The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20211572 Ver 1_CE.Completed_20211115v2019.1 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 1 Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form STIP Project No. none WBS Element DF17614.2044005 Federal Project No. DF17614.2044005 A. Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace and replace the SR 1888/Pisgah Creek Road Bridge 430005 in Cruso, Haywood County, North Carolina. The SR 1888/Pisgah Creek Road Bridge was severely damaged by Tropical Storm Fred on August 17, 2021 and is now being replaced quickly because it serves as the only vehicle access to many residents of the Cruso community. The existing bridge location connects Chinquapin Road with US 276 over the Pigeon River. The new bridge would be located in the same general location as its pre-existing location. See Figure 1 (Vicinity Map) and Figure 2 (Aerial) for project location. B. Description of Need and Purpose: The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the SR 1888/Pisgah Creek Road Bridge 430005 bridge recently damaged by Tropical Storm Fred on August 17, 2021 in Cruso, North Carolina. Bridge 430005 (Bridge #5) is in need of replacement because the structure was completely displaced with the flooding, and a replacement structure is needed as it serves as the only vehicle access to many residents of the Cruso community. C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action D. Proposed Improvements: Appendix A. Type 1, 28 Action Bridge 430026 will be replaced on its approximate pre-existing alignment with a modern cored slab bridge, but some work will be beyond existing disturbed right-of-way so a Type 9 action could not apply even though this was an emergency action. E. Special Project Information: This bridge was destroyed by flooding from TS Fred August 17, 2021, which has since been declared FEMA qualified disaster event. Tribal coordination was undertaken, however comments on or concerns with the action have not been received. Historic Preservation Office (HPO) quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes were reviewed on September 22, 2021. Based on this review, a survey bridge site, a nstone wall, 2 collapsed structures, an old road system, and an old pond, were identified within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Bridge No. 5 is listed as not eligible according to the NCDOT Historic Bridge inventory. After reviewing the bridge, it was confirmed that it is not eligible for National Register listing. The historic stone wall is not to be effected by the construction of the replacement bridge, and the other sites are outside the scope of the project. Therefore, there are no National Register listed or eligible properties affected, and no additional survey is required. v2019.1 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 2 A No Archaeological Survey Required Form was completed for the proposed project on September 21, 2021. There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the Area of Potential Effect (APE). There are no projects that have been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) within the APE. The APE is not within any areas that have been surveyed for archaeological sites. Therefore, there is no archaeological survey is required. Consultation with the federally recognized tribes has been initiated with comments requested by October 8, 2021. Comments have not been received as of preparation of this CE on October 18, 2021 but will be addressed as appropriate as they are received. Species with the federal status of endangered (E) or threatened (T) are protected under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended (16 USC 1531 et. seq.). Any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected will be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As of October 1, 2021, the USFWS lists six federally protected species for Haywood County (Table 2). None of the listed species would be impacted by the project. Table 1. Federally Protected Species listed for Haywood County T=threatened; E=endangered The project area (refer to Figure 2) was surveyed for jurisdictional features on September 15, 2021. The only feature noted is the mainstem of the Pisgah Creek and an UT to Pisgah Creek. Pisgah Creek is a short distance upstream to the East Fork Pigeon River (DEQ Class: WS-III, Tr.) has a large watershed and supports fish including wild trout. NCDEQ identifies the watershed as a Protected area. The river is believed to be Relatively Permanent Waters and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order to construct the project, it will be necessary to impact Waters of the United States in the Pigeon River Basin (HUC 06010106010010). Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to perform excavation to restore pre-storm channel dimensions and fills for temporary dewatering, rip rap bank protection, and rock pads. The portion of Pisgah Crek within the study area is not identified by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission as designated trout fishing areas. Tropical Storm Fred damage repairs in NCDOT Division 14 have been coordinated many times with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NCDEQ Division of Water Resources, and NC Wildlife Resources Commission, including a September 7, 2021 inter-agency field meeting initiated at 430005 where likely impacts for reconstruction of this bridge were discussed. Agencies have permitted urgent repairs to proceed with after-the-fact documentation. Applicable supporting correspondence is attached. Compensatory mitigation has not been proposed because the permanent and temporary impacts are minimal overall. Permanent impacts are for rip rap protection only, and thereby do not constitute an appreciable loss or diminution of aquatic habitat. The proposed project is anticipated to affect farmland of local importance. However, the bridge will only affect existing roadways and uncultivatable riverbanks; therefore, farmland soil impacts are not considered to be appreciable. Species Federal Status Scientific Name Common Name Myotis grisescens Gray bat E Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian Elktoe E Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen E v2019.1 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 3 v2019.1 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 4 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 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 5 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 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 6 G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked ‘Yes’): 30. Soils of statewide importance will be impacted, but the permanent impacts are within existing right-of- way. Easements will temporarily impact a small amount of soils of statewide importance, however, the potential use will revert following construction. This is also a maintenance project with no reasonable alternative with lesser impacts. v2019.1 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 7 H. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form): NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS STIP Project No. DF17614.2044005 Replace Bridge 430005 on Pisgah Creek Haywood Federal Aid Project No. DF17614.2044005 WBS Element DF17614.2044005 The project qualifies for After the Fact Nationwide 3 Permit, however the trout moratorium has been waived by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission for this particular storm event repair. v2019.1 DF17614.2044005 Type I(A) CE Page 8 I. Categorical Exclusion Approval: STIP Project No. none WBS Element DF17614.2044005 Federal Project No. DF17614.2044005 Prepared By: Date Kevin Barnett, Division Environmental Specialist II NCDOT Division 14 Prepared For: Reviewed By: Date Wes Jamison, PE Project Development Engineer, NCDOT Division 14  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 Wanda H. Austin, PE, CPM, Division 14 Engineer NCDOT Division 14 FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required. 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). Bridge Management, NCDOT Division 14 10/29/2021 11/1/2021 11/1/2021 89:X89:X430005430245JACKSONHAYWOODBUNCOMBESWAINTRANSYLVANIAMACONHENDERSONMADISONNCDOT GIS Unit¯Site 143Haywood Bridge 5(Green outline = anticipated disturbance limits)(Red outline = approximate footprint new structure)50 0 5025Feet-82.798567 35.428620 Decimal Degrees Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 1 of 3 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES NO SURVEY 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: County: Haywood WBS No.: DF17614.2044031 Document Type: Fed. Aid No: Funding: State Federal Federal Permit(s): Yes No Permit Type(s): Project Description: Replace washed out Bridge No. 5 on SR 1888 (Pisgah Creek Road) SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW Description of review activities, results, and conclusions: Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was undertaken on August 26, 2021. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defined on the following maps. All properties over fifty years of age within the APE appear to be unremarkable and/or altered, and none warrant further evaluation. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no survey is required. If design plans change, additional review will be required. Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project area: HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Haywood County survey, Haywood County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Map(s) Previous Survey Info. Photos Correspondence Design Plans FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED Kate Husband August 26, 2021 NCDOT Architectural Historian Date 21-08-0011 Project Tracking No. (Internal Use) Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 2 of 3 Project Location. Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 3 of 3 State Historic Preservation Office GIS. Project Tracking No.: 21-08-0011 2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM 1 of 7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED 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 Team. PROJECT INFORMATION Project No: County: Haywood WBS No: DF17614.2044031 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion F.A. No: Funding: State Federal Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: FEMA Project Description: Replace Bridge 5 on SR 1988 (Pisgah Creek Rd.) over Reed Creek in Haywood County. Area of Potential Effects is approximately 100 meters (329ft.) long and 48 meters (157 ft.) wide. This is an emergency bridge replacement due to a flash flood event. The failed bridge will be replaced on the same alignment with a new bridge. A temporary bridge will be constructed along the west side of the previous bridge. The project is federally funded and will require federal permits, so this review is conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEY REQUIRED Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: The review included an examination of a topographic map, the Haywood County soil survey, an aerial photograph, and an examination of records about previously recorded sites, previous archaeological surveys, and previous environmental reviews at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. The bridge is oriented northwest-southeast but is considered north- south for this review. The topographic map (Cruso, N.C.) shows the A.P.E. is in a moderately wide stream valley. The landform in the A.P.E. is floodplain. Reed Creek joins Chinquapin Creek a short distance to the west of the bridge. There is a structure shown adjacent to the A.P.E. in the southwest quadrant. The floodplain is depicted as cleared land, presumably for agriculture, so it is probably well drained. Well drained floodplain along streams has a moderate to high potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. The Haywood County soil survey shows the soil in the A.P.E. is Dellwood cobbly sandy loam (0- 3% slopes), occasionally flooded. Dellwood loam is a moderately well drained soil found on floodplains. In general, level, well-drained land near streams has a moderate to high potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. The aerial photograph shows the A.P.E. is mostly wooded. The northeast quadrant includes bridge 245 on SR 1888 over Chinquapin Creek. The A.P.E. includes land on both sides of Chinquapin Creek and along the north side of Reed Creek. A driveway runs east from SR 1888 along the north side of Reed Creek. The northwest quadrant also includes bridge 245, and there is a small section of land between the two creeks in that quadrant. The southwest quadrant is wooded, and there is some kind of linear feature (driveway, old road, or a small creek?) along the south side of Reed Project Tracking No.: 21-08-0011 2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM 2 of 7 Creek. The A.P.E. in the southeast quadrant is a small section of land between SR 1888 and the creek (the road turns to the east on the south side of the bridge). There is a small creek or drainage ditch running along the east/north side of SR 1888. There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the A.P.E. There are no projects that have been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) within the A.P.E. The A.P.E. is not within any areas that have been surveyed for archaeological sites. An archaeological survey is recommended for the level, well-drained landforms within the A.P.E. The northwest, northeast, and southwest quadrants appear to have the most potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. We can complete these investigations using one of the Archaeology Team’s on-call firms, or if Division would like to manage and complete the survey they can use a NCDOT prequalified archaeologist under contract with one of Division’s on-call firms. We can provide a scope of work for the Division to use, but we do need to know within seven days which path the Division plans to follow. All products produced by the Division’s consultant will need to be submitted to the Archaeology Team for review, acceptance, and submittal to the Office of State Archaeology as per the Programmatic Agreement. We would be happy to discuss this approach with you. (This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes have expressed an interest: the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; the Catawba Indian Nation; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.) SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence Other: FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST – SURVEY REQUIRED Caleb Smith 9/22/2021 NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date 12/13/2021 Proposed fieldwork completion date Project Tracking No.: 21-08-0011 2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM 3 of 7 Project Tracking No.: 21-08-0011 2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM 4 of 7 Project Tracking No.: 21-08-0011 2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM 5 of 7 Area of Potential Effects Project Tracking No.: 21-08-0011 2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM 6 of 7 Area of Potential Effects Bridge 245 Project Tracking No.: 21-08-0011 2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” FORM 7 of 7 Pisgah CreekEast Fork Pigeon RiverHungry Creek L o n g B r a n c h C o l d C r e e kHarley BranchR e e d C re e k C r a w fo r d C r e e k Chinquapin Creek200002764340001887434000188843 4000189043 400011004340001101434000193243 40001891434 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 3 430364 430245 430225 430093 430082 430013 430012 430011 430009 430008 430007 430006 430005 430004 430003 430002 DF17614.2044031 430005 35.42873879897914 -82.79869954109452 iywood County i r Proposed Temp Pipe for Temp Detour. .1'_ White Line shows limits requested for permit. Temp Detour Pipes placed by the Department Pipes may need to lengthened for Detour by 20" Each in order to maintain traffic Creek has realigned to the right in this photo approximate stone wall alignment stream that was here more of a Reed Creek side channel that is now blocked off stream here flows into Reed Creek above bridge site