Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19950943 Ver 1_Complete File_19950907---M R, r r F--D 7 . STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTMON JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY August 31, 1995 Regulatory Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office Post Office Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 Dear Sir: SUBJECT: Caswell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 36 over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek on SR 1521, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1521(3), State Project 8.2480301, T.I.P. No. B-2811. Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project. Bridge No. 36 will be replaced in its existing location with a triple barrel 2.7-meter x 2.4-meter (9 ft. x 8 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert. During construction, traffic will be detoured onto existing secondary roads. Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on any jurisdictional wetland communities. Due to sharp bends in the creek at the bridge site, approximately 60-meters (200 feet) of the creek will be realigned to accommodate the box culvert. The NCDOT will implement the Stream Relocation/Channelization Guidelines. 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. as August 31, 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. F anklin Vick, P. ., 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 Caswell County Bridge No. 36 on SR 1521 Over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek Federal Project BRZ-1521(3) State Project 8.2480301 TIP # B-2811 r 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 Enyironmental Branch -25'95 Date ^ ?Q ? p Nicholas Graf, P. E. Division Administrator, FHWA Caswell County Bridge No. 36 on SR 1521 over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek Federal Project BRZ-1521(3) State Project 8.2480301 TIP # B-2811 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION January, 1995 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: I ? Jol n L. Williams Pr ject Planning Engineer y Wayne lliott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager Planning and Environmental Branch 4 r ' ?asaa? _at?ar??9 Caswell County Bridge No. 36 on SR 1521 Over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek Federal Project BRZ-1521(3) State Project 8.2480301 TIP # B-2811 Bridge No. 36 is located in Caswell county on SR 1521 crossing over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek. It is programed in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected. 1„ SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing replacement of Bridge No. 36 on the existing location (see Figure 2) with a triple barrel 2.7-meter X 2.4- meter (9-foot X 8-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction (see Figure 1). Due to sharp bends in the creek at the bridge site, it will be necessary to realign the creek approximately 30 meters (100 feet) upstream and 30 meters (100 feet) downstream to accommodate the proposed box culvert. The estimated cost of the project as described in Alternate 1 is $ 453,000. The estimated cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $ 409,000. 1J.- ,SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL C0MMITHENTS NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices (BMP). NCDOT will implement Sedimentation Control Guidelines. NCDOT will implement Stream Relocation Guidelines. NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate creek realignment with North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during design phase. NCDOT will re-establish streamside vegetation immediately after relocation of the stream. All standard procedures and measures will be implemented (where the above commitments do not supersede) to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. NCDOT will get a North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #23. III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS There may be a design exception required in the design phase if the 90 kilometer per hour (55 mile per hour) design speed can not be obtained due to vertical curvature. IV. EXISTING_CONDITIONS SR 1521 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. It carries 800 vehicles per day. In the vicinity of Bridge No. 36, SR 1521 (Slade Road) is oriented in an east/west direction. This section of SR 1521 lies between the intersections with NC 62 and SR 1572. The existing bridge was completed in 1956. It is 38 meters (125 feet) long consisting of 6 spans ranging from 5.1 to 11.9 meters (17 to 39 feet) in length. There are approximately 6.7 meters (22 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck and streambed. The deck is 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide with 5.9 meters (19.2 feet) of clear deck width. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic. According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 2 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted at 8 metric tons (9 tons) for single vehicles and 15 metric tons (16 tons) for truck- tractor semi-trailers. The structure has less than five years of estimated remaining life. The horizontal alignment is tangent for 91 meters (300 feet) west of the bridge and 150 meters (500 feet) to the east of the bridge after which the tangents begin to curve. The bridge is in a vertical sag. The pavement width to the east and west of the bridge is 6 meters (20 feet). Shoulder widths on the east and west ends of the bridge are approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet). Traffic volume is presently 800 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 1600 VPD for the year 2017. Truck percentages are 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer and 3, dual-tired vehicles. The speed limit on this segment of road is 90 kilometers per hour (statutory 55 miles per hour). Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have taken place within the last three years. 2 Dennis Cole, Transportation Director for Caswell County Schools, indicated that there are 14 school bus crossings daily. He stated that temporarily rerouting buses will cause no problems. There are no utilities in the area which will be impacted by this project. YL, ALTERNATIVES This document discusses replacing the existing bridge with a triple barrel 2.7-meter X 2.4-meter (9-foot X 8-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert at the same location as the existing bridge. Fill material on top of the new culvert will put the elevation of the new roadway at approximately the same elevation as the deck of the existing bridge travelway. Traffic will be detoured offsite along existing secondary roads. The "no-build" alternative is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical. yj,, ESTIMATED COST Table 1 COMPONENT COST * Culvert 156,000 * Bridge Removal 15,000 * Roadway 192,000 & Approaches Engineering & 62,000 Contingencies Total Construction 425,000 Right of Way 28,000 Total Cost Estimate 453,000 * Mobilization and Miscellaneous included in this cost 3 VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR This project will close SR 1521 for approximately six months during construction. Traffic will be detoured by way of SR 1572, SR 1589, NC 86, and NC 62 (see Figure 1). The roadways along the detour are well maintained paved roads with curvature equal to or better than SR 1521. There are no other bridges located along this route, and thus there are no restrictions on vehicles which normally travel along SR 1521. Traffic counts indicate approximately 800 VPD use this road. The orientation of the roadway network in this area is such it would be very difficult to determine the origin of the majority of the trips. Therefore sufficient information is not available for road user economic analysis. However, traffic could experience anywhere between 3.2 to 9.6 kilometers (2 to 6 miles) of additional travel. The Division 7 Engineer supports closing the road and detouring traffic offsite. VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 36 will be replaced at the existing location. The bridge will be replaced with a triple barrel 2.7-meter X 2.4-meter (9-foot X 8-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Fill on top of the new culvert will put the elevation of the new roadway at approximately the same elevation as the deck of the existing bridge travelway. Due to sharp bends in the channel at the bridge site, the channel will be realigned approximately 30 meters (100 feet) both upstream and downstream. The Roadway Design Unit will attempt to design with a 100 kilometer-per hour (60 mile-per hour) design speed. However, this may not be possible due to vertical curvature and a design exception would be necessary. There will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) of pavement with 1.8-meter (6- foot) shoulders. Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction (see Figure 1). The structure recommended for meeting the hydrology needs of the stream is a three barrel box culvert. Standard culvert design directs stream flow into the center barrel under normal flow conditions. The other two barrels would be available to carry flow during storm events. As a result, passage for wildlife will be available in the two barrels left dry under normal flow conditions. While this culvert was not expressly designed to accomodate wildlife, it does meet the recommendation of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission to allow for animal passage. 4 IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. GENERAL This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. This bridge replacement will not have a substantial 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 change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project. There are no hazardous waste impacts. No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area. 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. B. AIR AND NOISE The project area is within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Caswell County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air quality Standards. This project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures. NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate that it will create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports. 5 The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, neither will have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction. C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981, the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the alternatives being considered for the proposed bridge replacement project will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that neither alternative will impact prime or important farmland soils. D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources databases, the Department of Cultural Resources has indicated that they "are aware of no historic structures within the area of potential effect." They therefore recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted. The Office of State Archeology has commented that an inspection of proposed bridge replacement area was conducted while in the general vicinity. It is unlikely that National Register-eligible archaeological resources will be affected by the proposed replacement and they recommend no archaeological investigation. E. NATURAL SYSTEMS Soil and water resources which occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community. Caswell County lies in the Northern Piedmont Physiographic Provence. The topography of Caswell County is characterized by moderately sloping hills with associated bottomland floodplains. The project area is in a forested; rural setting that is punctuated by agricultural land. 6 soils Table 2 provides an inventory of specific soil units which occur in the project area. Table 2 County soils in the Project Area MAPPING UNIT SYMBOL SLOPE HYDRIC CLASS Madison MaD 8-15 sandy clay loam Wilkes WkE 15-45 B sandy loam Note: "B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or which have wet spots. Water Resources This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts. Waters Impacted and Characteristics The existing structure crosses South Fork Rattlesnake Creek, which is a tributary of the Dan River. The headwaters of South Fork Rattlesnake Creek are in Caswell County approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) north of Yanceyville, which is 10.9 kilometers (6.8 miles) south of its confluence with the Dan River in Caswell County. Stream channel width is approximately 7.6 meters (25 feet) at the crossing. The depth of water varies from 0.46 meters to 0.24 meters (1.5 feet to 0.8 feet). During site investigations the stream level was low and well below the stream bank capacity. The substrate is granular and sandy. A stone substrate is present east of the project in the stream bed. This substrate is inconsistent with other stream characteristics in the project vicinity. The flow rate is moderate with good water clarity. The construction of the proposed culvert will cause an initial increase in sedimentation by construction equipment and/or materials. These impacts may be short term in scope. However, the channelizing nature of the proposed culvert could focus the velocity of the stream causing increased turbidity and suspended sediment levels from a disturbed 7 substrate especially at times of high flow. These impacts could potentially last for long periods of time, and most benthic organisms are highly sensitive to high sediment loads. Best Usage Classification Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). South Fork Rattlesnake Creek has a C classification. This classification denotes that the primary use of the water resource is that of aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of project study area. Water Quality The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Many macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN data is available for South Fork Rattlesnake Creek. However, most bioclassifications in the Roanoke River basin are good-fair and all sampling sites located in Caswell County showed bioclassifications of fair or better. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers presently operating in the project area that will be affected. The relocation of South Fork Rattlesnake Creek will have noteworthy impacts on water quality. There will be greater loss of streamside vegetation in the modification of the stream, causing a greater elevation in water temperature in summer and greater decrease in winter due to the loss of streamside vegetation. Stream channelization may also concentrate the velocity of the water body increasing scouring within the stream channel. Along with the increase in sedimentation caused by scouring and streamside vegetation loss, the construction within the stream and disturbance of the substrate has the potential to appreciably heighten 8 suspended sediment levels in the stream, especially during periods of high flow. Interruptions in surface and ground water flow and increased material runoff during construction are other possible impacts that will affect water quality on South Fort. Rattlesnake creek. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Potential impacts to the waters of South Fork Rattlesnake Creek, resulting from construction-related sedimentation and turbidity, include decreases of dissolved oxygen in the water and changes in temperature, as a result of vegetation loss and reduction of water clarity. Increased sediment levels could potentially impact water resources downstream, as well as alterations of water level, due to interruptions in surface and ground water flow and increased concentrations of toxic compounds from highway runoff during construction are other possible impacts that will affect water quality on South Fork Rattlesnake Creek. Strict enforcement of Sedimentation Control Guidelines and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) is critical in order to minimize potential impacts to the project area and downstream as a result of the project construction. Biotic Resources Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as. well as, the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only. Terrestrial Communities Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: bottomland forest, upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, and maintained roadside. Community boundaries are frequently ill-defined; contiguous communities generally merge without any transition zone between them. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed. 9 Bottomland Forest This community is present on a sloping, well-drained floodplain oriented to the north and south of the crossing. The dominant canopy species include: black walnut, river birch, sweetgum, sycamore, and tulip poplar. Eastern red cedar, red maple, American elm, flowering dogwood, red mulberry, eastern redbud, and American hornbeam comprise the midstory in association with the swamp rose, and Japanese honeysuckle. These climbing exotics have overgrown much of the herbaceous vegetation and have reached into the midstory with prevalence. The herbaceous layer of this community consists of: Joe- pye weed, winged verbesina, poison ivy honeysuckle, foam flower, wild geranium, false nettle, impatiens, trumpet creeper, Virginia creeper, green brier, Christmas fern, and leather-flower. There exists a definite dominance of honeysuckle and swamp rose in the more open areas along the stream. Beneath the cover of the forest canopy a thick litter layer predominates where most of the lower growth consists of seedlings of the dominant hardwood trees. Animal species that were either seen or identified from spoor evidence were the ringneck snake, American toad, raccoon, and white-tailed deer. other animal species that are associated with this forest are the eastern box turtle, woodland vole, gray squirrel, easten chipmunk, eastern cottontail, and the Virginia opossum. A few of the insects of the area are the eastern tiger swallowtail, pearl crescent, and dragonflies. In addition to these species, an assortment of avian life was evident. The Carolina wren, American robin, northern cardinal, and pileated woodpecker were seen to utilize this habitat. Aquatic community within this system is a closely related and overlapping stream habitat that contributes greatly to many of the organisms in the community. Some of the insects that are directly sustained by the water body are the water strider, whirligig beetle, six spotted fishing spider, caddisfly and mayfly larvae, respectively, as well as the asiatic clam. The Johnny darter, redbreast sunfish, and shiner are also common in the study area. Aquatic Community Impacts Much of the benthos found in the stream are at risk because of their intolerance of sedimentation. Macroinvertbrates, as well as fish and amphibians, are extremely sensistive to high sediment loads as well. The 10 installation of the proposed culvert will cause an initial increase in suspended sediments during construction activities. These effects may be more temporary in scope than those resulting from stream relocation. The naturally meandering stream segment may be straightened and channelized, potentially resulting in physiological stress or loss of aquatic organisms in the project area, including downstream areas. Elevated water temperature will also affect the indigenous aquatic organisms by lowering the amount of dissolved oxygen available for respiration. Upland Pine Forest This ecotype was located at the higher elevations on the fringes of the bottomland forest and it progressed into domination on the west side of the crossing. It is characterized by moderate to steeply sloping, excessively well drained soils. These soils usually have poor fertility with shallow soil depth to parent material. Virginia pine is the most prominent canopy species with interspersed shortleaf and loblolly pines. Some representatives of sweetgum, southern red oak, black oak, and eastern red cedar are most evident in the subcanopy. The middle-to-lower stories of vegetation were found to primarily consist of saplings of the canopy and subcanopy species with sassafras, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and red maple also present. The forest floor has a thin litter layer which provides little habitat for burrowing animals and insects which depend on old plant material for cover and forage. A poorly developed shrub and herbaceous layer exists above the thin litter layer. Gooseberry, flowering spurge, and a lichen predominate. Many of the heretofore mentioned animal/insect species could also utilize this habitat for foraging, shelter and/or cover to conceal movement between ecotypes. With the exception of those species that are more common in moist sites, the animal composition would remain quite similar to the bottomland forest community. Maintained Roadside A maintained community exists along the edge of the existing roadway. In this area the dominant vegetation is: Lespedeza, trumpet creeper, milkweed, fescue, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, clover, and other assorted grasses. This habitat serves primarily as a foraging habitat for various species of birds and mammals, which feed on seeds, berries and roots. These species include: the Carolina chickadee, northern cardinal, eastern harvest mouse, Virginia opossum, and eastern cottontail. This habitat also attracts a large number of insect 11 species, particularly grasshopers, and dragonflies, which are the primary food source of various snakes like the black racer and the rough green snake, lizards like the five-lined skink, birds such as American robin, and small mammals like the white footed mouse. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well. Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed right of way width of 25 meters (80 feet). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Much of the benthos, including other macroinvertebrates, as well as fish and amphibians are extremely sensitive to sedimentation. The installation of the proposed culvert will cause an increase in suspended sediments possibly resulting in physiological stress or loss of many of these organisms. Therefore it is strongly recommended that best management practices be implemented in order to minimize these impacts. Table 3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities COMMUNITY Bottomland Forest 0.24 (0.60) Upland Pine Forest 0.16 (0.40) Maintained Roadside 0.04 (0.10) TOTAL IMPACTS 0.44 (1.1) Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres). 12 This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and protected species, and Waters of the United States. Waters of the United States surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters Criteria utilized to identify jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology based upon the COE 1987 Wetland Deliniation Manual. Proposed construction at South Fork Rattlesnake Creek will impact surface waters. No jurisdictional wetlands occur in the project area. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Much of the benthos and many macroinvertebrates are extremely sensitive to sedimentation. The installation of the proposed culvert could cause an increase in suspended sediments resulting in the loss of many of the organisms. The fish and amphibian life would also be potentially impacted negatively. The overall impacts of the project should be minimal in the study area. Permits Impacts to surface waters are anticipated. This project is categorically excluded (CE) which qualifies it for coverage by Nationwide Permit #23, 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department. That which is categorically excluded from environmental documentation, because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. Final permit decisions lie with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management 13 (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to the issuing of the nationwide 423. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulations. Mitigation Projects authorized under nationwide permits usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. Final decisions relative to mitigation are the responsibility of COE. Rare and Protected Species Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws. Federally-Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classifications 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. As of November 17, 1994, the USFWS lists no federally-protected species for Caswell County. Federal Candidate Species There are two taxa listed as Candidate 2 (C2) species. These species are defined as taxa that show evidence of susceptibility, but there is not enough data to warrant a listing of endangered, threatened, proposed endangered, or proposed threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for future reference should they become protected. Candidate species do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act. Because of this specific surveys were neither conducted for these species nor were they observed during the site visit. The species listed as C2 are the Virginia quillwort (Isoetes virginica) and Heller's trefoil (Lotus purshianus var. helleri). Neither of these species have been recorded in this county for the last twenty years. 14 A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-protected species in the immediate project study area. However, the Roanoke hog sucker (Hypentelium roanokense) has been documented 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) downstream. The Roanoke hog suckers is a small fish with a maximum length of 15 cm (6 in) that is found only in the Dan River drainage basin. it has been cataloged by the Natural Heritage Program as a State Rare Species. It is unlikely that this species is found in the project area, due to its habitat requirements of swiftly moving waters and a rocky substrate. Even though this fish is not found in the project area, the 64-meter (200-foot) rechannelization of South Fork Rattlesnake Creek will affect aquatic conditions in the project area and downstream through sedimentation and turbidity. This suspended sediment could potentially effect this rare species, therefore strict adherence to Sedimentation Control Cidelines should be followed. Also the design of the rechannelization should follow Stream Relocation Guidelines in consultation with North Carol ,na Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). Summary of Recommendations The following precautions should be taken in order to minimize impacts to water resources and the aquatic community in and around the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation control guidelines should be strictly enforced during the rechannelization of South Fork Rattlesnake Creek. Stringent adherence to these guidelines will minimize the impact to the Roanoake hog sucker population found downstream. Moreover, re-establishment of native streamside vegetation should be undertaken immediately after relocation activities have been completed in order to minimize the impacts to the aquatic community. Construction activities should also take place during periods of seasonally low water levels. The length of channel relocation exceeds 32.0 meters (100 feet) therefore consultation with the NCWRC and USFWS will be required. The portion of relocated stream must be designed in accordance with Stream Relocation Guidelines to have similar characteristics (depth, width, and substrate) as the original stream. The historic habit of the stream should also be maintained through the installation of meandering characteristics. 15 Figures I O i - I 0()y 9 1523 / o p 1570 1500 V, 1571 -4 1321 Studied Detour Route 1.0 .6 1521 1519 Hamer,^A 0 !6 /? 596 5 0 v ry 1573 9 .4 1572 3 e 1.606t nth Bridge No. 36 1367 n 1500 1`0 - h `1574 / 1. 1320 1.3 /y 1575 1597 86? h? H 1576 5 '9 b •a 1 1167/ ?t1124 .1 1157 1162 h 1121 1123 3^ 1156 1572 O?tir ?? 1594 S >.r YANCEYVILLE 2 Go - POP. 1,51 1 62 , y ? 1589 `"?, ??• FA .3 ` .3 158 FqP .8 1780 ' FqA 1601 VL V L 0 161 1 156 •: a qb b 3 ; ' 2 1740 : CASWELL GA ME 782 ... J?:... rv LAND 178 - 1734 •,P f' 62 86 imago ? r??l ' 3 QGstewood Ble I Palhl?1 Prov,Aence L y C A W Casvdl, y+ ocus`?Hi I I ' MetMms 46#0 • ¦ - 000600SION00 ¦ ¦ 000000000 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL tee, BRANCH CASWELL COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 36, ON SR 1521 OVER SOUTH FORK RATTLESNAKE CREEK B-2811 0 km 1.6 km 3.2 0 miles 1 miles 2 Last Approach South Face of Bridge No. 36 West Approach Figure 3 Appendix I' e.SLAnv North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secrttary March 11, 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. 36 on SR 1521 over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek, Caswell County, B-2811, 8.2480301, BRZ-1521(3), ER 94-8289 Dear Mr. Graf: On March 3, 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. Staff of our Office of State Archaeology conducted an inspection of the proposed bridge replacement area while in the general vicinity`: It is unlikely that National Register-eligible archaeological resources will be affected by the proposed replacement and we recommend no archaeological investigation in connection with this project. Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our 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 CE/ ?O MAR 14 r; V =';1/ISICN op "WAYS pQQ- 109 East Jones Street • Rakigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ,,cholas L. Graf March 11, 1994, Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. Sincerely, David Brook " Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw cc: *H. F. Vick B. Church T. Padgett 4 t "-A N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE TO REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. m?. C R?c ()N -bF w?lI U)1*11«" FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. 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: AP?r).y 'VEIL ` t w. WATER ?JHili r ? t ?',,. STAT(? r r• ST/CFF OF Nomf-i CAROH NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUN L, JR. DIVISION OF I IIGI IWAYS R. SAMUFI HUNT 6MI KNOB P.O. RC)X 25201. RALFIGI I. N.C. 27011-5201 SWRI 1ARY February 1, 1994 J+ 1) 1-- MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 36 on SR 1521 in Caswell County over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek, B-2811 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 3, 1994 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date. JW/pl r (1A1 vut*616- ZZ 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 John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. Attachment 7TW6? l 9 I 1 BRIDGE PROJECT SLOPING SHEET DATE 2-02-44 REVISION DATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAMMING PLANNING DESIGN TIP PROJECT B-2811 STATE PROJECT F.A. PROJECT DIVISION COUNTY Caswell ROUTE SR 1521 PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 36 on SR 1521 over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek in Caswell County, B-2811. METHOD OF REPLACEMENT: 1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE 2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR 3. RELOCATION 4. OTHER WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO -_X_- I F YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT : ($) , (9-1) PROJECT COPING SHEET TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD TTST % DT TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH PROPOSED STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH 6.1 METERS FEET 20.0 FEET METERS; WIDTH FEET OR CULVERT - S METERS FEET 4 DETOUR STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH FEET OR PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS INCHES CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $ METERS FEET METERS FEET TOTAL COST .......................................* TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 380,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000 SUB TOTAL ....................................... ; 4uu,uvu PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $ TIP TOTAL COST ...................................} Atuu,uvv % 006 10% 00 1 ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ct. O ?. Y W W w N M N V aF z Cl) Y <d U) ZQ ?0z v? Q 3> Z Z C W D M J -Y E y C L {L ? T C) r T L) 0 d?CC% W W Y xZ°_ z ? Q FE U E a? x¢>d . U00= Y E ? F W F- Z == U aO N CL W CC W C) 0 cc O r sy? , ¦ O OI o \ l PI h M N OD tf1 ' ¦ , nl ¦ ' r ? Ln .0 ¦ el b ? ' C Cl) ° I. ¦ N u? `?1.8 0 ? C'4 1 E of _ ? `r. .. p ? co I Cl) t 1.5 - ' s `rte a o ¦ ! 3'b 4 N CJ• b 04 10 Pao C-4I 0'1 ^I ci b W) -I ^I W A. N:. v > S, 9 o .p S . C14 > .. W 2I s• g V ?t ^I h Z a 4 Ln '` Q O Q ki- L O ?I O ? 1 1 c N a, o 'n C rI o . i s 3 7 a 1 I S Q T9 o ? Z 0 ? ?P 1 0 y ^I a of 6' o . ?'? - 10 00 Mll?USGS Quadrangle 5JO `i Yanceyville Caswell County =' ?400?? B-2811 0 509P + I ? ? ? ' Z ? \ 1544 _ ? ? l? ? ?-(\?,'? ? ? ? _ ?'? 5J3??? ? 1? t? / ??- ?• 570 ;)? - ' C?' , ?,. - - _590 f Graves _ ?. _ ----? 566 1 58 ??s r Cemi I I r u - ?? ?c ;16 /'0/ - - 51 -??.? • ?.? -- _ ; - _, :. 9 `619 ??? - - / •i \ .` j/ ? " J \ ? , 569 \ 0 SCOPING MEETING OUTLINE B-2811, Caswell County This is the scopino meetjru, for the o,,- No. 36 on SR 1-521 over South Fork Rattlesnake Creek in Caswell County. State work order number: S.'_-i•50301 Federa', ..lid nuinbe.-: BPR1-1 2i;3) c;X 13T [ NG COND [ T i.ONS : - The List in" bri 1°-l' w,_l5 b U i i L in P)50 - i t is a 38 . , iT1eter _5 foot) fors, 6. nr2 r (_' 1 foo?) wide Lim')er s_ructure with ,tee: ..-beans and a 2.0 sufficiency rarinlg, for :i\ arlcl 1. )ns for T1-S[' (uI'rent p:)st ins is toas 1'he 1)1' 1d"e Car r 1 ti lade ; of t I- a'i i 1 rl(i I13? . metf s (1?? feet I Of Cle.rr c't'_ck i11e L).r C1 i2e i-, 7.0 ln(.!L::c6 (2-i 1ecL) i,t-,uvc tnt: sti:vain 5T< i; 2 i 1 , L111,; S :. f f'Cl Ruca' Minor (:o i lei..: to ;iC'. 1 :3 3 st?'tl_,y ml;li 0 k1) tiPe.ed 1 inl: t Tral f '1C Cou- lt1 .lr(.` .00 :-1111) )i)ii ?. !. i_i ail ;'•'C: aTl.. \ t f) c a_ D C.. c c" c 11 0 rA[1 [)O 1' at lOil DiFC'C:_C : fc) to i t11aL there tirl'.)L,. b (2 11t Ic l_i11 C C.toUI 11oi, S'Lte. I iiIc? ')11. ! i.ir1 .`',r. ' i;`lt:L'r Ii s rC 011•;Tl ill: >, I,?! i. ') C.C``i:l'; r the cori.i'rti cL10r1 of a rlc ;)ro'ect should be 1' t to coriL, -act ti r1 r ,)rirl -L l '11) iilt\' CfItu. A PCc) Li ll: iC'. SCclb i S!1C l 50 tlll: ti1C. rt)?1, W: l } :J i ,? C .7 ,r C 0 T: -CC: L hall ri ne !,ion t hs . " Thc, rcP:ac ?'rlellt Structure should be m(-'t.. 1',,nr anti meter -, u iCle ttlth a 5.7 meter iravelwa?r and 0.' 1 deter of frets ( feet ton- and 28 feet wide. 22 foot tcave 1 way and 3 foot offseL"). WHAT SHOIA.D THE 11F,S [GN SPEED BE '. WHAT ALTERNAT IVES SHOULD BE EXPLORED Request a COST ESTIMATE from Roadway Design along with an approximate TYPICAL SECTION and a ROUGH SKETCI1.