The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19950867 Ver 1_Complete File_19950808r-E 1 `? I) ` ' i Val , ?_< b' 'lam J . ? - , STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY August 3, 1995 q 5 Ol9' Regulatory Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office P. 0. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright Dear Sir: Subject: Union County - Replacement of Bridge No. 94 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 1937; State Project No. 8.2691501; T.I.P. No. B-2649 Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). eA e .e ore, do not anticipate requesting an Individual Permit but propose pro?eed and r a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendi (B -23) i ed November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisi ection 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. ?II If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at (919) 733--3141, Extension 306. Sincerely, 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 John L. Williams, Planning & Environmental A L?nion Count,,, Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 Over Beaver Dam Creek Federal Project BR7-1937 (1) State Project 8.2691501 TIP # B-2649 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U. S. DEPARTEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch .? 2?-Std <?f ?- C• Date Nicholas Graf, P. E. Division Administrator, FHAVA union County Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 Over Beaver Dam Creek Federal Project BRZ-1937 (1) State Project 8.2691501 TIP H B-2649 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION May, 1995 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: 51 ' !! Date Jo L. Williams Project Planning Engineer ????nnrrNrrr Q? ?. . Wo, -I e- 0// . Date Wayne lliott S E A L (•; Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head = = 6976 s ,` Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.. Assistant Manager •?•''•?.•r;;rrrPR Planning and Environmental Branch I. pion County Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 Over Beaver Dam Creek Federal Project BRZ-1937 (1) State Project 8.2691501 TIP # B-2649 Bridge No. 94 crosses over Beaverdam Creek. It is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. The 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 PROJECT The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing replacement of Bridge No. 94 with a 4-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert on new location (Alternate 1, Figure 2). Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment during construction. The estimated cost of the project is $605,000. The estimated cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $324,000. II. SUNMlARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters including strict erosion control measures. NCDOT will re-vegetate any abandoned corridors. NCDOT will implement all standard procedures and measures (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 NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions. IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS SR 1937 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Classification system. It serves approximately 700 vehicles per day. SR 1937 (Old Page] and-Marshville Road) is paved and runs in a north south direction in the vicinity of the bridge. Near Bridge No. 94, SR 1937 has 6.25-meter (20.5-foot) wide pavement plus approximately 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide grass shoulders. The vertical alignment is fair. The horizontal alignment contains a sharp curve of approximately 15-degrees beginning immediately at the north end of the bridge. This curve joins with another forming a reverse curve on the north approach to the bridge (See Figure 2). The existing bridge was completed in 1962. It is 25 meters (80 feet) long consisting of 2 spans at 12.5 meters (40 feet) each. The vertical clearance is approximately 4.3 meters (14 feet) between the bridge deck and the streambed. The deck is 5.5 meters (18.2 feet) wide with 4.8 meters (15.8 feet) of clear deck width. According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 25.3 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 6.3 metric tons (7 tons) for single vehicles and 6.3 metric tons (7 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The structure has less than 5 years of estimated remaining life. The current traffic volume of 700 VPD is projected to 1200 VPD for the year 2017. Truck percentages are 1016 TTST (truck- tractor semi-trailer) and 5% dual-tired vehicles. The speed limit in the area is 90 km/h (statutory 55 mph). Between the years 1990 and 1993 there were three accidents associated with the sharp curvature of the road and the narrowness of the bridge. There is one school bus presently using the bridge twice a day according to Jerry Helms of Union County Schools. There are no utilities in the area that are likely to be impacted by the project. V. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATES Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 94 were studied. Because the existing horizontal alignment is unacceptable, both alternatives are on improved alignments. Alternate 1 (Recommended) will replace the existing bridge on a new alignment, 678 meters (2225 feet) long, with a four barrel 3-meter x 3-meter (10-foot x 10-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). Based on preliminary design, this alignment will improve an existing sharp curvature from a 116 meter radius (15 degree) curve to a 3 50 meter radius (5 degree) curve. This would raise the design speed from less than 50 km/h (30 mph) to approximately 90 kmh (55 mph). It will also improve sight distance thereby reducing the high accident potential. Traffic will be maintained along the existing bridge during construction. The estimated cost of Alternate 1 is $ 605,000. Alternate 2 would replace the existing bridge on a new alignment. 412 meters (1350 feet) long, with a four barrel 3-meter x 3-meter (10-foot x 10-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Like Alternate 1 this alternate would improve the sharp curvature. The existing curve with 116 meter radius (15 degree) would be flattened to provide for 159 meter (11 degree) curvature. This alternate will, however only provide for a design speed of 65 km/h (40 mph). Since, the design speed would not meet the statutory speed limit. a design exception would be required. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The estimated cost of Alternate 2 is $ 573.000. `'I. ESTIMATED COST COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 Culvert $112,000 $112,000 Bridge Removal 9,000 9,000 Roadway & Approaches 288,000 267,000 Traffic Control 5,000 5,000 Mobilization & Misc. 86,000 82,000 Engineering & Contingency 75,000 75,000 Total Construction 575,000 550,000 Right of Way 30.000 23,700 Total Cost Estimate $ 605,000 S573.700 I'll. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS NCDOT will replace the existing bridge as recommended in Alternate 1. This will include replacing the existing bridge on a new alignment, 2225 feet long, with a four barrel 3-meter x 3-meter (10-foot x 10-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). While this re-alignment is long for a bridge project, it offers tremendous improvement without significant environmental or social impact. This alignment will improve existing sharp curvature from a 116 meter radius (15 degree) curve to a 350 meter radius (5 degree) curve. This would increase the design speed from less than 50 km-'h (30 mph) to approximately 90 km/h (55 mph). It will also improve sight distance thereby reducing the high accident potential. The new roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with 2.4- meter (8-foot) grass shoulders. If guardrail is warranted, an additional 0.9 meters (3 feet) of shoulder will be required. Traffic will be maintained along the existing alignment during construction. The estimated cost of the project is $ 605,000 which is only S 31,300 more than Alternate 2 (65 km/h, 40 mph design speed). VIII. TRAFFIC CONTROL Traffic will be maintained along the existing alignment during the construction period. Inconvenience to the traveling public will be at a minimum. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. GENERAL This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge in addition to improvement of the alignment 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. B. AIR AND NOISE The project area is within the Metropolitan-Charlotte Interstate (Concord) ._\il. Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Union 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 Policv Act. The project requires no additional reports. 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 project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that Alternative 1 would impact approximately one acre of statewide important farmland soils, and Alternative 2 would impact 0.6 acres of soils with the same classification. The SCS indicates that the relative value of the farmland soils which may be converted by Alternatives 1 and 2 is 39.8 and 42.6, respectively, on a scale of 0 to 100 points. Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006) indicates a total site assessment score of 62 out of a possible 160 for both alternatives. Total score reflects the summation of the relative farmland value and the total site assessment score. For Alternative 1 the total score is 101.8 and for Alternative 2 is 104.6. Neither of these scores exceeds the threshold of 160 total points, at which consideration of other alternatives is required. D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS According to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) there are no historic resources in the area of the proposed project. All structures within the area were photographed and reviewed with the SHPO and were determined to be of no likely historic significance. Therefore NCDOT anticipates no historical impacts. E. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS According to SHPO there are no known archaeological resources within the proposed project area. In addition, based on present knowledge of the area, SHPO feels it is unlikely that there are any archaeological resources (eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) occurring in the project area. The SHPO has recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with the project. NCDOT agrees and therefore an archeological survey was not conducted. F. NATURAL SYSTEMS PHYSICAL RESOURCES This section describes water and soil resources within the project study area, especially focusing on water quality documentation, information gathered on-site, and information gathered from the Union County Soil Survey and available maps. The B-2649 project site can be located on the Wingate, NC Quadrangle (USGS 7.5 minute series). Water Resources Beaverdam Creek arises in eastern Union County to flow northeast and join Lanes Creek about 6.9 kilometers (4.3 miles) below SR 1937. Lanes Creek eventually empties to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Above Bridge No. 94, the Beaverdam Creek watershed encompasses approximately 25 square kilometers (9.5 square miles) and drops in elevation from 195 meters (640 feet) to 143 meters (470 feet) above MSL at SR 1937. The project and watershed lie in sub-basin 03-07-14 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. When visited, Beaverdam Creek was roiled and at relatively high flood for the season, probably a result of recent regional rains. The current was strong, cascading over and around numerous boulders in the channel (Table 2). However, the high, sloping banks on either side of the channel easily contained the flow, so no overland flooding was possible. Table 2. Characteristics of Beaverdam Creek at the B-2649 Project Site. Location Bridge 61 m Upstream Substrate Current Stream Gradient Channel Width Bank Height Water depth Water Color Water Odor Aquatic Vegetation Adjacent Vegetation Wetlands Associated Gravel among boulders Strong Flat Relatively flat 6.1 m (20 ft) 2.7 m (9.0 ft) 0.5 m (1.5 ft) Brown None None Hardwoods Bank to bank Gravel, rock, cobble Strong 6.1 m (20 ft) 2.7 m (9.0 ft) 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft) Brown None None Bank to bank Water Quality In 1992, Beaverdam Creek, from its "source" to a point 1.4 miles upstream of its "mouth" at Lanes Creek, was assigned a classification of WS-II. "WS-II" refers to waters protected as water supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds; point source discharges are permitted pursuant to Rules .0104 and .0211 of this Subchapter; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required" (NCDEM 1993). With a WS-II classification, this segment is treated as "High Quality Water" but, otherwise, no "HQW" or "Outstanding Resource Waters" are designated in the vicinity (NCDEM 1993). No NPDES permitted dischargers are located on Beaverdam Creek (NCDEM 1994). No BMAN sites exist on Beaverdam Creek, and the nearest BM AN sites, in Lanes Creek and Waxhaw Creek, were rated "Fair" in 1989 (NCDEM 1991). Summary of Anticipated Impacts Due to the current classification, Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters will be implemented under any proposed action at this site. Assuming these practices are used, it can be concluded that minimal effects on water quality will result from the proposed actions. Therefore, from a water resource standpoint, it does not matter which proposed alternative is implemented. In either case, clearing of forest vegetation will have to occur and later restoration of the abandoned corridor will be carried out. After clearing, the new road bed of either alternative will be graded, which will compact the soil and could cause limited amounts of sediment to be deposited into Beaverdam Creek. The steep-sided creek banks pose the greatest difficulty in controlling erosion and sedimentation. If erosion can be minimized by using proper construction techniques, the amount of delivered sediment from construction could be smaller than the "natural" erosion rates of the adjacent agricultural areas. Reinforced concrete box culverts will be placed in the creek, occupying space currently occupied by boulders or free-flowing water, but the bridge pilings downstream will be removed. The net effect will cause little change in riparian characteristics. The aquatic species of most concern at this location are not likely to be affected by these actions, and overall water quality will not change. Soils The Union County soil sheet (USDA 1914) indicates that the soil at the B-2649 site is Wehadkee silt loam, which is identified as a hydric soil. Wehadkee lies close to stream channels and is subject to frequent overflow. However, on- site observations (see 2.1 and 3.1) reveal that wetland conditions do not prevail adjacent to Beaverdam Creek proximal to SR 1937. BIOTIC RESOURCES This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities that occur on the B-2649 project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting these communities as a result of the proposed actions. Terrestrial Communities Mesic Hardwood forest currently surrounds the existing bridge, but with some exceptions this forest has developed only within this century. West of the existing bridge, the level land upslope of Beaverdam Creek was cultivated in row crops, as evidenced by old plow furrows. Cultivation stopped roughly 40-80 years ago, and the area naturally succeeded to pine forest. Most of these pines were removed selectively by high-grade logging about 10-20 years ago. The relatively stable hardwood forest that dominates the area today has developed from the understory of the pine stand. Closer to Beaverdam Creek, the very steep side slopes probably precluded agriculture, and a narrow strip of forest roughly 10-20 meters (33-66 feet) wide has more-or-less always been present. East of the existing bridge, the upslope portions of land are still in agriculture, and ceekside vegetation occurs only in a band about 15 meters (49 feet) wide. Creekside vegetation on the east side is occasionally controlled by cutting that limits plant height to about 20 meters (66 feet) and favors weedy plants tolerant of frequent disturbance and full sunlight, owing to the large amount of edge. Floral Communities Two floral communities occur within the project area, Mesic Hardwoods and Roadside. The Mesic Hardwood community is a degraded but largely stable version of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community of Schafale and Weakley (1990) or the Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest Type (478) of Eyre (1980). Mesic Hardwoods occupy about 65 percent of the study area. Side slopes are not separated into a second forest community, due to the small area they occupy. The Mesic Hardwoods community occurs throughout the study area, west of the existing bridge. It also occurs east of the bridge in a narrow strip of vegetation about 15 meters (49 feet) wide along both sides of Beaverdam Creek. Beyond this strip, the land is used for agriculture. The Mesic Hardwoods community is better developed west of the bridge, because much less selective cutting has recently occurred. Most of the shade tolerant wildflowers listed below occur west of the bridge, whereas most of the sun tolerant wildflowers occur east of the bridge. Within the study area, the upper canopy of the Mesic Hardwoods community is very heterogeneous, largely because selected trees have been removed by high-grade logging. More recently, several large oaks have been wind thrown. These events have created an unusually uneven upper canopy. Canopy dominance averages 25 8 meterS2/hectare (110 feee/acres), a value about 50 percent lower than typical. The upper canopy contains red maple, sweetgum, northern red oak, white oak, white ash, shortleaf pine, winged elm, black oak, willow oak, blackgum, black cherry, mockernut hickory, and pignut hickory. Boxelder, sycamore, sugarberry, American elm, and honeylocust occur in addition to the species listed above on the more- mesic side slopes. In addition, tree-of-heaven occurs along the forest edge and near the existing bridge. The lower canopy contains saplings of selected species of the upper canopy and southern sugar maple, red mulberry, sourwood, redbud, musclewood, witch-hazel, eastern redcedar, flowering dogwood, storax, and sparkleberry. The shrub laver contains common blackberry, elderberry, multiflora rose, arrowwood, blackhaw, low sweet blueberry, fringe tree, and privet. Privet is especially common on the steep creek banks and in the northwestern quadrant. In addition, smooth alder occurs on the creek banks at the waters edge, and smooth sumac and fragrant sumac occur along the forest edge. The ground laver contains poison-ivy, summer grape, muscadine, trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, coral honeysuckle, two species of greenbrier, crosstiine, Virginia creeper, beggar-lice, flowering spurge, Solomon's seal, uniola grass, sedge, pokeweed, wild ginger, Christmas fern, St. Andrew's cross, wild yams, and heart-leaved aster. Except for the northwestern quadrant, foliar cover of the ground layer averages 15 percent, although it is somewhat higher along forest edges. Frequency among individual species, however, varies greatly. Japanese honeysuckle, poison-ivy, summer grape, and Christmas fern dominate, providing roughly one-half of the foliar cover. The other species listed above, some of which are represented by only 1-5 individuals, provide the remaining one-half. In the northwestern quadrant, foliar cover of the ground layer is less than 5 percent, owing to much higher levels of privet. The Roadside community occurs along SR 1937. It contains disturbance-tolerant species, many of which are exotic grasses, and foliar cover averages 75 percent. The Roadside community occupies about 10 percent of the study area. The community has not been systematically researched, and no published vegetation studies exist. The Roadside community contains common fescue, fleabane, English plantain, common ragweed, horse-nettle, rye grass, broomsedge, wild carrot, Johnson grass, dal is grass, indian- hemp, poison-ivy, knotweed, Japanese honeysuckle, foxtail, curly dock, common blackberry, dayflower, pokeweed, ruellia, woolly mullein, and prickly lettuce. The Roadside community is frequently disturbed by mowing that reduces total plant height and increases the dominance of grasses. Frequency of individual species is not uniformly distributed. Johnson grass, English plantain, and common fescue provide roughly one-half of the foliar cover, and the remaining one-half is shared by the other species listed above. Faunal Communities Pronounced differences in dominant vegetation east and west of SR 1937 create two distinctly different habitat types around the B-2649 project site, with the roadsides being the transition zone. East of the road, all upland is entirely open agricultural land where grassland species such as Bobwhite quail and Eastern meadowlark were observed. Except for the roadside margins, this open field habitat type mostly occurs outside the study area and will not be discussed further. Narrow strips of hardwood forest immediately along Beaverdam Creek stabilize the banks and provide minimal habitat for edge species and transient animals migrating along the creek. Raccoons and opossums, besides a variety of birds, are the most frequent visitors. West of the bridge the forest floor is elevated from the creek because the riparian zone is steeply sloped, with very narrow shorelines on either side of the creek channel. Migration through this area would therefore be somewhat constrained. Mature hardwood forest comprising at least two age classes, with the oldest specimens occurring along Beaverdam Creek, occupies the study area west of SR 1937. This parcel is contiguous with more extensive forested lands farther west, though a utility right-of-way runs northwest to southeast along the study area boundary, and therefore creates edge effects. Habitat such as this two-aged hardwood stand appeals to a great many avian species, which will vary with the season. Acadian flycatchers, Carolina chickadees, Tufted titmice, Carolina wrens, Wood thrushes, Red-eyed vireos, Ovenbirds, and other warblers are typical species inhabiting older hardwood stands. The Common Yellowthroat, American redstart, Indigo bunting, White-throated sparrow, and White-eyed vireo occur in thickets and second growth. Gray catbirds, American robins, Cardinals, Dark eyed juncos, and Eastern phoebes are also likely in disturbed areas. Thus, the diversity of songbirds found proximal to this project is probably higher than average for Piedmont sites. Numerous cavity trees observed throughout the area provide forage sites for woodpeckers such as the Downy, Haire, and Red-bellied, and cavities provide optimal reproductive success for Gray squirrels. The abundant dead and downed logs observed also provide suitable habitat for salamanders, snakes, and small mammals of the forest floor. Aquatic Communities No rooted or free-floating aquatic plants were observed, but false nettle and Japanese grass grow on fallen and decayed logs in Beaverdam Creek. The number of downed logs in the creek was higher than is typical for Piedmont streams, probably a result of stand age and steeply inclined stream banks. 10 Along the west bank, a crayfish specimen was collected, observed, and subsequently released. No positive identification was made, but this may be a Pee Dee lotic crayfish, a species known to inhabit relatively swiftly moxing streams. Roiled and silted high flow conditions made it impossible to determine if Carolina darters or any other fish might occupy Beaverdam Creek at this location. Bottom sampling for naiads (freshwater mussels) was conducted, but none were collected from the scattered gravel pockets among the boulders and cobbled streambed. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities A new bridge location is proposed to improve road alignment and safety. Two alternative sites for relocation have been offered, but whichever of the two construction alternatives is chosen, impacts on the biotic communities will be similar. The magnitude of effects will vary because one alignment is longer than the other. Replacement of the bridge in a new location about 30 meters (98 feet) upstream of the existing bridge (Alternate 2) would entail a shorter route than replacement about 60 meters (196 feet) upstream (Alternate 1). In either case, the existing bridge will remain open until the replacement structure is complete. Then the existing structure and pavement will be completely removed and the abandoned site will be restored to natural conditions. Both alternatives will require clearing Mesic Hardwood forest to accommodate the new road alignment. Clearing will reduce the amount of forest cover by 0.55 hectare (1.3 acre) for Alternative 2 and by 0.7 hectare (1.8 acre) for Alternative 1. Some of this loss will be recovered when the existing bridge is removed and the existing right-of way is allowed to revert to forest. Though disposition and future land use of the existing road right-of-way are not known, as much as 0.55 hectare (1.3 acre) could be reverted to forest if the entire existing right-of-way is restored. Loss of Mesic Hardwood forest cover will not cause significant environmental damage because (1) the losses are small; (2) the Mesic Hardwood community is very common in Union County, providing 57 percent of the forest cover (Brown 1991); and (3) forests in general are common in Union County, covering 43 percent of the land (Brown 1991). Trees not cut but adjacent to cleared areas will probably show signs of stress, due to increased solar exposure and root disturbance. In extreme cases, some of these trees could ultimately die and others could become wind thrown. This decline should not cause significant adverse environmental damage, because (1) only selected, scattered trees will have extreme symptoms, (2) most of the trees will recover within 2-5 years, and (3) trees that do not recover will be naturally replaced by other trees. No adverse impacts to floral populations are expected from the proposed project since (1) all species observed during the field investigation are common with adequate populations outside of the impact area (see sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2), (2) many plants are weedy and not native, and (3) no prime-quality or unique situations exist. Additional habitat fragmentation is the most detrimental effect posed by the proposed action. Cutting a new corridor through existing forest cover will increase edge effects, leaving two narrow strips of hardwood forest. Some species of songbirds are especially sensitive to such spatial relationships and will probably be displaced as a result of the project. The western strip of forest will remain separated from contiguous forest on its west by the utility- line right-of-way, and the eastern strip will be surrounded by open agricultural land. The restored right-of-way will develop adjacent to this strip of older residual forest. SPECIAL TOPICS This section addresses issues concerning wetland and protected species, providing conclusions concerning each species identified for protection. Waters of the US: Jurisdictional Issues No alterations to waters of the United States are anticipated. The riparian zone is steeply sloped and no wetland occurs in the study area. The box culvert's footprint will not appreciably reduce aquatic habitat. Anticipated Permit Requirements Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 should be applicable to project B-2649. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by another federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that the activity is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it will neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. A North Carolina Department Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Project B-2649 does not involve any wetland beyond the bank to bank impact area. Rare and Protected Species Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 12 1973. In the case of state- funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in decline. Federally Protected Species Two species are listed as endangered in Union County: the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Discussions of these species and conclusions concerning them follow. The Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) belongs to the family Unionidae, or "freshwater bivalved mollusks, often called naiads" (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). All mussels are filter feeders, usually burying anterior ends in the substrate and exposing siphons at the posterior end to filter detritus, bacteria, and small planktonic organisms from the surrounding water. Naiads have complex reproductive patterns and assorted methods for distributing glochidia (larval forms), which "may number in the hundreds of thousands" but exist only a few days once ejected from the female if they do not attach to a host. "Most are parasitic on the gills or fins of certain species of fish, but the infections are usually light and little harm." Upon reaching adult morphology through metamorphosis, encysted juveniles rupture their cyst wall and drop to the bottom, where they continue to grow in size and may live for decades. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1992), "little or no information is available on actual mussel population numbers." Many species occur in a single river system or lake. Some species exists in both lakes and rivers, though many are restricted to one type of habitat. While preferred habitat varies with species, "most stream species do best in gravel-sand substrate in good current." The Carolina heelsplitter is a lotic (i.e., stream- dwelling) species that can attain large sizes [NCMN IH has relic specimens %17.8 centimeters (7 inches) long]. Its coloration is distinctive, tending to turquoise or aquamarine on the outside, with a nacrous interior. Sampling all along the 61 meters (200 feet) impact zone in Beaverdam Creek did not produce any evidence of naiad populations. As noted above, gravel sections of the bottom were scattered among boulders and cobble. All such pockets within the proposed crossing areas and random spots throughout the rest of this stream segment were sampled. Sampling was done with a wire basket sieve. Biological Conclusion: The proposed project will not affect the Carolina Heelsplitter. 13 Schweinitz's sunflower generally occurs in full sun or light shade in low-density stands dominated by oaks, pines, and hickories. Chestnut oak, scarlet oak, black oak, blackjack oak, post oak, shortleaf pine, pignut hickory, sand hickory, and mockernut hickory are typical overstory species, whereas pinelands threeawn, little bluestem, panic grass, blazing star, goldenrod, aster, bracken fern, and blueberry are common understory species. These stands are typically bi-layered, maintained by occasionally surface fires that limit lower canopy and shrub development. In addition, Schweinitz's sunflower may occur in the Roadside community, where periodic mowing, but not herbiciding, roughly approximates the open conditions of fire-maintained forests. Possible forest habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs within the project area, although signs of recent fire are not evident. In addition, the Roadside community occurs. During the current field reconnaissance, suitable habitat was searched for Schweinitz's sunflower, but it was not observed. Even though the current survey was conducted in early summer, before the flowering season, Schweinitz's sunflower would have been identifiable, owing to its characteristic opposite, sessile-subsessile, somewhat revolute leaves with strigose-tomentose undersides--a character combination not common among herbaceous plants. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program indicate no known populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the project area. Biological Conclusion: The proposed project will not affect Schweinitz's sunflower. Federal Candidate Species The PeeDee crayfish ostracod, Prairie birdfoot-trefoil, Georgia aster, and Virginia quillwort have been identified as candidates for federal protection, and all of these species have been observed in Union County. Information concerning the PeeDee crayfish ostracod is limited. Ostracoda are defined as "a subclass of crustacea comprising small active, mostly freshwater forms having the body enclosed in a bivalve shell composed of right and left valves, the body segmentation obscured, the abdomen rudimentary and only seven pairs of appendages" (Webster's Third International Dictionary). Assuming there is some relationship between the Pee Dee crayfish and the ostracod, we might also assume that habitat exists at this site. Given the roiled and silted condition of Beaverdam Creek and the observed presence of crayfish in it, we might also conclude that the proposed project, using Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters, will not negatively affect the species. Biological Conclusion: Project B-2649 will not affect the Pee Dee crayfish ostracod. 14 Summary of Anticipated Impacts So far as can be determined the proposed actions will have no effect on any protected species. The amount of disturbance anticipated as a result of this project is expected to be insufficient to negatively affect any of the species of concern at this location. 15 1631 O 1754 A' <,205? ,r 1002 - - ?' 6 1753 753 >: ` v - --1r.:• >: : 2 ?.A - FAS :..? RAILROAD' ?,•;.; r.. 0 L754 1755' C ;._. ?----- 2.1 71 MARSHVILLE FAP Noun - POP. 2,01 11 1967 ? 958 1 2.8 4 1740 1.1 1754 -- - ON 1758 ?. 8 3 1740 1937 2 ? ° 966 ( 10 ° -0 1005 2 1934 1960 ? 1957 0 1959 • 1902 , 1973- 1986 n 1961 s ? - 1957 Bridge No. 94 , _ .. f 1957 5 l 1754 • 19 68 1 8 1903 1934 ?C,?? 19 7 1945 / S 47 . J p '& 0 903 r? ^ 1 1946 1946 1902 1005 4 \? 198 , / 1903 1937 1903 ?•? 19 29 -- ? L 1936 4 Barkers h Branc ? j 1934 O 1934 . 1 935 01 1929 -?_ _- A 48 l N \ 1.2 p t! Irvlew 1_934 7 7 1 005 .vjAEW / r t aw Sal i 4, 0 $ 601 , (.? 1 937 F . nvllle 1 4 Stallings ,9 `S i un ° o 74 io 1933 ? b - 9 s -tell / • IJ ? ? , O N ?' 4 r? v - N I U Wed nglonBakers vm _ -- - ? 1. , ' 1003 1 940 C' ? - 6 Mar dle - A ate _ . s 1929 ? J 7Wachew Miners Springs 12 White S - ?--. 1003 2.4 ak,„ 7 601 FAS H.-, I" PI, 9 6 I 1 937 q .6 1005 ? N AROL NA o f North Carolina Department Of Transportation j Plaimina & Environmental Branch UNION COUNT REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1937 OVER BEAVER DA."M CREEEK B-2649 Ire, 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2 Figure 1. p, it miles 1 miles 2 !? ?f r ??5,? r+rr '.y :r4 . O v ?? t1 'J - ib• ? '?' ? f e Ic1?l N ?sy • I r p ! t. k ? . y '{,qty! ps 4 S Y I ti $ n tw ?r r y 4 " alternate . 1y a , ru M 9 L YJ ? , r * •,? w CI2ltc 1 H ?S M ?t? a NS, J-Y ryW4-`4 r,^,, a: r t„v .r a ?1 s tf,? _t 'k ?"?/?????'?y^" ? .1?` { .:ya .ti.yr,???.yyt '/.C• eft: ,Y?.. r ?NJ .,a . i A four barrel 3 m X 3 m RCBC is the A -I proposed structure for both alternates ?. k r `?_. ?_ gam' ,{ , North Carolina Department of f tiS`s ?' Transportation p??4" 'y `, 4 Planning & Environmental Branch 14, t * UNION COUNTY g??• ' +' ?"s'''" ?f"' ''`' u: fir, I; REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1937 OVER BEAVER DAM CREEK rr? r B-2649 0 meters 60 meters 120 Figure 2 0 feet 200 feet 400 B-2649 Union County. Bridge No. 94 West Face of Bridge South Approach I North Approach F GURE 4 C U -? Z M D i' Q ' N O z m D c. z M I ON \\ D !O Z N i O m i9..Q U ?- a N / O \ o % ?? -lam ?// 111 II II II III II II n, l? >r 1 _ii ,G D I r N ii dN o m 11 ? ?' n f I North Carolina Department Of Transportation Planning & Environmental Branch UNION COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1937 OVER BEAVER DAM CREEK B-2649 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2 Figure 3 0 miles 1 miles 2 ATTACIROENTS STATE o , Nyir ire North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary August 5, 1993 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge No. 94 on SR 1937 over Beaverdam Creek, Union County, B-2649, ER 93- 9107 Dear Mr. Graf: cE?L Wes, ?W." AUG 10 1993 Division of William S. i?,tJr., ? tb On July 29, 1993, 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. There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our concerns. 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. 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Attachment Nicholas L. Graf August 5, 1993, 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, i tl ?Davht'erook Deputy State Historic DB:slw ?1" Preservation Officer cc: " L. J. Ward B. Church T. Padgett U.S. Oepartmenc of agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING Cate I (To he catr7were7 by Zeceml Agene/1 I ?t Land Evatwc?on ?rewst ?v _ S -G y Name of Protect I Feoent Agency Involved F \,N., Pr0002e0 Lana Use ?C ?d.C?Q. ,? ??c C?.?\?S I CaunCy aria Su. ?? n? on L C:) OC .N - - oat* Reduest aenv 3v GS PART 11 (To be completed by SCSI I to Or C', LO Ew Does ne site cantain prime, unique. statewide or Iota! impormnt farmland? Yes No Arms Irrigated Average ret•tn sus ()f no, .7te FPPA does not aopiv -do not C-OmOlets additions/ carts of this form). ) Q I V b NE I 1 (O to Mates Croolsl Farmade Land in Govt. 1unsCtezidn amount Ot purmand As Oetineo in FPPA C r v'n Aces: 3 a 3 1 Ck 3 % Ct 3 t -1 l Acres: 3 24 03-7 ---19-?- Name at Lana Evatuauon 5y3 em Uses Name at Lo= Sit. Anamment Svstam oats Lam Evatunuon Returners dV SCZ PART 111 (To be completed by Federal Ageny/) Ski A Alternative ?.te ?attna 0 I Site a I Site C I Site A. Total Acres To Be Converted Oirec ly C) I B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirecty I C Total Aces In Site I \.1 I \ • O I PART IV (7o be sampler-rd by SCSI Land evaluation Informancn I I ` A, Total Acmes Prime And Unicue Farmland 1 O I I I B. Total Acres Statewide And L=1 Important Farmland 1 1.0 1 0 . I I C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted I ?:>. DD 1 6 . D O I I 0. Pereentsev Of Farmland in Govt. junsaichan Ofitn Same Or Nigher Relative Vales I St I • I I PART V (To be completed by SCSI Lind Evaluation Criterion RelativeValua0fFarmlandTo8aConverted (Staleof0to100Poincs) p 3?• O 4Z?b PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Maximum I I S+te Atsassment Criteria ! r hws cruxes arr e=lz ned in 7 CFR 6SaSW Point I I 1 Area In Nonurban Use I \5 I \S I \5 I 1 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use I \C7 I \(Zp I \C) I I I a I 3 Perrznt Of Site Being Farmed I t? C) 4 Protection Provided By State And Lotal•Goverttment I a0 I I - 5 Distance From Urban Builtuo Area I -N /A I - I - I I 8 Distance To Urban Suoeort Services I 1-?,1 /,A I - I - I I -- 7 Size Of Present Farm Unit C,mcared To Avenge I 1 O I \O I \ O & Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland I as I p n I I 9. Availability Of Farm Sucoort Services I S I I I M On-Farts Investments I I O a CD 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooort Services I 12. Comoatibilirv With Exisiine Aoric:lltutal Use I O I TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 I \o a I \o a PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr VI I 100 3 ?.S L\ a . b Total Site Assessment (From Part V1 above ora local I sits assessmenr/ 160 I ?? \o a TOTAL POINTS (Total of above ?fins) I 260 I \ d1 •'? I \ owl ( (. _ site Selected: I Date Of Selection I ••_ ^ Yes Q _ No Ranson For Setectton: Attachment 2