Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19950973 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911 n? RE?E?VED Sep 1 1995 '? ? RGNMFNr?1C , STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )AMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 September 13, 1959 Regulatory Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office Post Office Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 Dear Sir: R. SAMUEL HUNT II I SECRETARY SUBJECT: Alamance County, Replacement of Bridge No. 13 over Haw River on SR-1530, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1530(1), State Project 8.2471801, T.I.P. No. B-2802. Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project. Bridge No. 13 will be replaced in its existing location with a new new bridge approximately 101 meters (331 feet) long and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. During construction, traffic will be detoured onto a temporary on-site structure. Construction of the proposed project will result in approximately 0.03 hectares (0.08 acres of permanent wetland impacts). The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project. We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review. 0 September 13, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314. Sincere y, H. Fr nklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/rfm cc: W/attachment Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit Mr. J. W. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer Alamance County SR 1530 Bridge No. 13 Over Haw River Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1530(1) State Project 8.2471801 T.I.P. No. B-2802 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: DATE H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT 7 5 , ° - i D'?L DATE icholas L. Graf, PE Division Administrator, FHWA Alamance County SR 1530 Bridge No. 13 Over Haw River Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1530(1) State Project 8.2471801 T.I.P. No. B-2802 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION July 1995 ,,VIII/II Itf/1/",, ?ZN AR 01 Documentation Prepared By: •••"••• ?y ?EESS/0--% MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. • SEA • L 19732 7-// - 96 cP Gl EEC f Izzi Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE ,CH1EN/I Project Manager for North Carolina Department of Transportation .A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit Head Consultant Engineering Unit 43&&? /'/ a'U'UIZ?4'f, Stacy Y. B 'n Project Manager Consultant Engineering Unit Alamance County SR 1530 Bridge No. 13 Over Haw River Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1530(1) State Project 8.2471801 T.I.P. No. B-2802 1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS Sediment curtains and coffer dams will be used to minimize sedimentation into the river if bridge piers are removed during construction activities. All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Design plans will be forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for continued review of potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the proposed project's area of potential effect. Mamance County SR 1530 Bridge No. 13 Over Haw River Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1530(1) State Project 8.2471801 T.I.P. No. B-2802 Bridge No. 13 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion". 1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i. II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 13 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 101 meters (331 feet) long and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.2-meter (4- foot) shoulders on each side. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this location. The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6- meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be paved on each side throughout the project limits. A temporary on-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period. Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,698,850. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $855,000 ($800,000-construction; $55,000-right-of-way). III. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project is located in the western portion of Alamance County, approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) southeast of Ossipee, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is mixed rural residential and commercial in nature. SR 1530 is classified as an urban collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route. In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1530 has a 6.1-meter (20-foot) pavement width with 1.2 -meter (4- foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area. The existing bridge is located on a tangent which extends approximately 305 meters (1000 feet) north and 30 meters (100 feet) south from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 9.4 meters (31 feet) above the river bed. The current traffic volume of 5600 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 10900 VPD by the year 2018. The projected volume includes approximately 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) in the project area. Bridge No. 13 is a nine-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1952. The overall length of the structure is 101 meters (331 feet). The clear roadway width is 6.7 meters (22.0 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 23 metric tons (25 tons) for single vehicles and 25 metric tons (28 tons) for TTST's. Bridge No. 13 has a sufficiency rating of 14.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient. There is an abandoned private community pool in the vicinity of the bridge. Since the property is not publicly owned, it does not qualify for 4(f). There are no utilities attached to the existing structure nor are there any utilities in the vicinity of the bridge. Two accidents, resulting in no fatalities and one injury, have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 13 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. Both single vehicular accidents are attributed to icy conditions which the driver lost control and left the highway. Six school buses cross the bridge daily. 2 IV. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 13 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 101 meters (331 feet) long and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows: Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction period east (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 53 meters (174 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet) east of the existing structure. The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it maintains the existing horizontal alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 1 has less impact on the environment than Alternative 2 because of the additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2. Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location immediately east of the existing structure. Modifications to the alignment on the bridge approaches include approximately 135 meters (450 feet) to the north and 135 meters (450 feet) to the south. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers (60 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on-site detour during the construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the reverse horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at each end of the project. The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1530. The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 7 concurs that traffic be maintained on- site instead of closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes using SR 1530 and the excessive length of additional travel that will be required with an ofd site detour. The Alamance County Manager indicates that maintenance of traffic on-site during the construction period is preferable . The Alamance County School Superintendent indicates that maintenance of traffic on-site during the construction period is preferable. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. V. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows: (Recommended) Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Structure $ 774,540 $ 774,540 Roadway Approaches 61,594 259,660 Detour Structure and Approaches 453,066 0 Structural Removal 56,800 56,800 Engineering and Contingencies 204,000 159,000 Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 148,850 163,050 Total $ 1,698,850 $ 1,413,050 VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 13 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a new structure having a length of approximately 101 meters (331 feet). Improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative. A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be paved on each side, will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.6-meter (32-foot) clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1530 is classified as a urban collector; therefore, criteria for a urban collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is necessary. Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is considered unacceptable due to traffic volumes using SR 1530. Additionally, the closing of SR 1530 at the bridge could significantly lengthen the response time of Alamance County Emergency Medical Services to emergency calls to residents of the area. Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of approximately 101 meters (331 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies. 4 VII. NATURAL RESOURCES A biologist visited the project site on October 19, 1994 to verify documented information and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge replacement project. The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement. Biotic Communities Plant Communities Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below. Mixed Upland Forest: Mixed Upland Forest (Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Piedmont Subtype) are on upland areas adjacent to the existing roadway and bridge. The canopy is composed of red maple (Ater rubruni), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), riverbirch (Betula nigra), black walnut (Juglans nigra), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and Blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica). Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), American elm (Ulmus anrericana), and American hop-hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of hickory (Carya spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), yellow-poplar (Liriodendrop tulipifera), and downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianian). The herb/vine/grass layer is composed of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), grape (Viti spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), cane (Anindinaria gigaptea), and grasses (Poaceae). Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest: This community (Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest) is found along the banks of the Haw River. The canopy is composed of boxelder (Ater negundo), riverbirch, sycamore, and red maple. The sub-canopy is composed of red maple. The shrub/sapling layer is composed of sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua) and raspberry (Rebus spp.). 5 Urban/Disturbed: This community classification includes disturbed roadside and bridge margins, residential land, and commercial property lands within the proposed project alignment. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses, vines, and herbs including: Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper, Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and grasses. Wildlife (General) Terrestrial: The project area consists of a combination of forested areas, rural countryside, commercial, and residential development. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for commercial and residential uses has eliminated much cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. Even so, remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forested area and adjacent to the Haw River and associated ecotomes, do serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering the Haw River has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include raccoon (Procyon lotor) and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). The observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available. Species encountered in the forest edge and disturbed areas and nearby the Haw River included the American robin (Turdus mig atorius), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thaninophis sirtalis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and Fowler's Toad (Bt fo ivoodhousei). Aquatic: The Haw River supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Game fish species present are redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), catfish (Ictalurus spp.), and large mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The Haw River and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), frogs (Rana spp.), green frog (Rana clamitans), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and several snake species. 6 Physical Resources Soil Alamance County is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Topography is characterized by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 171 meters (560 feet) along the river bottom to 177 meters (580 feet) along the roadway upland areas. Northern Alamance County is underlain by the mixed Felsic and Mafic system. The mixed Felsic intrusive rocks include granite gneiss and mica schist and Mafic intrusive rocks include gabbro and diorite. Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare. Soils in the project vicinity include Wilkes soils, Wilkes stony soils, and Worshaw sandy loam. Wilkes soils occur on eroded, sloping areas. Wilkes stony soils occur on steep stream banks and consists of outcrops of rocks or stones at the surface. Worshaw sandy loam soils are found in low- lying areas adjacent to streams. Worshaw sandy loam soils are poorly drained and frequently flooded. Worshaw sandy loam soils are hydric or have hydric soils as a major component. Water Bridge No. 13 crosses the Haw River approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) downstream of its origin near Reidsville, North Carolina. The Haw River flows southeast into the B. Everette Jordan Reservoir which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993). The Haw River is Class C NSW stream, indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture, and a supplemental classification for nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report lists five sources (Shields Mobile Home Park, Monarch Hosiery Mills, Horner Investment Group, Western Alamance High School, and Western Middle School) within four miles upstream of the proposed crossing. No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa 7 richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. The Haw River was sampled (May 1985; July 1987; July 1990) by BMAN approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) upstream of the project crossing and given bio classification ratings of Good-Fair, Fair, and Fair, respectively. Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of the Haw River observed in the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement project. TABLE 1 Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications Characteristic Description Substrate Boulders, sand, silt Current Flow Moderate Channel Width 36.6 meters (120 feet) Water Depth 61 centimeters (2 feet) to 122 centimeters (4 feet) Water Color Clear Water Odor None Aquatic Vegetation None Adjacent Vegetation Boxelder, river birch, sycamore, red maple Wetlands Palustrine Forested Jurisdictional Topics Wetlands Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project construction. Approximately 0.03 hectares (0.08 acres) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the recommended alternative. Wetlands were associated with the river bank area on both sides of the bridge crossing. Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season. Protected Species Federally Protected Species: Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential vulnerability. As of March 25, 1995, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists no federally protected species for Alamance County. Biological Conclusion: Construction of this project will not adversely impact any federally protected plant or animal species. Federal Candidate Species: There is one C2 federal candidate species listed for Alamance County. The sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorala) has a state status of candidate and suitable habitat is found within the study area. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. This species is mentioned here for information purposes, should it become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for this species was not conducted, nor was this species observed during the site visit. State Listed Species: Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. Impacts Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of- way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts may be less. Table 2 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacement. 9 TABLE 2 Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres Plant Communities Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.03 (0.08) 0.06 (0.14) Mixed Upland Forest 0.13 (0.33) 0.24 (0.60) Urban/Disturbed 0.06 0.15 0.32 (0.78) TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.62 (1.52) Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment. Temporary Impacts are based on an 18-meter (60-foot) corridor of the alignment. Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Alternative I is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits, commercial and residential areas, and mixed forest edges which currently do not support substantial communities. The proposed action will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as Japanese honeysuckle and kudzu and mobile species such as'rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering the Haw River will receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area. The Haw River should continue to provide adequate habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the river bed and sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches. Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. If bridge piers are removed during construction activities then sediment curtains and coffer dams will be used to minimize sedimentation into the river. Additionally, impacts will be minimized by the use of best management practices. Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of ditching where ever possible. 10 Permit Coordination In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States". Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project will be subject to the nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required. Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented. Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial environmental consequences. The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 the construction of the project. No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative. 11 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. The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected under Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended. To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect. Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is required. David Brook, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer in response to a scoping letter about Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen bridges), (CH 95-E-4220-0305), responded in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994, that: There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity. However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet recorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review. When available, design plans will be forwarded to the NCSHPO for continued review of potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the proposed project's area of potential effect. This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. With the exception of the construction of a temporary detour, all work will be done within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of prime, unique, or important farmland acreage. 12 The project is located in Alamance County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticpated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during constriction 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 State Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772 and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. 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. Alamance County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not substantial. There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible harm. The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain. In the vicinity of the project, there is a sewer pump station located within the limits of the 100-year floodplain. On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. 13 iY 1 0 04 00 0 0 v 0 ,x v 0 0= C2 a v v v 0 v NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH N T`t Alamance County SR-1530 over Haw River Bridge #13 B-2802 FIGURE 1 SIDE VIEW NORTH APPROACH LOOKING SOUTH SOUTH APPROACH LOOKING NORTH FIGURE 3 L• O I- Z [tJ LL) F- ? Z G N }° cn cn > t- <Z=Z Z 0 uj Zip Q > z O< p c O q ?? cV U <n U) oozzr o i W, CL CL (L V) 0 > 0-0 z ?o co ZF-Oa a^ J Z z O O F' H U U W cn W to = - = O ? U r U W a? . C,4 c- C O N C? O O o v v ` ax ao o ? E cu Q W CL cr- d N > > < Q ? M J Q J Q U c9 CL n. ~ ~ D a> J J ^ L K G G in W O O N O Q CL D- d L 7 •D O j 'O L O U t J N J CL H II p II U) Y J CL I w LL. O F- d Z F- w Z H w a ? d Z . a ? O w Q a A Q Z ? Z Odw emu; Sao ?,?, x ??to UOZo Tax v? O U Z U (L) o00 ? ?> N ? ? ° cap co': N Z F- O a. ca M e Q vn C2' ? U M N C4 H V) 7- 0 z O U a: w O C,4 = U w -- s ••r O .. a U M z -o v -v >> ° ° Co oo o o Q E- ?O M rn ° U ?n ?0 0 E? w V) U 1 > v G0 - 00 rn ON O z -- N 0 H U W W ?i Alamance County SR-1530 over Haw River Bridge # 13 B-2802 ZONE C ,. O? State .? - -- ,\, al ,? ZONE B ZO v ?? ?; ? • k • BRIDGE NO. 13 ZONE B??+. P, ZONE B ' ZONE 6 9 P 100 YE AR FLOOD LIMIT ZONE B $ 11 ` >:y gr r , t4 ;cr yr,a , 580?i? NE B - -- ?' ? S t e _ Hwy. 1546 578' ZONE B ZONE B o RM20 w it A*l - ss to OFF ?? s?Q •.• 900 `' \521 i-1 ZONE C '. SCALE: V= 1000' T7MrT TR F. 6 APPENDIX ,?k1 txta Gaunba OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER 124 WEST ELM STREET GRAHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27253 ROBERT C. SMfTH COUNTY MANAGER November 14, 1994 Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 Dear Mr. Vick: E' ?F NOV 2 1 1994 ?G Ql+.?1S!C N OF I am writing in response to your request for comments on TIP Projects B-2801 and B-2802. In regard to Project B-2801, I am unaware of any undue hardship that the closing of SR 1529 (Durham Street Ext.) at the bridge will cause for either Alamance County Emergency Medical Services or the fire departments that serve the area. In regard to Project B-2802, Alamance County Emergency Medical Services has expressed concern that the closing of SR 1530 (Burch Bridge Road) at the bridge could significantly lengthen their response time to emergency calls to residents of the area. The closing of SR 1530 (Burch Bridge Road) will cause a major inconvenience to the residents north of this bridge replacement. Residents in the following subdivisions will be affected: Indian Valley Country Club, British Acres, Birchwood, Kernodle Acres and Green Acres. The fire departments responsible for serving the area in relation to Project B- 2802 did not express concern about a significant lengthening of response time if this route is closed while the bridge is being replaced. I would request that you examine the possibility of keeping this route open during the replacement of this bridge. I am also requesting that Alamance County be notified of the closing of these facilities prior to any construction so that appropriate steps may be taken to route emergency vehicles during the bridge replacement projects. If you have any questions concerning my comments regarding Alamance County Emergency Medical Services and Project B-2802, please contact Mr. John Breitmeier at (910) 570- 6795. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these projects. Sincerely, 44-t;2? Robert C. Smith Alamance County Manager RCS:trp cc: John Breitmeier 910 %J Recycled Papa s 1T " ? / Yr qi v\ 0 1994 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary December 19, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation FROM: David Brook Deputy State Histo`6c-Preservation Officer ?Gt1 e? 020 DEC 2 2 G.AWA,. Division of Arc/ Histo • Pv William S. Price, SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305 We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse. We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having seen these proposed projects. Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants, NIA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas. Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows: Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94- 8699 There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity, although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are available. 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??? H. F. Vick December 19, 1994, Page 2 Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County Archaeological site 31 OR438 * * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is to be affected by the project. Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity. However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review. Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County Bridge 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and Scotland Counties 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. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. DB:slw cc: State Clearinghouse B. Church T. Padgett North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director February 21, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Church Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation ' ?? FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley P,- Environmental Revie oordinator Historic Preservation Office SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects: Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2 on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No. 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No. 27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No. 37 on US 13 over South River Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-1100(5Replace Bridge No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek GCS 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507-v ? A `b Barbara Church February 21, 1995, Page 2 Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No. 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No. 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No. 32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289 on SR 1 152 over Swift Creek ' Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway Administration. We have kept copies for our files. RGE:slw Attachments TI10 n ?, • 1502 Federal Aid r 1 ?hfP - 11;?,0(1 County At..QayIArJGE, CONCURRENCE FORIM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Brief Project Description P-EF AGE EIWDGE 00. 13 oN SR 15$0 OVA NAYJ Q.1VEi?- 0n J"UA?Y 261 'M9c5 , representatives of the ? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) ?- North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Other reviewed the subject project at A scoping meeting Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation Other All parties present agreed ,/ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect. ? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect. there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect, but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties identified as . are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therms necessary. there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect. Signed: uL 2-1Z 1 S S- Representative, NCDOT Date FHwA, f the Di ision Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date Representative, SHPO Date C)alt?'p z 6 S State 11istoric Preservation Officer ( D die If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be inciuded.