The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19950658 Ver 1_Complete File_19950608F N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE 1 -:Y7 1 ,14 TO: II ? ( V REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. - 1C 90A,,-,, D [)EM - T) F rl F O : REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. M Ct(JA A "-p `' . 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: rR' ;31, r ..'`A M tiTAi(?o o? STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT, JIL DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 January 26, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill SECRETARY SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 211 on SR 1162 over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek, Union County, B-2869 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 2, 1994 at 10:00 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/plrs5?? L C Attachment Ilr-139-2 6 7? ?c 6t? dD. G BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET DATE REVISION DATE _ PROJEC'T DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAtIMI NG PLANN ING -X- DESIGN DESIGN TIP PROJECT STATE PROJECT -- F _ A _ PROJECT DIVISION ZO COUNTY - ----UN CON.. - -- - -- ROUTE PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJEC'T': SR 1182, BRIDGE #211, UNION COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE OVER EAST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK r,. METHOD OF REPLACEMENT: 1_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE 2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITH DETOUR RF;000ATTON 'LOCATION 4 _ OTHER WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPA'T'ION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUN'T': ($) (7.) ---- -- ?Lov Oki (tecJ BRIDGE l? /T PROJECT SCOPING SHEET 'TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD TTST DT TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION : I ` I '? S l EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH -2-7-1 ___. METERS; WIDTH --7-!5-- METERS 2a.- FEET ___2.4. 5--- FEET PROPOSED STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH OR CULVERT - _ METERS; WIDTH METERS _ FEET FEET . METERS FEET DETOUR STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH OR PIPE - SIZE METERS; WIDTH METERS FEET _ FEET MILLIMETERS INCHES CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEEAING AND CONT.INGENC:IES)----- ------------- I T, RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING' RELOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISIT'.ION)------------------- -T) FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS---------------------------------- s TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- s TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 310,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST-------------------------------- $ 20,000 SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- $ 330,000 PRIOR YEARS COST-------------------------------- TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- $ 330,000 BRIDGE _ PROJECT SCOPING.SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USGS QUAD SHEET: WAXHAW, #729 PREPARED BY: MICHELE JAMES DATE: 1-26-94 2n_n? I BRANCH BRIDGE NO. 211, ON SR 1162 OVER EAST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK UNION COUNTY B - 2869 0 miles 2 1 FIG. 1 N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE l/-H- 1 TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. 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: [TR ? s V,'Ef U, NOS a7ER r,!i LI I 5TATE o y aJ 4 4 J?? 17 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 April 13, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: Michele L. James Project Planning Engineer R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I SECRETARY SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 211 on SR 1162 over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek, Union County, State Project 8.2691901, F.A. Project BRZ-1162(4); B-2869 A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held on March 2, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch. The following were in attendance: Danny Rogers Program Development Jerry Snead Hydraulics Unit Kathy Lassiter Roadway Design Eric Misak Roadway Design Rick Benton Traffic Control Eric Galamb Division of Environmental Management Joel Gulledge Location and Surveys Ray Moore Structure Design David Cox NCWRC Betty Yancey Right of Way Michele James Planning and Environmental Claudia Walsh 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 replaced in its existing location. Traffic should be detoured along existing area roads. An estimated cost for the preferred alternative is $250,000. The estimated cost contained in the TIP is $330,000. April 13, 1994 Page 2 The alternatives to be studied are as follows: Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge in the existing location with a two-barrel 3.4 m by 2.7 m (11 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert at the existing road location with the same roadway grade as existing. Traffic would be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. Alternate 1A - Same as Alternate 1 except the replacement structure will be a precast culvert. Alternate 1B - Identical to Alternate 1 except traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary detour 4 @ 1800 mm (72 inch) pipes built on the east side of the existing bridge. The grade would be approximately 0.9 (3 ft.) below the existing bridge deck elevation. In order to accommodate the width of the proposed culvert, approximately 25 m (82 ft.) of the channel widening will be required upstream and downstream. The SHPO representative did not recommend an archaeological investigation or an architectural survey. Utilities in the project area include underground water, aerial power lines, and cable TV lines on the west side. Underground telephone (which is aerial crossing the stream) is located on the east side. MJ/rfm Attachments BItTDGE PROJECT SCOPI.NG Sl-IrIT DATE REVISION DATE __ -1? _yA PROJECT.' DEVELOI?MENT STAGE PROGRAMMING PLANNING -_..------____X.---- DESIGN ---- TIP PROJECT STATE PROJECT _-8-209 19.1_---- F. A _ PROJECT BRZ-1162-(41---_. DIVISION COUNTY _-___--- ROUTE PURPOSE OLD PROJECT: E*,PI.ACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1162, BRIDGE #211. UNION COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE OVER EAST FORK TWELVE MI? ?E CREEK METHOD OF REPLACEMENT: 1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE x 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: (.T)) EXISTING STRUCTURI,: IENG'T'H 27,7 METI?RS: W1DTH 7.5 METI-:RS TYPICAL, ROADWAY SEC'T'ION: BRIDGE. PROJECT SCOPING SHEET TRAFFIC: CURRENT -----?'100 Vlll); DESIGN 'fl?AR -_-4900_- VPD TTST --?'-- DI, - -3-- - PROPOSED STRUC'T'URE:: BRT DGl, - LENG'T'H OR 1,- _ FFET -2-4--h- FEET NIE'-CERS ; WIDTH 12 -2- METERS --- FEET ----4.0----- FEET CULVERT - Z_9 3. METERS 2 (?_ 1_? _` I-'EET DETOUR STRUCTURE BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS FEET FEET PIPIT - SiZIa: (_ QQ MILI.IMETERS -4 La 72 INCHES CONSTRUCTION COST,(INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- . 250.000 RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION)------------------- 1; 20,000 FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS---------------------------------- s TOTAL COST ----------------------------------------- 270,000 TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 310,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST-------------------------------- $ 20,000 SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- $ 330,000 + PRIOR YEARS COST-------------------------------- $ TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- s 330,000 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMEN'T'S: USES QIUAD SHEET: WAXHAW, #729 PREPARED BY: MICHELE JAMES DATE: 4-13-94 N, C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I TRANSMITTAL SLIP - OATC f Lnycv Ta: NOyy REF OR 'ROOM DLOG c U. atc °? ,mh . . ? . l f,U{ FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLDG. 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 ADOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION ? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE ? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATL AND REPORT COMMENTS: .F JAMES B. HUNT )R GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 June 1, 1995 RECEIVED JUN 0 81995 District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch Dear Sir: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES no n %IMJ SUBJECT: Union County - Replacement of Bridge No. 211 over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek on SR 1162; State Project No. 8.2691901; T.I.P. No. B-2869 Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Ther fore, we do not anticipate requesting an Individual Permit but propose to roceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) is ued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions S?ct'on 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. .nA?o X15 ?,5 8 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA c?. R. SAMUEL HUNT III SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ?tANSPORTATION (9,11 1 44F "'A June 1, 1995 page 2 If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at (919) 733-3141 extension 306. Sincer ly ' H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/tp Attachment cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville Field Office Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch 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 B.G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer Michele James, Planning & Environmental Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM TIP Project No.. B-2869 State Project No. 8.2691901 Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1162(4) A. Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN UNION COUNTY OVER EAST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 211 ON SR 1162 WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A TWO-BARREL 3.7 METERS BY 3.0 METERS (12 FT. BY 10 FT.) REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT WITH APPROXIMATELY THE SAME ROADWAY GRADE. IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED CULVERT, APPROXIMATELY 25 METERS (82 FEET) OF CHANNEL WIDENING WILL BE REQUIRED IN EACH DIRECTION, UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS. NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information," for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS. B. Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 211 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING OF 19.8 OUT OF 100 AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 8 YEARS. THE BRIDGE IS POSTED FOR 11 TONS SV AND 17 TONS TTST. BECAUSE OF THE DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE NO. 211 SHOULD BE REPLACED. C. Proposed Improvements: Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project: 1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing). a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R improvements) b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes c. Modernizing gore treatments d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes) e. Adding shoulder drains f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including safety treatments g. Providing driveway pipes h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane) 2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the installation of ramp 1 11 Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 metering control devices and lighting. a. Installing ramp metering devices b. Installing lights c. Adding or upgrading guardrail d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment h. Making minor roadway realignment i. Channelizing traffic j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards and flattening slopes k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid 1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit 3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings. a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill) 4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities. 5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas. 6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts. 7. Approvals for changes in access control. 8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic. 2 D. Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 9. Rehabilitation or and bus buildings only minor amounts and there is not a number of users. reconstruction of existing rail and ancillary facilities where of additional land are required substantial increase in the 10. -Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic. 11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community. 12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed. Special Proiect Information: ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. THE PROJECT WILL IMPACT AN ESTIMATED 0.06 HECTARES (0.15 ACRES) OF WETLANDS. A NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) IS LIKELY TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE A 401 WATER QUALITY GENERAL CERTIFICATION FROM THE DEM PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE NATIONWIDE PERMIT. THE SHPO RECOMMENDED THAT NO HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED FOR THIS PROJECT. 3 Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 ESTIMATED COST: CONSTRUCTION - $ 250,000 RIGHT-OF-WAY - $ 53,000 TOTAL $ 303,000 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC: 1994 - 2700 VPD 2016 - 4900 VPD THE DESIGN SPEED IS APPROXIMATELY 100 KM/H (60 MPH). SR 1162 IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR COLLECTOR. THERE ARE SIX SCHOOL BUS CROSSINGS DAILY. UTILITIES' IN THIS AREA INCLUDE UNDERGROUND WATER ON THE WEST SIDE, UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE (WHICH IS AERIAL CROSSING THE STREAM) ON THE EAST SIDE AND AERIAL POWER AND CABLE TV LINES ON THE WEST SIDE. THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT. E. Threshold Criteria If any Type II actions are involved with the project, the following evaluation must be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not need to be completed. ECOLOGICAL (1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or important natural resource? (2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed endangered or threatened species may occur? (3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? YES NO ?x Fx] - F-1 X (4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third X (1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? 4 r , Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 (5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? (6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted by proposed construction activities? ?x ?x (7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X High Quality Waters (HQW)? (8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any of the designated ? X mountain trout counties? (9) Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X hazardous materials sites? PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO (10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the project significantly ? X affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? (11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X Resources Act resources? (12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X required? (13) Will the project result in the modification X of any existing regulatory floodway? F I - (14) Will the project require any stream ? X relocations or channel changes? 5 Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO (15) Will the project induce substantial impacts 7 X to planned growth or land use for the area? (16) Will the project require the relocation of F-1 X any family or business? (17) If the project involves the acquisition of ? right of way, is the amount of right of way X acquisition considered minor? (18)' Will the project involve any changes in X access control? (19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X property? (20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local traffic patterns or ? X community cohesiveness? (21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? (22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X increase traffic volumes? (23) Will traffic be maintained during ? construction using existing roads, staged X construction, or on-site detours? (24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds ? X concerning the project? 6 JP Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 (25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? CULTURAL RESOURCES (26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? (27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources (public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? x F-1 YES NO ?x F-1 x (28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X as a component of or proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? 7 Date: 1/93 t Revised: 1/94 F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E (Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.) RESPONSE'TO QUESTION #2 AS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 THE USFWS LISTS TWO FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR UNION COUNTY: THE CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER (Lasmigona decorata) AND THE SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER (Helianthus schweinitzii). EAST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK IS NOT LISTED BY THE WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION AS A PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER. SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED; HOWEVER, NO SPECIES WERE FOUND. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT THE CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER. PLANT-BY-PLANT SURVEYS FOR SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER WERE CONDUCTED. NO POPULATIONS OF SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA. NO IMPACTS TO SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER WILL RESULT FROM THE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT. 8 11 Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 G. CE Approval TIP Project No. State Project No. Federal-Aid Project 8-2869 8.2691901 No. _BRZ-1162(4) Proiect Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN UNION COUNTY OVER EAST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 211 ON SR 1162 WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A TWO-BARREL 3.7 METERS BY 3.0 METERS (12 FT. BY 10 FT.) REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT WITH APPROXIMATELY THE SAME ROADWAY GRADE. IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED CULVERT, APPROXIMATELY 25 METERS (82 FEET) OF CHANNEL WIDENING WILL BE REQUIRED IN EACH DIRECTION, UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM. TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS DURING CONSTRUCTION. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one) TYPE II(A) TYPE I I (B) Approved: Date -(?r-H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning & Environmental Branch 11-7-Yle,l Wn?117e_ Date Wayne lliott Project Planning Unit Head /l 7- Date Zh l Ja s ject Planning Engineer For Type II(B) projects only: Date Q? Nicholas L. Graf, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION JAMES B. I-1''NT, )h DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY 17 October 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head Bridge Unit FROM: Phillip Todd, Environmental Biologist Qj Environmental Unit SUBJECT: Investigation of Natural Resources for the Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 211 over East Fork Twelve Mil ree SR 1162; e(l Union County; TIP No. B-2869• tate Project No. 8.2691901; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1162(4). ATTENTION: Michele James, Project Manager The following memorandum is submitted to assist in preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE). Included is the checklist for the PCE of the proposed project and elaborated information concerning water resources, biotic resources, federally-protected. species and wetlands and permits. The proposed project involves Bridge No. 211 over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek on SR 1162. This bridge will be replaced on existing location with road closure. The proposed action occurs in Union County approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of Wesley Chapel. A site visit was conducted on 12 October 1994 by NCDOT biologists Phillip Todd and Lane Sauls. WATER RESOURCES The proposed action involves bridge replacement over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) assignjs streams a best usage classification. DEM has designated Sandy Creek a classification of Class C which refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. DEM"manages the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Network (BMAN) which is an on-going ambient water quality monitoring program addressing long term trends in water quality. East Fork Twelve Mile Creek received a BMAN bioclass grade of Good-Fair approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) downstream of the project. Neither High Quality Waters 0 2 (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area. BIOTIC RESOURCES Two community types exist in the project study area; Maintained and Bottomland Hardwood. The dominant vegetation growing in th maintained community includes fescue (Festuca sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), winged elm (Ulmus alata) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica). The bottomland hardwood forest has a canopy dominated by American elm (U. americana), river birch (Betula ni ra) and sycamore (Plantus occidentalis). WETLANDS AND PERMITS The proposed bridge replacement will impact an estimated 0.06 hectare (0.15 ac) of wetlands. These wetlands are found under the existing bridge structure where there was standing water during the site visit. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit is suitable for use with a CE. The project manager noted that the the Corps of Engineers has been notified on these impacts and the subject project has been approved. This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit. PROTECTED SPECIES As of 15 September 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists the following federally-protected species for Union.County (Table 4). A brief description of each species characteristics and habitat follows. Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Union County SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Helianthus schweinit"zii Schweinitz's sunflower E "E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Lasmigona decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) E The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoidal, unsculptured shell which is greenish, yellowish, or brownish 4 BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT Plant-by-plant surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted during the site visit. Roadside shoulders and ecotones between these shoulders and hardwood forests were surveyed. No populations of Schweinit's sunflower occur in the project study area. No impact to Schweinitz's sunflower will result from bridge replacement. c: V. Charles Bruton, M. Randall Turner, File: B-2369 1 A Ph.D. Environmental Supervisor PERMITS AND COORDINATION (10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will thE-project significantly affect the coastal. zone and/or any "Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? (11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources? (12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ' required? 17 1-?/ 7 -1-11 (13) Will the project result in the modification , of any existing regulatory floodway? (14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel changes? SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC (15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or land use for the area? (16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business? (17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? (13) Will the project involve any changes in access control? 7 --1 (19) Will the project substantially alter the ? usefulness and/or land use of adjacent property? (20) Will the project have an adverse effect on ? - permanent local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? Date: 1/93 Revised: 1/94 YES NO