HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211248 Ver 1_B-6017_Madison_CE_Signed_202108161
Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form
STIP Project No. B-6017
WBS Element 48207.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1341 (004)
A. Project Description: (Include project scope and location, including Municipality and County.
Refer to the attached project location map and photos.)
Bridge Replacement for Bridge 560222 over Back Branch on SR 1151 (Baltimore Branch),
Madison County, NC.
B. Description of Need and Purpose: The project is needed to replace a structurally deficient bridge.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
☒ TYPE I
☐ TYPE II
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).
E. Special Project Information: (Provide a description of relevant project information, which
may include: vicinity map, costs, alternative analysis (if any), traffic control and staging,
and resource agency/public involvement).
During construction, traffic will use a one lane temporary detour with signals downstream of the
existing bridge.
2
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
If any of questions 1-7 are marked “yes” then the CE will require FHWA approval. Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? ☐ ☒
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)? ☐ ☒
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 of questions 8 through 31 are marked “yes” then additional information will be required for those
questions in Section G.
Other Considerations Yes No
8
Does the project result in a finding of “may affect not likely to adversely affect”
for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)? ☒ ☐
9 Does the project impact anadromous fish? ☐ ☒
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? ☐ ☒
14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains? ☐ ☒
3
Other Considerations (continued) Yes No
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and landfills? ☐ ☒
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? ☐ ☒
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 or the Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
applicable)? ☐ ☒
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), 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's 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? ☐ ☒
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
8. The Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) is listed as a threatened species on the current U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species in Madison County. However, the
project study area is not located within a county or watershed know to contain NLEB
hibernation or maternity roost sites. Therefore, the project has met the criteria required for the
USFWS 4(d) Rule, and any associated take is exempt. Due to the exemption under the 4(d)
4
ruling, it has been determined that the proposed project “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect” the NLEB.
The Gray bat is listed as endangered on the USFWS list of proposed species for Madison
County. The bridge was surveyed for signs of bat presence/usage and no evidence of either
was found. Due to the stream size, structure type (steel beams), no evidenced of bat usage,
and distance from the French Broad River, the project will have “No Effect” on the gray bat.
11. Back Branch is within a Corps Designated Trout Watershed and is Class C by NC DEQ.
Since the project is bridge to bridge, stream impacts will be limited to bank stabilization, if
necessary.
14. An effects assessment for Historic Architecture will be conducted during the design phase.
5
H. Project Commitments
Madison County
Bridge 560222
Federal Project No. BRZ-1341(004)
WBS No. 48207.1.1
TIP No. B-6017
The project is not likely to affect any properties or archaeological sites listed or eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. An effects assessment for historic
architecture will be conducted during bridge design. NCDOT will complete Section 106
Tribal consultation following completion of the design.
All activities will follow NCDOT best management practices for erosion control.
6
. Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No. B-6017
WBS Element 48207.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1341 (004)
Prepared By:
Date Roger D. Bryan
Division Environmental Officer Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Reviewed By:
Date Christopher D. Medlin, P.E.
Division Bridge Program Manager
☒ Approved If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered “no,” NCDOT approves this
Categorical Exclusion.
☐ Certified If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered “yes,” NCDOT certifies this
Categorical Exclusion.
Date Steve Cannon, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature
required.
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Division 13
3/18/2019
3/18/2019
3/18/2019
Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 1 of 1
HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
**EFFECTS ASSESSMENT REQUIRED FORM**
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-6017 County: Madison
WBS No.: 48212.1.1 Document Type: CE
Fed. Aid No: BRZ-1151(013) Funding: State Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
Yes No Permit Type(s): USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No. 222 on SR 1151 (Big Pine Rd) over Back Branch
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background reports, historic designations roster, and indexes was
unde1taken on October 10, 2018. There are no NR, DE, SL, LL or SS properties in the study area. One
house in the APE was evaluated for National Register eligibility and recommend ELIGIBLE; the Ruth
Jane and Rueben Burton Caldwell Farm. In a letter dated January 28, 2019, HPO concurred with that
recommendation.
An Assessment of Effects will be required for this property.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Map(s) Previous Survey Info. Photos Correspondence Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- **EFFECTS ASSESSMENT REQUIRED**
Shelby Reap July 12, 2018
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
18-09-0015
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599
January 28, 2019
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shelby Reap
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: Historic Structures Survey Report, Replace Bridge 222 on Big Pine Road over Back Branch,
PA 18-09-0015, B-6017, Madison County, ER 18-4254
Thank you for your December 18, 2018, letter transmitting the report for the above-referenced undertaking.
We have reviewed the report and concur that the Ruth Jane and Reuben Burton Caldwell Farm (MD0302) is
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with rural
agricultural practices and under Criterion C as an excellent and intact collection of rural agricultural buildings in
Madison County.
We do not agree with the proposed boundary depicted on page 21. Rather than drawing the boundary along
the tax parcel lines, I recommend that the proposed boundary for the eligible resource be drawn at the edge of
pavement along Big Pine Road and Back Branch Road. It is our opinion that the rural character of the
property does not stop at the parcel line, but rather extends into the right-of-way with the continuance of
greenspace between the parcel line and these rural two-lane roads. This difference between the parcel line and
the edge of pavement is particularly critical in the area around the house and outbuildings.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT, mfurr@ncdot.gov
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 9
18-09-0015
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-6017 County: Madison
WBS No: 48212.1.1 Document: CE
F.A. No: BRZ-1151(013) Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 222 on SR 1151 (Big Pine Road) over Back Branch in
Madison County (TIP B-6017). The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is
defined as an approximately 600-foot (182.88 m) long corridor running300 feet (91.44 m) northeast and
southwest from the center of the bridge. The corridor is approximately 100 feet (30.48 m) wide extending
50 feet (15.24 m) from either side of the centerline.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed
the subject project and determined:
There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present
within the project’s area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 9
18-09-0015
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
NC DOT has conducted an archaeological investigation for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 222 in
Madison County, North Carolina. The project area is located west of Marshall in the southwestern portion
of the county and plotted near the center of the Spring Creek USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Background Research
A site files search was conducted by Casey Kirby at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on September
13, 2018. No known archaeological sites are identified within the APE, and no previous investigations or
reviews have been carried out within the project area. In addition, no known sites are reported within a
mile of the bridge. This is due to a lack of archaeological investigation in the region.
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2018),
there are no known historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological
deposits.
County and regional maps prior to the 20th century that were inspected provide only general details
concerning the region illustrating just major roads and settlements. The 1901 USGS Asheville topographic
map is one of the first to provide a reliable location for the project (Figure 2). This map depicts a road
similar to the current road with a crossing at or near the bridge. Structures are also plotted to the north and
south. The southern structure is likely outside of the APE, while the northern structure appears to
correspond to existing structures to the northwest. The 1936 Soil Map for Madison County provides a
clearer picture of structure placement (Hearn et al. 1936) (Figure 3). The southern structure is well south
and east of the road and will not be affected by the project. The northern structure does appear to
correspond with one of the existing building. It is unclear which building it is, but it is insignificant for
archaeology.
The USDA soil survey map for Madison County shows two soil types within the project limits (USDA
NRCS 2018) (Figure 4). The Toecone-Tusquitee complex (TsD) and the Tusquitee-Toecane complex
(Tud) are strongly sloping colluvial soils found next to drainageways. Although well drained, slope is
reported at 15 to 30 percent. However, the contour image and field survey found that slope is more gradual
that what is reported in the northwest and southeast quadrants. The northwest quadrant is a high terrace
with slope around 10 percent, while the southeast quadrant is a fairly level stream terrace. The soils also
contain an abundance of stones and boulders. The reported soils typically have a low probability for
significant archaeological resources, since it is not favorable for settlement activities with a slope of 15
percent or more. But with a more gradual slope and minimal disturbance, the probability for evidence of
early occupations increases. Therefore, an archaeological survey was recommended.
Fieldwork Results
The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the replacement of Bridge No. 222 was carried out
on October 3, 2018. This included systematic shovel testing at 30-meter (ca. 98.43 feet) intervals when
possible on the high terrace in the northwest quadrant and the stream terrace in the southeast. Discussions
with a property owner to the south determined that closer interval shovel tests were not necessary. He
claimed that a drainage once ran alongside the road in the southeast quadrant. This ditch was filled-in by
his grandfather many years ago, and Big Pine Creek was channelized and shifted to the east. However, the
terrace still floods regularly. He also stated that no precontact artifacts have ever been collected from either
the northwest or southeast quadrants when they were under cultivation. A current surface inspection could
not confirm this as vegetation now covers both quadrants. No shovel testing occurred in areas with obvious
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 9
18-09-0015
disturbance consisting of grading or fill, along steep slope of 15 percent or more, in areas covered by
impervious surfaces such as gravel drives or pull-offs, or where soils are wet. A total of five shovel tests
(STs) were excavated of which none yielded cultural material (see Figure 4).
Bridge No. 222 and Big Pine Road run basically northeast to southwest over the Back Branch, which flows
to the east into Big Pine Creek (see Figure 5). The confluence is approximately 150 feet (45.72 m) away
from the bridge. These waterways are part of the French Broad drainage basin. The APE is situated on
hillsides and sloping high and low stream terraces. The hillsides are steeply sloped to the southwest and
northeast. The southwest slope is partially graded for a mobile home and a small garden (Figure 5), while
Big Pine Creek runs between the road and the slope in the northeast. The northwest high terrace has a
gradual slope with an abandon house and farm on the property (Figure 6). A gravel drive and pull-off lead
up to the property from the bridge. The former field, behind the house, is lightly disturbed from plowing
and soil erosion. The low stream terrace to the southeast is mostly level and grassed over (Figure 7). As
previously mentioned, the terrace has been disturbed by earth moving activities, but they were not apparent
in the shovel tests which were excavated. The roads (Big Pine Road and Back Branch Road) have also
been cut into the hillside with fill pushed to the east. There intersection is just south of the bridge. Soils
near the confluence are wet with dense secondary growth along the waterways.
The soil stratigraphy consists of two layers. In the lower stream terrace, the upper is approximately 30 cm
(ca. 12 in) thick. It is a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) or brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam. This is
followed by subsoil, which is a brown (10YR 5/3) sandy clay mottled with light yellowish brown (10YR
6/4). It contains a heavy concentration of cobbles that prevented further excavations past 50 cm (ca. 20 in)
below the surface. On the high terrace, the surface layer is a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loam that
extends to 40 cm (ca. 16 n) below the surface. Subsoil is a strong brown (7.5 YR 5/6) clay that reaches at
least 50 cm (ca. 20 in) below the surface.
Summary and Recommendations
The archeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 222 in Madison County
identified no archaeological resources within the APE. Although 20th century material is in the area, it is
modern and related to the abandon house and farm to the northwest. No further archaeological work is
recommended for this bridge replacement project. However, if design plans change to impact areas outside
of the APE, then further archaeological work will be required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Signed:
11/28/18
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 9
18-09-0015
REFERENCES CITED
Hearn, Edward, Eugene Goldston, William Davis, C. Croom, and Samuel Davidson
1920 Soil Map for Madison County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Argiculture,
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. On file at North Carolina Collections,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
HPOWEB
2018 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service.
http://gisNCDCR.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed September 25, 2018.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA
NRCS)
2018 Madison County Soil Survey. Available online at
http://webosilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed September 25, 2018.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1901 Asheville, North Carolina-Tennessee 30 minute quadrangle map. Reprinted in 1907.
2013 Spring Creek, North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 9
18-09-0015
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Spring Creek (2013), NC, USGS 7.5′ Topographic
Quadrangle.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 9
18-09-0015
Figure 2. The 1901 Asheville USGS topographic map showing the location of the project area.
Figure 3. The 1936 Soil Map for Madison County showing the location of the project area.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 9
18-09-0015
Figure 4. Aerial View of the project area showing soils, contours, development, and ST placement.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 9
18-09-0015
Figure 5. View of the mobile home on the graded hillside in the southwest quadrant, looking southwest.
Figure 6. View of the abandon house and farm in the northwest quadrant, looking north.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 9
18-09-0015
Figure 7. View of the stream terrace and grassy field in the southeast quadrant, looking southwest.