19960549 Ver 1_Complete File_19960605

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
401 ISSUED
9605,49
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 29, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
,01 ?. 1

GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

Subject: Lincoln County, Replacement of Bridge No. 85 over Little Buffalo
Creek on SR 1153, Federal Project No. BRZ-1153(3), State Project
No. 8.2831301, T.I.P. No. B-2994.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 85 will be replaced at the same location as the existing structure with
a two-barrel 3.7 x 2.4-meter (12 x 8-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be
detoured along existing roads during construction. No jurisdictional wetlands will be
affected by the construction of the proposed project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do no anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but ose roceed under a Nationwide m
accordance with 33 CFR AppendA (B-23). a provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulatio ollowed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Management, for their review.
0
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844, Ext. 307.
anc e nk lin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. R. W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. John L. Williams, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2994
State Project No. 8.2831301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1153(3
A. Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 85 on SR 1153 (a paved
roadway) over Little Buffalo Creek in Lincoln County. The new structure
will be a two-barrel 3.7 x 2.4-meter (12 x 8-foot) reinforced concrete box
culvert placed at the same location as the existing bridge. The travelway will
include two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 2.1-meter (7.0 foot) wide grassed
shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The shoulders will taper to 1.2 meters
(4 feet) where guardrail is not required. The project will be approximately
91.5 meters (300 feet) long. The design speed will be approximately 90 km/h
(55 mph). Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction
(see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 85 has a sufficiency rating of 46.1 out of 100. The structure is a
two lane bridge with 7.4 meters (24.2 feet) of bridge roadway width. The
bridge is posted for 11 tons for both single vehicles and truck-tractor semi-
trailers. Because all of these elements are substandard, Bridge No. 85 needs
to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments

g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings. .
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
/-? repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
U Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
2
t
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be included
and properly maintained during project construction.
Because this stream is classified as Water Supply III and because of rich aquatic life in the
study area, the following guidelines from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
document "NC Stream Protection and Improvement Guidelines" will be implemented:
• minimizing in-stream activities during peak fish spawning periods (April-June)
• scheduling in-stream activities during periods of low flow
• using bioengineering technologies for streambank protection and stabilization as opposed
to standard methodologies
• minimizing/eliminating the use of fertilizers adjacent to the stream
3
I
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit
# 23 will likely be applicable to this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 a North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification must be obtained.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 500,000
Right of Way $ 53,000
Total $ 553,000
Estimated Traffic: Current - 200 VPD, Year 2020 - 400 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes
Shoulders - 2.1-meters (7 feet) wide including guardrail tapering to 1.2 meters
(4 feet) where guardrail is not required
Design Speed: 90 km/h (55 mph)
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
"The proposed structure should be placed in the same alignment as the existing
structure. Traffic should be detoured along existing secondary roads. There is an
existing drive on the northeast approach that will probably be within the guardrail
approach of the new bridge. Moving the drive further east would involve going
through a cut section and would not be very feasible."
Other:
There are four school bus crossings daily. Detouring these busses along
secondary roads during construction poses no problems for the school system.
There have been no accidents in the vicinity within the past three years.
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions.
4

r
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists mly of Type I improvements, the following
checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? F7i X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of n
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x U
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? U X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters 1-7 X
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? Cj X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F-1 X
5
?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? -
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? F11 X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? D X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? F-1 X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X Ill
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
U X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? n X
6

f
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? F X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? F-1 X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing n
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X U
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? F1 X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F-1 X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl 17 X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for F1 X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Not applicable.
7
I
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2994
State Project No. 8.2831301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1153(,31
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 85 on SR 1153 (a paved
roadway) over Little Buffalo Creek in Lincoln County. The new structure
will be a two-barrel 3.7 x 2.4-meter (12 x 8-foot) reinforced concrete box
culvert placed at the same location as the existing bridge. The travelway will
include two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 2.1-meter (7 foot) wide grassed
shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The shoulders will taper to 1.2 meters
(4 feet) where guardrail is not required. The project will be approximately
91.5 meters (300 feet) long. The design speed will be approximately 90 km/h
(55 mph). Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction
(see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
11,2
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Y_ z S__ y? UUQ
Date Proiect'
4 - Z6,-- 9G
Date
Z%/;0 1_?4
ing Unit Head
Planning Engineer
?I
'?I
I?
I?
I?
I
9 4;
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 21, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 85 on SR 1153 over Little
Buffalo Creek, Lincoln County, B-2994, Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1153(3), State Project
8.2831301, ER 95-9034
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On June 20, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the only structures over fifty years of
age in the area of potential effect are a hip-roofed house and small outbuilding
located on opposite sides of SR 1 153 just north of the bridge. We recommend that
an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate these two structures and report the
findings to us. No further historic architectural survey is necessary for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
June 21, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sirtcerely,
G?
Davis Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?.
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
1
4
I'IP # 0-- VM4
Federal Aid # IMS- ' 14ti3 ( -, ) County UNao"`l
R
CONCURRENCE FORRII
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
V-e.et.a&S, &V-4poe t1. as s?.? s?. t?s? evez urns 9??FFXLO e47-SeIL
On F?t?waAay S , Idyl (a , representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 7xRUzg- Neese are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
V 11(e
Represen ve DOT ate
FHw r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Preservation
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

ib• yt14 Federal Aid T 6it? tts3 ?3? County t.161 a.61?4
T
wtN K h. Al,i i4 A- mites wq, , vw
(erm"e, "er"7 L pil hA A F"wtlNevt?- I Ljol-A v'61'Wt91" [i 4A 0)41ie., - Y -K }yvaj GGhM
?
Tor. k"44. 61., wl.PiWn .(n a Kd Aviv a iit+?i. tvvw 6A" GZwI
ro?, . 4- 19-tro
r'+?"?'W ?(ilee'l. (?.(M? j-?d.??L ?6GN?ls{ G?Gt/L?, ?1?1y V2%1'0? _ l?cur?ii.:ti` (?c ?n?c ?'rtoY.`?y
?Io?tnv s• =, l4vtit t? ?? l`17s? . Crbt? yxc ftri-v? a1?,v H.? ?L?re,lncC ?v M'm y?oru?.
i.t,t , fe'vw " wto% ?iiG?t? Ge sw, ?Oe- C•^wtG2 t - Gc?Cr +t5,-

1
atialed: NCDOT. FHwA L?__ SHPO ?, ?%
W-114ms

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K2
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 13, 1995
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge #85 on SR 1153 over Little
Buffalo Creek, Lincoln County, TIP #B-2994.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project. At this time we have not identified any special concerns
regarding this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 85 on SR 1153
over Little Buffalo Creek, Lincoln County
TIP No. B-2994
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1153(3)
State Project No. 8.2831301
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2994
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist
21 February 1996

i
v
- - TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................1
1.2 Methodology ....................................1
1.3 Definition of Terminology ......................4
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ....... 4
2.0 Physical Characteristics of Project Area ............ 4
2.1 Regional Characteristics .......................4
2.2 Soils ........ .................................5
2.3 Water Resources .............. 7
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Impacted
Surface Waters ..........................7
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ...............8
2.3.3 Water Quality ...........................9
2.3.3.1 General Watershed
Characteristics ................9
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network ................10
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers ....... 10
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .......... 10
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................12
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................13
3.1.1 Transportation Corridor .................13
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest ...14
3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................15
3.2.1 Piedmont Perennial Stream ...............15
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................16
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ...... 16
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities .......... 18
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ...............................20
4.1 Waters of the United States ....................21
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters ..........................21
4.1.2 Permits and Consultations ...............21
4.1.2.1 Section 404 Permits ............ 22
4.1.2.2 Water Quality Certification .... 22
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .....................22
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .............23
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed
Species .................................25
5.0 Summary .............................................25
6.0 References ..........................................26

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this
document is to inventory and describe the natural resources
which occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and
which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to
these natural resources are provided, along with
recommendations for measures which will minimize resource
impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental
concern which may affect the selection of a preferred
alignment or may influence design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the
preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order
to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and
effective manner. The analyses contained in this document
are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary
project boundaries and design. If design parameters and
criteria change, additional field investigations may be
necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge
No. 85 over Little Buffalo Creek on SR 1153 (Figure 1). The
project lies in Lincoln County, 18 km (11 mi) west of the
town of Lincolnton. The existing bridge is 28 m (92 ft) long
and 7.8 m (25.6 ft) wide and will be replaced in-place with a
two barrel 3.7 x 2.4 m (12.0 x 8.0 ft) reinforced concrete
box culvert. Traffic will be rerouted on secondary roads
during construction. Total project length is 122 m (400 ft).
The existing right-of-way is approximately 12 m (40 ft) and
the proposed right-of-way for the new facility is 24 m (80
ft).
1.2 Methodology
Prior to a site visit, published resource information
pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed.
Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the
project area include:

SOP
•40

North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
LINCOLN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 85 ON SR 1153
OVER LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
B-2994
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
3
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
(Cherryville)
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) Map (Cherryville)
- NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200)
- Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil --
Survey of Lincoln County, North Carolina (1995).
- NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Lincoln County
(1992)
Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Quantitative sampling was
not undertaken to support existing water quality data.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was obtained from the FWS
list of protected and candidate species (March 28, 1995) and
from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of
rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed
for documented occurrences of state or federally listed
species and locations of significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT Environmental Biologists James W. Hauser
and Mark A. Hartman on 19 December 1995. Water resources
were identified and their physical characteristics were
recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife
were also identified and described. Terrestrial community
classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al.
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980),
Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al.
(1985). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition
involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on
existing vegetative communities. Field surveys for
federally-protected species were performed following initial
habitat assessments where suitable habitat for each species
was identified.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and
evaluated based on criteria established in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina (Division of Environmental
Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the
classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
4
1.3 Definition of Terminology
For the purposes of this document, the following terms
are used concerning the limits of natural resources
investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by
the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the
project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area--
extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area,
and "project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to
the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, ie.
163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mi).
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist
Education: MS, Forest Ecology, Virginia Tech;
BS, Forestry, N.C. State University;
Experience: NC Dept. of Trans., Env. Biologist
Peace Corps, Forest Ecologist
Expertise: Forest ecology, forest management,
wetlands science, community
classification
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area
are discussed below with respect to possible environmental
concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly
influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction,
along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area
present important management limitations due to the need to
regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting
from construction activities can potentailly alter both the
flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream
uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the
availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus
affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Lincoln County lies in the southwestern portion of the
North Carolina piedmont physiographic province. The
topography of this portion of the piedmont is characterized
by rolling hills with steeper slopes along major drainageways
and occassional level alluvial plains. In the vicinity of

0
5
the project area, topography is moderately sloping, with
slopes of approximately 5-10 percent rising up from the
stream channel. Project elevations range from 262 m (860 ft)
to 268 m (880. ft) above mean sea level. Parent material for
soils in Lincoln County is primarily heavily weathered
igneous and metamorphic rocks.
The majority of the project region is occupied by
agricultural fields with minor commercial and residential
development along primary roadways. Forested tracts are
interspersed throughout, mainly along stream corridors.
Forests occur principally as linear strips along the slopes
and alluvial plains of drainageways. Other isolated stands
occur between agricultural fields or as borders around
residential developments. Upland areas are occupied by
agriculture and limited commercial development.
2.2 Soils
The dominant soils occuring within the project area are
generally loams of the Pacolet and Chewacla associations
(NRCS 1995). Pacolet soils occur in the upland parts of the
project area, while the floodplain soils along Little Buffalo
Creek are of the Chewacla series. Table 1 provides an
inventory of the specific soil types which occur in the
project area. A brief description of each soil type is also
provided.
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area.
Map Unit
Symbol Specific
Mapping Unit % Area Percent
Slope Hydric
Class. Erosion
Hazard
PeB2 Pacolet sandy 25 2-8 NH Severe
clay loam
PeC2 Pacolet sandy 25 8-15 NH Very
clay loam Severe
ChA Chewacla loam 50 0-2 I (1,1) Slight
Note: I Soils with inclusio ns of hydric soils in
depressional areas.
NH Nonhydric soils.
(1,1) Hydric soils which support woody vegetation and
are saturated by ground water
Chewacla loam is the dominant soil type mapped in the
project area and represents nearly 50 percent of the total
area. These soils formed from recent alluvial deposits under
forest vegetation along the floodplains of rivers and

`t
6
streams. They are nearly level and frequently flooded for
brief periods, usually during the winter and spring.
Chewacla soils are described as somewhat poorly drained and
moderately permeable, with a seasonal high water table of
0.2-0.5 m (0.5-1.5 ft) below the surface. Soil depth is
greater than 1.5 m (5.0 ft). Soil wetness and frequent
flooding are management and construction concerns, primarily--
in the winter and spring but occassionally in the summer
during storm events. In exposed areas, surface water runoff
causes a slight erosion hazard.
Two soils of the Pacelot series, which differ only in
slope, constitute the remainder of the project area. Pacelot
soils with 2-8 percent slope occur on the west side of Little
Buffalo Creek, while Pacelot soils with 8-15 percent slope
occur on the east side. Pacelot soils are formed under
forest vegetation along ridges and side slopes in residuum
from felsic igneous and metamorphic rocks. Both map units
are moderately eroded due to past agricultural land uses.
The soil is well drained, permeability is moderate, and it
exhibits a seasonal high water table of greater than 1.8 m
(6.0 ft). Soil depth is greater than 1.5 m (5.0 ft) and
subsoils are primarily clay. Exposed areas are subject to a
severe to very severe erosion hazard. Slope, surface runoff,
and erosion are primary management concerns.
Erosion hazards are severe due to the high clay content
of the soils and the sloping topography of the project area
(5-10 percent slope). Surface runoff velocity under such
conditions is moderately high, increasing its erosive
potential. In addition, the high clay content of the Pacelot
soils, which is exacerbated by their current eroded
condition, facilitates surface runoff and soil particle
suspension. Erosion control practices should be strictly
enforced within steep slope areas.
Although Chewacla soils are not considered hydric, they
do have the potential for hydric inclusions in wet
topographic depressions. However, no wet depressions were
observed in the project area. Soil sampling revealed that
the soils did not exhibit hydric indicators, such as low
chroma colors, accumulation of organic matter, or mottling.
Therefore, hydric soils, as defined in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", were not observed
within the project area. Though no hydric soils are present,
soil wetness may still be a management concern during the
wettest periods of the year (November-April).
Table 2 compares the ranges of potential forest
productivity for the soils encountered in the project area.
As indicated, forest productivity is fair for the Pacolet
s
7
series and good for the Chewacla series. The floodplain
areas along Little Buffalo Creek currently support productive
forestland, though no evidence of active management was
observed. Forests occurred on the Pacolet series outside the
project area, but within the project area this soil type was
vegetated with grasses and herbs.
Table 2. Potential forest productivity of soils in the
project area.
Site Index
Soil Series Loblolly Pine Yellow Poplar
Pacolet sandy clay loam 70 80
Chewacla loam 95 95
Note: Site Index is defined as the expected average height
in feet of dominant trees in an even aged stand at
50 years of age.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface
water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality
aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship
to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Impacted Surface Waters
Water resources within the project vicinity are part of
the Broad River drainage basin. The Broad River has its
headwaters in Buncombe County and flows generally
southeastward for 80 km (50 mi) through North Carolina.
Little Buffalo Creek, which is crossed by SR 1153, originates
in Lincoln County, approximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) to the north
of the project area, and flows generally southward through
Lincoln and Cleveland Counties. Little Buffalo Creek joins
Buffalo Creek in Cleveland County, approximately 4.0 km (2.5
mi) downsream of the project area. Buffalo Creek then
empties into the Kings Mountain Reservoir 9.7 km (6.0 mi)
further to the south.
Little Buffalo Creek at the project site is
,approximately 8 m (26 ft) wide. At the time of the site
visit, turbidity was high due to recent precipitation, and so

0
I
8
the depth could not be accurately determined. However, depth
appeared to be less than 1.0 m (3.3 ft). The substrate
consists of sand, gravel, and bedrock, and stream habitats
within project boundaries are characterized as 90 percent
run/riffle and 10 percent pool. No aquatic vegetation was
observed within the existing channel.
The banks of Little Buffalo Creek rise approximately 2.0
m (6.6 ft) above the bottom of the existing channel. The
banks are currently lined with forested vegetation which
shades the water surface, except in the immidiate area of the
existing bridge. The floodplain extends approximately 6 m
(20 ft) along both sides of the stream channel and exhibits
evidence of recent overbanking as indicated by scouring and
overwash of vegetation.
A small, intermittent tributary of Little Buffalo Creek
is located to the north of SR 1153. This tributary
originates approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to the northeast of
Little Buffalo Creek. However, the confluence of this
tributary is outside the proposed project area. Barring
significant changes in design criteria, this intermittent
tributary should not be impacted by the proposed project.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) which
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource
usage. Little Buffalo Creek (DEM Index No. 9-53-2) is
classified as WS-III (as of 08/03/92) from its source to its
confluence with Buffalo Creek.
Class WS-III waters are protected as water supplies
which generally occur in low to moderately developed
watersheds. Under this classification, point source
discharges of treated wastewater are permitted, and local
programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge
of pollution are required. Class WS-III waters are also
suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are defined as
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. No waters
classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
Little Buffalo Creek lies in the Water Supply Watershed
for the town of Shelby and contains only moderate development
within its watershed. These conditions indicate a region of
.generally high water quality and significant water usage
which should be a factor in determining sedimentation control

guidelines. Stringent erosion control measures are
recommended.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water
resources within the project area. Potential sediment loads
and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point
sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are made based on published resource information
and existing general watershed characteristics. These data
provide insight into the value of water resources within the
project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for
aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural areas is likely
to be the primary source of water quality degradation to the
water resources located in the project vicinity. Water
quality throughout North Carolina is significantly influenced
by nutrient loading and sedimentation from agricultural
runoff. The high proportion of surface area occupied by
agriculture, along with the sloping topography and
erodibility of the soils, suggest that surface runoff from
agricultural areas is probably moderately high for the Little
Buffalo Creek watershed. Thus, sediment loads and turbidity
in Little Buffalo Creek during storm events are probably
elevated over normal undisturbed levels. In addition,
intensive agriculture in the project vicinity probably
results in elevated levels of nutrient runoff entering
streams and tributaries. Soluble nutrients leaching from
fertilized agricultural fields are a primary source of
nonpoint source pollution. Such elevated nutrient levels
tend to lower the dissolved oxygen content of water resources
and to reduce the biotic diversity of aquatic communities by
facilitating the accelerated growth of algae.
Inputs of nonpoint source pollution from residential
areas within the project area may also be a contributing
factor but to a much lesser extent. Likewise, inputs of
toxins from roadway runoff are probably minor within the
immediate project area due to the limited area of road
surfaces and the moderate traffic use. Existing vegetated
roadside shoulders also aid in absorbing toxic runoff.
10
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
managed by DEM, is part of an on-going ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed --
monitoring sites throughout the state. Certain
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of
these organisms are reflections of water quality. However,
BMAN information for Little Buffalo Creek is currently
unavailable.
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by
the DEM. All dischargers are required to register for a
permit. A review of the NPDES database indicates that no
permitted dischargers are listed for Little Buffalo Creek or
its tributaries within 4.0 km (2.5 mi) of the project area.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The potential for water qualtiy degradation resulting
from project construction is high due to the site
characteristics and the close proximity of the project area
to surface water. In particular, construction within the
stream channel and along the banks may result in significant
impacts. The steep stream banks along Little Buffalo Creek
indicate that stream scouring of unprotected, disturbed banks
will likely be a primary concern. Moreover, the moderately
sloping topography on both sides of Little Buffalo Creek,
along with the eroded soil conditions, suggest a severe
hazard for soil erosion from exposed upland areas.
Impacts to water resources which often result from
highway construction occur primarily because of increased
sedimentation due to accelerated soil erosion from exposed
areas. Other impacts result from stream substrate
disturbance and from the removal of streamside vegetation.
Sedimentation occuring during construction can significantly
reduce water clarity and light penetration, in addition to
the direct clogging of stream channels. Sedimentation also
results in increased nutrient loading in streams as inorganic
nutrients from upland soils are released in the water column.
Effects of sedimentation are usually most severe locally but
R
11
may extend downstream for considerable distance, with
decreasing intensity. Therefore, sources of sediment from
construction activities should be identified and efforts made
to control sediment runoff.
Removal of streamside vegetation during construction
typically results in increased water temperature and reduced-
dissolved oxygen content. Tall streamside vegetation shades
the water's surface from sunlight and maintains lower water
temperatures. Removal of this vegetation increases the
stream's direct exposure to atmospheric conditions and
subsequently increases water temperature. Dissolved oxygen
content decreases as a result of warmer water temperatures.
Furthermore, the destruction of natural stream
substrates will occur during the installation of culverts and
pipes. The placement of box culverts within the stream
channel will create artificial substrate conditions and may
accelerate water flow within the culvert. Increased water
flow increases the potential for streambank scouring during
flood events. In-stream placement of culverts and removal of
existing piles also disturbs the existing substrate causing
resuspension of sediment and trubidity.
The presence of roadway construction machinery and
traffic runoff will facilitate the introduction of toxic
compounds (gas, oil, etc.) into streams. Use of heavy
machinery along streams also increases the risk of accidental
discharge of petrochemicals or other toxins into surface
waters. Prompt revegetation of roadside buffers may aid in
absorbing these toxins before they reach surface water
resources. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during construction should also be enforced.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water
resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be
enforced during the construction phase of the project. This
would include:
1) elimination or reduction of direct and nonpoint
discharge into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams.
2) installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and
earth berms to control runoff during construction.
3) placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites to reduce runoff and decrease
sediment loadings.

12
4) elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains or adjacent to streams to minimize
disturbed surface area in close proximity to surface
waters and to reduce the potential for accidental
discharge of toxins into water bodies.
5) protection of streambank vegetation. --
6) scheduling of construction activities during periods
of low stream flow.
Some degree of water quality degradation is probably
inevitable from project construction due to the necessity of
streambank and substrate disturbance. However, impacts can
be minimized through adequate planning which emphasizes the
reduction of disturbed surface area and by protecting exposed
areas from the kinetic energy of falling and flowing waters.
Use of BMPs will also help to ensure that impacts to water
quality are temporary and localized rather than long-term and
extensive.
The primary sources of long term water quality
degradation in the project area watershed are agricultural
practices. Long term impacts on Little Buffalo Creek as a
result of bridge replacement are expected to be negligible.
However, due to the cumulative effect of water quality
degradation and the high value of water resources downstream,
consideration should be taken to minimize sediment and toxic
discharge into these waters.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources within the project area include both
terrestrial and aquatic communities, with their associated
flora and fauna. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between flora and fauna within these
ecosystems. The composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications, defined by the
dominant plant species observed. Representative animal
species which are likely to occur in these habitats are also
cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
available) are provided for each animal and plant species
13
described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer
to the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified --
within the project area: transportation corridor and
piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest. Community composition
is reflective of the physiography, topography, and current
and prior land uses of the area. The transportation corridor
community occurs as a linear strip along both sides of the
existing roadway, while the piedmont/low mountain alluvial
forest community occurs along both banks of Little Buffalo
Creek. These two community types intersect at the project
area at the point where SR 1153 crosses Little Buffalo Creek.
Upland hardwood communities exist outside the proposed right-
of-way on the east side of Little Buffalo Creek, but these
communities should not be impacted unless there are
significant changes in project design criteria.
The landscape immediately surrounding the project area
is occupied to a large extent by agriculture and forest land,
interspersed with minor development along roadways.
Remaining forests are frequently found along slopes or
bottomlands, or as buffers between fields or around
residential areas. As a result, the forested communities
within the project area constitute a small forest fragment
within this mosaic.
Much of the wildlife in the project area probably uses
various communities for forage, cover, and nesting habitat.
Many species are adapted to the boundary conditions along the
edges of forests and clearings, and wildlife within the
project area likely utilize all communities to some extent.
Such species may not be listed for each community described.
Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) are
examples of species which likely occur in all of the habitats
in the project area. In addition, many semiaquatic species
utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such that both
are required for survival and reproduction.
3.1.1 Transportation Corridor Community
The transportation corridor community occupies 85
percent of the project area and consists of areas along
roadways which have been heavily impacted and maintained by
human development activities. Such areas extend out
.approximately 3.0 m (10.0 ft) on both sides of the existing
roadway. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along
14
with frequent mowing or herbicide application, inhibit
natural succession and keep this community in an early
successional state. As a result, the community is dominated
by herbs and grasses such as fescue (Festuca sp.), crabgrass
(Digitaria spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), clover
(Trifolium spp.), and wild onion (Allium canadense).
Important associate species found further from the roadside --
include broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), blackberry (Rubus argutus),
aster (Aster sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Seedlings
of various tree species occur along slopes and embankments
where mowing is less frequent. These species include red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), white pine (Pinus strobus),
white oak (Quercus alba), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum
(Liquidambar s_tyraciflua), privet (Liqustrum sinense), and
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana).
Wildlife expected in this community type consists
primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species such as
woodchuck (Marmota monax), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern harvest
mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), which favor open, disturbed
areas. Other species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginiana) and raccoon, alternate between the open areas and
the surrounding edge forests. Bird populations likely
include species such as northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common
grackle (Quiscalus guiscula), and European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris). Common predators found in this community are the
black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), American
kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and red fox (Vulpes vul es). Wildlife found in
this community type often appears as "road kills" as a result
of highway use.
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Community
The piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest community
occupies 15 percent of the project area and occurs along both
sides of Little Buffalo Creek where periodic flooding
deposits sediment and debris at the soil surface. As a
result of this periodic flooding, alluvial forest communities
are very productive and provide valuable wildlife habitat.
.These communities are common throughout the piedmont along
the banks and floodplains of many streams and rivers. The
15
topography of alluvial floodplains is nearly level, and the
understory is moderately dense with shrubs and vines. The
forest stand within the project area is mature in age (>50
years old) and does not exhibit significant recent
disturbance. Dominant vegetation in the overstory and
midstory of this community includes black walnut (Juglans
ni ra), river birch (Betula ni ra), and yellow poplar. -
Understory vegetation consists of hornbeam (Carpinus
caroliniana), privet, and Chrismas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides).
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forests provide valuable
habitat for a variety of terrestrial and semiaquatic species.
Common mammals found in this community type are raccoon,
Virginia opossum, white-tailed deer, gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Birds
typical of this habitat include the belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), and
barred owl (Strix varia). A diverse community of reptiles
and amphibians occurs in piedmont/low mountain alluvial
forests, including eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroline),
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), ring-necked snake
(Diadophis punctatus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), upland
chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and American toad (Bufo
americanus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
one aquatic community type, defined as a piedmont
perennial stream, will be impacted by the proposed project.
Perennial streams support an assemblage of fauna that require
a continual supply of flowing water, as compared to
intermittent or standing waters. Larger perennial streams,
such as Little Buffalo Creek, with various substrates will
generally support a greater diversity of aquatic fauna than
smaller tributaries. Community composition of the aquatic
communities is reflective of the physical characteristics of
the water body and the condition of the water resource.
Terrestrial communities adjacent to water resources also
greatly influence aquatic community composition and
structure.
3.2.1 Piedmont Perennial Stream Community
Little Buffalo Creek is a piedmont perennial stream
community which is characterized by a sandy to rocky
substrate and turbid, warm water. Occassional overbank
.flooding occurs during storm events, scouring the channel and
depositing debris material. Shallow, flowing habitats are
16
interspersed with deeper pools where flow is slower and
debris is deposited. Dominant fauna found in these streams
or along the shoreline include a variety of aquatic and
semiaquatic species. No fish were observed during the site
visit, but the stream could provide habitat for species such
as roseyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), bluehead chub (Nocomis --
leptocephalus), highback chub (Hybopsis hypsinotus), spottail
shiner (Notropis hudsonius), sandbar shiner (Notropis
scepticus), darters (Etheostoma spp.), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). Amphibians and reptiles
expected to occur in this community include green frog (Rana
clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), snapping turtle (Chelydra ser entaria_)
and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary versus
permanent impacts are considered as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from
project construction due to the clearing and paving of
portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community
area. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative losses to
these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial
communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived
based on the project length of 122 m (400 ft) and the entire
proposed right-of-way width of 24 m (80 ft). However,
project construction often does not require the entire right-
of-way and certain portions of the project area are already
paved; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
17
Table 3. Estimated area impacts to biotic communities.
Impacted Area
Community ha (ac)
Transportation Corridor 0.24 (0.6)
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.04 (0.1) --
Total Impacts 0.28 (0.7)
The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from
project construction will have minimal impact on populations
of native flora and fauna. The majority of the project will
impact disturbed areas along the roadside, and thus will not
have large-scale effects on the natural communities of the
project region. The transportation corridor community is
already highly altered from its natural state, and resident
species are well adapted to such disturbed conditions. Flora
and fauna occurring in this community are generally common
throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to
wide ranging environmental conditions. Moreover, a similar
roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
activities should repopulate areas suitable for the species
following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely
that existing species will be displaced significantly from
the project area following construction. However, to
minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all
cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated soon
after project completion to minimize the loss of wildlife
habitat.
Although the piedmont alluvial forest community has
moderate value as wildlife habitat, only a small area of this
forested community will be disturbed. Only narrow zones
along the edges of the alluvial community will be impacted,
and the displacement of native flora and fauna away from the
project area should be minor. Regrowth of vegetation along
the stabilized streambank after project completion should
mitigate some of the loss of habitat area.
Indirect effects on wildlife population levels and
habitat value should also be insignificant. Because the
project consists of replacing an existing structure in place,
fragmentation of natural habitats and disruption of normal
wildlife movement will not be a serious concern. The
riparian areas along Little Buffalo Creek likely serve an
important function as corridors for animal movement. The
existing roadway and bridge already partially disrupt the
.natural movements of wildlife in this habitat corridor, such
that the proposed project is not expected to create unusual
environmental conditions.
traffic speed will not be
between habitats will not
project conditions should
conditions with regard to
dispersion.
18
Road width, traffic use, and
increased, so wildlife movement
be significantly affected. Post-
be very similar to current
habitat fragmentation and wildlife
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to aquatic communities downstream of
the project area primarily consist of increased sedimentation
of the stream channel and temporary increases in toxic inputs
from stormwater runoff. Increased sedimentation during
highway construction activities and road surface runoff after
construction are widely recognized as factors that can
seriously reduce water quality. The sediment load of streams
is closely correlated with the amount of clearing and
grubbing within streamside zones. Aquatic organisms are
generally extremely sensitive to these inputs. Downstream
increases in turbidity or toxin concentrations could have
lasting detrimental effects on the aquatic communities of
Little Buffalo Creek if not controlled. Effects will be most
severe at the point of bridge replacement, but could extend
downstream for considerable distance. The severity of
impacts to Little Buffalo Creek will likely diminish with
increasing distance from the project area as sediment and
toxins settle out of the water column.
Excessive soil erosion from construction sites may
result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
1) Increased turbidity and sedimentation.
2) Reduced light penetration due to reduced water.
clarity.
3) Reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
4) Increased nutrient loading.
Sedimentation in rivers and streams reduces water
clarity and light penetration, affecting the photosynthetic
ability and growth of aquatic vegetation. Suspended
particles may also impact benthic filter feeders inhabiting
downstream areas by clogging their filtration apparatuses or
by covering them with excessive sediment. High rates of
sedimentation can smother fish eggs in downstream spawning
beds, and can create in-stream sandbars which alter water
flow and increase scour of streambanks. Sedimentation
0
19
affects the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water
column by raising water temperature. Warmer water contains
less oxygen and results in a reduction in aquatic life
dependent on high oxygen concentrations. Moreover, increased
nutrient loadings can result in the accelerated growth of
certain types of algae at the expense of other aquatic
organsims. The loss of aquatic plants and animals resulting--
from these processes may ulitmately affect terrestrial fauna
which feed upon these resources.
Moreover, the removal of streamside vegetation increases
the exposure of the water's surface to direct sunlight, which
results in elevated water temperatures and reduced
concentrations of dissolved oxygen. The removal or burial of
these streambank plants also decreases the food and shelter
resources available to aquatic organisms, and disturbance of
streambank vegetation enhances the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Revegetation of streamside zones following
construction stabilizes the soil and shades the water
surface, thus mitigating these processes.
Toxic substances from roadways (eg. oil, gas, etc.) may
also enter surface waters through stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces. Such toxins can degrade aquatic
communities through direct mortality to inidividuals or by
interfering with growth or reproductive cycles. These
impacts may eventually be observed in organisms throughout
the various trophic levels of aquatic communities.
Placement of box culverts and other in-stream activities
are potential sources of significant stream modifications.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include
loss of natural stream substrates, increased channelization
of water flow, and scouring of stream channels. In-stream
construction alters the stream substrate available to aquatic
organisms, resulting in changes in community composition. In
addition, water movement through these structures becomes
more direct, thus increasing the flow velocity. As a
result, scouring zones may develop within the channel at
culvert outflows. Extreme care must be exercised during
these activities to minimize sedimentation and ensure that
water flow will not become restricted or abrasive at either
end of the proposed culvert.
BMPs should be strictly administered throughout project
construction. Use of BMPs will ensure that sedimentation and
toxic inputs are minimized, so that impacts to water quality
and aquatic communities are limited. Other stream
construction considerations include:
1) minimizing in-stream activities during peak fish
spawning periods (April-June).
a
20
2) scheduling in-steam activities, when applicable,
during periods of low flow.
3) using bioengineering technologies for streambank
protection and stabilization as opposed to standard
methodologies.
4) minimizing/eliminating the use of fertilizers
adjacent to streams.
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) document 'INC Stream
Protection and Improvement Guidelines" should be consulted as
a reference for any questions concerning the mentioned
guidelines and other aspects of in-stream construction and
stream stabilization.
Overall, the proposed project should have only moderate
impacts on downstream aquatic communities,- assuming
precautionary measures are taken. Because the project
consists of a bridge replacement, only a relatively small
surface area of soil should be exposed by construction
activities. Erosion and sedimentation will be most
pronounced as a result of disturbance of the stream banks and
substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high
during construction, but should diminish rapidly following
project completion if exposed soils are revegetated and
streambanks are stabilized. Minimizing the area of
streambank disturbance will greatly aid in limiting erosion
from the project area and protecting aquatic communities.
Toxic inputs from roadways following construction should also
be minimal due to the low traffic use expected for the new
bridge facility. Impacts to aquatic communities can be
minimized by limiting the amount of construction on new
location and by strict adherence to BMPs during the
construction phase of the project.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses
pertinent to two significant regulatory issues: Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and
state mandates which regulate their protection. This section
deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
21
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material
into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction--
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface
waters include all standing or flowing waters which have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are
identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or
part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". Criteria to delineate jurisdictional
wetlands include:
1) presence of hydric soils,
2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and
3) evidence of prescribed hydrologic characteristics
during the growing season.
All of these features must be present for an area to be
considered a wetland.
Field surveys revealed that no jurisdictional wetlands
are located within the project area. None of the alluvial
communities associated with Little Buffalo Creek meet the
criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. Although a number of
hydrophytic plants are present, the soils and hydrology of
the site are not characteristic of wetlands. Hydric soils
were not present within the project area, as evidenced by the
highly oxidized soil horizons. In addition, there was no
evidence of prolonged surface or subsurface saturated
conditions. However, jurisdictional surface waters are
present within Little Buffalo Creek, and CWA provisions will
apply.
4.1.2 Permits and Consultations
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated
from the proposed project. As a result, construction
activities will require permits and certifications from
22
various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water
quality of public water resources. Surface water systems and
wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with
respect to most regulatory permits. These permits are
authorized under the Clean Water Act and under separate state
laws regarding significant water resources.
4.1.2.1 Section 404 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required
from the COE for the discharge of dredge or fill material
into Waters of the United States.
Since the project is classified as a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5
(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for proposed
construction. This permit authorizes activities which may
impact Waters of the United States but which are
categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because they neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on water quality. Final permit decisions
are left to the discretionary authority of the COE.
4.1.2.2 Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality
General Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge into Waters of the
United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401
permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to the issuance of a
Section 404 permit.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Threatened or endangered species are species whose
populations are in decline and which face probable extinction
in the near future without strict conservation management.
Federal law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended, protects plant and animal species which have been
classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of
.Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA require that any action
which is likely to adversely affect such federally classified

23
species be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Other potentially endangered species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws. In
North Carolina, protection of endangered species falls under
the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and--
the N.C. Department of Agriculture, respectively.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Lincoln County (Table 4). A
brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements of each species follows Table 4, along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impacts.
Table 4. Federally-protected species for Lincoln County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Hexastylis naniflora dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E*
Note: E - Endangered (a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range).
T - Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
* - No specimen reported for Lincoln County in the
past twenty years (1975-1995).
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid March - mid May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland,
Lincoln, Rutherford.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along
bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby
,hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions
with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described

24
as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the
southeastern mixed forest.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf does not exist
within the project area. No bluffs or slopes with mixed --
hardwood forests occur within the project area. Such areas
may exist well outside the proposed right-of-way, but these
habitats should not be impacted barring significant project
realignment. In addition, the alluvial plain along Little
Buffalo Creek is not sufficiently boggy to provide suitable
habitat and is shaded by dense growth of privet. Forested
habitats outside of the proposed right-of-way were not
surveyed for the presence of dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
However, no Hexastylis species were observed within the
project area. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no record of known populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf
within 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of the project area. A known
population of dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known to exist 4.0
km (2.5 mi) to the south of Highway 274 near the Gaston
County line. This population will not be impacted by the
proposed project. Thus, no impacts to this species are
anticipated.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin,
Hoke, Lincoln, Moore, Orange, Richmond,
Robeson, Scotland, Wake, Wilson.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous
shrub. This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy
loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it
can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well
with other species, such as.Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
-japonica), with which it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for Michaux's sumac exists along some of the
roadside shoulders on the eastern side of Little Buffalo
Creek. A plant by plant survey was conducted during the site
.visit throughout the entire length of the project to identify
individuals of this species. A known population of Michaux's

25
sumac was visited on 15 September 1995 to observe the
taxonomic characteristics of the species. However, no
individuals were found in any part of the project area. A
review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no record of known populations of Michaux's
sumac within 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of the project area. Thus, no
impacts to this species are anticipated.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
No federal candidate species are listed for Lincoln
County as of March 28, 1995. Federal candidate (C2) species
are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not sufficient data to
warrant a formal federal listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
5.0 SUMMARY
The proposed project should have only minor effects on
natural resources and environmental quality in the vicinity
of the project area, given adequate preliminary planning.
The project vicinity is already moderately developed, and the
proposed action simply involves replacing an existing bridge.
The primary issue of concern is protecting water quality from
excessive sedimentation as a result of stream bank and
substrate disturbance. The project area is part of a high
value water supply watershed which should be protected for
downstream uses. Minimizing the impacted area along the
stream channel and protecting exposed soils from erosion
should greatly aid in reducing water quality degradation. No
impacts to endangered species are anticipated, and impacts to
other native plants and animals will be minor.
Jurisdictional wetlands do not occur in the project area,
though surface waters are present. Permits will be required
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department
of Environmental Management prior to construction initiation
for impacts to surface water resources.
F
26
6.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.--
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh,
North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983- 1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species". Raleigh,
North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,

27
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States., U.S. --
Government Printing office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: 1T/ //?"
?YJ - C/r. L./l??
i o1 II\? REF-. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: -. REF. NO: OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION -
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR'.. CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT. THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR. MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

yisa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 7, 1995
RECEIVED
AUG 0 91995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor ENVIRONMENTALSC19NCES
BRAKH
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1130, Lincoln County, Replacement of Bridge No. 85
over Little Buffalo Creek, State Project 8.2831301,
F. A. Project BRZ-1153(3), B-2994
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Highway
Building on June 20, 1995.
The following people were in attendance:
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Darin Wilder Program Development
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Jerry Hayes Statewide Planning
Jeff O Briant Location & Surveys
Jimmy Capps Program Development (Scheduling)
Ellis Powell Structure Design
Sandra Casey Roadway Design
Olivia Farr Traffic Control
John W illiams Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters are WSIII. He requested High
Quality Waters Erosion Control Measures.
Debbie Bevins of SHPO commented that the bridge itself does not require
evaluation. However, a nearby house on the southwest quadrant of the bridge
will require evaluation. An archaeological survey will not be required.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended replacement on the existing
location with a two-barrel 3.7 x 2.4-meter (12 x 8-foot) box culvert.
S
Re
August 7, 1995
Page 2
PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT
Bridge No. 85 will be replaced with a box culvert on the existing
location.
A cost estimate is not yet available.
JW/plr
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT B-2994
STATE PROJECT 8.2831301
DATE: 7-07-95
DIVISION 12
COUNTY Lincoln
F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1153(3) ROUTE SR 1153
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
X
STRUCTURES
OLD STRUCTURE: BRIDGE NO. 85
Length: 28 Meters Width: 7.8 Meters
(91 Feet)
(25.5 Feet)
PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE: 2 BARREL BOX CULVERT
Length 3.7 Meters
(12 Feet)
Height
2.4 Meters
(8 Feet)
COSTS
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ..............................
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .............................
TIP ESTIMATE
TIP TOTAL COST .................................
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
Not yet available
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Major Collector
S 300,000
+S 25,000
S 325,000
4

'.'
#*•
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
LINCOLN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 85 ON SR 1153
OVER LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
B-2994
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 20

co
Mr.
Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 16, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 85 on SR 1153
in Lincoln County over Little Buffalo Creek,
Federal-Aid Project #BRZ-1153(3), State Project
#8.2831301, B-2994
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for June 20, 1995 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Willams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/pl r 03090; S
Attachment
Iv I
Not
?_
I?
I?
I?
I?
I?
+* • 4# v
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
LINCOLN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 85 ON SR 1153
OVER LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
B-2994
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 5-16-95
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
B-2994
8.2831301
BRZ-1153(3)
DIVISION 12

COUNTY Lincoln

ROUTE SR 1153
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTIONT OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 85 on SR 1153 over Little Buffalo
Creek in Lincoln County.
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY IVIUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO x
EXISTING LENGTH
STRUCTURE:
28 METERS;
91 FEET
WIDTH
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... S
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... _ S
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... S
7.7 METERS
25.5 FEET
300,000
25,000
325,000

CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route