The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20240462 Ver 1_Polk County - B13 - CE Final (3.15.24)_20240325DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form State Project No.: BP14.R042.3 A. Project Description: Replace Bridge 740013 on SR 1128 (Howard Gap Road) over North Pacolet River in Polk County. Bridge 740013, an existing 69-foot long by 20-foot wide (timber deck on still I-beam) two -span bridge, will be replaced with a 24-inch cored slab bridge approximately 102-feet long. Proposed Bridge 740013 will be widened to two 10-foot travel lanes with 2-foot 3-inch offsets on existing alignment. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same grade as the existing structure. The approach roadway for the proposed replacement of Bridge 740013 will extend approximately 87- feet from the south end of the bridge and 84-feet from the north end of the new bridge. The approaches will be widened to include two 10-foot travel lanes and 2-foot paved shoulders, 4-foot total. SR 1128 (Howard Gap Road) has a Local Rural classification and will utilize Sub -Regional Tier Standards with a 35-mile per hour design speed. The existing bridge is closed to traffic. Traffic will continue using the existing off -site detour during construction. The project is shown in Figure 1. B. Description of Need and Purpose: The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a collapsed bridge. NCDOT records indicate that Bridge 740013 was built in 1959. Replacement of the bridge will restore access over this section of the North Pacolet River. C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type: I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action D. Proposed Improvements: 23 CFR 771.117 (c) 28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replace existing at -grade railroad crossings, (e)(1-6). E. Special Project Information: replacement or the construction of grade separation to if the actions meet the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: NCDOT IMD indicated that there is low multimodal demand for the project area. IMD recommends that a paved shoulder width of at least 5-feet on the bridge be investigated. There are currently no bicycle or pedestrian facilities identified in the Polk County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) along SR 1128 (Howard Gap Road). A 2-foot 3-inch paved shoulder will be included in this emergency replacement structure. v2019.1 BP14.R042.3 Type I(A) CE Page 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Tribal Coordination: There are five federally recognized tribes with interests in Polk County (Cherokee Nation, Catawba Indian Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and Muscogee (Creek) Nation) that were notified of the project on August 23, 2023. All tribes with interests in Polk County will be notified if cultural materials or human remains are encountered during ground disturbance, construction, or demolition activities. Archaeological Resources: An archaeological site file search was undertaken on July 10, 2023. The APE was previously assessed with negative results during TIP R-5838 investigations. Eligible site 31 PL119 was identified nearby; however, it does not extend into the project area. No further archaeological work is recommended as long as impacts to the subsurface occur within the defined APE. A finding of No Archaeology Survey Required was rendered for the replacement of Bridge 740013 on July 17, 2023. Historic Architectural Resources: A historic architectural and landscapes review was conducted on July 10, 2023. National Register lister property PL0057 (Mill Farm Inn) is within the APE. An effects determination meeting was held on February 29, 2024, rendering a call of No Adverse Effect to the historic resource with a commitment to utilize two -bar metal 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 Yes No (FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked "Yes".) 1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ❑ 2 (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? 2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden ❑ R1 Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)? 3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any ❑ R1 reason, following appropriate public involvement? 4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low- ❑ R1 income and/or minority populations? 5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial ❑ R1 amount of right of way acquisition? 6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ❑ [1 v2019.1 BP14.R042.3 Type I(A) CE Page 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a 7 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic ❑ 2 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 2 ❑ covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7? 9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ❑ 2 Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), 10 High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed ❑ 2 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 R1 ❑ mountain trout streams? 12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual ❑ R1 Section 404 Permit? 13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory ❑ R1 Commission FERC licensed facility? Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued) Yes No Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 14 (NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological [1 ❑ remains? 15 Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas ❑ R1 stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.? Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory 16 floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a R1 ❑ 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 ❑ R1 affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? 18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ❑ [1 19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a ❑ R1 designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? 20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ❑ [1 21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g., U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, ❑ R1 etc.) or Tribal Lands? 22 Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or ❑ R1 construction of an interchange on an interstate? 23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or ❑ R1 community cohesiveness? 24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ❑ [1 25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan ❑ Planning Or anization's MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? v2019.1 BP14.R042.3 Type I(A) CE Page 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 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, 26 the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), ❑ R1 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 ❑ R1 properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? 28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ❑ [1 29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy? ❑ [1 30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the ❑ R1 Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA ? 31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that ❑ R1 affected the project decision? G. Additional Documentation as Reauired from Section F: Question 8: Federally Protected Species Northern long-eared bat — All structures in the project area were assessed on July 17, 2023. No evidence of bats was observed on the structure. A review of NCNHP records, updated October 2023, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. There are no known caves or mines within one-half mile of the project footprint and no caves or mines were observed during the field visit. Large, continuous forests are present in the project vicinity, providing potential foraging and commuting habitat. A biological conclusion of MayAffect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect was rendered for the NLEB by the USFWS on July 24, 2023. The tricolored bat is proposed to be listed as endangered. A bat habitat assessment was conducted on July 17, 2023, and resulted in no individuals being identified. A review of NCNHP records, updated October 2023, indicates one known occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area. A biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect was rendered for this species. Suitable habitat for the dwarf -flowered heartleaf and white irisette is not present in the study area. No species were observed during a pedestrian survey conducted on December 13, 2023. A review of NCNHP records, updated October 2023, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat and observed individuals, a biological conclusion of No Effect was rendered for both species. Species listed as Threatened due Similarity of Appearance (bog turtle) and Candidate species (monarch butterfly) are not afforded protection under Section 7 of the ESA and do not require Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. A search of the NCNHP database, updated October 2023, indicates no known occurrences of these species within 1.0 miles of the study area. No bald eagles or nests were observed during the December 13, 2023, field visit. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified in the study area on 2019 color aerials reviewed on December 9, 2023. A review of NCNHP records, updated October 2023, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species. Question 11: Trout Streams North Pacolet River in the project area is designated as Hatchery Supported Trout Waters in its upper reaches. The lower portion of this stream is sandy and trout spawning likely does not occur near or downstream of the bridge. NCWRC in a letter dated October 31, 2023, waived the trout moratorium in any required permits. v2019.1 BP14.R042.3 Type I(A) CE Page 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Question 14: Historic Resources The National Register listed property, Mill Farm Inn (PL0057), within the APE received No Adverse Effect determination on 03.01.2024 with an environmental commitment to utilize two -bar metal rails. Question 16: Regulatory Floodway Bridge 740013 crosses North Pacolet River, a FEMA mapped stream studied by the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) by Detailed Methods. This bridge is located on DFIRM Panel 0535. No structures will be adversely affected by the water surface elevations from the proposed project. The proposed bridge replacement results in decreases in the 100-year water surface elevation upstream. This project will be submitted as a State Floodplain Compliance (SFC) Type B. v2019.1 BP14.R042.3 Type I(A) CE Page 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 PROJECT COMMITMENTS COMMITMENTS FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN Division Environmental Staff - Bat Conservation Winter tree clearing (October 16th - March 31 st) will be required for the protection of the bat species Division Environmental Staff - Bat Conservation No night work. Division Environmental Staff - Bat Conservation No temporary or permanent lighting. Division Environmental Staff - Bat Conservation No blasting associated with project activities. Division Environmental Staff - Bat Conservation Survey bridge unit and any culverts greater than 3-feet diameter within 14 days of construction. Division 14 Construction - Bridge Rails The new bridge will utilize two -bar metal rails. Division Environmental Staff - Broad River Spiny Crayfish The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission will be invited to the pre -construction meeting. Contact david.mchenry@ncwildlife.org or (828) 476-1966. Division Environmental Staff - Broad River Spiny Crayfish NCDOT Environmental staff will apprise the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission of the project schedule, once known, so the bridge are can be surveyed for the Broad River Spiny Crayfish (Cambarus spicatus, NC Threatened). Hydraulics - Construction in FEMA Floodplain This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall: (1) construct all vertical and horizontal elements within the floodplain as designed; and (2) consult with the Hydraulics Unit of any planned deviation of these elements within the floodplain prior to commencing any such changes; and (3) submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction. The Hydraulics Unit will then verify either: (1) the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically; or (2) any changes made to the plans were reviewed and approved to meet FEMA SFHA compliance; or (3) appropriate mitigation measures will be achieved prior to project close-out. COMMITMENTS FROM PERMITTING No commitments developed during project permitting. *****END OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS***** DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 I. Categorical Exclusion Approval: State Project No: BP14.R042.3 Prepared By: cuSigned by: 3/14/2024 1 3:26 PM EDTF;,,c7 Date Stacy ^ arbiaun, PE, CPM TGS Engineers Reviewed By: DocuSigned by: 3/15/2024 1 2:48 PM EDT Fpafvi& �- bat'j1h'At Date Patrick rdUV�7PDEA Engineer NCDOT, Division 14 • If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2 and 3), [1 Approved NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II Categorical Exclusion. • If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2 and ❑ Certified 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval. • If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion. DocuSigned by: 3/15/2024 1 2:52 PM EDT F Date Zachar Sh erBc&vision Bridge Program Manager NCDOT, Division 14 FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required. N/A Date forYolonda K. Jordan, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration v2019.1 BP14.R042.3 Type I(A) CE Page 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Project Tracking No. (Internal Use 23-07-0003 -tm HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 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: Polk WBSNo.: BP14.R042.1 Document Type: MCC Fed. Aid No: Funding: ® State ❑ Federal Federal Permits : ® Yes ❑ No Permit T e s : Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 13 over North Pacolet River on SR 1128 (Howard Gap 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 July 10, 2023. Based on this review, there is a National Register listed property (Mill Farm Inn, PL0057) within the APE, which follows the boundary of the Study Area. An assessment of effects is required. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS Property Name: Mill Farm Inn Status: National Register Listed Survey Site No.: PL0057 PIN. - Effects ❑ No Effect ® No Adverse Effect ❑ Adverse Effect Explanation of Effects Determination: There will be no adverse effect to the historic resource with the following environmental commitments listed below. List of Environmental Commitments: The new bridge will utilize a two -bar metal rail. Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 1 of 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 FHWA Intends to use the State Historic Preservation Office's concurrence as a basis for a "de minimis" finding for the following properties, pursuant to Section 4(f): SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION ❑Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ®Design Plans FINDING BY NCDOT AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Historic Architecture and Landscapes — ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS —DocuSigned by: NCDOT Architectural Historian —DocuSigned by: kmtt, JJQe d�r,� Q Q -F-(xA% 02/29/2024 Date 02/29/2024 State Historic Preservation Office Representative Date —DocuSigned by: r,nsk QuLAS"Y Federal Agency Representative 03/01/2024 Date Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 2 of 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Design Plans for Polk Bridge No. 13 Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 3 of 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Legend • Bridge #740013 , County Boundary yF} City Boundary t� ,{ G N � at $�F ha ¢ ao PROJECT q LOCATION v ck, Yieh �rryCap 4 cc1- vie uS 176 F+wy - a� 00untry Cfut)Kd�d Tryon c Guts i N I�nunuy J. � Moupra+n F`d ��paG n m 0 0.25 0.5 i TRYO N f 1 i Miles �p r b� CaAAs 4`a C/J(tnc, y° m �a [HENBERSO.N sonville Rd 3 �J�ESRI World Street Basemap It Rock 1 1 I iL 1 1 r�r•l1 � Tri 1 % �---- andulrn NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT VICINITY MAP Date: 11-3-2023 OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Structure #740013 on SR 1128 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (Howard Gap Rd) over North Pacolet River �• Polk Co. Figure 1 �1�^ DIVISION 14 Emergency Express Project: BP14.R042.3 DocuSign Envelope ID: D7753C9D-4F3D-482D-800B-20D638951 DA5 Legend C• Bridge #740013 Project Study Area NC1 Map GIS Parcels Stream Centerline F. 5R`f1rz4 Harmon reel Rtl 0 50 100 200 I Feet NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT STUDY AREA MAP Date: 11-3-2023 ;1 OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Structure #740013 on SR 1128 u; DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (Howard Gap Rd) over North Pacolet River Polk Co. `�� Figure 2 DIVISION 14 Emergency Express Project: BP14.R042.3