19960820 Ver 1_Complete File_19960827

• T AP
r'"fit 9 6 0 8 2(
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 22, 1996 ?5 ?11 i5
I; AUG 2 71996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers cI IIANOS :
Regulatory Field Office D ?AU?t!!
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Cleveland County - Replacement of Bridge No. 122 on SR 1152 over
Beaverdam Creek; State Project No. 8.2801001; T.I.P. No. B-2945
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject proje . roject is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categ al Exclu ion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipa recluestin an Individual Permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit i accord ce with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corp ngineers. 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.

2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone], Ext. 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. R. W. Spangler, P. E., Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Tracy Turner, Planning & Environmental Branch
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. _ B-2945 _
State Project No. 8.280.1001
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1152(3)
A. Project Description :
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 122 on SR 1152 over Beaverdam Creek in
Cleveland County. The existing structure is a pony truss bridge which has been determined
not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge will be replaced at the
existing location with a triple barrel 3.4 meter by 3.0 meter (11 foot by 10 foot) reinforced
concrete box culvert maintaining approximately the same roadway grade. The approach
roadway pavement width will be 6 meters (20 feet) plus shoulder widths of at least 1.2 meters
(4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) where guardrail is
warranted. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction. (See
Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 122 consists of a timber deck on approach I-beams with the main span
supported by a steel pony truss. The existing structure only has a clear roadway width of 3.4
meters (11 feet). The bridge was built in 1920 and has a sufficiency rating of 28 out of 100.
The bridge weight limits are posted at 9 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for Truck-tractor
Semi-trailers. Due to its structural condition and design, the existing bridge needs to be
replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
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
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp 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
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation 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
2
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and
there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
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 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.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit 4 23.
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
Estimated Traffic:
$ 300,000
$ 47,000
$ 347,000
Year Vehicles per Day (VPD)
1995 100
2020 340
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway pavement width will be 6 meters (20 feet) plus shoulder
widths of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1
meters (7 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
Based on initial design, it appears that the design speed will be approximately
40 km/h (25 mph). A design exception may be required due to the low design speed.
Proposed Bridge Design:
The bridge will be replaced at the existing location with a triple barrel 3.4 meter
by 3.0 meter (11 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert maintaining
approximately the same roadway grade.
Functional Classification:
SR 1152 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Office recommends that SR 1152 be closed during construction and
traffic be detoured off-site.
4
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type 11 actions are involved in 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 YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any x
unique on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally --
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing -
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned -
growth or land use for the area? X
(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?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property?
X
X
X
X
6
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local - -
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
7
Date: 1/93
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.)
Not Applicable
8
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2945
State Project No. 8.2801001
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1152(3)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 122 on SR 1152 over Beaverdam Creek in
Cleveland County. The existing structure is a pony truss bridge which has been determined
not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge will be replaced at the
existing location with a triple barrel 3.4 meter by 3.0 meter (11 foot by 10 foot) reinforced
concrete box culvert maintaining approximately the same roadway grade. The approach
roadway pavement width will be 6 meters (20 feet) plus shoulder widths of at least 1.2 meters
(4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) where guardrail is
warranted. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction. (See
Figure 1).
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
/D/ Project Planning Unit ead
at 4react P einn e_lk?
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9
l'Jld
9176Z-8 'ON Wll
AINf100 ONVI3A310
'MS HS NO S3H0VOdddV 3001H8
Ol S1N3W3AOHdW1 ONV N33H0 wVOd3AV39
H3AO M "ON 3001US d0 1N3W3OV1d3H
HONVHe
IVIN3WNOHIAN3 ONV JNINNVIdtl
N0liVi80dSNVdl
d0 1N3W1dVd30 VNIIOUVO H1HON

moo`.
=1011W10130 MIUMS
D / ?" wed

i
) / / /1 ;_ est? ..

v
000
/
,ZS11
o

u? 1s cam- J ??.. 7-7,
SZ?l 609x ? -
°
`fn i ..
ozg*
o ?
•a
?
ZSI
,
?~.
i m
'° ZB' ?I V,

499/ ?i
S

via' 1
C
`
gcv

?/ 6 ,•N-1^/
l '
STArt
y
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
01 February 1996
Memorandum To:
From:
Robert Hanson, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist ?W Il
Environmental Unit
Subject: Natural Resources Technical Report for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 122 on SR 1152
over Beaverdam Creek, Cleveland County; TIP No.
B-2945; State Project No. 8.2801001; Federal Aid
No. BRZ-1152(3).
Attention: Tracy Turner, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
This document addresses four issues pertinent to the
development of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the
proposed project: water resources, biotic resources, wetlands,
and federally-protected species. A.completed Ecological Threshold
checklist for a Type II PCE is also included. The proposed
project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 122 over Beaverdam
Creek on SR 1152, with improvements to the approaches on SR 1152
(Figure 1). The project area lies in Cleveland County, 4.8 km
(3.0 mi) southwest of the town of Shelby. The bridge will be
replaced in the existing location, and traffic will be rerouted on
secondary roads during construction. Improvements to SR 1152
include paving 30 m (100 ft) on either side of the new bridge.
Project length is 152 m (500 ft), and the proposed right-of-way
(ROW) width is 18 m (60 ft).
A field investigation was conducted on 18 December 1995 by
NCDOT biologists James Hauser and Mark Hartman to assess natural
resources at the project site. Water resources within the project
area were identified and described. Plant communities were
surveyed, and potential wildlife occurances were predicted using
general qualitative habitat assessments. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (1993), and information
concerning federally-protected species was obtained from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (March 28, 1995). Potential
(9
If
CIS
?o
? ? nNu
` Brood
1

Hl h6ch /864

300 d,

\ ,O
it "' 0,
Crut
High Seh h
?

,
1152
`.`?\• •
?

152 > e4j \?` ?,•• / .ep?

AR ? t 1125 `/
f /
• / • \ •? .''," 1 Sh an hai
- - ^?'- _?? `\,`r' ?t•
? ?? .\r r-:? /
500
, ?• 711 ?
? 1152\ •'\ Cam'-' :1
/o

?? \ 1r G?, ?

?•

`f el?
Sprin"T
Ch I

e??
1159

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
?* P PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 122 OVER
BEAVERDAM CREEK AND IMPROVEMENTS TO
BRIDGE APPROACHES ON SR 1152.
CLEVELAND COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. B•2945
I FIG.1 1
jurisdictional wetlands were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
WATER RESOURCES
Water resources located within the project area lie in the
Broad River drainage basin. Beaverdam Creek, which originates 5.6
km (3.5 mi) northeast of the project, flows generally southward to
its confluence with the First Broad River, 6.5 km (4.0 mi) south
of the project area. The First Broad River then joins the Broad
River 4.0 km (2.5 mi) downstream from the Beaverdam Creek
confluence. At the project site, Beaverdam Creek flows in a
southwesterly direction.
Beaverdam Creek is approximately 11.0 m (36.1 ft) wide and up
to 0.3 m (1.0 ft) deep at the project crossing. The substrate
consists of sand, gravel, and bedrock. The flow rate is low to
moderate, and the turbidity appears to be low during periods of
normal water flow. The banks rise 2.0 m (6.6 ft) above normal
water levels. The river banks are steep and exhibit significant
bank erosion. Stream habitats are characterized as 80 percent
run/riffle and 20 percent pool.
A small intermittent tributary joins Beaverdam Creek 15 m (50
ft) upstream of the project area. This tributary has its origin
460 m (1500 ft) to the southeast of the project area and is 0.5 m
(1.6 ft) wide and 0.1 m (0.3 ft) deep at its confluence with
Beaverdam Creek. Barring significant changes in design criteria,
this intermittent tributary should not be impacted by the proposed
project.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage
classification of unnamed tributaries is the same as the water
body to which they are a tributary. The best usage classification
of Beaverdam Creek (DEM Index No. 9-50-32) is C (09/01/74). Class
C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. There
are no water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed
by DEM, 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.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these
organisms are reflections of water quality. BMAN information is
currently unavailable for Beaverdam Creek.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program administered by DEM. Three permitted
dischargers are listed for Beaverdam Creek. The names of these
dischargers along with their distance upstream of the project area
are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Point source discharges located on Beaverdam Creek.
Distance
Discharger km (mi)
Williams Oil Company 2.9 (1.8)
Crest High School 1.1 (0.7)
Crest Junior High School 1.0 (0.6)
The potential for water qualtiy degradation resulting from
project construction is high due to the close proximity of the
project area to surface water. In particular, construction within
the stream channel and along the banks may result in significant
impacts. Potential impacts to water resources include stream
substrate disturbance, increased sedimentation due to accelerated
soil erosion, reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the
water column, and water temperature instability. The moderately
sloping topography on the north side of Beaverdam Creek, along
with the generally loamy soil texture, suggest a moderate hazard
for soil erosion from exposed upland areas. In addition, the
steep stream banks along Beaverdam Creek indicate that stream
scouring of unprotected, disturbed banks will likely be a primary
concern. Sedimentation and substrate disturbance can
significantly reduce water clarity, light penetration, and
nutrient loading. Construction effects on water temperature and
dissolved oxygen content are attributed to the removal of
stream-side vegetation. Use of heavy machinery along streams also
increases the risk of accidental discharge of petrochemicals or
other toxins into surface waters.
In order to-minimize impacts to water resources in the
project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced during
the construction stage of the project. This would include:
1) elimination or reduction of direct and non-point
discharges into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams.
2) installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth
berms to control runoff during construction.
3) placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites to reduce runoff and decrease sediment
loadings.
4) elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains
or adjacent to streams to minimize disturbed surface area
in close proximity to surface waters and to reduce the
potential of accidental discharge of toxins into water
bodies.
Some degree of water quality degradation is probably
inevitable from project construction due to the necessity of
streambank and substrate distubance. However, impacts can be
minimized through adequate planning which emphasizes the reduction
of disturbed surface area and by protecting exposed areas from the
kinetic energy of falling and flowing waters. Use of BMPs will
also help to ensure that impacts to water quality are temporary
and localized rather than long-term and extensive.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources within the project area include both
terrestrial and aquatic communities, with their associated flora
and fauna. Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project area: transportation corridor, herbaceous
agriculture cropland, upland pine/mixed hardwood forest, and
piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest. These communities all
exhibit some form of past or continued human disturbance which has
affected their structure or species composition. The landscape
immediately surrounding the project area is occupied to a large
extent by agriculture and forestland, interspersed with minor
development along roadways. As a result, the communities within
the project area constitute a small forest fragment within this
mosaic. One aquatic community type was identified within
Beaverdam Creek and is defined as a piedmont perennial stream.
Much of the wildlife in the project area probably uses
various communities for forage, cover, and nesting habitat. Many
faunal species are adapted to the boundary conditions along the
edges of forests and clearings, and wildlife within the project
area likely utilize all communities to some extent. Such species
may not be listed for each community described. In addition, many
semiaquatic species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
The transportation corridor community consists of areas along
roadways which have been heavily impacted and maintained by human
development activities. Such areas extend out approximately 3.0 m
(10 ft) on both sides of the existing roadway. Significant soil
disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or
herbicide application, keep this community in an early
successional state. As a result, the community is dominated by
herbs and grasses such as fescue (Festuca sp.), crabgrass
(Digitaria spp.), and wild onion (Allium canadense). Important
associate species found further from the roadside include Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus argutus), tree-
of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia),
aster (Aster sp.), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Queen Ann's lace (Daucus carota),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), thistle (Carduus sp.),
pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin),
and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Wildlife expected in this
community type consists primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable
species such as white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus). Bird populations likely include
species such as northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Predators
found in this community are the black racer (Coluber constrictor)
and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
The piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest community occurs
along both sides of Beaverdam Creek where periodic flooding
deposits sediment and debris at the soil surface. The topography
of this area is nearly level, and the understory is moderately
dense with shrubs and vines. Most of this forest type is mature
in age (>50 years old), but one quadrant along the northeast
corner of the bridge is only 10-20 years old. Dominant vegetation
in the overstory and midstory of this community includes sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula ni ra), yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liguidambar styraciflua),
bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), red maple (Acer rubrum),
hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana). Understory vegetation-consists of privet (Ligustrum
sinense), rose (Rosa sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), water oak (Quercus
nigra), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Japanese
grass (Microstegium viminea). Piedmont/low mountain alluvial
forests provide valuable habitat for a variety of terrestrial and
semiaquatic species. Common mammals found in this community type
are raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana), and
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Birds typical of this habitat
include the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), yellow-rumped
warbler (Dendroica coronata), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), and barred owl (Strix varia). The copperhead
(Ankistrodon contortrix) is an important carnivore found in
piedmont/low mountain alluvial forests.
The upland pine/mixed hardwood forest occurs along the south-
facing slopes which rise up from the alluvial plain on the
northern side of Beaverdam Creek. This community represents a
midsuccessional stage of the dry-mesic oak-hickory forest
community and is approximately 50 years old. Dominant vegetation
of the overstory and midstory of this forest includes Virginia
pine (Pinus virginana), American holly (Ilex opaca), southern red
oak (Quercus falcata), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), white oak
(Quercus alba), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and
dogwood (Cornus florida). Understory vegetation consists of
cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), running cedar (Lycopodium flabelliforme), and grape
(Vitis sp.). Wildlife expected here includes the gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), southern short-tailed shrew (Blaring
carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroline), and five
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus). Birds which inhabit this
community type are the blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), brown-
headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and pine warbler (Dendroica
pinus)•
The herbaceous agriculture cropland community is located in
the southwest quadrant of the project area. This community occurs
in the floodplain of Beaverdam Creek where the forest has been
cleared and plowed for agricultural production. Corn (Zea sp.)
appears to be the crop species from the previous growing season.
At the time of the site visit, this community was virtually
without vegetation following harvest of the crop species.
Invasive species from the roadside areas such as fescue,
blackberry, and honeysuckle occupy the margins of the field where
plowing did not occur. Expected fauna of this community includes
species which move periodically between the fields and the
surrounding edge communities. Eastern harvest mouse, white-footed
mouse, eastern cottontail rabbit, woodchuck (Marmota monax),
hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus) thrive in fields along forest boundaries, and
white-tailed deer frequently migrate between forests and clearings
for shelter and forage. Bird poplulations likely include Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina), and mourning dove. In addition,
meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis)
may be observed perching along the forest edges overlooking the
agricultural cropland community.. Common predators along the
forest edge are the red fox (Vulpes vul es), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
Beaverdam Creek is a piedmont perennial stream community
which is characterized by a sandy to rocky substrate and clear,
cool water. Occassional overbank flooding occurs during storm
events, scouring the channel and depositing debris material.
Dominant fauna found in these streams or along the shoreline
include a variety of aquatic and semiaquatic species. Fish
species such as blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose
dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), shiners (Notropis spp.), darters
(Etheostoma spp.), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) are common in
piedmont perennial streams. Amphibians found in this community
include green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), and
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus).
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the
project area. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to
these biotic communities, resulting from project construction.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the project area.
Estimated impacts are derived using the project length and the
entire ROW width of 18 m (60 ft). Usually, project construction
does not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacted Area
Community ha (ac)
Disturbed Roadside 0.21 (0.52)
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.03 (0.07)
Upland Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.02 (0.05)
Herbaceous Agriculture Cropland 0.02 (0.05)
Total 0.28 (0.69)
The projected loss of habitat resulting from project
construction will have minimal impact on populations of native
flora and fauna. Although the impacted natural communities have
moderate value as wildlife habitat,.only a small area of these
forested communities will be disturbed. Construction will
primarily impact the disturbed roadside shoulder community, which
is already highly altered from its natural state. Plants and
animals found in this community are generally common throughout
North Carolina and are well adapted to persisting in disturbed
areas. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be
re-established after construction. Animals temporarily displaced
by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable for
the species following project completion. Only narrow zones along
the edges of the other communities will be impacted, and the
displacement of native flora and fauna away from the project area
should be minor. However, to minimize the temporary effects of
project construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should
be revegetated soon after project completion to reduce the loss of
wildlife habitat.
Indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat
value should also be insignificant. Because the project consists
of repacing an existing structure in place, fragmentation of
natural habitats and disruption of normal wildlife movement will
not be a serious concern. The existing roadway and bridge already
partially disrupt the natural movements of wildlife in habitat
corridors, such that the proposed project is not expected to
create unusual environmental conditions. Road width, traffic use,
and traffic speed will not be increased, so wildlife movement
between habitats will not be significantly affected. Post-project
conditions should be very similar to current conditions with
regard to habitat fragmentation and wildlife dispersion.
Construction activities will invariably impact the water
resources downstream of the project area. Construction activities
can be a leading source of sedimentation which reduces water
quality and impacts aquatic communities. Excessive soil erosion
from construction sites may result in the following impacts to
surface water resources:
1) Increased turbidity and sedimentation.
2) Reduced light penetration due to reduced water clarity.
3) Reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
4) Increased nutrient loading.
Sedimentation in rivers and streams reduces water clarity and
light penetration, affecting the photosynthetic ability and growth
of aquatic vegetation. Suspended particles may also impact
benthic filter feeders inhabiting downstream areas by clogging
their filtration apparatuses. Sedimentation affects the
concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water column by raising
water temperature. Warmer water contains less oxygen and results
in a reduction in aquatic life dependent on high oxygen
concentrations. Moreover, increased nutrient loadings can result
in the accelerated growth of certain types of algae at the expense
of other aquatic organisms. The indirect loss of aquatic plants
and animals resulting from these processes may ultimately affect
terrestrial fauna which feed upon these resources.
The proposed project should have only moderate impacts on
downstream aquatic communities, assuming precautionary measures
are taken. Because the project consists of a bridge replacement,
only a relatively small surface area of soil should be exposed by
construction activities. Erosion and sedimentation will be most
pronounced as a result of disturbance of the stream banks and
substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project
completion if exposed soils are revegetated and streambanks are
stabilized. Minimizing the area of streambank disturbance will
greatly aid in limiting erosion from the project area and
protecting aquatic communities. Toxic inputs from roadways
following construction should also be minimal due to the low
traffic use expected for the new bridge facility. Overall impacts
to aquatic communities during construction will be most severe
locally and will diminish downstream of the project area as
sediment and toxins settle out of the water column.
WATERS OF THE U.S.
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 (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that
proposes to place fill material into Waters of the U.S. falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetland areas are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions
during all or part of the growing season.
Field surveys revealed that jurisdictional wetlands do not
occur in the project area. Hydric soils were not present within
the project area, as evidenced by highly oxidized soil horizons.
There was evidence of surface and subsurface saturated conditions
in parts of the alluvial forest community, but the site was
visited during the winter, and these conditions should not persist
during the growing season.
Although no wetlands are present in the project area,
jurisdictional surface waters will be impacted by the proposed
project. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA,
a permit will be required from the COE for discharge of fill
material into "Waters of the United States." Since the project is
classified as a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion, a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable for the proposed
construction. This permit authorizes activities that are
categorically excluded from environmental documentation because
they neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
environmental effect.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide
Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a
prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Threatened or endangered species are species whose
populations are in decline and which face probable extinction in
the near future without strict conservation management. Federal
law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,
protects plant and animal species which have been classified as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or
Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the ESA require that any action which is likely to adversely
affect such federally classified species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other potentially
endangered species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists only one federally-
protected species for Cleveland County, the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora). A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat of this species follows, along with a
conclusion concerning probable impacts.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid March - mid May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland,
Lincoln, Rutherford.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along
bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions
with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described
as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the
southeastern mixed forest.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists along
the upland slopes of the upland pine/mixed hardwood
community. These areas were surveyed during the site visit
and no individuals of Hexastylis spp. were found. A review
of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats revealed no record of known populations
of dwarf-flowered heartleaf within 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of the
project area. Therefore, no impacts to this species are
anticipated.
No federal candidate species are
County as of March 28, 1995. Federal
are defined as taxa for which there is
vulnerability, but for which there are
warrant a formal federal listing.
SUMMARY
listed for Cleveland
candidate (C2) species
some evidence of
not sufficient data to
The proposed project should have only minor effects on
natural resources and environmental quality in the vicinity
of the project area, given adequate preliminary planning.
The primary issue of concern is protecting water quality from
excessive sedimentation as a result of stream bank and
substrate disturbance. Minimizing the impacted area along
11
the stream channel and protecting exposed soils from erosion
should greatly aid in reducing water quality degradation. No
wetlands or endangered species occur in the project area, and
effects on populations of other native plants and animals
should be minor. Permits will be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Environmental
Management prior to construction initiation for impacts to
surface water resources.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Cyndi Bell, Acting Permits Supervisor
File: B-2945
N. 'nf
M.n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVEINOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGFL N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scoping Meeting Minute Recipients
FROM: Tracy Turner, Project Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Addition to Minutes for Scoping Meeting for TIP Project B-2945
DATE: November 9, 1995
Due to Mr. Ted Devens promotion, I have recently been assigned several of his projects
including B-2945 and B-2946.
During a review of the files for B-2945, it was discovered that page 2 of the scoping
meeting minutes had been omitted. This page has been attached for your use.
If you have any questions about the project, feel free to contact me at 733-3141, ext. 252.
U
Z?r
?o

Proceedings of Scoping Meeting:
The project was introduced as the replacement of Bridge No. 122 over Beaverdam
Creek.
Bridge No. 122 is a one-lane structure that carries SR 1152 over Beaverdam Creek.
SR 1152 is located in southwest Cleveland County, just east of Boiling Springs. Closure of
the bridge (hence SR 1152) is feasible, because a detour is available in the immediate
vicinity.
Bridge No. 122 consists of a timber deck on approach I-beams, with the main span
supported by a steel pony truss. The structure has a clear roadway width of 11 feet and a
length of 121 feet. The bridge was built in 1920 and has a sufficiency rating of 28. The
bridge weight limits are posted at 9 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for truck tractor
semitrailers.
A video presentation of the project site and detour was given.
The purpose of this project is to provide improved safety on SR 1152 by replacing
an aging and deteriorated structure. SR 1152 connects SR 1158 (Hamrick Road) with SR
1123 (Old Boiling Springs Road). SR 1152 is a gravel/dirt road with an 18-foot traveled
way and minimal grass shoulders. Length is 1.1 miles. Approach speed to the bridge is
limited by steep grades and a sharp curve. In the vicinity of Bridge 122, speed is limited to
15 or 20 mph.
A paved detour is available that causes travel distance to increase by 1.4 miles
longer than simply traveling on SR 1152. Starting at SR 1123 (Old Boiling Springs Road),
the best detour appears to follow SR 1123 northward, making a left turn onto SR 2541
(Crest Road), travel on Crest Road, making a left turn onto SR 1158 (Hamrick Road), and
following Hamrick Road until its intersection with SR 1152. This detour route crosses two
structures:
Structure No. 422 is a set of three 96-inch corrugated metal pipes which carry an
unnamed tributary under Crest Road.
Bridge No. 252 carries SR 1158 over Beaverdam Creek. The structure consists of a
precast prestressed concrete deck supported by concrete caps on steel piles. The structure
has a clear roadway width of 29.2 feet and a length of 121 feet. The bridge was built in
1976 and has a sufficiency rating of 84.2. Bridge weight limits are not posted.
There is no need for bicycle accommodations.
No structures are in the project vicinity, however the bridge itself may interest
SHPO. Ms. Debbie Bevin of SHPO could not attend the scoping meeting, but will be
consulted. The Division Construction Engineer indicated that the organization "Cleveland
Tomorrow" has expressed an interest in obtaining the old bridge. Ms. Sue Flowers
commented that any lead paint may have to be removed first. Mr. Tony Davis will check
with Bridge Maintenance and whomever else necessary to determine how old bridges are
turned-over to organizations, and who pays for the cost.
ir 'IV

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 6, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
??y *c
499
s s
ti 4F
Fs
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 122 over Beaverdam Creek and Improvements to the
bridge approaches on SR 1152, Cleveland County, T.I.P.
No. B-2945
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 July 19, 1995 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 Ted Devens, P. E., Project
?lPlanning Engineer, at 733-7842.
TD/pl r mog o l
Attachment I?jQ(v??i(cl C ?'- C ?jl? 1
k K
I d
ID
ki ?Xv
40
??l if 1??hm - clo ?J

-kw-
(I Ca

?Lmo

jhjo J?' ???` u
I
d_
viot
ht4 JC,
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
6/ 1 /95
TIP PROJECT: B-2945 DIVISION: 12
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1152(3) COUNTY: Cleveland
STATE PROJECT: 8.2801001 ROUTE: SR 1152
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 122 over Beaverdam Creek and
improvements to bridge approaches on SR 1152.
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace aging one-lane structure with a new two-lane structure.
PROJECT U.S.G. S. QUAD SHEET(S): Shelby, Boiling Springs North
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTENGENCIES) ....................... $ 0
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION) ............. $ 0
TOTAL COST .................................................................................................................. $ 0
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................................................................................ $ 350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ............................................................................................ $ 30,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ........................................................................................................ $ 0
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................... $ 380,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? NO
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 150 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 300 VPD
TTST _L.j % DUAL ? %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: 2-Lane dirt road with shoulders
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: 2-Lane dirt road with shoulders
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE --------------------------------------
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR ------------------------------------ ?
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE ----------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 36.9 METERS WIDTH 3.4 METERS
121 FEET 11 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH 36.9 METERS WIDTH 7.3 METERS
121 FEET 24 FEET
..r -

High 1
? 8M
864

800

,
High Sch ?s
?
O
? 1152 ? % ?, ?? 1 •
=a ?,y 1 \

151 > ?
• ?...' -' (\ ?9?
90_ S2
m00 \, aa•
_ • •
tj

820-
/
\
I %
?•. •
xe \140
1- .
1v ; 1125

\ ? .
BM
741,

goo 1152 !!

ege L
Sprih
1159

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 122 OVER
BEAVERDAM CREEK AND IMPROVEMENTS TO
BRIDGE APPROACHES ON SR 1152.
CLEVELAND COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. B-2945
I FIG.1 I
s_._
Project B-2945 Scoping Meeting
July 19, 1995
Agenda
Self-Introductions
Project Description
Replace Bridge No
1152. Cleveland County.
TIP Project B-2945.
. 122 over Beaverdam Creek and improve approaches on SR
Federal Project BRZ-1152(3). State Project 8.2801001.
Bridge No. 122 is a on -tan r .rare that carries SR 1530 over Beaverdam Creek. ~•
SR 1530 is located in southwest Cleveland County, just east of Boiling Springs. Closure of /
the bridge (hence SR 1152) is feasible,-beemwe-a-because a detour is available in the V
immediate vicinity.
Bridge No. 122 consists of a timber deck on approach I-beams, with the main span
supported by a steel pony truss. The structure has a clear roadway width of 11 feet and a
length of 121 feet. The bridge was built in 1920 and has a sufficiency rating of 28. The
bridge weight limits are posted at 9 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for truck tractor
semitrailers.
Video Presentation of Project
Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to provide improved safety on SR 1152 by replacing
an aging and deteriorated structure.
Existing Facility
SR 1152 connects SR 1158 (Hamrick Road) with SR 1123 (Old Boiling Springs
Road). SR 1152 is a gravel/dirt road with an 18-foot traveled way and minimal grass
shoulders. Length is 1.1 miles. Approach speed to the bridge is limited by steep grades and
a sharp curvee. In the vicinity of Bridge 122, speed is limited to 15 or 20 mph.
Detour Description
Depending on travel direction, a detour is available that causes travel distance to
increase by 1.4 miles longer than simply traveling on SR 1152. Starting at SR 1123 (Old
Boiling Springs Road), the best detour appears to follow SR 1123 northward, making a left
turn onto SR 2541 (Crest Road), travel on Crest Road, making a left turn onto SR 1158
(Hamrick Road), and following Hamrick Road until its intersection with SR 1152. This
detour route crosses two structures:
Structure No. 429 is a set of three 96-inch corrugated metal pipes which carry an
unnamed tributary under Crest Road.
Bridge No. 252 carries SR 1158 over Beaverdam Creek. The structure consists of a
precast prestressed concrete deck supported by concrete caps on steel piles. The structure
has a clear roadway width of 29.2 feet and a length of 121 feet. The bridge was built in
1976 and has a sufficiency rating of 84.2. Bridge weight limits are not posted.
Potentially Historic Architecture or Archaeological Sites:
No structures are in the project vicinity, however the bridge itself may interest
SHPO. Ms. Debbie Bevin of SHPO cannot attend the scoping meeting.
Comments by Environmental Agencies:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has
commented in the form of a letter reply to the scoping sheets. In her reply, Ms. Goudreau
wrote that "Biological Staff of the NCWRC have reviewed the scoping sheets for the
subject project and have not identified any special concerns regarding this project."
Initial screening of GIS reveals:
1. Beaverdam Creek does not appear to be in a water supply watershed.
2. Two NPDES sites are immediately upstream of the bridge site. The first site lies
between the bridge and Crest Road on the unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek. The
second site lies on Beaverdam Creek between the bridge and Hamrick Road.
Parks
None.
Hazardous Materials
None known. GIS revealed none.
Noise Impacts
The detour route will temporarily experience more traffic, thus more frequent noise,
than normally experienced.
Traffic Counts
The NCDOT Traffic Forecasting Unit has provided the following traffic count
information:
1995 ADT: 100 Dual %: 3
2020 ADT: 340 TTST%: 1
DHV: 12
DIR%: 60
Accidents
One accident was reported in the bridge vicinity from April 1992 - April 1995. A
southbound automobile ran off the left side of the curve approaching the bridge.
Railroad Crossings
None.
Structural Recommendations and Realignment of Bridge Approaches
Approaches to Bridge No. 122 are very poor. Both horizontal and vertical
alignment cause very slow approach conditions.
Comments from Mr. Lee McCrory, Roadway Design Engineer:
Speed Limits
Utilities
Right-of-Way Required
Other Comments
According to the Division 12 Construction Engineer, 'the organization "Cleveland
Tomorrow" has expressed an interest in obtaining the old bridge.'
Schedule
Currently scheduled as a Federal CE:
CE JUN 96
Right-of-Way OCT 96
Let Date OCT 97
Funding
The project is federally funded.
TIP Estimate
R/W 30,000
Construction 350,000
Total 380,000
Establish Interim Schedule
r?r?a
?r-
? r
Casa
r rrr

?i

BM .
864
Jim
- / 1
i
? l

• -
l
I '
\\ Q
.00
1 ??
1h
Rg
1
„
\\J 152
`?
810
xeov i o /`? \ \ 1125
•/
/ %
F - - Jl f ?. 1 • a ?i
'
Sh an hai
?I 7,!
?
?; ,.
800
i! 1. •\???

\\
I
' ? •--
'gyp
'p , 1152
1 i \
(<;?•,
eii
1

47
-
` /
. \\ Springs i /
C ? •? /. ?
/ L

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 122 OVER
BEAVERDAM CREEK AND IMPROVEMENTS TO
BRIDGE APPROACHES ON SR 1152.
CLEVELAND COUNTY
TI.P. RO 1: 71)^5
S
a
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Ted Devens, P.E., Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Minutes of Scoping Meeting for TIP Project B-2945
DATE: July 20, 1995
At 10:00 am on July 19, 1995, a scoping meeting was held for the subject project in
the Planning and Environmental Branch conference room In attendance were:
Ted Devens Planning and Environmental
Tracy Turner Planning and Environmental
Michael Rutkowski Statewide Planning
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Eric Galamb Division of Environmental Management
Darin Wilder Program Development Branch
Tony Davis Structure Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
Lee McCrory Roadway Design
Stephanie Briggs Planning and Environmental Branch
Betty Yancey Right-of-Way
Don Wilson Location & Surveys
Kevin Bisby Traffic Control
Theresa Ellerby Program Development
These minutes are augmented by the agenda sheet provided to attendees of the scoping
meeting. Copies of these minutes will be distributed to all attendees and to the FHWA.
Summary of Meeting:
The federally-funded CE will study replacement of Bridge No. 122 over Beaverdam
Creek and improvement to approaches on SR 1152. Cleveland County. Federal Project
BRZ-1152(3). State Project 8.2801001. TIP Project B-2945.
Two courses of action were decided upon:
1. Evaluate the possibility of permanent closure of the bridge, due to low traffic
volumes, availability of adjacent detour sites, and high cost of bridge replacement.
2. Evaluate replacement of Bridge No. 122 with a culvert, using the least expensive
means. First priority is to replace the bridge on its existing site. Second priority is to study
otherwise.
Comments from Environmental agencies were then discussed. Ms. Stephanie
Goudreau of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has commented in the form of a
letter reply to the scoping sheets. In her reply, Ms. Goudreau wrote that "Biological Staff
of the NCWRC have reviewed the scoping sheets for the subject project and have not
identified any special concerns regarding this project."
Initial screening of GIS reveals:
1. Beaverdam Creek does not appear to be in a water supply watershed.
2. Two NPDES sites are immediately upstream of the bridge site. The first site lies
between the bridge and Crest Road on the unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek. The
second site lies on Beaverdam Creek between the bridge and Hamrick Road.
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM requested three alternatives, in order of his highest
priority. First, he asked for a total realignment of SR 1152 to straighten-out the roadway.
He indicated concern about DOT wanting to realign this roadway in the future, and thus
once again disturbing the stream and woods. As a second priority, he asked for permanent
bridge closure. As a third priority, he asked for replacement of the bridge on existing
location. Mr. Galamb did not like the idea of a replacement bridge on a separate location
from the existing bridge - unless the road is totally straightened-out per his first priority.
When discussion was held about a culvert, he requested a maximum fill slope to minimize
impact to the stream site. Mr. Galamb classified Beaverdam Creek as Class C, and
mentioned that normal soil & erosion control measures would be adequate.
No parks or hazardous material sites are known to be in the vicinity.
The detour route will temporarily experience more traffic, thus more frequent noise,
than normally experienced.
The NCDOT Traffic Forecasting Unit has provided the following traffic count
information:
1995 ADT: 100 Dual %: 3
2020 ADT: 340 TTST%: 1
DHV: 12
DIR%: 60
One accident was reported in the bridge vicinity from April 1992 - April 1995. A
southbound automobile ran off the left side of the curve approaching the bridge.
Considerable discussion was held about approach recommendations and the bridge
replacement itself. Two study alternatives evolved:
First, inquiry will be made into the possible permanent closure of the bridge. With
the detour being a paved highway that is signed 55 mph most of its length, most meeting
attendees felt little need for SR 1152. The structures on the detour route are more than
adequate. Therefore, full consensus was reached that this bridge replacement is
unnecessary.

Second, studies will be made to obtain the LEAST EXPENSIVE replacement
alternative to replace the old structure. Mr. Jerry Snead of Hydraulics will determine if a
culvert is reasonable. He feels that it will be feasible, especially since the upstream
watershed is fairly small- Mr. Tony Davis requested a temporary diversion channel during
construction.
Given the very poor alignment of SR 1152, all agreed it does not make sense to
build an expensive, high design speed replacement structure. Mr. Lee McCrory stated that
a 25 mph posted speed should be adequate - but this will require a design exception. He
also commented that unpaved SR 1152 does not require posted speed limits, but that 35
mph is reasonable.
Mr. Devens voiced his doubt to Mr. Galamb that DOT will be realigning SR 1152 at
any time in the future. Given such low traffic projections and an excellent detour route, he
doubted that DOT would expend the funds. Other DOT personnel agreed.
Mr. Devens spoke to FHWA the day following the scoping meeting to explain the
situation. Mr. Dan Hinton, the FHWA Area Engineer, agreed that a low design speed
should be adequate. Mr. Hinton pointed out that DOT must first determine its own
recommended design exceptions, and then approach FHWA.
Traffic control was discussed. Traffic could be maintained on the existing bridge if
the replacement structure is built adjacent to the existing structure. However, given the
excellent detour, all felt that traffic should be detoured off-site.
Minimum right-of-way will be required for an on-site replacement. Even in the
event of an adjacent structure, only 40 to 60 feet of right-of-way is expected to be required,
and that will only be in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Ms. Betty Yancey relayed that the 1-year period currently scheduled for right-of-
way acquisition should be adequate.
Mr. Don Wilson of Location & Survey observed that several R/W stakes were seen
along SR 1152. He suggested contacting bridge maintenance and Division 12 to determine
if any projects are impending.
The project schedule was discussed briefly. Currently this project is scheduled as a
Federal Categorical Exclusion, due in June 1996. Roadway design bar charts currently
reflect a January 1997 R/W date and a January 1998 let date.
After the meeting, Mr. Devens called the Division Construction Engineer, Mr. Dan
Grissom Currently, the division has no plans to pave or widen SR 1152. Mr. Grissom will
talk with the Division Engineer, Mr. Ray Spangler, about possible permanent closure of the
bridge.