The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201372 Ver 1_Final CE_Lavendar_20210203v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 1 Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form STIP Project No. Project Number (e.g. R-1234) WBS Element DF16012.2023801 Federal Project No. A. Project Description: Emergency bridge replacement on SR 2226 (Lavender Road) in Cleveland County. Existing bridge is a two-lane bridge consisting of six 50’ spans with steel girders and concrete deck. The superstructure is 26’-6” wide with a clear roadway width of 24’ and has two 10’ lanes with 2’ shoulders. The foundations consist of steel piles at the end bents and pre-stressed concrete piles on the interior bents. Two of the existing interior piers were located in the stream. The proposed bridge replacement consists of three spans with a total length of 300’ with the interior piers located outside the normal stream flow. The superstructure will have two 11’ foot lanes with 4’-6” shoulders to prevent storm water from discharging directly into the stream. The bridge will be designed using Sub-Regional Tier Guidelines with a design speed of 50 mph. The bridge length is based on the approved hydraulic reports. The roadway grade and alignment will be approximately in the same location as the existing structure. Traffic has been detoured from Lavender Road (SR 2226) onto Roseborough Road (SR 2212) to NC 226 and back to Cheatham Ford (SR 1456). The off-site detour is approximately 5.4 miles. B. Description of Need and Purpose: Two spans of Cleveland bridge #72 were washed out during a flood event in February 2020. One of the interior spans located in the stream was washed out due to high water and excessive debris in the stream. Damage to the remaining bents and superstructure greatly reduced the structural capacity of the bridge and could not be repaired without significant amount of foundation work. Replacement of the bridge is necessary to restore service for vehicular traffic on SR 2226 Approximately 1200 cars per day, several buses and emergency response use this route and with a detour route of 5.5 miles, closing the bridge permanently is not a viable option. Prior to the flood event, the bridge was listed as “not deficient” with a rating of 59 out of a possible 100. The superstructure and deck components were rated 6 out of a possible 9 and the substructure was rated a 5 out of a possible 9. After the flood event, the bridge damage was inspected and based on the damage to the portions of the bridge still standing, the recommendations was to replace the entire structure with a new bridge. C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action D. Proposed Improvements: 28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-6). DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1 v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 2 E. Special Project Information: Project has no impacts to any historic properties or archaeological sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Estimated Costs: Construction - $2,350,000 ROW - $50,000 Utility - $20,000 Estimate Traffic: Current ADT - 1200 vpd Design ADT - 1300 vpd TTST - 1% Dual - 3% Design Exceptions: No design exceptions are anticipated for this project. Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: SR 2226 is not part of a designated bicycle route. There are no sidewalks or pedestrian paths located along the project corridor. No recommendation are being made for bicycle or pedestrian facilities on the bridge. Bridge Demolition: Cleveland bridge #72 is constructed of steel girders and concrete deck with concrete footings. Two of the bridge spans has fallen into the creek and will be removed. The remaining portions of the bridge can be removed using standard demolition practices. Alternate Design: No alternate designs were considered due to the condition of the bridge post-flood and a no build alternative would not be acceptable due to the volume of traffic served by SR 2226. The existing alignment and grades are acceptable under the Subregional Design criteria so no alternate alignments were considered. Public Involvement: Several property owners who live along this route have called and inquired about the time line for replacement of the bridge. A couple of property owners have noted that the off- site detour has added several minutes of delays on trips to the adjacent towns. One of the adjacent property owners called with concerns of teenagers congregating on the damaged bridge and debris. Property owners adjacent to the bridge have been contacted and notified of the ROW and easements required to replace this bridge. NOTE: The following Type I(C) Actions (NCDOT-FHWA 2019 CE Agreement, Appendix A) only require completion of Sections A through D to substantiate and document the CE classification: 1, 5, 8 (signs and pavement markings only), 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20; or several other Type I Action subcategories identified in past NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreements (see Appendix D). Pre-approval as a CE does not exempt activities from compliance with other federal environmental laws. DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1 v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 3 F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists: F2. Ground Disturbing Actions – Type I (Appendix A) & Type II (Appendix B) Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type I Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix A) including 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22 (ground disturbing), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &/or 30; &/or Type II Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B) answer the project impact threshold questions (below) and questions 8 – 31.  If any question 1-7 is checked “Yes” then NCDOT certification for FHWA approval is required.  If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions in Section G. PROJECT IMPACT THRESHOLDS (FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked “Yes”.) Yes No 1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMF S)? ☐  2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)? ☐  3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any reason, following appropriate public involvement? ☐  4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low- income and/or minority populations? ☐  5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial amount of right of way acquisition? ☐  6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ☐  7 Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic Landmark (NHL)? ☐  If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions in Section G. Other Considerations Yes No 8 Is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination unresolved or is the project covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7?  ☐ 9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ☐  10 Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)? ☐  11 Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated mountain trout streams? ☐  12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Section 404 Permit? ☐  13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed facility? ☐  DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1 v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 4 Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued) Yes No 14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological remains? ☐  15 Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.? ☐  16 Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart A? ☐  17 Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ☐  18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ☐  19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? ☐  20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ☐  21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands? ☐  22 Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or construction of an interchange on an interstate? ☐  23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ☐  24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ☐  25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? ☐  26 Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property? ☐  27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐  28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☐  29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy? ☐  30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)?  ☐ 31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that affected the project decision? ☐  DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1 v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 5 G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked ‘Yes’): Question 8 – Threatened and Endangered Species: Northern long-eared bat During field investigations on March 2, 2018 the area was assessed for suitable bat habitat. The area being forested was found to provide suitable habitat. Natural Heritage Program records document the nearest Northern Long-Eared Bat location approximately 32 miles northwest of the proposed project area. The closest listed underground mine, per NHP database is the Shiloh Church Property, 4.9 miles southeast of the project. There are currently no known hibernaculum or maternity roost trees in Division 12 counties for NLEB; therefore, the minor tree clearing associated with this DOT project would be exempted from incidental take under the 4(d) Rule streamlined consultation form. Per guidance from USFWS personnel, concurrence is granted by citing the following website and a 30-day response period is waved. http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html Question 30 – Prime or Important Farmland Soils: The project is located in an area with Prime Farmland soils, Toccoa loam and also Farmland of Statewide Importance soils, Madison gravelly sandy clay loam and Pacolet-Saw complex. The project area consists of roadway right of way and an active steam channel with a small riparian buffer. There doesn’t appear to be any active agricultural operations within the project area. A screening conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and NCDOT division 12 staff was completed as required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The farmland conversion impact total rating was 105 which is less than the minimum required for alternate sites to be considered. DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1 v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 6 H. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form): NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS STIP Project No. Project Number (e.g. R-1234) Bridge Replacement Cleveland Federal Aid Project No. Federal Aid Number WBS Element DF16012.2023801 Hydraulics Unit - FEMA Coordination The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Division 12 Construction - FEMA This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1 v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 7 I. Categorical Exclusion Approval: STIP Project No. Project Number (e.g. R-1234) WBS Element DF16012.2023801 Federal Project No. Federal Aid Number Prepared By: Date Jeffrey L. Wyatt, Division Environmental Officer North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division 12 Prepared For: Reviewed By: Date Steven Rackley PE Division Bridge Project Manager North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division 12  Approved  If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2 and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II Categorical Exclusion. ☐ Certified  If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2 and 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval.  If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion. Date Mark E. Stafford P.E. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division Engineer FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required. N/A Date for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see Section VII of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details). NCDOT Division 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1 1/25/2021 1/25/2021 1/25/2021 v2019.1 Type I(A) CE Page 8 ATTACHMENT A FIGURES AND AGENCY COORDINATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 856FB600-DDE0-4E2E-9732-0B15E88D3DD1