The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19950830 Ver 1_Complete File_19950808 95 830 rn AUG 8... STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA L -` DEPARTMENT OF TEZANSPORTAnON - - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 JAMES B. HUNT JR. GOVERNOR Sr0 7 August 3, 1995 District Engineer Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch P- SAMUEL HUNT III SECRETARY Dear Sir: Subject: Henderson County - Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek; T.I.P. No. B-2837; State Project No. 8.2951101 The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the referenced structure on new location. This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). We expect to proceed with this project under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of this project. No'jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the proposed work. In accordance with current procedures for projects located in the designated trout counties, the concurrence of WRC must be obtained prior to construction. By copy of this letter, we hereby request that WRC review the proposed project and provide any comments they find necessary. A copy of the CE document is included for the WRC review. August 3, 1995 i Page 2 Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at (919) 733-3141, Extension 306. Sincer 1 , H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/tp Attachment cc: Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville Field Office David Yow, WRC, Asheville John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM - John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design F. D. Martin, P. E., Division 14 Engineer Michele James, P. E., Planning & Environmental Branch I - "-- a Henderson County Bridge No. 23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1006(8) State Project 8.2951101 T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2837 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager. Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT 06- r Date Fo G Nicholas Graf, P. E. Division Administrator, FHWA Henderson County Bridge No. 23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1006(8) State'Project 8.2951101 T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2837 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION May, 1995 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: x2l is le L. James Project Planning fngineer /v4 ,,e- 671;,D !/ Wayne lliott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head ? v Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager Planning & Environmental Branch Henderson County Bridge No. 23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1006(8) State Project 8.2951101 T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2837 Bridge No. 23 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as a "categorical exclusion I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 23 should be replaced on new location as shown by Recommended Alternate 2 in Figure 2. The recommended structure is a bridge 37 meters (120 feet) in length and a minimum of 9.2 meters (30 feet) in width. The new structure will be located approximately 17 meters (55 feet) west (downstream) of the existing bridge. The roadway grade at this crossing should be raised a maximum of approximately 0.6 meters (2 feet). The horizontal alignment will be improved along both approaches as shown on Figure 2. Traffic will *be maintained on the existing structure during the estimated 9-month construction period. Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 575,000. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $ 315,000. II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. Best Management Practices will be carried out during construction. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted as a result of project construction. A Section 404 permit and Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required prior to project construction. Because the project area is located in a trout county, discretionary authority by the Corps of Engineers (COE) requires that the NCDOT must seek concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to the COE authorizing the project under one or more nationwide permits. Nationwide permit 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23)] will authorize the project following review and concurrence by the NCWRC. 3 Alternate 1 - would replace the bridge at its present location with a bridge 32 meters (105 feet) in length. This alignment would retain the existing 45 mph posted speed and the existing horizontal curve at the south approach which has an existing design speed of 50 km/h (30 mph). Traffic would be detoured along existing roads during construction, as shown in Figure 1. Alternate lA - is identical to Alternate 1 except that during construction, traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary detour on the west side of the existing structure. Alternate 2 (Recommended) - will replace Bridge No. 23 approximately 17 meters (55 feet) west of the existing roadway. This alternate will consist of a bridge 37 meters (120 feet) in length and a minimum width of 9.2 meters (30 feet). Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during the construction period, thus alleviating the need for an on-site detour; however, it will require that the existing culvert on the south approach be extended approximately 10 meters (30 feet) on the west side and will require relocation of the power line on the west side of the existing bridge. The design speed will be approximately 100 km/h (60 MPH). The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. - This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by SR 1006. Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. V. ESTIMATED COST Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows: Alternate 1 Structure $ 228,000 Roadway Approaches 49,000 Detour Structure & -- Approaches Structure Removal 7,000 Engineering & 41,000 Contingencies Right-of-Way, 27,000 Utilities Total $ 352,000 Recommended Alternate lA Alternate 2 $ 228,000 $ 282,500 54,000 166,500 174,000 -- 7,000 7,000 87,000 69,000 34,000 50,000 $ 584,000 $ 575,000 5 t 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. There are no publicly owned parks, 're creational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. The 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 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 inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment. Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect were provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). There are no historic structures within the area of potential effect, and the SHPO recommended that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project. An April 20, 1994 letter from the SHPO is included in the Appendix (A-1). Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the. National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required. An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement project to locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or destroyed. The results of the archaeological study indicate no evidence of archaeological sites. Therefore, no further work is recommended. Correspondence from the SHPO regarding the archaeological aspects of the project is included in the Appendix (A-2). The structure is to be replaced west of its existing location. Therefore, the project is not exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The relative value of the farmland impacted by all three alternates is 88 on a scale of 0 to 100 points. Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006) produced a total point score of 156 for each of the three alternatives. Consideration of other alternates is required for proposals which score over 160 points. See form in the Appendix (A-3). The project region is located in the Blue Ridge Ecoregion in rural Henderson County, North Carolina. It is specifically located at the north-central edge of Henderson County, southeast of the town of Fletcher. A recreational area devoted to small remote-controlled planes (Fletcher R/C Park) lies approximately 538 meters (1760 feet) east of the bridge on the north side of Cane Creek. A wastewater treatment facility lies approximately 375 meters (1230 feet) south of the bridge. A small landfilled area is associated with this facility near Cane Creek. 7 rubble or gravel. They are of moderate size, over 3 meters (10 feet) in width. Minimum flows are over 1.5 cros (5 cfs), and waters are cool and normally clear. At the site of the bridge, the channel is about 12 meters (40 feet) in width. The average depth was probably less than 30 centimeters (12 inches), but there were some deeper parts about 0.6 meters (2 feet) in depth. No sand bars were evident. There-has been some dredging at the bridge in the distant past. The banks were 1.8 - 3.0 meters (6 -10 feet) in height and the sides were nearly vertical. The dug ditch that crosses the project area is about 1.5 meters (5 feet) in width and 1.8 meters (6 feet) deep. The banks are nearly vertical. On the day of the site visit, the water was clear and flow was strong. The substrate is sandy. Four other small ditches intersect this large ditch at the box culvert under SR 1006, three on the east side and one on the west side. Two of these small ditches run parallel to the road, one on each side. Cane Creek, from Ashworth Creek near the headwaters to the French Broad River is classified as a Class "WS-IV" stream (NCDEHNR 1993). All of the tributaries are also WS-IV, and most of the higher tributaries are supplementally classified as trout waters. WS-IV waters are defined as follows: "waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules ... of Subchapter.2B of the Administrative 'Code; local programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses (NCDEHNR 1994). Trout waters are freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout, but, as noted, this classification does not pertain to the main stem of Cane Creek. There are no chemical or biological classifications [from stations for chemical or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] available for Cane Creek or any of the tributaries in its watershed•(NCDEHNR 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992). There are no dischargers near or upstream of the project area with permitted flows greater than 0.5 MGD. The nearest monitoring stations are on the French Broad river. The French Broad river is classified as Fair quality in this sub-basin. The river receives tributary flow from several streams classified as Fair and Poor. The low classifications result largely from urban runoff in the Asheville metropolitan area. Over the entire basin, 65% of the streams support their designated uses, and the major sources of stream use impacts for partially and non-supporting streams are agricultural runoff (63%), urban runoff (5%), and unidentified non-point sources (20%). Construction impacts can degrade waters, with pollutants and sediment loads affecting water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs deriving from construction, appropriate measures will be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. These measures will include an erosion and sediment control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices will be employed consistently. 9 past dredging were covered with small trees only 15 - 20 centimeters (6-8 inches) dbh. The dominant canopy trees were river birch {largest dbh about 25 centimeters (10 inches) and sycamore {a few about 46 centimeters (18 inches) dbh. Boxelder {a few up to 46 centimeters (18 inches) dbh, black cherry {only a few trees about 30 centimeters (12 inches) dbh, and green ash (one tree 51 centimeters (20 inches) dbh were common. Other uncommon or rare trees were black willow, black locust, black walnut {71 centimeters (28 inches) dbh, and butternut {30 - 46 centimeters (12 - 18 inches) dbh. Ironwood was an uncommon subcanopy tree. One 20 centimeter (8 inch) dbh shingle oak was noted. A very small apparently slightly higher and better drained area on the northeast side of the bridge should be considered as an inclusion in the predominant alluvial forest. There was one large greater than 91 centimeters (36 inches) dbh white oak present. The shrub and vine strata usually were not dense and included swamp dogwood, gray willow, silky willow, multiflora rose, Chinese privet, elderberry, climbing bittersweet, poison ivy, and grape. There were some small thicket areas present under the alluvial forest. In some places, privet and Japanese honeysuckle were abundant. Common herbs were asters, climbing false-buckwheat, smartweeds, jewelweed, Indian strawberry, common blue violet, wingstem, sunflower,*and jumpseed. Other herbs present included pokeweed, avens, false nettle, black-eyed Susan, virgin's bower, woodsorrel, giant ragweed, Joe-pye weed, panic grass, and bottlebrush grass. These communities occupied the edges of fields and on roadsides under isolated trees adjacent to the regularly maintained shoulders. Grasses were the dominant species, the most abundant being Japanese grass. Other common grasses included fescue, crabgrass, witchgrass, bluegrass, sp.), and barnyard grass. Common forbs were smartweed, asters, goldenrods, and common blue violet. Japanese honeysuckle was common and blackberry was present. Other taxa present included curly dock, black-eyed Susan, common plantain, Jimson weed, buttercup, horseweed, Asiatic dayflower, dandelion, red clover, ragweeds, cocklebur, ironweed, Peruvian daisy, chicory, wild rye, and some other grasses. In one section where there was a sparse line of isolated trees adjacent to fields, a weedy community consisting of many of the above species developed. In decreasing order of importance, the trees present were boxelder, black cherry, and green ash, averaging about 30 centimeters (12 inches) dbh. This shrub thicket community is developed along the roadside southeast of the bridge, generally associated with one of the ditches that runs parallel to the road. The dominant species are tag alder and gray willow some 6 meters (20 feet) tall. Some blackberry, small boxelders, and a few herbaceous species are included. The herb thicket community is developed on the south side of Cane Creek on the west side of the road. The dominant species are giant ragweed and wingstem, but some raspberry and gray willow are mixed in. 11 nature of the natural plant communities, ecotonal edges are abundant. A large diversity of species is not expected. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be generally good for birds of open areas, however, avian fauna were not found to be notably abundant. This could be due to the heavy traffic along SR 1006 and to the season of the year during which the site visit occurred. Traffic noise can mask bird sounds. Because no ponds were noted in the project vicinity, the distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent such areas was not expected in the project area. Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, and spring peeper. The two-lined salamander and the slimy salamander are expected in the forest habitats. Treefrogs should be common in the alluvial forest. Ambystomid salamanders are not expected because of the absence of suitable breeding pools in the area. Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer, rough green snake, and copperhead. The eastern hognosed snake might be expected in open areas because of the sandy and loamy soils of the area. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include eastern fence lizard, eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box turtle, brown snake, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake. The avifauna of open areas include mourning dove, field sparrow, common grackle, robin, Brewer's blackbird, starling, eastern meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, and eastern bluebird. Birds in intermediate areas include brown thrasher, mockingbird, goldfinch, indigo bunting, common yellowthroat, and bobwhite. Forest species include various wood warblers (Parulidae), wood thrush, tufted titmouse, eastern phoebe, red-eyed vireo, American redstart, and blue-gray gnatcatcher. Species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk, screech owl, common crow, cardinal, Carolina wren, yellow-billed cuckoo, blue jay, rufous-sided towhee, downy woodpecker, and Carolina chickadee. Green-backed heron and belted kingfisher probably utilize Cane Creek in the alluvial forests and the larger ditches. Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew, least shrew, long-tailed weasel, meadow vole, hispid cotton rat, and groundhog. Those ranging into forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are northern short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, striped skunk, gray fox, red fox, white-footed mouse, and eastern cottontail. Several species usually shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and forested areas, include opossum, pine vole, golden mouse, and southern flying squirrel. Several kinds of bats, such as little brown myotis, eastern pipistrelle, and red bat, might be expected foraging over the streams and alluvial forests. Exclusively forest species include raccoons, gray squirrel, and evening bat. Muskrat and mink should be common along the ditches and in riparian areas around Cane Creek. Evidence of white-tailed deer, a typically mid-successional species, was not observed in the area. 13 The data in Table 2 suggest only the direct impacts on land and community types due to construction. The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on the alternate selected. There will be no net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that utilize open areas such as roadsides. There will be a reduction in the available habitat for animals that require forest and intermediate habitats. Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase. The riparian zone and strip forest of Cane Creek is probably an important corridor for animal movement. The existing roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement, so bridge replacement will not introduce a significantly new factor except during the construction phases of the project. Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced. Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of movement for some species. Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have negative effects-on sessile benthic organisms. Cane Creek and one significant perennial stream-will be impacted in this way. Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs. Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and by alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are important- because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species; maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal; sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases. Highway construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions: Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection.under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgement of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Surface waters of the riverine system in streams are the only jurisdictional waters present in the project right of ways to which construction will be limited. It is determined that no jurisdictional STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH BRIDGE NO. 23 ON SR 1006 OVER CANE CREEK HENDERSON COUNTY B - 2837 0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1 m U > s m m O'9 i r Z < mD 0 ! f _ mOs -„ m ®0 M > N 0 77z22 q w z m 0 - -4 np0 O v^- cC'm m ' z z m0 ! -{ 7C ! > < s w x j T * 7i N J '- B - 2837 BRIDGE NO. 23 HENDERSON COUNTY LOOKING NORTH LOOKING SOUTH SIDE VIEW FIGURE 3 C2.. :. •. i /i /i l I,t I I .I 11 I It i -f ??\RF fK ?Q t 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 10 BRIDGE NO. 23 RM15 t RM14 o? pwrWe j -A ri - Q Z t. X100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN `?. ` ?7A NORTH CAROLINA DEP.AR MIEN OF TRANSPORTATION d DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS j PQO PLANNING AND ENVIROMMEr'TAL BRANCH o BRIDGE NO. 23 ON SR 1006 OVER CANE CREEK I . C)-Cross Section HENDERRSON COUNTY Identification Letter \? /??? of Detailed Flood Study FIGURE 4 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary April 20, 1994 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge No. 23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek, Henderson County, B-2837, ER 94-8375 Dear Mr. Graf: GE/ APR 2 2 1994 Z 2 DIVISICpq OF HIGHWAYS ONME? On March 22, 1994, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project.. We reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project. In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project. This is a high probability area with three sites within one-half of a mile (31HN28, 29, and 30). It is recommended that an archaeological survey be conducted of the project area. Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr., Director A-1 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary January 5, 1995 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge No. 23 over Cane Creek on SR 1006, Henderson County, Federal-Aid No. BRSTP- 1006(8), State Project 8.2951101, TIP B-2837, ER 95-7952 Dear Mr. Graf: Division of A William S. Thank you for your letter of November 23, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Gerold Glover concerning the above project. During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Mr. Glover has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36'CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. Sincerely, 1CDavid Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:sIw? cc: " H. F. Vick T. Padgett A-2 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 laa7n - •w•••• . U4. Department of Aocuiture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING oat6 of timid Evalusnen Aitou"t PART t fro he coffered by Avederal A en-11 Feder Involved Nate! Ot ?rotes a'$ '" ) I County And state Prooos+o 13nd Use '2 -,-- _Z- \G' Cic??Q^"T Z!, fftf? Date Request R 23 ev q PART II (To be eamplered by SCS) ACls imgaad Average Form sue as Does Ilia site contain prime. unique. statewide or t dim_pat 0 of this? form!. Y ? Vao Ot F.rn+tand A+< OetinW in PFA 11f no, the FPPA does nor apply - do not camp pumaoia Land Io Govt. Amt Jurisdon d$ 3 'j '? a L . MOW Croa?fl pars: 9 33 $ L % 92'_7 Acres. Rtitwned BV sC5 ? Oate Land Evawsti 4 3 ` Nam. Of toot Sid Awssrrerit Svm't' g Nsme at Land Evaluation System Used A.` '/40 ?. ._ ?.. AIrNNtW! $Itf attn9 _ PART Ill (To be completed by Federal f+gull'-rr A. Total Acres To Be Converted Oireetly B. Totai Acres To Be Converted Indi?ecdY C. Total Acres in Site o Q•r w rTe he eamoleted by SCSJ Land Evaluation Information . A. Total Acres Fri me And Unique Farmland B -Total Acres Statewide And Locai Important Farmland C_ Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Ideal C'o'w Unit To Be Converted 0. Perclrtnge Of FareWaod in Gwt. lion With Same Or Nigher Relative Value Cr cvle f 0 to 100 Points) PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land E Converted d (Sa Relative Value of Farmland To Be Conver PART V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum Points Si= Assessment Criteria Mhess criteris are exvisined in 7 CFR 63&5!11) Q 1. Area In Nonurban Use 2, Perimeter In Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided BV State And Local Government S. Distance From Urban Builtuo Area 8. Distance To Urban Suooart Services 7, Size Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Average I a r`r.stcm of Nonfarmabis Farmland t 9 Availability of Farm Suooort Serv7oes t0. On-Faun Investments 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm SuoooR 12 Compatibility With Existing Agriculwrat TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS aART V11 (To be completed by Federal AgerxYl Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) oral Site Assessment ( rpm Part Vl above ors site assessmerttl T lutes) Site Selected: Fte an For Slieccon: Data of Selection A-3 160 100 160 280 1 S P111 A.L i A.OC2 b-3 >o ? b Z tQ,a 11'3 Nit. t A Loci Site Asimiumsm Used? Yes Cl No Q C ran Z ?11t p?- ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188,919-733,3391 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program 1A?u-ems DATE: March 11, 1994 SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheet for replacing Bridge #23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek, Henderson County, TIP #B-2837. This correspondence is in response to a request by you to Mr. David Cox of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) for our review and comments regarding replacing Bridge #23 on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) in Henderson County. I conducted a site visit on March 10, 1994 to assess the fisheries and wildlife resources of the project site. Cane Creek has a bankfull width of 30-40 feet. Stream flow was high and turbid during my visit; therefore, I am unable to describe substrate at the project site. The stream has a good riparian zone vegetated with mixed hardwoods that provide bank stability, shade, nutrient inputs, and a travel corridor for wildlife. Cane Creek-..likely .does.-not„support. trout at the project site; hovi ever, this .:stream may be -used =by muskellunge from the French Broad River as spawning and nursery habitat. We have the following comments regarding this project: 1) We prefer that the existing bridge be replaced by another spanning structure to maintain fish passage. 2) T.rees.removed. during--.-construction should be replaced to keep the riparian zone'.. intact. For instance, trees removed for a new structure should be replaced.at the site of the old structure once it is removed. 3) If concrete will be used, construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete :does not:-,contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill. N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE TO: G REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. 4' A"g _Mg. CR?(- Dc" NR- (6 N FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. M? c?? ? ?E ? rv?ES ?? ACTION ? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION ? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST ? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL ? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION ? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS ? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE ? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT COMMENTS: ago STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY February 16, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch WETLANM C''C wnTFR O&LIT r S" Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek, Henderson County, B-2837 Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled for March 22, 1994 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date. Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. MJ/pl r 41, -- Attachment A 5 0`10`? ipoad, W A 0, wI /7 Oa /i NO BRIDGE PROJEC'T SCOPING SHEET DATE -2=14-9! REVISION DATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAMMING PLANNING X DESIGN TI.P PROJECT - 7 STATE PROJECT -_&-2951101 F _ A . PROJECT DIVISION COUNTY HENTYERS.CN ROUTE -- -' 0{Jf- - PURPOSE OF PROJECT : r* PLACE OBSOLETE BRT DGE. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1006, BR1f' #213, HEN . E RSON - r `?,;mY REPLACE BRID:-.E OVER CANE CREEK (7 ?7 METHOD OF REPLACD24ENT : 1- EXIS'T'ING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE 2. EXISI'I:NG LOCATION - ONSI`.1'E DETOUR 3. RELOCATION 4 _ OTHER WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT : ($) BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET TRAFFIC: CURRENT __4Q 0Q.__._ VPD; DESIGN YEAR _______Q200 __._ VPD TTST 1)T TYPICAL, ROADWAY SECTION : EXISTING 91tRUG'l'UWK: L .NC IH METERS,; WIDTH METERS _S - FEET FEET PROPOSED 91'RUCT URE BRIDGE - LENG`E'H ;1?'? I' RS ; _2,0 __ FEET OR CULVERT - METERS FEE'1" W T DTi 1°lETERS FEET DETOUR STRUCTURE : ,r.4'H ME''E'RS ; WIDTH METERS BRIDGE - LENGTH }:FEET FEET OR PIPE - SiZF MI1..1.1MIE:1'ERS I N C;f-t ?;S $ CONSTRUCTION COST (1NICI.,UDING ANI) - - Ct?t?'i'IN(1ENC IES0--------------- R1G _U OF WAY COST ( CNCLU-DTNG# Rt,()CX T0N, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISP.l.'LC)N)------------------- ---------------- FORCE ACCOUNT .ITIjKS------------- TOTAL COST ------------------------------+ g ?85,000 TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ----------------------------- + ---- ? 15,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST---------------------------- -------- $ 300,000 SUB TOTAL------------------------------- PRIOR YEARS COST --------------------------- s 300, 0100 _- _-- TIP TOTAL COST_--_- ------------- BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL, COMMENTS_ USGS QUAD SHEE'T'S: FRUITLAND, #418 SKYLAND, #417 RREPARE:D BY: M 1("H ET E 7AINIE S DATE: 2-1.4-94 I. -77- - x77;;7p 777M NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH BRIDGE NO. 23 ON SR 1006 OVER CANE CREEK HENDERSON COUNTY B - 2837 0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1 9. ?c. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE 5- n 4 ,94 M TO: - ,I-. MR. ERk (- CAL&rl'A , BLDG. REF. NO. OR ROO - K-M,AN-R - ( r FROM. REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. ( 1' ??C?1?E?--E DNS T 4 :ACTION ? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION ? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST ? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL ? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION ? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS ? PREPARE REPLY FOR MYSIGNATURE ? `SIGNATURE ? 'TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT COMMENTS: I? MAY 2 61 994 r. E TLAADWA 3 (;'?O p---4 ?klTY SECT] IV ow JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TtANSPORTATION May 24, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor R. SAMUEL HUNT III SECRETARY FROM: Michele L. James Project Planning Engineer SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on SR 1006 over Cane Creek, Henderson County, State Project 8.2951101, F.A. Project BRSTP-1006(8); B-2837 A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held on March 17, 1994 at 9:00 A.M. in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch. The following were in attendance: Danny Rogers Jerry Snead Brian Williford Jim Speer Jim McMellon Robin Stancil Eric Galamb Don Wilson I. J. Todd K. Kamil Don Sellers Michele James w.n Program Development Hydraulics Unit Hydraulics Unit Roadway Design Roadway Design SHPO Div. of Environmental Management Location and Surveys Traffic Control Traffic Control Right of Way Planning and Environmental Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional information provided at the scoping meeting. Based on available information, it appears the subject bridge should be relocated west of its existing location. During construction, traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge. An estimated cost for the preferred alternative is $540,000. The estimated cost contained in the TIP is $300,000. *1 May 24, 1994 Page 2 The alternatives to be studied are as follows: Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge in the existing location with a 40' x 120' bridge. Traffic would be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. Alternate 1A - Identical to Alternate 1 except that traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary detour. The detour would be a 105' bridge that would be built on the west side. Alternate 2 - Relocate permanent structure to the west. Maintain traffic on the existing bridge during construction. Robin Stancil of SHPO recommended an archaeological survey. Eric Galamb of the Division of Environmental Management suggested type A soil and erosion control measures be used during construction. Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended the new bridge be relocated approximately 55 feet west (downstream) of the existing bridge. MJ/wp Attachments r BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET DATE _ 2-14_94 REVISION DATE --5=23=9_4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAMMING _ PLANNING DESIGN TIP PROJECT _3_2_837 STATE PROJECT F _ A _ PROJECT _ RRSTP-I(?Q6.C3 DIVISION --- - --... ` ----- --- -- COUNTY - -RENDERa-0 _--- ROUTE -- PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. SR 1006, BRIDGE #23, HENDERSON COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE OVER CANE CREEK METHOD OF REPLACEMENT= 1_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURI-; 2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR 3- RELOCATION 4- OTHER -----.-___-- WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: M PROD TRAFFIC: CURRENT ____4000 - TTST TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: EXI STING STRUCTURE.: LENGTH PROPOSED STRUCTURE: BRIDGE 3CT SLOPING SHEET -- V PD; DF,S I GN YEAR .. _ 62(0 -- .--- VPD ? 4 DI' - .J 1 ---2 ._-?',---_-. METERS-, WI.l)TI-1 METERS -? -- FRET FEET BRIDGE - LENGTH ---r -- METERS; -120 FEET OR CULVERT METERS --- FEET DETOUR STRUCTURE: WIDTH _12-2- METERS Q _ FEET BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH _ METERS FEET FEET OR PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS INCHES CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- $ 525,000 RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RFLOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITI:ON)------------- $ 15,000 FORCE ACCOUNT :ITEMS---------------------------------- $ TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- $ 540.000 TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 285,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST________________________________ $ 15,000 SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- $ 300,000 PRIOR YEARS COST-------------------------------- $ TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- $ 300,000 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USGS QUAI) SHEETS: FP'JITLAND, #418 SKVLAND, #417 PREPARED BY: MICHELE JAMES DATE: 5-28-94