Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19971060 Ver 1_Complete File_19971205 ~ A:\)~ \SS~o 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 December 5, 1997 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office P. O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 .~112;3 ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith, P.W.S Dear Sir: SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33 APPLICATION FOR BRIDGE NO.3 ON SR 1547 OVER GOOSE CREEK, TIP NO B-2649. 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 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction project. The State Project No. is 8.2691501 and the Federal Aid Project No. is BRZ-1937(1). Goose Creek contains populations of the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) which is a federally listed endangered species. A list of the environmental commitments for this project, which include measures to minimize impacts to the heelsplitter, are on page 1 of the project planning report and will be followed during construction of this project. A pre-let survey for the mussel was performed September 15, 1997 and the results are in the attached memo. No wetlands will be impacted by this project, however, 0.03 acre of surface waters will be impacted by construction of the bents. 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. * 2 If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood at (919) 733-7844 extension 306. ~ d1 H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/plr cc: wi attachment Mr. Steve Lund, COE, 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. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Mr. R. L. Hill, P .E., Highway Design Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer Mr. Phil Harris, P .E., Planning & Environmental i STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. DNISION OF HIGHWAYS GARlAND B. GARRElT JR. GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY November 25, 1997 Memorandum To: Michael Wood, Permit Specialist From: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist Environmental Unit Subject: Preconstruction survey for the Carolina heel splitter at the Proposed Bridge Replacement over Goose Creek on SR 1547, Union County; TIP No. B-2647. Reference: 1) June 05, 1996 Meeting minutes Memorandum from Phil Harris 2) August 21, 1995 Concurrence letter from USFWS for B-2647 The subject project involves replacement of the existing bridge over Goose Creek on SR 1547 in Union County. The federally Endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is known to occur in this stretch of Goose Creek. NCDOT committed to the adoption of eight Environmental Commitments listed in Reference 1. With the adherence to these commitments, it was concluded that the construction of this project was "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the Carolina heelsplitter. NCDOT received concurrence from the USFWS with this conclusion (Ref. 2). One of the commitments listed in Ref. 1 was to conduct a pre-construction survey for the Carolina heelsplitter in the project footprint. The project site was visited on September 15, 1997 by Tim Savidge and Mike Wood from NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch, John Alderman and Kate Shalcross from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and John Fridell from the USFWS. Surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter were conducted from at point approximately 200 yards downstream of the bridge to approximately 100 feet upstream. Survey methodology involved wading and visual methods, both with a view bucket and without. The survey group spread out across the width of the stream and worked upstream towards the bridge. A total of 45 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.), 11 eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis)*, 3 Carolina creekshell (V vaughaniana)# and 2 notched rainbow (V constricta)# were found in 1 hour of survey time. The Carolina heelsplitter was not found in the vicinity of the bridge, however one live individual was found a within 150 yards upstream of the bridge, as was one squawfoot mussel (Strophitus undulatus)@. These mussels will not be impacted by the proposed action. The * ~ Biological Conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" concurred with in Reference 2, remains valid. North Carolina Status Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern species have legal protection status in North Carolina under the State Endangered Species Act administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. However the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. # SC (Special Concern): "Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under provisions of this Article" (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987). * SR (Significantly Rare): "Any species which has not been listed by the NCWRC as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the NC Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring. @ T (Threatened): Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987). cc: Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor File: B-2647 File: Aquatic Issues . APPROVED: ?/1.6j95 D TE /C/Z/9S DATE' / Union County SR 1547 Bridge NO.3 Over Goose Creek Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1) State Project No. 8.2692001 T.I.P. No. B-2647 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT JLe.w~ k Nicholas L. Graf, P.E. V Division Administrator, FHWA Union County SR 1547 Bridge No. 3 Over Goose Creek Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1) State Project No. 8.2692001 T.I.P. No. B-2647 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION SEPTEMBER 1995 Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company. Inc. ~~.(V \2, l~~ Pamela R. Williams Project Manager ~~ mes Wang, Ph.D., P.E. Principal :\"".u""" ~",,,, '" CAROL I"", ~.. r-.ft.'\.........../IJ'A ;", ~..:!Io..V " <.cSSJrJA;....,. ~ ~ """".. ~,\.. 'vr~. ~ ! l~ SEAL~' 1 S \ 7521 I 5 ~ e. L" ~.. ~ -:., ...~4'GIN~\:..'. ~ i ".~ ~4? ..........~ ""~ ~.... ~~"" 'ES S. ). "",.... """'""', For North Carolina Department of Transportation ~ . ( ~ l. Ga' rimes~E.. Unij Head Consultant Engineering Unit ~~, ~-:nr Phil Harris, P. E. Project Planning Engineer Union County SR 1547 Bridge No.3 Over Goose Creek Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1) State Project No. 8.2692001 T.I.P. No. B-2647 Bridge No. 3 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1996- 2002 Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial Impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion." I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS 1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Manaaement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable. to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. 2. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project prior to right-of-way acquisition. 3. NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of this project to minimize impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata): a. High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout construction. Disposal of spoil material will be taken offsite. b. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas. c. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow any debris or fluids to enter the stream from construction. d. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments. The piers will be installed using the drilled shaft method. e. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain landward over rock rip-rap. No bridge outlets will be located over the creek channel. The bridge will be on a 0.3 percent slope. f. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Carolina Heelsplitter. g. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission and NCDOT Environmental Branch prior to construction. h. Land disturbing activities should not be in winter. Begin in late April for bridge construction. 4. Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school bus traffic. 1 II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 3 will be replaced adjacent to and south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft) and a length of 48 meters (157 ft). The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at this location. The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft) grassed shoulders for approximately 100 meters (328 ft) west of the bridge and 40 meters (130 ft) east of the bridge. During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site as shown in Figure 1. The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $535,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way and $500,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1996- 2002 Transportation Improvement Program, is $609,000 including $34,000 for right-of-way and $575,000 for construction. III. EXISTING CONDITIONS SR 1547 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. Land use is primarily forest land and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Bridge NO.3 is located approximately 944 meters (3100 ft) from the confluence of Rocky River and Goose Creek. The Carolina heelsplitter, an endangered species, is known to occur in the project area. This is the last stream in North Carolina supporting a viable population. The existing bridge is located at the end of an 80 meter radius (22 degree) curve with a tangent alignment on either end of the curve. The curve has a design speed of less than 50 kmh (30 mph). Chevron signs warning drivers of the curve are posted on the west approach. No signs are posted on the east approach. The existing approach from the west is in a cut section and from the east is in a fill section. The vertical alignment is relatively flat. Near the bridge, SR 1547 has a 6.0 meter (19,7 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders. THe roadway is approximately 5.2 meters (17 ft) above the creek bed. The projected traffic volume is 500 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 9QO vpd for the design year 2017. The volumes include two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and one percent dual-tired vehicles (DT) . The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kmh (55 mph) at the project site. The existing bridge was built in 1962 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber deck on steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps and piles with concrete footings and timber bulkheads. 2 The overall length of the bridge is 36.9 meters (121 ft). The dear roadway width is 7.4 meters (24.4 ft). The posted weight limit is 12,712 kilograms (14 tons) for single vehides and 15,436 kilograms (17 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers. Bridge NO.3 has a sufficiency rating of 36.3, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. Two accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1994. Both accidents were single vehide, traveling at approximately 90 kmh (55 mph). Both accidents involved loss of control of the vehicle Aerial utility lines are located on the south side of SR 1547 in the project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low, Union County School buses cross the bridge four times daily. IV . ALTERNATIVES Both alternatives studied for replacing Bridge NO.3 include a new bridge that will accommodate a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side and an approach roadway consisting of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft) grassed shoulders. The recommended alternate will replace Bridge NO.3 on a 160 meter (11015') curve south of and adjacent to the existing bridge. The design speed will be 65 kmh (40 mph). A design exception will be required and traffic will be maintained by an off site detour. An alternate to replace Bridge NO.3 approximately 15 meters (50 ft) south of its existing location on a 335 radius (5 degree 15') curve with a maximum superelevation of 0.06 was considered. The roadway grade of the new structure would be approximately the same as the existing bridge. A design speed of 90 kilometers per hour (55 mph) would be provided. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The approach work would be approximately 160 meters (525 ft) west and 110 meters (360 ft) east of the proposed bridge. During the Section 7 informal consultation field review on May 16,1995, this alternative was not recommended due to possible impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter. The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1547. Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. 3 V. ESnMATED COST The estimated costs of the alternate studied, based on current prices, are as follow: Structure Removal (existing) Structure (proposed) Roadway Approaches Miscellaneous and Mobilization Engineering and Contingencies ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities TOTAL (Recommended) $ 15,200 243,670 65,530 100,600 75,000 35,000 $ 535,000 VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR An eight month road closure period is anticipated. Traffic would be detoured on SR 1601. NC 218, and US 601, an approximate distance of 7.9 kilometers (4.9 miles). The detour roadway and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period. Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to impacts to the Carolina heelsplitter that would result from clearing the growth over the creek and constructing the detour structure. The clearing and construction limits required for the construction of an on-site detour would have the same impact on the Carolina heelsplitter as flattening the radius of the horizontal curvature to 335 meters ( 5 degree 15' curve). Therefore, provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable. Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school bus traffic. VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 3 will be replaced adjacent to and south of the existing bridge on a curve with a maximum radius of 160 meters (11 degree 45 minute curve) and with a maximum superelevation of 0.06. The design speed will be 65 kmh (40 mph). Advisory posting will be required on both approaches. A design exception will be required. A 8.6 meter (28 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1 meter (3 ft) shoulders across the structure. A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the proposed approaches. The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure be replaced south of and adjacent to the existing bridge. Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is recommended to have a length of approximately 48 meter (157 ft). The elevation of the new 4 structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies. VIII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION A design exception for the design speed will be required due to the proposed horizontal alignment. The recommended alternate provides a design speed of 65 kmh (40 mph) and includes minimum approach work with traffic maintained by an off-site detour. The speed limit is not posted but is assumed to be 90 kmh (55 mph) at the project site. An alternative to improve the design speed to 90 kmh (55 mph) was considered. However, this altemative was not recommended due to the known occurrence of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter at this location. IX. NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed project study area lies in Union County (Figure 1) north of Monroe, North Carolina. The project site lies within the southwest portion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Union County is a primarily agricultural but is rapidly becoming an industrial and urban county with close ties to the Charlotte metropolitan area. MethodoloQV Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Midland); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map (Midland); USFWS list of protected and candidate species; and N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique habitats. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation. A general field survey was conducted within the proposed project limits by Resource Southeast biologists on October 11, 1994. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows). Impact calculations were based on the worse case scenario using the full 24.4 meter (80 feet) wide right-of-way limits and the width the replacement structure, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. TODOaraDhv and Soils The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 137.0 meters (450.0 feet). This portion of Union County contains soils from the Chewacla and Badin-Channery soil complex. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained silt loams on 0 - 2 percent slopes usually found in flood plains. The Badin-Channery complex is a well drained silty clay loam on 8 - 15 5 percent slopes often found on eroding uplands. The project study area can be characterized as 8 gently sloping, mostly wooded area with a fairty significant flood plain west of the bridge. The confluence of Goose Creek and Duck Creek can be found several hundred meters up stream. Blonc RESOURCES Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only. Terrestrial Communities The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated and mixed hardwood forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community description. Man-Dominated Community This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge approaches. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca SP,), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago rugelit) and dandelion (Taraxacum officina/e). Irregularly maintained areas are vegetated by some of the above as well as goldenrod (Solidago sp), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.). The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), several species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are often attracted to these roadside habitats. Mixed Hardwood Community This forested community occurs on the moderate slopes along Goose Creek and the flood plain upstream from the bridge. The dominant canopy trees in this area include river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanlca), American sycamore (Platanus oCcidentslis), box elder (Acer negundo), tulip poplar (Uriodendron tullplfera), sweetgum (Uquidsmbar styracfflua), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and scartet oak (Quercus coccinea). An understory of ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Comus florids), and other saplings could also be found in this community. The herbaceous layer consists mainly of honeysuckle, greenbrier, muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), switch cane (Arundinaria giantea), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Animals previously listed may also 6 be found in this community along with raccoons (Procyon /oto", red-bellied woodpeckers (Centurus caro/inus), and a variety of woodland birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Palustrine Broad-leaved Community Some jurisdictional wetland areas were found within the historic floodplain upstream of Bridge NO.3. The Midland, NC National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies the floodplain area as palustrine broad-leaved deciduous, and seasonally flooded (PF01 C). Vegetation in this area includes American sycamore, tulip poplar, river birch, and ironwood. A Iow, natural levee along portions of Goose Creek separates much of this floodplain from the stream. Soils within this area ranged from dark gray (10YR 4/1) without mottles to dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) with brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) mottles. This levee allows floodwaters to pond in old stream channels. This area exhibited evidence of scouring (coarse sand and cobbles in the old stream channels) and wrack lines. Animals occurring in this floodplain wetland include those species previously listed in the mixed hardwood forest community. Aauatic Communities The aquatic community in the project area exists within Goose Creek and its associated bottomland hardwood forest wetland. Within the project area Goose Creek is approximately 12.0 meters (40.0 feet) wide and 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0-3.0 feet) deep. On the day of investigation the stream was slightly turbid with a moderate flow to the northeast. The stream bottom is rocky with coarse sand deposits. The stream banks are moderately to gently sloped, 1.0 to 3.0 meters (3.0-10.0 feet) high, and vegetated with sycamore, river birch, and box elder. A number of old flood channels were observed in the flood plain upstream from the bridge. Animals such as the belted kingfISher (Megacery/e a/cyon). Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricu/aria) may reside along the waters edge. Fishes such as the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), creek chubs (Nocomis sp.) and darters (Etheostoma sp.) would be expected to be found in Goose Creek. Macrolnvertebrates observed within the stream included dragonfly larvae (Macromia and Gomphus sp.) and freshwater molluscs (Corbicu/a sp. and He/isoma sp.). In addition, mayfly, caddisfly, and dipteran larvae would be expected to occur on and in the substrate. AnticiDated ImDacts to Biotic Communities Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as terresttiallmpacts and aquatic impacts. Temporary impacts to downstream aquatic habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's Best Manaaement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. 7 Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type. Bridge No.3 Replacement 1m acts Roadclosure Palustrine Broad-leaved Communit o Aquatic Community Combine Totals Terrestrial Communities Of the three community types in the project area, the mixed hardwood community will receive the greatest impact from the replacement, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.10 hectare (0.25 acre) to the mixed hardwood communities and 0.10 (0.12) to the man-dominated community. Aquatic Communities The aquatic community in the study area exists within Goose Creek. The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of stream bottom. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters., High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines, the utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program and other commitments as stated in Section I. WATER RESOURCES This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The proposed project lies within the Pee Dee River drainage basin. Water Resource Characteristics Goose Creek originates north of Matthews, NC and is a perennial tributary of the Rocky River which flows into the Pee Dee River just south of Lake Tillery near Cedar Hill, NC. Goose Creek f1ows~st to northeast through the proposed project area with a width at the bridge of 12.0 meters (40.0 feet). The depth of the stream in the project area was 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0- 3.0 feet). The creek substrate is rocky with coarse sand. Goose Creek has a Class Crating from the NC Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality, The Division of Environmental Management, does not maintain a fish or macroinvertebrate monitoring station on Goose Creek. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study 8 area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a result of the project construction. AnticiDated ImDacts to Water Resources Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result from sedimentation and turbidity associated with in-stream support piles for a temporary bridge during project construction. Short-term impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge No. 3 with a bridge instead of a culvert, and minimizing in-stream construction activities. Short term impacts will be minimized by the implementations of NCDOrs Best Manaaement Practices for Protection of Surface Water, as applicable. Long term Impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of the proposed improvements. SPECIAL TOPICS Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation I and evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA 1987). Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 32a.3-arnt ill a~ldallce with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). ImDacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters Non-tidal bottomland hardwood forested wetlands are located on the southeast quadrant of Bridge No.3 and will not be impacted by replacing the existing bridge. These wetlands appear to be associated with the historic floodplain of Goose Creek. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge NO.3. Permits It is anticipated that construction will be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Nationwide Permit No. 23 has been issued by the COE for Categorical Exclusion's due to the expected minimal impacts. Also, Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide Permits 23 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management before certification can be issued. 9 Mitiaation Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, NCOOTs Best Manaaement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented I as applicable. to minimize adverse impacts, A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE. Rare and Protected Species Some populations of plants and animals are in decline either due to natural forces or due to their Inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Union County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following sections. Federallv Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T). Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 2 federally protected species for Union County as of Malcl.26, 1995. These species are Hsted in Table 2. TABLE 2 FEDERALL V.PROTECTED SPECIES FOR UNION COUNTY Scientific Name Common Name Status Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E The Carolina heelsplltter is the southernmost mussel in the genus Lasmigona on the eastern coast. It has a shell that is an ovate trapezoid and can reach a length of 118.0 mm (4.65 inches) with a height of 68.0 mm (2.68 inches) and a width of 39.0 mm (1.54 inches). The dorsal margin is straight and may end with a slight wing. The umbo is flattened. The beaks are depressed and project a little above the hinge line with a double looped sculpture. The unsculptured shell can have a yellowish, greenish or brownish periostracum with greenish or blackish rays. Historically the Carolina heelsplitter was recorded from the Abbeville District in South Carolina, and around Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. Sampling in 1988 (Kefert and Shelley) produced specimens in Waxhaw Creek and Goose Creek in Union County, North Carolina. All specimens were found in shaded areas, either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs along steep banks with a moderate current. All individuals were found in less than 1.0 meter (3.3 feet) of water on substrates of soft mud, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel. 10 The Carolina heel.plltter has been found In the Goo.e Creek I Duck Creek drainage. According to John Aldennan, Non-game Blologl.t with the North Carolina Wildlife R.source. Comml..lon, Bridge No.3 cro.... an area of critical habitat for thl. specie.. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT The North Carolina Department of Transportation conducted an informal Section 7 Consultation May 16, 1995, with USFWS and NCWRC regarding possible impacts to the Carolina heelsplitter. The NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of the subject project per the discussions: a. High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout construction. Disposal of spoil material will be taken offsite. b. Earty reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas. c. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow any debris or fluids to enter the stream from construction. d. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments. The piers will be installed using the drilled shaft method. e. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain landward over rock rip-rap. No bridge outlets will be located over the creek channel. The bridge will be on a 0.3 percent slope. f. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Carolina Heelsplitter. g. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission and NCDOT Environmental Branch prior to construction. h. Land disturbing activities should not be in winter. Begin in late April for bridge construction. Based upon the proposed measures described above, it is concluded that construction of this project is not likely to adversely affect the Carolina heelsplitter. USFWS concurred with this biological conclusion (see reply in Appendix). Schwelnltz's .unflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1-2 meters (3.28-6.56 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem and changing to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough and thick texture. From September until frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small heads of yellow flowers. The nutlets are approximately 3.3-3.5 millimeters (0.13-0.14 inches) long and are glabrous with rounded tips. Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the piedmont of the Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high 11 , , gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures. 1 Habitat exists In the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland fringes were searched for the presence of Schwelnl1z's sunflower by a general fleld survey on October 11,1994. No Individuals of this species were observed In or adjacent to the study area. It can be concluded that the proposed project will not Impact this Endangered species. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT Federal Candidate Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species listed for Union County and their state classifications. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concem (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, TABLE 3 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES UNION COUNTY Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat (Common Name) Status Present Dactyfothere peedeens;s W No (Pee Dee ostracod) Aster georg;anus C Yes (Georgia aster) Lotus pursh;anus var. helleri C No (Heller's trefoil) Isoetes v;rg;n;ca C Yes (Virginia quillwort) notes: W denotes a watch list species that is believed to be rare and of conservation concem, but not warranting active monitoring at this time. . C denotes Candidate species which are considered by the State to be rare and needing population monitoring. 12 - Summary of Anticioated ImDacts Habitat exists in the project area for the federally protected Carolina heelsplitter and Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of Schwelnitz's sunflower were found during a habitat search. The NCWRC has identified the Goose Creek drainage as critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no other records exist for rare species or habitats in the project area. X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project. No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed altematives. No adverse effect on pub1ic facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area. There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. No geodetic survey markers will be impacted. This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment. In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potentiaI' effect. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix. The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, requested 'hat a comprehensive survey be conducted by experienced archaeologist- prior to construction. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the proposed project will be conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition. A report of survey results will be transmitted by the FHWA to the SHPO for review and comment. 13 The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix. According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.31 hectare (0.76 acre) of soils defined as prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 131,203 hectares (324,037 acres) of prime or important soils found in Union County. The impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, indicates that the site's assessment and relative valve score is 80.2 out of a possible 260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered. The project is located in Union County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality will not be significant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required. An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area. Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant. On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal . Categorical Exclusion. due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences. 14 REFERENCES Burt, W.H. and RP. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts. Conant, R, and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern sndCentral North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC. Delorit, RJ. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications, River Falls, Wisconsin. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer Press, New York, New York. Keferl, E.P., RM. Shelley. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and the Carolina Elktoe (Alasmidonta robusta). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. Newcomb, l. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin. Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North Carolina. Weakley, A.S. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York. 15 ~ I I ~ Whll. ~ , STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE ... J --i " ,. .. " .. , ~ NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF ? '\: * ~ TRANSPORTATION \~ DMSION OF HIGHWAYS ~ ~. PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL ..... ...G BRANCH BRIDGE NO.3 UNION COUNTY B-2647 3/95 SCALE = 1 :60 000 FIG. 1 0 (kilometers) 1 I I I UNION COUNTY BRIDGEINO. 3 6-2647 I LOOKING EAST ON SR 1547 LOO~ING JEST ON SR \1547 AT 220 CURVE I I I I I I I I I I \ I I II I I \ I I! I UP~1~EAM SIDE qF BRIDGE # 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 3 1\ II I~W~~.M~~.rH~~~ ~M~~ I~L.';:;/J.;:;/-..J"Q ",,,,"'oJ 6t!ww -- -. Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994 intolerant aquatic species and is listed as DPMTW at this site. We also stock this section of the river yearly with catchable-sized trout. Downstream we have found the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), federally listed endangered (E) and the blotchside logperch (Psrcina bureoni), state listed endangered, We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the listed species downstream. We also recommend close coordination with our District 6 Fisheries Biologist, Chris Goudreau, (704) 652-4360, on this project. 3. B-2608, Cabarrus County, on SR 1132 over Rocky River, At this site, Rocky River has a wide forested floodplain some of which may be wetlands, This section of Rocky River has excellent in-stream cover with a rocky substrate, deep pools and nice riffles providing excellent fish habitat. There are no known threatened or endangered fauna at this site. We recommend that the bridge be replaced on-site with road closure. No in-water work should be performed in April or May. Also, no in-stream cover should be removed including the old gr~nite bridge abutment located upstream from the bridge. We also recommend that NCDOT survey for wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation and erosion controls throughout the project. If possible, we ask that NCDOT provide a safe parking area for fishermen as this area is currently heavily used for bank fishing. 4. B-2817, Cleveland County, on SR 2245 over Kings Creek, We have no recent fishe~y data at this site and no threaten~d or endangered fauna is expected to occur in this vicinity. We recommend close coordination with our Distr~ct 8 Fisheries Biologist I Chris Goudreau, (704) 652-4360, on this project. 5. B-2821, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Fryes Creek. Fryes Creek is a small stream with a sandy substrate and has poor fishery habitat. We do noe oppose a culvert at this location. However, the culvert should be placed one foot below the natural stream bed and have a "dry" box to allow wildlife passage. 6. B-2822, Davidson County, on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek. Abbotts Creek is a small stream with a fair fishery. There are no known threatened or endangered fauna at this site, We have no specific recommendations at this time. ~C~~C,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:919-528-9839 Dee Ob'~4 l~:~V NO.UUe P.08 Memo Page 3 December 6, 1994 7. B.2647, union County, on SR 1547 over Duck Creek. This may actually be on Goose Creek. Goose Creek is a small stream with good pools and riffles I rocky substrate and excellent in-stream cover. There appears to be quality bottomland hardwood wetlands on both sides of the stream. Goose Creek is excellent fish and wildlife habitat and serves as habitat for the Carolin~ heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) which is federally listed endangered (E). We recommend that NCDOT hold an on-sit~ visit with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NCWRC personnel to discuss this project. 8. B-2833, Guilford County, on SR 1556 over East Prong Deep River. The scream at this location is too small to be of fishing significance; however, it is a tributary to the water supply for High Point. We recommend that NCDOT survey for wetlands at this location. This stream likely serves as an important wildlife corridor, therefore, we prefer that this bridge be replaced with a spanni~g structure. 9. 8-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek. This stream provides a fair fishery for sunfish and c~tfish. We prefer that the bridge be replaced with a spanning structure. 10. B-2858, Randolph County, on SR 2830 over Rlc!lland Creek. This stream is too small at this location to be of fishing significance. 11. B-2865, Rowan County, on SR 1526 over Grants Creek. Grants Creek is medium sized stream with long pools. The stream is surrounded by wooded lowlands I possibly wetlands. We request that NCDOT survey fer wetlands. We recommend that the bridge be replaced on-site with road closure. We also request that there be no in- water work in April or May. 12. B-2867, Stanley County, on SR 1917 over Norfolk/Southern Railroad. No comment. 13. B-2874, Wilkes County, on SR 1122 over Warrior Creek. Big Warrior Creek is a warmwater stream approximately 25 feet wide and has a substrate of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulders and bedrock. We recommend standard soil and erosion control measures be used at this site. 14. B-3089, Yancey County, on Ne 80 over North Toe River and Seaboard Railroad. This section of the North Toe River contains many pollution intolerant species. Downstream in the Toe River the Appalachian elk~oe ~LW~L,HL~,~HLL~ LHK~ 1~L.;'::l.l.'::l-~~l:l-~O.J:' LIe\" vv ;;>"'t J. _' . ..,'v I'U. vvv r. U~ Memo Page 4 December 6, 1994 (Alasrnidonta raveneliana) I federally listed endangered (E) effective 12/23/94, has been found. Approximately 2 miles downstream of the project the blotchside logperch (Percina burtoni)I state listed endangered, has been found near the mouth of the South Toe River. We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the listed species downstream. We also recommend close coordination with our District 8 Pisheries Biologist, Chris Goudreau, (704) 652-4360, on this project. 15. B-3175, Guilford County, on SR 1695 over US 421 and Southern Railroad. No comment. In addition to any specific comments above I the NCWRC expects the NCDOT to routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements, The NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout. the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type I as opposed to pipe or bex culvert8, is recommended in all cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings. If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at (919) 528-9886, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these projects . cc: Shari Bryant I District 5 Fisheries Biologist Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist Chris Goudreau, District e Fisheries Biologist Joe Mickey, District i Fisheries Biologist Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management James B, Hunt. Jr.. Governor Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary A. Preston Howard. Jr.. P.E.. Director November 30, 1994 ir~.~ - - - - -- DEHNR MEMORANDUM FROM: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs Monica swihar~Water Quality Planning Project Review 195-0298; Scoping Comments - NC DOT Group VII Bridge Replacement Proje~ts The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that the following topics be considered in the Planning and Environmental Studies (Categorical Exclusions) prepared on the subject project: SUBJECT: TO: A. Identify the stream classifications of the streams potentially impacted by the bridge replacements. The stream classifications should be current. B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/ relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be revegetated. C. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? OEM requests that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream cr9ssin9s. Identify the responsible party for maintenance. D. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed. E. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures are not placed in wetlands. F. Wetland Impacts 1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. 2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible? 3) Have wetland impacts been minimized? 4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected. 5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted. 6) Summarize the total wetland impacts. 7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from OEM. P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh. North CaoUna 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 FAX 919-733-2496 An EQual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5O't recycled/ 10% posf-consumer paper Melba McGee November 30, 1994 Page 2 G. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from OEM. H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing bridge alignments as much as possible? Why not (if applicable)?