19960144 Ver 1_Complete File_19920706

STATE
p?d i
9
c'
JUL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
June 12, 1992
District Engineer
Army Corps. of .Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
S
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: Categorical Exclusion Approval for Federal Aid Project: Lincoln
County, SR 1360, Bridge No. 15 over Leepers Creek, State Project
No. 8.2831201, Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1360(1), I. D. No.
B-2661
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject 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 not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C)
of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
DOT will apply directly to NRCD for that permit when plans have been
developed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
;?• • Vma DM
L. J. hard, P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. R. W. Spangler
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
or

Lincoln County, SR 1360,
Bridge No: 15 over Leepers Creek
State Project No. 8.2831201
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1360(1)
B-2661
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9?
ate
. J. ard, P. ., anag
lanning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
SS/l¢19z Acq L
Date Nic as L. Gra , P. E.
F-ae< Div sion Administrator, FHWA

Lincoln County, SR 1360,
Bridge No. 15 over Leepers Creek
State Project No. 8.2831201
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1360(1)
B-2661
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
ewx'??
Mic ele Jame
Project Planning Engineer
Oct Y
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
H. ranklin Vick, P. ., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
,,/11/1111111,1, I
CAR0 '%
1 r
•?EESSI,?+' ??•YY's?
y SE aN L M
'' (11111111 ''
sr?
Lincoln County, SR 1360
Bridge No. 15 over Leepers Creek
State Project No. 8.2831201
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1360(1)
B-2661
Bridge No. 15 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as a Federal
"categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 15 should be replaced on new location about 100 feet north
of the existing bridge as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. A structure
width of 28 feet is recommended. The structure will provide a 22-foot
travelway plus 3-foot shoulders on each side.
Approximately 2300 feet of new roadway approaches will be required.
The division office has agreed to fund 1300 feet of the new roadway
approaches (See Appendix A-1). Federal Bridge Replacement Funds will be
used for the remaining 1000 feet. The approach roadways should consist of
a 22-foot pavement with 3-foot graded shoulders throughout the project.
The design speed is 30 mph, due to vertical alignment. A design
exception will be required and an advisory speed posting is warranted.
The elevation of the new structure should be approximately 8 feet
above the floor elevation of the existing bridge.
Traffic is to be maintained on the existing bridge during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices is $628,000. The estimated
cost of the project, as shown in the 1992-1998 TIP, is $728,000.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are required for this project.
If the State Historic Preservation Officer determines that an
intensive archaeology survey is needed for this project, the survey will
be completed prior to construction.
Approximately .10 acre of wetlands will be disrupted by the project.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(23) is likely to be applicable at Leepers
Creek.
A plant population that resembles the federally protected
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora is located in the study
area. This plant could not be positively identified at the time of the
field survey. The presence or absence of this plant will be confirmed
through a scientific survey during the March-June flowering season.
.,a ,
2
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1360 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is not part of the Federal-Aid
System.
In the vicinity of the bridge, the west approach of SR 1360 has a
19-foot pavement with 2-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). The shoulders on
the east approach vary from 0-2 feet. Vertical alignment is fair.
Horizontal alignment is poor. Sharp curves exist on both unpaved
approaches. The structure is situated 17 feet above the river bed. The
approaches are on embankments ranging up to 10 feet above natural ground.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is primarily woodland and
farmland. Development in the surrounding area is low density residential.
The speed limit is not posted.
The current traffic volume of 400 VPD is expected to increase to
approximately 1700 VPD by the year 2012. The projected volume includes 1%
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT).
The existing bridge was constructed in 1961. The superstructure
consists of a double timber deck on I-beams. The substructure is composed
of concrete abutments with mass concrete interior bents.
Overall length is 96 feet. Clear roadway width is 11.3 feet. The
posted weight limit is 5 tons. Trucks and buses are not allowed to cross
the one lane bridge.
Bridge No. 15 has a sufficiency rating of 23.5 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the existing bridge
during the period from November, 1987 thru October, 1990. The poor
geometric conditions contributed to the accidents.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 15 were studied. In
each alternate, a width of 28 feet would be provided on the permanent
structure.
Alternate 1 consists of an improvement on new location immediately
north of the existing bridge. A structure length of 130 feet would be
required. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. Approximately 900 feet of new roadway approaches would be
required. The design speed would be 35 mph.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) will involve replacing the bridge on new
location 100 feet north of the existing bridge. A structure length of 150
feet is required. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. Approximately 2300 feet of new roadway approaches
will be required. The design speed is 30 mph, due to the vertical
alignment.
t r' I
3
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1360.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure $210,000 $242,000
Roadway Approaches 248,000 414,000
Detour Structure & Approaches 0 0
Structure Removal 20,000 20,000
Engineering & Contingencies 72,000 101,000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 28,000 0
Total $578,000 $777,000
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement funds will be utilized to pay for 80%
of the portion of recommended Alternate 2 shown on Figure 2. The division
office will use secondary construction funds in the amount of $50,000 to
construct 1300 feet of the 2300 feet of new roadway (see Figure 2). The
total estimated cost is $628,000. According to the division office,
right-of-way has been donated for the recommended alternate.
The estimated cost of the project in the 1992-1998 Transportation
Improvement Program is $728,000.
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 15 should be replaced on new location about 100 feet north
of the existing bridge as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. Approximately
2300 feet of new roadway and approaches will be necessary. The division
office will construct approximately 1300 feet of the new roadway. A
22-foot pavement with 3-foot graded shoulders will be provided on the
approaches built with Bridge Replacement funds. The proposed section of
roadway to be funded by the division office will have the identical cross
section.

4
The Hydrographics Unit recommends that the new structure have a floor
elevation approximately 8 feet above the existing bridge and should be
about 150 feet in length. This length may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
It is recommended that traffic be maintained on-site on the existing
bridge. However, if road closure were required during construction, a
possible detour route is shown in Figure 1. Approximately 3.6 miles of
additional travel would be required for through trips. The maximum
additional travel distance (from one side of the bridge to the other) is
11.7 miles; however, no recognized trips of this nature occur.
Alternate 2 is recommended to eliminate a substandard section of
SR 1360 east of the bridge. This segment of SR 1360 is unpaved and has a
very poor horizontal alignment. Due to cost considerations, this grade
line was chosen to allow for the balancing of cut and fill on both
approaches. Although this alternate will provide a lower design speed of
30 mph, a continuous, paved secondary road through the area will result.
Alternate 1 would reconnect with existing SR 1360 immediately east of
the bridge and would retain the poor section of roadway described above.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on
the quality of the human or natural environment with use of current North
Carolina Department of Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No significant adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social,
economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and
important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether
the proposed project will impact farmland soils and if necessary, to
complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The completed
form is included in the Appendix (A-2).
5
According to the SCS, the proposed project will impact approximately
1.1 acres of prime farmland soils. This accounts for less than one
percent of the total prime or important farmland soils found in Lincoln
County. The impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006
indicates that the site's assessment and relative value score is 163 out
of a possible 260. If the total points, based on the relative value and
the site assessment are 260 or greater, mitigation should be considered.
It can be concluded that the project's impact on farmland, as defined by
the SCS, is minimal and therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that
if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect was surveyed by the N. C. Department of
Transportation. No properties which appeared to be over fifty years old
were found in the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, no further compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required.
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are
no publicly-owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located east of Iron Station in Lincoln County in the
Piedmont Physiographic Province. The study area is located in a rural
setting, the majority of which is forested with areas of disturbance.
Leepers Creek and a small tributary of Leepers Creek cross the study area.
Topography in the area ranges from gently to strongly sloping. Slope
gradients range from 0 to 45 percent and elevation ranges from 705' to
820' (amsl). An 80' elevation change occurs west of the existing bridge.
Aerial photographs and USGS quadrangle maps (Lowesville) were
obtained for the study area. Soils information and the hydric soils list
were obtained from the local Soil Conservation Service office. Potential
jurisdictional wetlands were identified from the soil survey and hydric
soils list.
Five plant communities were identified in the study area: mixed
hardwood forest, shrub/scrub community, riparian forest and agricultural
community. Wetland plant communities in the study area are also
presented. A summary of anticipated impacts estimates total project
impacts by community type.
6
The majority of the study area is occupied by a mixed hardwood forest
community. Deciduous trees dominate the canopy: southern red oak ( uercus
falcata), red oak ( uercus rubra), white oak ( uercus alba), post oak
( uercus stellata), black oak ( uercus velutina), red maple (Acer rubrum)
and American beech (Fagus grandifolia) were noted. Two pines, short-leaf
(Pinus echinata) and scrub pine (P. virginiana), are scattered canopy
components of this community. In addition, red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana) reaches canopy dominance near the eastern project terminus.
Pecan trees (Carya illinoensis) are also located in the study area.
Canopy trees reach a considerable size along the project.
The understory includes mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), which is
prominent only on the bluffs on either side of Leepers Creek. The bluff
on the east side of the creek supports a high density of this shrub.
Other understory plants include sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), dogwood
(Cornus florida), umbrella tree (Magnolia tripetala), winged elm (Ulmus
alata), red maple and American holly (Ilex opaca). The majority of ground
cover is seasonally absent this time of year. Wild ginger (Hexastylis
sp.), galax (Galax aphylla), crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor),
mountain laurel seedlings and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
were noted. Beggar's lice (Desmodium sp.) is prominent throughout.
Tree cutting has resulted in open canopy in a portion of the
Alternate 2 corridor, from the tributary crossing east to the project
terminus. Decaying logs and stump sprouts of trees listed in the mixed
hardwood forest are evident. Prolific invasions of shrubs and vines are
common. Prominent species include Blackberry (Rubus sp.), dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), pokeweed (Ph ttolacca americana), Queen Anne's
lace (Daucus carota), beggars lice, beggars ticks (Bidens sp.), wild rose
(Rosa sp.) and catbrier (Smilax sp.).
Disturbed roadside habitat is located at the termini of both
alternates. River birch and sweetgum saplings, blackberry, Japanese
honeysuckle and beggars ticks were observed.
The riparian forest community is located above the banks of Leepers
Creek and the tributary of Leepers Creek. This community appears to
intermittently flood. The canopy includes: tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula
nigra) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Typical understory species
such as box elder (Acer negundo), red cedar, American holly, Christmas
fern, microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), chasmanthium (Chasmanthium
sp.), Blackberry (Rubus sp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
are common ground cover species.
A small agricultural field is located at the western edge of the
project above the banks of Leepers Creek. Typical species are Blackberry,
catbrier and dog fennel. Minimal impact is anticipated in this community.
Bank-to-bank wetlands are located along Leepers Creek and the
tributary to Leepers Creek. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) is located on the
creek banks of Leepers Creek. Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), box
elder (Acer ne undo) and microstegium were observed at the small
tributary. Minimal impacts to this community are anticipated.
7
Construction will impact the mixed hardwood forest, shrub/scrub
community, riparian forest and agricultural communities. Plant community
impacts are stated in Table 1. These estimates are preliminary and may
change with final design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATE 1 ALTFRNATF
Mixed hardwood forest 0.60 1.40
Shrub/scrub 0.10 0.90
Riparian forest* 0.10 0.10
Agricultural 0.01 0.01
TOTALS 0.81 2.41
*Wetland Plant Community
Estimated impacts are based on a 60' right-of-way width. Values shown are
in acres.
Construction of Alternate 2 will impact a greater amount of acreage
than Alternate 1. Much of the additional impact areas in Alternate 2 are
disturbed. The mixed hardwood forest located along Alternate 2 is an old
undisturbed stand with large trees and no shrub layer. Species diversity
in this community is high. Efforts will be made to reduce the amount of
impact to this community.
Clear-cutting of vegetation along the bluff area and adjacent to the
small tributary will cause considerable impact to the soils and may create
an erosion problem. Stringent erosion controls and adherence to Best
Management Practices will be enforced during construction. Disturbed
sites will be revegetated as quickly as possible to minimize erosion.
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted by proposed
construction.
The study area supports a hardwood forest that is suitable for a
number of animal species. Mammals likely to be found in the study area
include: eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), long-tailed
weasel (Mustela frenata), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
The following species of avian fauna are anticipated in the study
area: bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), rock dove (Columba livia), great
horned owl (Bubo virginianus), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), red
headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinensis) and tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor).
8
The project area supports suitable habitat for a variety of
amphibians and reptiles. One such habitat is the leaf litter layer in the
mixed hardwood forest and another habitat is the banks of Leepers Creek
and its tributary. Amphibian and reptilian species that may inhabit the
study area include: mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum), redback
salamander (Plethodon cinerus), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus),
mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), green
frog (Rana clamitans); eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), worm snake
(Carphophis amoenus), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), redbelly snake
(Storeria occipitomaculata), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus),
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus
horridus).
Leepers Creek supports a variety of fish species according to the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission fisheries biologist, Chris Goudreau.
Samples were taken where Leepers Creek crosses NC 73, approximately 2
miles upstream of the study area. Seagreen darter (Etheostoma
thalassinum), sandbar shiner (Notropus scepticus), fiery-black shiner
(Notropis pyrrhomelas), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus), longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) and suckers were observed in samples. White bass
(Morone chrysops) may also occur in the study area, though not documented.
Construction will decrease available wildlife habitat and fragment
existing wildlife habitat. The study area is undeveloped on both sides of
the proposed project.
Construction in the mixed hardwood forest will minimize tree removal
especially near Leepers Creek. Stringent erosion controls must be enforced
during construction. Steep slopes adjacent to Leepers Creek create a high
erosion potential. Immobile, burrowing species will be lost to
construction activities; sedimentation will be kept to a minimum during
construction.
Upon project completion, the abandoned roadway will be removed to
native slope conditions and revegetated with native plant species to
create additional wildlife habitat.
Soils information was obtained from the local Soil Conservation
Service office. Six soil mapping units are located in the study area.
They are listed in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Soil Summary
Soil Unit
Riverview loam
Cecil sandy clay loam
Pacolet sandy clay loam
Pacolet sandy loam
Soil Classification
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
9
The majority of the study area is mapped as Pacolet sandy loam.
Three phases of Pacolet sandy loam are located in the study area. They
range in slope from 8 to 45 percent. Bedrock is found at a depth of 160".
The water table depth is 16'.
Riverview loam soil phase is mapped adjacent to Leepers Creek.
Flooding frequency is occasional for brief periods. The water table depth
is 3' to 5'.
Leepers Creek is located in the Catawba River Basin. It is
approximately 50' wide, has moderately deep pools and a substrate of
gravel, silt and muck. Water quality is classified C (DEM, 1991). Best
usage recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were taken (1984) in Leepers Creek
where it crosses NC 150, less than 5 miles upstream of the study area.
The bioclass rating of these samples was rated good to fair. The bioclass
is a measure of the diversity and number of benthic organisms.
No Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, or water
segments classified WS-I or WS-II are located in the study area or
downstream of the project. Lincoln County is outside the Public Mountain
Trust Water jurisdiction.
Project construction may have a number of temporary impacts to water
resources such as increased sedimentation, siltation and alteration of
water level and flow. However, these potential impacts will be reduced
through strict adherence to Best Management Practices during the
construction phase of the project. Sedimentation and erosion control
measures will be enforced.
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987)." Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of vegetation,
soils and hydrology. The study area supports a small wetland plant
community at both Leepers Creek and the unnamed tributary. No other
wetlands are located in the study area. The vegetation is hydrophytic and
the soils are hydric along the banks of Leepers Creek. Leepers Creek is
intermittently flooded. The unnamed tributary also supports hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soils with low chroma values. Water was present
within 10" of the surface.
10
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (23) is likely to be applicable at
both Leepers Creek and the unnamed tributary. This permit authorizes any
activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal
agency and that the activity is "Categorically Excluded" from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the environment.
State permits are administered through the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). One state permit likely to be
required is the 401 Water Quality Certification. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
federal permit is required.
Generally, if a Nationwide permit is authorized, no mitigation is
required according to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final
decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to locate any occurrences
of protected species in the study area.
Two federally protected species are listed by the USFWS as of
December 10, 1991 for Lincoln County: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
Michaux's sumac is a small shrub up to 0.4 meters tall. Only sixteen
populations are known from North Carolina and Georgia. Fifteen of these
populations occur in North Carolina. The plant inhabits sandy, open areas
often in association with basic soils. Fire or other forms of disturbance
are usually necessary to maintain open habitat. The leaves are compound
and both the stems and leaves are densely pubescent. Suitable habitat
consists of disturbed areas such as edges of fields, roadside shoulders
and utility corridors. Disturbed roadside shoulders and clearings are
located within the study area. These areas were surveyed for the plant on
a plant-by-plant basis. No plants were seen. No impacts to this species
will occur.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf plant is known from only 24 populations
in an eight county area in North and South Carolina. The plant is a
small, evergreen herb that is a member of the birthwort family. Plant
height rarely exceeds 15 cm. The flowers are jug shaped, beige to dark
brown and appear mid-March to early June. The plant is distinguished from
other Hexastylis species because of its small flower and longer peduncles.
The plant is found on acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in
boggy areas next to streams, creekheads and along slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines. The study area supports suitable habitat for this
plant along both alternates. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted and a
plant of the Hexastylis genus was found along the east bluffs of Leepers
Creek. A positive identification of the plant could not be made at the
time of the field survey. The site will be visited during the flowering
period (mid-March to June) to identify this plant population.

11
No federal candidate species are listed by the USFWS in Lincoln
County.
No state protected species are listed in the study area according to
the NCNHP files.
Lincoln County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area
is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not
considered to be significant.
This project is expected to be processed as a Categorical Exclusion
under a Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)); therefore, an individual
404 permit from the U. S. Corps of Engineers for wetland involvement
associated with bridge construction is not anticipated.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
MJ/plr
I a
1 1 i!
X44 ? O
??.lacsdania _ '?
C& !.241 ?? ?3n ?I 24
•Ilpkin G«,r«
1.39 \ e 1 ??
131?
13?1J 1301. 1??4? 1141 j ?
J I3
x.141 -1
\^ n
1701 1 11
03 7 137 -'
I
I3eE JS
`0
?R
V V . / JR LL 69
4 9 1? NOW 1773 'S
17` .! S Qlr
?1 F 71
C` _2 1 17
?17e3 ? ?y
I3M
i
V) Ir 1
Vu 0 17eo; E
E .3
13
111) ? 1.8
1.7
fps
1311
Banc 1768 M-hp?loh
1701 '?I /? 1101 1.I
1681IP LM
..:Y / I
1687
BRIDGE NO. 15
'O,jo S .y 1? / / 1.13
'It•4 _rL?
1114
o?
LEGEND
-0-0-4- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
11 1!1`_ \
1
334
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
' TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNi ING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 15
ON SR 1360 OVER LEEPERS CREEK
LINCOLN COUNTY
B-2661
0 mile 1
12190 1 1 1 FIG. I

Aft
'?, k .y '^' t.-ia ?` '•?xty?: 'fH !n .,?-w
,z?._ ? n' ,.-ti +iF..: ?,, ?, 4{ ? '?y I? t4?1• ?y?y1? At?? .t,a ? ?L4 __ __-
? MyC??
y?rra.? r L', .K i r, " w , 4 yyF? x: 5M77r? I
• s,, ,.-? 4ft, : !? 1., (??L_ ,.r}i.,w•. "71t ?„,t„..f i^ ''Tl.. ?fµ * #? C W
?y A
44 T
a 't r* w / y^$ N a G
,r r Y b -!. 771
''?? 'q. t..R ` ..x;.11,... ?e .,>«?, .y`v`+,?,?t 4,.ti ..''-f..r yid p_f •`^..'?d, '?.+.,dy1? '2 W V
.
W t2 w CL Z ?ny`r ,it +"F- d t?1 "?' P y \? •a "F. rp P ' `"Ka Y? ' k}i 1 7 ?:1 X /. / w N W Z m
m lr
" J ? .'.? _ -? '? yt?t Nj: '1?' - d r ? ?1.?\ '..?4 ?? ti? f?,...,. rl 1 ?' r
M
Ep z?de L?
» ,? . :. ?r.L?•^' ` T t S i? r4
Y
, A
?? S w `" t u • qf"v
*w.
74
;«.,y? . .?. :, rte. Yt6.Z ,, .. •..- r Y 'T,? y/.. r?r3 s1_'? .y K..''
?'
.r .?}x .'? 1 ? • t, fr +' ?,, ? fi??'?': rf a n St"?,a J. V"F?h{r. t?? ,r+? x ? •n a ? P
:v", „""'? ?? „ • ?'+^1?,?# d '? 1 ? t ?s, ?a ? r^ t ?t r rr8?n ?.4 4, f" .w,° a
d ? ?' 'Y?: 1?4"`??? ?"dr'+? 7?1 a vs (J? ? « ?, i.f 5'? "?. ?? at Id•?? t? a` ?LL4 p- ? "cd' ?,;, ?? d.
;
yr ;?' r ?? , , ?'? s. ;?. ...,t, ,? ? 4 ?'.?•
as ??eM?Y'z. R.. ? "`11 ? 4; •4 . "1;.;.,??„o ? :. ?.
r'tl?
n
rry?,,?? Y . `zyMZ a t . ?yt Cy -i' i F
'7 14I
i,ly?r-' ? 1 ?( >.yy . y? ?" . T?';4 } a r
7 ..* "Y,,.. / ?, `rErtt „?'P• " .' e df+ 4 )r't?, '? "^1, Y'?.,. pa :ays wr'
^eti -,. ! ? i . r:' ? `? '•t" j " s ,(..? w? 0 1? ?' Y N ?!?7t !R`SL. ^wcru iv ? ?.,,a„?
.A y~ 'va??'?', 1 }1. ` ?} iW:a. ?f R;'R. a, :?j'µ'?,.rrl??' 'r '??egrpJ" .°?.??.. ?? ,` 7 ' r't t?T ?Y •? 7"1''?h n' f.;WYe.n pl,
k X Ia. ?y ?,? eb tiv RRR 5• 1rn6,-?.a r'i.~? R ,? ' i'>
d ^Yt i tL? , F? •? , " ? * +?' o, 1.• •. ,R f^ f ? Ity?',eI? ?k,? ? M? ? -.
74?"
•
14P c ?.ta,a «- ??*F. ?:F! } ! ?? r . ?tinaT,.': / ? ?t !?•t ,? ? r ?, ,??u? + +.? x?d ; t
'•,f erl ? ?, yy,,.. A'rr? ?,.+'l"??T' l ui ; `?.i ? ? .k _a^ ? ,r?M9? rl ? .1? wa9ap Thy ? `'. ..
y 9? "' ?+? ? ' ?, ?;F : s 1 ?#r;•. r,. #?i, 'vR ?? r ?'•:'.r. ? :.? ?a ? ? ? ?. ?~ ?F '? ` .? ? t"t ??i?G y? k a °?r?
«
A
? AF
r
W' yx 4
y iCN «? ai ?'Ml .
ONT
M
•T'[. .f. ? 1 x a.`,T'.' -,6?.^ ? .1?' .. 'Q' _, :. /, i,'. 'irl is may, ?.t.
?4,,: .r11W?? .?;.- .w '?da ? ?. ?? ,?' ? _ ? - ` •q?a ,`,?'..'??S"14l I? ?'r ?, p "'^"9M rte.. • ?:,.
. • .?, ? ± ?'? ?'Y y?.. a, ):. n- 6.r ...?, e , r °+I?M.? y+wtiu+x .a .{?I?(1n :It + *-,? t. '' ?y
.
4*1
4
OFF • ?iw.
a e0;0 'V Z
r.r* ,? ', f ?}+'_-- T?w? +?f1R -? +Rf ?^•'? Mti.? rl'_? r. ?? ? "7^'?x..? +. :, .f lf? .R,< 1 ????_ °?Y'E?Nd?? r :,
-i'. i ,r!v',?y,` MT>rTiTAr1iR_ ??? .?''T' ••? ?". '? 't ?4,h' .'Mf a ..? /(r.: .
AN*
erg K
1y?
y? 'dNT. `' I ? t ? '' fly rP r'pla'sl ? ?
?•+At.? .,? ^?Y' ,,?, (. ap `?4 #, m,?r(. ?rt ??????' '"K? l+a. a ?"ps,l{ ??i r?'?1?? i `j}, ?.:
r? s ? t
s?M t f
.r' Tp. ? i rc n A • 4 l+F' ? i?. ?
?'" •. "FaH" "r? ? d ?' ,???"fl'?M w Yr .?'? ev..? ?s T ?? W..,.:.9 ," ?
y?_ t T T? •?'1?r ,?14 ,r,rd"/' far. e * ? ;':, t'q ,• `
D? • ? , -L I: '?p?F Kr7?',y+tt r • ? s M' 'f? ifs ,?,J` ,
?t
fii?
h
d,r. 4# ??; 'i. A 7" t? 3F dA`•, .5 ? ri ? ? F 4 4A"'; ,k 1, ?t
4 r
. ? ? 'T'°yv rv • '' ?, ???? r 'r.. Sh?,rn y,{ Try c? d
'r
^rRT,T: - • ?+? "y ti ,-•)l 'tom '6 ?`''/" 1. ?1???:f1"'
? ? .rat ,,,??` 1} ! ?,,. ? ,,. _ ` •. ? a??f tt?,C ?,y
t '^"r?,? v` t .r? r ? ?' 4 • .' ?? t'"?? r '? ?? ?}, .W 4? f ?, ? I ?d1? ? ? 4R? '?' ? ? v?'
?? ? ?` yldl"`S?4 '*f ?^ x ?a` M 9? Fw? > 1kp
yy ? hN
? ` a ?., 1 •, r -""'r'.;;,xwt? 1. ?y,# "S" "' ? :H Y t w. 1' 'F
•lY^ ?r 4
4t •

BRIDGE NO. 15
LINCOLN COUNTY
B-2661 '
LOOKING WEST
i - •SIDE VIEW
i
FIGURE 3
v 13621 v
/ ?Ho`per
.r
-BMR4A.
3920 Il ? ? ? ? • ? '- /?
--
???? B00
61
hardtP74 o eoo'?, - 977 ,-
39251 ::, ?rid6P _ ??8ie 13
Tuc rove
/_ / {d / % -\t = / ., ( 1uckerCGrtowe? n Camo ound
5!aete i err '?,•
57 r, - Ch?9
C u
Forney
7
3924
27'30„
y _ ABM'
871
C
?(-
I' 66<
3923 1372' 1
17
' Faith CF
a'ua
fl,
COowel
a
3922y
PLAIN
LIMITS OF ? 1 00-YEAR FLOOD
- /i _ -
VVV _' _` -
??l? /? ? 0? ?- \ 08t0
,-m- i _
Reese io 77, N1,
1 LR_ y ? ? ure' -
=-
FIGURE 4 Jrdg
6100
7
APPENDIX
r
? ?r n
d18
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; o o,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- C! n
Shelby, North Carolina
November 21, 1991
MEMORANDUM TO: MR. JACK WARD
FROM: C. S. LEDBETTER
SUBJECT: TIP - B-2661 - Bridge #15
Lincoln County - SR 1360

2 © A
l ...
DtVIiCN bf HIGHWAYS

WIL•LIAM'G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
This is to follow up my letter to you dated September 27,
1991 and to advise of our estimate and intent to build the portion
of SR 1360 from station 15 + 00 to 28 + 00 along the desired
alignment. Our average cost to construct a secondary road under
similar conditions has been around $150,000.00 per mile for the
past year. The proposed section beyond the TIP project is
approximately 0.25 miles long. Since the section will include a
20 foot width of pavement with 8 foot shoulders and since there
may be some rock encountered we feel that we can construct this
0.25 mile section from our secondary construction account for
approximately $50,000.00.
CSL:vgi
cc: Mr. R.W. Spangler
A-1
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To tie cornoleted ble f=ederal Agency) i Date Of Land Evaluation Hequast \? \"?
Name Of Project (Zb\ i Fvaeral Agency Involved P'\
Proposed Lana Use n`f v.? ?C\* _ ?? ae:? ` o cx County And State \^
- O ? ' ..ca\<\ N C
PART II (To be completed by SCS) Oats Request Received Ely SCS
Oces the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
Of no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parrs of this form). ? ? Acres Irrigated
N p c- I Average Farm Size
\ ? -A
Major Croo(s)
?cr l\ Formable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: % q c 1 Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres:
Name Of Una Evaluation System Used
t•?.'? V" LrA 'A k Name Of Lot~1 Site Aucument System
7.l o IS ?_ Date Land Evsfuatian Returned fly SCS
R - Z`t - Ci`

PART III (To be com
l
d b
F
d
l A Alternative Site Hann
p
ete
y
e
era
gency) Site A Site a Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly ,
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site ,
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 1, 1
B. Total Acres Statewida And Local Important Farmland G
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0. c C 1
0. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value Ij a f"{
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative ValuoOf Farmland To Be Converted (SmisofOro 10OPoints)
Du
PART V 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Ausument Criteria !These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 653.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use \ 5
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use \p \p
3. Percent Of Situ Being Farmed a p
4. Protection Provided BV State And Local Government ao 0
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area -- -
6. Oistanca To Urban Support Services ---
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Avaraga \ a \ 0
& Creation Of Nonfarmablo Farmland acJ p
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services S 5
10. On-Farm Investments c. \ O
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services a B O
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use \Q? o
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 b 3
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 \ a O
Total Situ Assessment (From Parr Vl above Ora local
Slat assesrmenr) 16D b 3
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 \b 3

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Wu A local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Hodson rqr aelectton:
1 ? ?1 loo = ?11?

A-2