HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210427 Ver 1_Final CE_Cheatham_For_Road_bridge_washout_DF17112_2_20210222v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 Type I(A) CE Page 1
Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No. DF17112.2002807
WBS Element DF17112.2002807
Federal Project No.
A. Project Description:
Emergency bridge replacement on SR 1465 Cheatham Ford Road in Alexander County.
Existing bridge is a two-lane bridge consisting of five 35’ spans with steel girders and concrete deck.
The superstructure is 28’-2” wide with a clear roadway width of 24’ and has two 10’ lanes with 2’
shoulders. The foundations consist of timber piles at the end bents and concrete columns with spread
footings on the interior bent. Two of the existing interior piers are located in the stream.
The proposed bridge replacement consists of three spans with a total length of 200’ 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 60 mph. The bridge length is based on
preliminary roadway and hydraulic design information. The roadway grade and alignment will be
approximately in the same location as the existing structure.
Traffic has been detoured off-site using Cheatham Ford Rd (SR 1456) to NC 90 to Lackey Rd (SR
1504) to Sulphur Springs Rd (SR 1001) to Hill River Rd (SR 1491) back to Cheatham Ford (SR 1456).
The off-site detour is approximately 5.4 miles and uses routes in the town of Hiddenite.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
Alexander bridge #3 was damaged during a flood event in November 2020. Timber piles in the end
bent and an interior bent were scoured out and resulted in the bridge shifting several inches. Damage
to the remaining bents and superstructure greatly reduced the structural capacity of the bridge.
Replacement of the bridge is necessary to restore service for vehicular traffic on SR 1465.
Approximately 1400 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 “structurally deficient” with a rating of 57 out of a
possible 100. The individual bridge components were rated 5 out of a possible 9 (superstructure, deck
and substructure). After the flood event, the bridge was inspected and received a rating of 24 out of a
possible 100 and all components of the bridge had a rating of 1 which is used for bridge components
when the components are considered as “imminent failure”.
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).
v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 Type I(A) CE Page 2
E. Special Project Information:
Due to the conditions of the bridge after the flood event, an “Emergency Express Design Build
(EEDB)” contract will be used to expedite the replacement of the Alexander bridge #3. Estimated
costs for this project under the EEDB process is $1.6 million and will include all design work, ROW
acquisition and construction phases.
Estimate Traffic:
Current ADT - 1400vpd
TTST - 2%
Design Exceptions: No design exceptions are anticipated for this project.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: SR 1456 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: Alexander bridge #3 is constructed of steel girders and concrete deck with
concrete footings and will be removed with no resulting debris in the stream based on 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 1456. The
existing alignment and grades are acceptable under the Subregional Design criteria, so no alternate
alignments were considered.
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.
v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 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? ☐
v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 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? ☐
v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 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
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 – August 15
Biological Conclusion: May Affect; Not Likely to Adversely Affect
During field investigations on December 11, 2020 the area was assessed for suitable bat habitat. The
forested area adjacent to the bridge as well as portions of the remaining bridge was found to provide
suitable habitat (Bat habitat assessment form was not conducted on the bridge due to safety). Natural
Heritage Program records document the nearest Northern Long-Eared Bat location approximately 30
miles northwest of the proposed project area. The closest listed underground mine, per NHP database is
the O F Patterson Mine, 1.5 miles west 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 10 – High Quality Waters:
The South Yadkin River is designated as High-Quality Waters and therefore should meet design criteria
for sensitive watersheds.
Question 30 – Prime or Important Farmland Soils:
The project is located in an area with Farmland of Local Importance soils, Fairview sandy loam, and
Farmland of statewide importance, Fairview sandy clay loam. The project area consists of roadway right of
way and an active steam channel with a riparian buffer. There appears to be some active agricultural
operations within the project area. If federal funds are used for the project, a farmland evaluation will be
conducted.
v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 Type I(A) CE Page 6
H. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form):
NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
STIP Project No. DF17112.2002807
Iredell County Bridge Replacement
Federal Aid Project No. Federal Aid Number
WBS Element DF17112.2002807
Human Environment Section (Archaeology Group)
Due to this project being an emergency design build project a Cultural Resources PA
review has not been completed. This project is not anticipated to impact any archeological
sites, and coordination with archaeology group will be completed before construction
begins.
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.
High Quality Waters
The South Yadkin River is located in a watershed designated as High-Quality Waters.
Therefore, NCDOT will implement Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
Prime or Important Farmland Soils
This project is located within an area with Farmland of Local/Statewide Importance soils.
If federal funds are used for the project, a farmland evaluation will be conducted.
v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 Type I(A) CE Page 7
Categorical Exclusion Approval:
STIP Project No. DF17112.2002807
WBS Element DF17112.2002807
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 P.E. Division 12 Bridge Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
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 NCDOT Division 12 Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
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
1/8/2021
1/8/2021
1/12/2021
v2019.1 DF17112.2002807 Type I(A) CE Page 8
ATTACHMENT A
FIGURES AND AGENCY COORDINATION