffic will be maintained along the existing alignment during the construction period. Inconvenience to the traveling public will be at a minimum. IX. ENVIROf\.~IENT AL EFFECTS A. GENERAL This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge in addition to improvement of the alignment ,\-ill result in safer traffic operations. This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant envi.ronmental consequences. This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of CUlTent NCDOT standards and specifications. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project. There are no haz.lrdous waste impacts. No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area. 4 B. AIR AND NOISE The project area is within the ~\'Ietropolitan-Charlotte Interstate (Concord) Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Union County has been determined to be in compliance \-vith the National Ambient Air quality Standards. This project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures. NCDOT and the FHW A do not anticipate that it \-...ill create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attairunent area. The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports. The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, neither will have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction. C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS In compliance with the Fannland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981, the U. S. Soil ConselVation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being considered will impact prime or important fannland soils. The SCS responded that Alternative 1 would impact approximately one acre of state\-vide important fannland soils, and Alternative 2 would impact 0.6 acres of soils with the same classification. The SCS indicates that the relative value of the fannland soils which may be converted by Alternatives 1 and 2 is 39.8 and 42.6, respectively, on a scale of 0 to 100 points. Completion of the site assessment portion of the Fannland Conversion Impact Rating F onn (AD-l 006) indicates a total site assessment score of 62 out of a possible 160 for both alternatives. Total score reflects the summation of the relative fannland value and the total site assessment score. For Alternative 1 the total score is 101. 8 and for Alternative 2 is 104.6. N'either of these scores exceeds the threshold of 160 total points, at which consideration of other alternatives is required. D. mSTORICAL EFFECTS According to the State HiStOlic Preselvation Office (SHPO) there are no historic resources in the area of the proposed project. All structures \vithin the area were photographed and reviewed with the SHPO and were detennined to be of no likely historic significance. Therefore NCDOT anticipates no historical impacts. E. ARCI-it\EOLOGICAL EFFECTS According to SHPO there are no known archaeological resources within the proposed project area, In addition, based on present knowledge of the area, SHPO feels it is unlikely that there are any archaeological resources (eligible for the !'-:ational Regiskr of 5 Historic Places) occurring in the project area. The SHPO has recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with the project. NCDOT agrees and therefore an archeological survey was not conducted. F. NATURAL SYSTEMS PHYSICAL RESOURCES This section describes water and soil resources within the project study area, especially focusing on water quality documentation, information gathered on-site, and information gathered from the Union County Soil Survey and available maps. The B-2649 project site can be located on the Wingate, NC Quadrangle (USGS 7.5 minute series). Water Resources Beaverdam Creek arises in eastern Union County to flow northeast and join Lanes Creek about 6.9 kilometers (4.3 miles) below SR 1937. Lanes Creek eventually empties to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Above Bridge No. 94, the Beaverdam Creek watershed encompasses approximately 25 square kilometers (9.5 square miles) and drops in elevation from 195 meters (640 feet) to 143 meters (470 feet) above MSL at SR 1937. The project and watershed lie in sub-basin 03-07-14 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. When visited, Beaverdam Creek was roiled and at relatively high flood for the season, probably a result of recent regional rains. The current was strong, cascading over and around nwnerous boulders in the channel (Table 2). However, the high, sloping banks on either side of the channel easily contained the flow, so no overland flooding was possible. Table 2. Characteristics of Beaverdam Creek at the B-2649 Project Site. Location 61 m Upstream Bridge Substrate Current Stream Gradient Channel Width Bank Height Water depth Water Color Water Odor Aquatic Vegetation Adjacent Vegetation Wetlands Associated Gravel among boulders Strong Flat Relatively flat 6.1 m (20 ft) 2.7 m (9.0 ft) 0.5 m (1.5 ft) Brown None None Hardwoods Bank to bank Gravel, rock, cobble Strong 6.1 m (20 ft) 2.7 m (9.0 ft) 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft) Brown None None Bank to bank 6 Water Quality In 1992, Beaverdam Creek, from its "source" to a point 1.4 miles upstream of its "mouth" at Lanes Creek, was assigned a classification of WS-II. "WS-II" refers to waters protected as water supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds; point source discharges are pennitted pursuant to Rules .0104 and .0211 of this Subchapter; local programs to control nonpoint source and stoffilwater discharge of pollution are required" (NCDEM 1993). With a WS-ll classification, this segment is treated as "High Quality Water" but, otherwise, no "HQW" or "Outstanding Resource Waters" are designated in the vicinity (NCDEM 1993). No NPDES pennitted dischargers are located on Beaverdam Creek (NCDEM 1994). No BMAN sites exist on Beaverdam Creek, and the nearest BMAN sites, in Lanes Creek and Waxhaw Creek, were rated "Fair" in 1989 (NCDEM 1991). Summary of Anticipated Impacts Due to the current classification, Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters will be implemented under any proposed action at this site. Assuming these practices are used, it can be concluded that minimal effects on water quality \\-ill result from the proposed actions. Therefore, from a water resource standpoint, it does not matter which proposed alternative is implemented. In either case, clearing of forest vegetation will have to occur and later restoration of the abandoned corridor will be carried out. After clearing, the new road bed of either alternative will be graded, which will compact the soil and could cause limited amounts of sediment to be deposited into Beaverdam Creek. The steep-sided creek banks pose the greatest difficulty in controlling erosion and sedimentation. If erosion can be minimized by using proper construction techniques, the amount of delivered sediment from construction could be smaller than the "natural" erosion rates of the adjacent agricultural areas. Reinforced concrete box culverts will be placed in the creek, occupying space currently occupied by boulders or free-flowing water, but the bridge pilings downstream will be removed. The net effect will cause little change in riparian characteristics. The aquatic species of most concern at this location are not likely to be affected by these actions, and overall water quality will not change. Soils The Union County soil sheet (USDA 1914) indicates that the soil at the B-2649 site is Wehadkee silt loam, which is identified as a hydric soil. Wehadkee lies close to stream channels and is subject to frequent overflow. However, on- site observations (see 2.1 and 3.1) reveal that wetland conditions do not prevail adjacent to Beaverdam Creek proximal to SR 1937. 7 BIOTIC RESOURCES This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities that occur on the B-2649 project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting these communities as a result of the proposed actions. Terrestrial Communities Mesic Hardwood forest currently surrounds the existing bridge, but with some exceptions this forest has developed only within this century. West of the existing bridge, the level land upslope of Beaverdam Creek was cultivated in row crops, as evidenced by old plow furrows. Cultivation stopped roughly 40-80 years ago, and the area naturally succeeded to pine forest. Most of these pines were removed selectively by high-grade logging about 10-20 years ago. The relatively stable hardwood forest that dominates the area today has developed from the understory of the pine stand. Closer to Beaverdam Creek, the very steep side slopes probably precluded agriculture, and a narrow suip of forest roughly 10-20 meters (33-66 feet) wide has more-or-Iess always been present. East of the existing bridge, the upslope portions of land are still in agriculture, and creekside vegetation occurs only in a band about 15 meters (49 feet) wide. Creekside vegetation on the east side is occasionally controlled by cutting that limits plant height to about 20 meters (66 feet) and favors weedy plants tolerant of frequent disturbance and full sunlight, owing to the large amount of edge. Floral Communities Two floral communities occur within the project area, Mesic Hardwoods and Roadside. The Mesic Hardwood community is a degraded but largely stable version of the Mesic :Mixed Hardwood Forest community of Schafale and Weakley (1990) or the ShortleafPine-Oak Forest Type (#78) of Eyre (1980). Mesic Hardwoods occupy about 65 percent of the study area. Side slopes are not separated into a second forest community, due to the small area they occupy. The Mesic Hardwoods community occurs throughout the study area, west of the existing bridge. It also occurs east of the bridge in a narrow strip of vegetation about 15 meters (49 feet) wide along both sides of Beaverdam Creek. Beyond this strip, the land is used for agriculture, The Mesic Hardwoods community is better developed west of the bddge, because much less selective cutting has recently occurred. Most of the shade tolerant wildflowers listed below occur west of the bridge, whereas most of the sun tolerant wildflowers occur east of the bridge. Within the study area, the upper canopy of the Mesic Hardwoods community is very heterogeneous, largely because selected trees have been removed by high-grade logging. More recently, several large oaks have been wind thrown. These events have created an unusually uneven upper canopy. Canopy dominance averages 25 8 meters2/hectare (110 fed/acres), a value about 50 percent lower than typical. The upper canopy contains red maple, sweetgum, northern red oak, white oak, white ash, shortleaf pine, winged elm, black oak, willow oak, blackgum, black cherry, mockernut hickory, and pignut hickory. Boxelder, sycamore, sugarberry, American ehn, and honeylocust occur in addition to the species listed above on the more- mesic side slopes. In addition, tree-of-heaven occurs along the forest edge and near the existing bridge. The lower canopy contains saplings of selected species of the upper canopy and southern sugar maple, red mulberry, sourwood, redbud, musclewood, ""itch-haze~ eastern redcedar, flowering dogwood, storax, and sparkleberry. The shrub layer contains common blackberry, elderberry, multiflora rose, arrowwood, blackhaw, low sweet blueberry, fringe tree, and privet. Privet is especially common on the steep creek banks and in the northwestern quadrant. In addition, smooth alder occurs on the creek banks at the waters edge, and smooth sumac and fragrant sumac occur along the forest edge. The ground layer contains poison-ivy, summer grape, muscadine, trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, coral honeysuckle, two species of greenbrier, crossvine, Virginia creeper, beggar-lice, flowering spurge, Solomon's sea~ uniola grass, sedge, pokewee~ wild ginger, Christmas fern, St. Andrew's cross, wild yams, and heart-leaved aster. Except for the northwestern quadrant, foliar cover of the ground layer averages 15 percent, although it is somewhat higher along forest edges. Frequency among individual species, however, varies greatly. Japanese honeysuckle, poison-ivy, summer grape, and Christmas fern dominate, providing roughly one-half of the foliar cover. The other species listed above, some of which are represented by only 1-5 individuals, prOvide the remaining one-half. In the northwestern quadrant, foliar cover of the ground layer is less than 5 percent, owing to much higher levels of privet. The Roadside community occurs along SR 1937. It contains disturbance-tolerant species, many of which are exotic grasses, and foliar cover averages 75 percent. The Roadside community occupies about 10 percent of the study area. The community has not been systematically researched, and no published vegetation studies exist. The Roadside community contains common fescue, fleabane, English plantain, common ragweed, horse-nettle, rye grass, broomsedge, wild carrot, Johnson grass, dallis grass, indian- hemp, poison-ivy, k.notweed, Japanese honeysuckle, foxtail, curly dock, common blackberry, dayflower, pokeweed, ruellia, woolly mullein, and prickly lettuce. The Roadside community is frequently disturbed by mowing that reduces total plant height and increases the dominance of grasses. Frequency of individual species is not unifonnly distributed. Johnson grass, English plantain, and common fescue provide roughly one-half of the foliar cover, and the remaining one-half is shared by the other species listed above. 9 Faunal Communities Pronounced differences in dominant vegetation east and west of SR 1937 create two distinctly different habitat types around the B-2649 project site, with the roadsides being the transition zone. East of the road, all upland is entirely open agricultural land where grassland species such as Bobwhite quail and Eastern meadowlark were obsctved. Except for the roadside margins, this open field habitat type mostly occurs outside the study area and will not be discussed further. Narrow strips of hardwood forest immediately along Beaverdam Creek stabilize the banks and provide minimal habitat for edge species and transient animals migrating along the creek. Raccoons and opossums, besides a variety of birds, are the most frequent visitors. West of the bridge the forest floor is elevated from the creek because the riparian zone is steeply sloped, with very narrow shorelines on either side of the creek channel. Migration through this area would therefore be somewhat constrained. Mature hardwood forest comprising at least two age classes, with the oldest specimens occWTing along Beaverdam Creek, occupies the study area west of SR 1937. This parcel is contiguous with more extensive forested lands farther west, though a utility right-of-way runs northwest to southeast along the study area boundary, and therefore creates edge effects. Habitat such as this two-aged hardwood stand appeals to a great many avian species, which will vary with the season. Acadian flycatchers, Carolina chickadees, Tufted titmice, Carolina wrens, Wood thrushes, Red-eyed vireos, Ovenbirds, and other warblers are typical species inhabiting older hardwood stands. The Common Yellowthroat, American redstart, Indigo bunting, White-throated sparrow, and White-eyed vireo occur in thickets and second growth. Gray catbirds, American robins, Cardinals, Dark eyed juncos, and Eastern phoebes are also likely in disturbed areas. Thus, the diversity of songbirds found proximal to this project is probably higher than average for Piedmont sites. Numerous cavity trees obsetved throughout the area provide forage sites for woodpeckers such as the Downy, Haire, and Red-bellied, and cavities provide optimal reproductive success for Gray squirrels. The abundant dead and downed logs obsetved also provide suitable habitat for salamanders, snakes, and small mammals of the forest floor. Aquatic Communities No rooted or free-floating aquatic plants were obsetvcd, but false ncttle and Japanese grass grow on fallen and decayed logs in Beaverdam Creek. The number of downed logs in the creek was higher than is typical for Piedmont streams, probably a result of stand age and steeply inclined stream banks. 10 Along the west bank, a crayfish specimen was collected, observed, and subsequently released. No positive identification was made, but this may be a Pee Dee lotic crayfish, a species known to inhabit relatively swiftly mo\mg streams. Roiled and silted high flow conditions made it impossible to determine if Carolina darters or any other fIsh might occupy Beaverdam Creek at this location. Bottom sampling for naiads (freshwater mussels) was conducted, but none were collected from the scattered gravel pockets among the boulders and cobbled streambed. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities A new bridge location is proposed to improve road alignment and safety. Two alternative sites for relocation have been offered, but whichever of the two construction alternatives is chosen, impacts on the biotic communities will be similar. The magnitude of effects will vary because one alignment is longer than the other. Replacement of the bridge in a new location about 30 meters (98 feet) upstream of the existing bridge (Alternate 2) would entail a shorter route than replacement about 60 meters (196 feet) upstream (Alternate 1). In either case, the existing bridge will remain open until the replacement structure is complete. Then the existing structure and pavement will be completely removed and the abandoned site will be restored to natural conditions. Both alternatives will require clearing Mesic Hardwood forest to accommodate the new road alignment. Clearing will reduce the amount of forest cover by 0.55 hectare (1.3 acre) for Alternative 2 and by 0.7 hectare (1. 8 acre) for Alternative 1. Some of this loss will be recovered when the existing bridge is removed and the existing right-of way is allowed to revert to forest. Though disposition and future land use of the existing road right-of-way are not known, as much as 0.55 hectare (1.3 acre) could be reverted to forest if the entire existing right-of-way is restored. Loss of Mesic Hardwood forest cover will not cause significant environmental damage because (1) the losses are small; (2) the Mesic Hardwood community is very common in Union County, providing 57 percent of the forest cover (Bro\\n 1991); and (3) forests in general are common in Union County, covering 43 percent of the land (Brown 1991). Trees not cut but adjacent to cleared areas will probably show signs of stress, due to increased solar exposure and root disturbance. In extreme cases, some of these trees could ultimately die and others could become wind thrown. This decline should not cause significant adverse environmental damage, because (1) only selected, scattered trees will have extreme symptoms, (2) most of the trees will recover within 2-5 years, and (3) trees that do not recover will be naturally replaced by other trees. No adverse impacts to floral populations are expected from the proposed project since (1) all species observed during the fIeld investigation are common with adequate populations outside of the impact area (see sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2), (2) many plants arc weedy and not native, and (3) no prime-quality or unique situations exist. 11 Additional habitat fragmentation is the most detrimental effect posed by the proposed action. Cutting a new corridor through existing forest cover will increase edge effects, leaving two narrow strips of hardwood forest. Some species of songbirds are especially sensitive to such spatial relationships and will probably be displaced as a result of the project. The western strip of forest will remain separated from contiguous forest on its west by the utility- line right-of-way, and the eastern strip will be surrounded by open agricultural land. The restored right-of-way will develop adjacent to this strip of older residual forest. SPECIAL TOPICS This section addresses issues concerning wetland and protected species, providing conclusions concerning each species identified for protection. Waters of the US: Jurisdictional Issues No alterations to waters ofthe United States are anticipated. The riparian zone is steeply sloped and no wetland occurs in the study area. The box culvert's footprint will not appreciably reduce aquatic habitat. Anticipated Permit Requirements Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 should be applicable to project B-2649. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or fmanced in whole, or in part, by another federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that the activity is categorically excluded from enviromnental documentation because it will neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant enviromnental effect. A North Carolina Department Division of Enviromnental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Project B-2649 does not involve any wetland beyond the bank to bank impact area. Rare and Protected Species Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 12 1973. In the case of state- funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power, through prov1sions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in decline. Federally Protected Species Two species are listed as endangered in Union County: the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Discussions of these species and conclusions concerning them follow. The Carolina heeIsplitter ~migona decorata) belongs to the family Unionidae, or "freshwater bivalved mollusks, often called naiads" (US Fish and \Vildlife Service 1992). All mussels are ftlter feeders, usually burying anterior ends in the substrate and exposing siphons at the posterior end to ftlter detritus, bacteria, and small planktonic organisms from the surrounding water. Naiads have complex reproductive patterns and assorted methods for distributing glochidia (larval forms), which "may number in the hundreds of thousands" but exist only a few days once ejected from the female if they do not attach to a host. "Most are parasitic on the gills or fms of certain species of fish, but the infections are usually light and little harm." Upon reaching adult morphology through metamorphosis, encysted juveniles rupture their cyst wall and drop to the bottom, where they continue to grow in size and may live for decades. According to the US Fish and \Vildlife Service (1992), "little or no information is available on actual mussel population numbers." Many species occur in a single river system or lake. Some species exists in both lakes and rivers, though many are restricted to one type of habitat. While preferred habitat varies with species, "most stream species do best in gravel-sand substrate in good current. " The Carolina heelsplitter is a lotic (i.e., stream- dwelling) species that can attain large sizes [NC!vfl\.TH has relic specimens> 17.8 centimeters (7 inches) long). Its coloration is distinctive, tending to turquoise or aquamarine on the outside, with a nacrous inteIi.or. Sampling all along the 61 meters (200 feet) impact zone in Beaverdam Creek did not produce any evidence of naiad populations. As noted above, gravel sections of the bottom were scattered among boulders and cobble. All such pockets within the proposed crossing areas and random spots throughout the rest of this stream segment were sampled. Sampling was done with a wire basket sieve. Biological Conclusion: The proposed project will not affect the Carolina Heelsplitter. 13 Schweinitz's sunflower generally occurs in full sun or light shade in low-density stands dominated by oaks, pines, and hickories. Chestnut oak, scarlet oak, black oak, blackjack oak, post oak, shortleaf pine, pignut hickory, sand hickory, and mockernut hickory are typical overstory species, whereas pinelands threeaMl, little bluestem, panic grass, blazing star, goldenrod, aster, bracken fern, and blueberry are common understory species. These stands are typically bi-Iayered, maintained by occasionally surface ftres that limit lower canopy and shrub development. In addition, Schweinitz's sunflower may occur in the Roadside community, where periodic mowing, but not herbiciding, roughly approximates the open conditions of ftre-maintained forests. Possible forest habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs within the project area, although signs of recent tire are not evident. In addition, the Roadside community occurs. During the current fteld reconnaissance, suitable habitat was searched for Schweinitz's sunflower, but it was not obseIVed. Even though the current survey was conducted in early summer, before the flowering season, Schweinitz's sunflower would have been identifiable, owing to its. characteristic opposite, sessile-subsessile, somewhat revolute leaves with strigose-tomentose undersides--a character combination not common among herbaceous plants. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program indicate no knOMl populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the project area. BIological Conclusion: The proposed project will not affect Schweinitz's sunflower. Federal Candidate Species The PeeDee crayfish ostracod, Prairie birdfoot-trefoil, Georgia aster, and Virginia quillwort have been identified as candidates for federal protection, and all of these species have been obseIVed in Union County. Infoanation concerning the PeeDec crayfish ostracod is limited. Ostracoda are defmed as "a subclass of crustacea comprising small active, mostly freshwater foans having the body enclosed in a bivalve shell composed of right and left valves, the body segmentation obscured, the abdomen rudimentary and only seven pairs of appendages" (Webster's Third International Dictionary). Assuming there is some relationship between the Pee Dee crayfish and the ostracod, we might also assume that habitat exists at this site. Given the roiled and silted condition of Beaverdam Creek and the obseIVed presence of crayftsh in it, we might also conclude that the proposed project, using Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters, will not negatively affect the species. Biological Conclusion: Project B-2649 will not affect the Pee Dee crayfish ostracod. 14 Summary of Anticipated Impacts So far as can be determined the proposed actions will have no effect on any protected species. The amount of disturbance anticipated as a result of this project is expected to be insufficient to negatively affect any of the species of concern at this location. 15 . . ~. 2.8 @ 1966 '0- I . , ., .. , . , . I I , I .: I N~I;"th Caroona De[l-lu'(meut Of I I , Transportation , I PIanning & En~i~'Qm:nenmi Bt"3ncb I I ; . ~~ON cotrm:y I REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 9,4 ON SR 1937 O'VER BEl~ \i'ER DA..\f CREEK ! I B-2649: I o . ~ (} kHomeiel'S 1.6 fillome-:!ers 3.2- I Ffgure 1 I P ~ I ,. I mHes I 1 miles 2 I II I, I III I II I I 1 I 60 120 meters meters , . I I I I I i I Figure 2 feetl I feet: 200 400 ,I , -1 ; I '. B~26~,9 Urmfon County BIroclge No. 94 --. .."." . ^ "",, ., II' 'fV es~ l.~ ace m bE'w:gei! I South A!)proach I I I I I I. I, I L 1"<lorth ApproRC~ I I I I I I I FiGtJF~ 4 I . . I, I / ,r--... .----- " '. --.... .-'/ '... h iL===:. N o 2 m () -I) ((- ~\~ / \\ - -4::--. \~ ~ b ~"'=_ \\ --~~ ~~~ .-~~;==-1rr \~\ Ii II II \I II \'-- N " \I 1/ II ,," 1/ 11--0 If II (\\ If II \I 1/ ~.:(r~1 II II ILfi II 1'//0 ~Z - 11 / .--1/ ~jI ~ - 1/....,"" I /0 .....I~ .~ .>"'6J v:1 .:- ~ I -)0 o() 9...;::. )fly '- II II I ~====~ -:::;:.-- I N o 2 m () z. o ~ North Carolina Department or Transportation Planning & Environmencd Branch UNION COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1937 OVER BEAVER DAM CREEK B-2649 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2 I I I Figure J 0 miles 1 miles 2 , / I. "'- ATTACHMENTS James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Belly Ray McCain, Secretary August 5, 1993 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 over Beaverdam Creek, Union County, B-2649, ER 93- 9107 Dear Mr. Graf: On July 29, 1993, 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 and for our use afterwards. 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. There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our concerns. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation I s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. 109 East Jones Street. Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807 I Attachment ~ Nicholas L. Graf August 5, 1993, 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, ';l)~ y<I,", h /1. Dav'td-Brook ~ Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw cc: ~~. Ward B. Church T. Padgett U.S. Deparnnent or ..:l.qriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To tJ6 ca,"ol/~:r~'3 oy ':~~I!r:J1 AgerTC"IJ N~m. ..JI ,;JrOIC'C ~-. d.. \au.. C\ Name at Un<! e...,u.u.on .sY'IlW'fT1 USed ~.E u.... '^: OV\ I I I I PART IV {To 0. c:Jmp/~ by SCSJ Land :',aluation Informano~ ~:I A. Toal Ac.~ Prime And Unicue FannJand I 8. Total Ac.~ Stat~ide And Loci Imcorant Fannland I C. PerC!!naqe Of Farmland In CountY Or Local Govt. Uni'C To ae Cclnve~ I D. ?-rrc1'm:l<;9 01 F."..,t."d In Gove. ~ritCIi~an Wit" Som. Or Highet' Roluiv. Valu.e I PART V (To bll c:Jmp/~c~ by SCSJ l.1nd Enluation Criterion Relativ't Value Of Farmland To BII Converted (Sc1"~ of 0 ro 100 Poinr:;J PART III (To Oe c::Jmplerl!d by Fl!dl!r.l1 AgenC"l) A. Total Ac:es To ae C.:Jnvert~d Direc:Jv 3. Tocal Acres To 3e C.:Jnvert~d InCirec:jv C. Total A= In Site PART VI (To bl1 c::mpll1ced by F~I!r.l1 Agl!nclJ SOe. Au.asm..,t Criteria fTh~ crirw-n'. arr vrolaitfft1 in 7 CFR 6Sa..5rb) T. Area In Nonur.:an Use 2. P~rimet~r In Nonurban Use J. Pe~n'C Of SicB Being Farmed 4. Protedon Provided Bv Stlte And Lool'Govemmef1'C 5. Dir.:ance From Urban auilttJc Area 6. DistanC'3 To Ur.,an Suooort SltfVi~ 7. Size Of Present: Farm Unit C.::moared To AVll~qe 8.. Crution Of Nonhnnaole Farmland 9. Availabilitv Of Farm SuCOOrt SlIrvi= 1 a. On-rarm Invntr:1lt1'lts '1. EHec::s Of Convenion On Farm Suooon: Servicas , 2.. CamoatibilitV With Existino Aorlc.Jltl.Jnl Use TOTAL SITE ASSE~MENT POINTS PART VII (To btl compl"r~ by Frrdllr.ll Aglff1C:yJ Relative Value Of Farmland (From I'~rr V) Tool 5itll ~es.sment (From Parr VI JtJOVfl or ~ loal SIr-. J=fflr} TOTAL POINTS (Toal of .bovtl 2 lines) I I I I I I I ., I I I Sit. 0 S;C. ~ I I I I I ,. I I I I I . I I I I I I I \../ \., M.lximum Paino \S \0 ac :d..O -N/A I ~\)AI \0 I ;::::l-S I ~'; I ",,:;)0 I ClS I \ CJ I 160 I I I I I \5 I \S \<::> I \0 6) I ,;:;; 0 I a I I \0 I \1::) D I 0 ..s I -.5 ~O I ;;1.0 a I C> 0 I 0 \.,~ I 'oci. I -::, C;. '6 I L.\ ~ . \, \.?~ I ~d. \ O\.~ I \ t:>L.\ . \0 100 160 260 $its S.l~: Datil Of Selection I Vh& A Local 54l. AaRam"" Usedl Yes 0 No 0 A--=>n For S"~lan: '. .1 IAttachment 21 - ..-'" . N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D"TE TRANSMITTAL SLIP JD,-4-~ TO: RIF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG. ~rl{ (~111 n r(\ b... ~ I"ROM. RE~. ?oR;oE .LDG. ~l\ W;I\i'QfY\S ACTION 0 NOTE "NO ~ILE 0 "ER OUR CONYER."TION 0 Non "NO RETURN TO ME 0 "ER YOUR "EQUE.T 0 RETURN WITH MORI! DETAIL. 0 ~OR YOUR A....ROYAL 0 NOTE AND ... MI: ABOUT THIS 0 II'OR YOUR INFORMATION 0 ..LI!A.E AN.WER 0 ~OR YOUR COMMENT. 0 "RE"ARE RE"LY ~OR MY .IGN..TURI! 0 .IQNATURE o 'TAKE A....RO..RI..TE ..CTION 0 INV..TIGATIE AND R.flOAT COMMENTS: JAMES H. HUNT. JIt CJ( lVFRNOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATioN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. !lOX 2.')201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 R. SAMUEL HUNT III SECRLlARY October 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: John L. Williams Project Planning Engineer Replacement of Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 Over Beaverdam Creek in Union County (B-2649). State Project 8.2691501 Federal Aid Project BRZ-1937 (1) SUBJECT: A scoping meeting for the subject bridge replacement project was held July 29, 1993 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 470 of the Planning and Environmental Branch. List of those who attended is as follows: Robi n Stancil Danny Rogers Don Sellers Debbie Barbour Eric Galamb Lonnie Brooks Annette Mort i ck Brian Williford Wayne Best John Taylor Nabil Hasan David Foster David Vow Jeff Reck Julie Hunkins John Williams Ga 1 en Cail State Historical Preservation Office Program Development Right of Way Roadway Design Division of Environmental Management Structure Design Hydraulics Hydraulics Roadway Design Location and Surveys Traffic Control DEHNR NCWRC Planning and Environmental Planning and Environmental Planning and Environmental Planning and Environmental Attached is a revised scoping sheet which includes additional information provided at the scoping meeting. * ii~1@ fl m~ ,.~"'.~. "'~ ij ,'" f '.,~ I ' ; I .~~ , '-"-~~~"""It+ .,.", ~ ~...~,., October 4, 1993 Page 2 David Vow commented that if there is an abandoned corridor it should be repaired and replanted if possible. He also indicated that in this situation he preferred a spanning bridge but would have no objection to a culvert so long as adequate animal passageway was provided (ie. some natural floor material available). Eric Galamb pointed out the following: -The project lies within a WSII and HQW zone. -There are wetlands on the west side of project restricted to the channel. -He requests a hazardous spill catch basin. -He indicated the need for strict erosion control measures. -He indicated that vegetation should be replanted along the bank of the stream. David Foster indicated that the Carolina Darter fish is a special concern species for this project. He also reemphasized that the project lies within a WSII zone. The Hydraulics Unit recommends that the existing bridge be replaced with a quadruple 10 foot by 10 foot reinforced concrete box culvert. J. D. Goins, the division engineer recommends relocation of a new structure west of existing structure with traffic being maintained at the existing site until construction is complete. The existing alignment was also noted during the meeting. Currently there is a curve originating immediately at the north end of the bridge with a 15-degree degree of curvature. Neither the lack of tangent nor the degree of curvature meet current design standards and thus makes replacement at the existing location unacceptable. A list of alternatives to be studied, with associated preliminary construction costs, are as follows: Alternate 1 - Replace bridge on a new alignment, 2225 feet long, with a quadruple reinforced concrete box culvert. Estimated cost is $596,000. Alternate 2 - Replace bridge on a new alignment, 1350 feet long, with a quadruple reinforced concrete box culvert. Estimated cost is $571,000. JW/wp ~ N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE TRANSMITTAL SLIP E"r-t c. ~C4,la.~ ~:O';~:~ BLDG. TO: FROM: 6-4.~ ~..'\ ACTION REF. NO. OR ROOM. .LPG. ~~E 0 NOTE AND fl'ILE 0 PER OUR CONVIRSATION 0 NOTE AND RETURN TO ME 0 PER YOUR REQUEST 0 RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS 0 FOR YOUR APPROVAL. 0 NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS 0 FOR YOUR INFORMATION 0 PLEASE ANSWER 0 FOR YOUR COMMENTS 0 PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE 0 SIGNATURE 0 TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION 0 INVESTIGATE AND REPORT COMMENTS: , ljO).Lf{f[ffw..../t;, IUllI JUN 2 8 _ ~. I I WETLANDS GROU ,. .-- WATER QUALITY SECIJ.gN STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -'-..-.. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMIS 1\. IllIN! )R. GOVIRNOR DIVISION or HIGIIWAYS ['.0. I\OX 25201. RAl.ElGII. N.C 27(111.5201 SAM IlliNJ SIUU rMY June 22, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 in Union County over Beaverdam Creek, B-2649 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 July 29, 1993 at 10:30 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date. SUBJECT: 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 Julie Hunkins, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. JH/plr /~e~~ (r- vJ~ ]I \ <, -17 - <to - \ ( - ( OS) Attachment /)J '! {l<9 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET TIP PROJECT B-2649 STATE PROJECT ~ ,Zlo2C) ISOI F . A. PROJECT ,,&~L 14~1 (I) DIVISION 10 COUNTY UNION ROUTE SR 1937 PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1937, BRIDGE #94, UNION COUNTY, REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BEAVERDAM CREEK. 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 X IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($ ) , (%) BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET TRAFFIC: CURRENT TTST 700 ) % VPD; DT DESIGN YEAR r::- 0/ :"} 10 fLOO VPD TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 81 FEET; WIDTH 15.8 FEET PROPOSED STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET OR LEN~TH ID r< J 0 CULVERT - FEET; WIDTH FEET DETOUR STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET OR PIPE - SIZE INCHES CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION)................... $ FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS.................................. $ TOTAL COST... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ TIP CONSTRUCTION COST................................ $ 300,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST................................ $ 21,000 SUB TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 321,000 PRIOR YEARS COST..................................... $ TIP TOTAL COST....................................... . $ 321,000 ~ udJJs dw. t-o'l/Olli ~~ / ~Lcd1) /-0 tk vJU ~~~~/~~ f fltD""f-tJ Ar~ 'f11 deL h~ k 10 ~s 'f ~JS J[ BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: RURAL LOCAL ROUTE PREPARED BY: GALEN CAlL DATE: 6/9/93 "''''''''''''''''''' "'... "'... "'... "'... "'... "'... "'... '... ..., " " " '... " " ..., " " " " ", I S' PI 'J.. I &. .4 ~ T' @I I ____J 197 1.0 ~\ - $ .u.#' NOHTH CAHOLlNA DEPAHTMENT OF THANSPOHTATION DIVISION OF !JH;II\NAYS PLANNING AND ":NVIIWNfllI':NTAL BHANGl UNION COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1937 OVER BEAVER DAM CREEK B - 2649 o mile I FIG