HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211528 Ver 1_Bridge 560166 Madison Environmental Documentation_2021112207/02/19 1 of 5
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
TIP Project No.: N/A
State Project No.: 17BP.13.R.161
Project Location: Madison County, NC
Project Description: NCDOT Project No. 17BP.13.R.161 proposes to replace Bridge
No. 166 on S.R. 1533 (Hamburg Road) over Terry Fork in Madison County, North
Carolina. The project will remove the existing bridge and replace it with two 9-foot by 6-
foot reinforced concrete box culverts in approximately the same location as the existing
bridge (refer to Figure 2). The culvert sizes are based on preliminary design information
and are set by hydraulic requirements. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing grade. The purpose of the project is to remove a
structurally deficient bridge.
Project construction will extend approximately 178 feet from the west end of the new
culvert and 284 feet from the east end of the new culvert. The approaches will be
widened to provide two ten-foot lanes and 2-foot 4-inch paved shoulders on both sides.
The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local route using Sub-Regional Tier Guidelines
with a 35 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured onsite and will utilize the existing bridge during the construction
period.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: The United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion as to what Section 404 permit will be
required to authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) will be needed.
Special Project Information:
Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed project is to remove a structurally
deficient bridge. NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 166
currently has a sufficiency rating of 7 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The
bridge is considered structurally deficient due to a superstructure condition appraisal of 4
out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration standards. The bridge also meets
the criteria for functionally obsolete due to a structural evaluation of 3 and deck geometry
appraisal of 2 out of 9.
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year (2016) 310 vehicles per day (vpd)
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
07/02/19 2 of 5
Alternatives Evaluation:
No Build – The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the road, which is
unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by S.R. 1533.
Rehabilitation – The bridge was constructed in 1950 and is reaching the end of its useful
life. Rehabilitation would only provide a temporary solution to the structural deficiency
of the bridge.
Replace Bridge No. 166 In-Place with a Culvert and Onsite Detour (Recommended)-
The project will remove the existing bridge and replace it with two 9-foot by 6-foot
reinforced concrete box culverts in approximately the same location as the existing bridge
(refer to Figure 3). The culvert sizes are based on preliminary design information and are
set by hydraulic requirements. Traffic will be detoured onsite during the construction
period.
Offsite Detour - An offsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence of an acceptable
onsite detour.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: This portion of S.R. 1533 (Hamburg Road)
is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) as a bicycle project. Sidewalks do not exist on the existing
bridge. Neither permanent nor temporary bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are
required or recommended for this project.
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions.
Public Involvement:
Landowner notification letters were sent to property owners. No comments have been
received to date.
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is “no”, then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? 9
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
07/02/19 3 of 5
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
YES NO
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands;
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
fill in waters of the United States?
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
07/02/19 4 of 5
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an “effect” on a property or site listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Response to Question 9 –
Habitat for the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) and Gray bat exists within the project
study area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will act as the lead agency for
issues related to the NLEB. The USACE has developed a Standard Local Operating
Procedure for Endangered Species (SLOPES) to address NLEB when they are the lead
agency, which NCDOT will follow for this project. This procedure applies to projects in
NCDOT Divisions 9-14. The requirements of the SLOPES for NLEB will be completed
prior to Let and will be submitted to USACE. Survey information for this species will be
provided by NCDOT –Biological Surveys Group (BSG). Final design, tree clearing, and
percussive activities information will be provided in the permit application.
Response to Question 10 – Replacing the existing bridge with two 9-foot by 6-foot
reinforced concrete box culverts is considered permanent fill in the stream, including any
temporary fill/impacts from diverting the stream during culvert placement. Permanent
and temporary impacts to the stream will be determined during final design.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
07/02/19 5 of 5
PART D:( To be completed when either category #8, 12(i) or #15 of the rules are
used.)
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
20. Total acres of wetland impacts:
21. Total linear feet of stream impacts:
22. Project purpose:
Prepared by: Date:
Jackie Obediente, PE
Three Oaks Engineering
Approved by:
Date:
Mike Calloway
Division Bridge Program Manager, Division 13
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
7/2/2019
7/9/2019
07/02/19 6 of 5
Project Commitments
Madison County
Replace Bridge No. 166 on
S.R. 1533 (Hamburg Road) over Terry Fork
Project No. 17BP.13.R.161
Northern long-eared bat and Gray bat (NCDOT Division 13)
• After completion of the project, the contract administrator for construction must
submit the actual amount of tree clearing reported in tenths of acres. This
information should be submitted to Chris Manley (cdmanley@ncdot.gov).
• Please contact Chris Manley @ cdmanley@ncdot.gov, Environmental Analysis
Unit – Biological Surveys Group with any questions.
17BP.13.R.161– Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Page 1 of 1
July 2019
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
County:
WBS:
Date:
Div:STIP#NORTH CAROLINADEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Figure1MADISON COUNTYNORTH CAROLINA
VICINITY MAPREPLACE BRIDGE NO. 166ON SR 1533 (HAMBURG RD)OVER TERRY FORK CREEK
´
0 0.5 1
Miles
MADISON
13 N/A
17BP.13.R.161
NOVEMBER 2018
Project Location
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
Figure2SR 1533 (Hamburg Rd)Terry Fork
0 100 20050
Feet
Legend
BR-161 Study Area
Proposed Edge of Travel
Proposed Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail Anchor
Proposed Roadway Culvert
Proposed Right of Way Line
Proposed SS C ut Line
Proposed SS Fill Line
Proposed SS Transition Line
Existing Jurisdictional Stream
Existing R ight of Way Line
County:
WBS:
Date:
Div:STIP#
MADISON COUNTYNORTH CAROLINA
MADISON
13 N/A
17BP.13.R.161
JANUARY 2019
NORTH CAROLINADEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
´
PRO JECT DESIGN M APREPLACE BRIDGE NO. 166ON SR 1533 (HAMBURG RD)OVER TERRY FORK CREEK
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 6
18-12-0029
NO 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 Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Bridge 166 County: Madison
WBS No: 17BP.13.R.161 Document: Minimum Criteria
F.A. No: na Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 166 on SR 1533 (Hamburg Road) over Terry Fork in
Madison County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as an
approximately 930-foot (283.46 m) long corridor running 490 feet (149.35 m) east and 440 feet
(134.11 m) west from the center of the bridge. The corridor is roughly 300 feet (91.44 m) wide extending
150 feet (45.72 m) from either side of the centerline.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The proposed Bridge 166 replacement project is located east of Mars Hill in Madison County, North
Carolina. The project area is plotted near the center of the Barnardsville USGS 7.5' topographic
quadrangle (Figure 1).
A site file search was conducted by Casey Kirby at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on January 2,
2019. No previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the APE and only two sites
(31MD363 and 31MD365) are found within a mile of bridge. According to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) online data base (HPOWEB 2019), there are no known historic
architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits. Topographic maps,
USDA soil survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map), historic maps (North Carolina maps
website), and Google Street View application were further examined for information on environmental
and cultural variables that may have contributed to prehistoric or historic settlement within the project
limits and to assess the level of ground disturbance.
Bridge 166 and Hamburg Road run east to west along the Terry Fork drainageway (Figure 2). The
project area is situated mostly along hillside slopes with a narrow floodplain adjacent to the creek. The
floodplain widens towards the southeast. Terry Fork drains west into Paint Fork and is part of the French
Broad drainage basin. The area is rural with residential homes, forest, and agricultural properties within
the project limits. The house sites have been cut into hillsides and are located north of the road. A
pasture is in the floodplain to the southeast. It is low lying and appear saturated with water from images
provided by Google Street View. The hillsides seem undisturbed and covered in forest. However, they
are steeply sloped and possible eroded.
The USDA soil survey map for the county identifies four soil types within the project area (USDA NRCS
2019) (see Figure 2). The French loam (FrA) occupies the floodplain. This is a somewhat poorly drained
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 6
18-12-0029
soil type with a slope of less than 3 percent. It is subject to occasionally flooding. Due to persistent
wetness, this series is unlikely to yield significant evidence of early settlement activities. The hillsides
are made up of the Buladean-Chestnut complex (BnE; BnF), the Evard-Cowee complex (EvD2), and Tate
loam (TaC). These are all well drained soils with slope generally over 15 percent except on the Tate
series. The Evard-Cowee complex is also described as moderately eroded. Slope of 15 percent or more
is not usually tested, since intact archaeological resources are unexpected. The Tate series, however,
covers a small area to the northwest adjacent to the floodplain at the foot of the hillside. Although
moderately sloped at 8 to 15 percent, erosion appear to be the strong in this location according to aerial
and Street View images. It also encompasses only a small portion of the APE. Due to disturbance and its
limited extent, no significant cultural material is likely present in this area.
The absence of known archaeological sites in this region is due to a lack of archaeological investigations.
The two known sites (31MD363 and 31MD365) were recorded by amateur archaeologist, who was
surface collected along Paint Fork. Although more work is needed in the regions to better understand
settlement distribution, the current project setting will no provide any useful information.
A map review also failed to provide any significant historical information. Most early maps prior to the
20th century show few details concerning the project area. The 1902 USGS Mount Mitchell topographic
map is one of the first to display a reliable location for the project (Figure 3). This map depicts a road
similar to Hamburg Road with a crossing at or near the current bridge site. Two structures are also
shown, one to the north and the other to the southwest. Both appear to be outside of the project limits.
The later 1936 Soil Map for Madison County provides a clearer picture (Hearn et al. 1936) (Figure 4). It
illustrates the same road layout with all historic structures well away from the crossing. Although historic
resources might be encountered, they should be 20th century in nature and will not provide any new or
important information.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The proposed Bridge 166 replacement project in Madison County is not likely to impact any significant
archaeological resources. This is due steep hillside slopes and persistently wet soils, which contribute to
a low probability for archaeological sites. No further archaeological work is recommended for this
project. But if design plans change to affect subsurface areas beyond the defined APE, further
archaeological consultation might be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
1/3/19
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F
DocuSign Envelope ID: B2B6CD91-5211-48A9-9534-E4066CCBB40F