19960144 Ver 1_Complete File_19960213

v k
r
A ,
ye r-?
L
9601-44 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 9, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office ??eJS
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner K
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Lincoln County, Replacement of Bridge No. 15 over Leepers Creek
SR 1360, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1360(1), State Project No. 8.2831201,
TIP No. B-2661.
Enclosed are three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge number 15 over Leepers Creek on SR 1360 will be replaced on new
location approximately 200 feet north of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on
the existing bridge during construction. The project will result in 0.10 acre of wetland
impacts and incidental fill in surface waters. No other impacts are anticipated.
The project is being processed by the
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
anticipate requesting an individual permit bu
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Ap e
330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulati I
project.
reeateen=aurustration as a
Therefore, we do not
rocee under a Nationwide
). T e provisions of Section'
will be followed in the construction of the
We anticipate that 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, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.

2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincerel ,
Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc; w/attachment
Wilmington District COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr.. R. W. Spangler, PE, Division 12 Engineer
Lincoln County, SR 1360,
Bridge No. 15 over Leepers Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1360(1)
State Project No. 8.2831201
TIP Project B-2661

1w
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
ll-?2-94- ? q/.0
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
°r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Fop Nic o as C. Gra , P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Lincoln County, SR 1360,
Bridge No. 15 over Leepers Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1360(1)
State Project No. 8.2831201
TIP Project B-2661
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
LIN
4yk
is e e Jame
Project Plan ing Engineer
wa Vil e-- Z--//, 1, 0
Wayne /El I iott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head C A RO +++++"L67 1?0.,
``so
O? ? „?¢eaa.. ?/ P?
•' o r ?
o CAL
C?? 22-91- 6976
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch ?'.G? `•?r?d•`
Lincoln County, SR 1360,
Bridge No. 15 over Leepers Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1360(1)
State Project No. 8.2831201
TIP Project B-2661
I. BACKGROUND
1992.
The Categorical Exclusion for this project was completed on May 14,
It was recommended that Bridge No. 15 be replaced on new location
approximately 100 feet north of the existing bridge (see Alternate 2 in
Figure 1). After the completion of the planning document, it was
discovered that construction of the new bridge as originally proposed by
Alternate 1 or 2 would result in disturbances to the Brevard Iron Forge
site that was located within the project limits. The historic property
has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Since replacement of this bridge would involve funding from the
Federal Highway Administration's bridge replacement program, federal
regulations must be complied with and the project must be designed to
protect the natural environment and culturally significant historic sites.
The provisions of the Department of Transportation Act, specifically
Section 4(f) of that Act, require that federally funded highway and bridge
projects avoid using land from public parks, recreation areas, wildlife
refuges, or historic sites unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land, and that all possible planning has
been done to minimize harm to such lands. Therefore, in order to use the
federal funds available for replacing the bridge and improving the
alignment of SR 1360, an alternative alignment must be considered to avoid
the iron forge site and still meet the needs of the community for an
improved roadway and safe bridge.
Upon completion of preliminary designs, it was determined the
structure should be relocated about 200 feet north of the existing
location (see Figure 2) to avoid the site boundaries of the iron forge.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 15 should be replaced on new location about 200 feet north
of the existing bridge as shown 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 2000 feet of new roadway approaches will be required.
The approach roadways will include a 22-foot pavement with 6-foot graded
shoulders throughout the project.
2
III. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS REQUIRED
The design speed is 35 mph, due to the vertical alignment. A design
exception will be required and an advisory speed posting is warranted.
Traffic is to be maintained on the existing bridge during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices is $1,044,000. The estimated
cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001 TIP, is $1,263,000.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
Additional runoff from project construction will be diverted directly
into the stream and will not result in increased siltation or erosion to
the iron forge site.
Approximately 0.10 acre of wetlands will be disrupted by the project.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(23) and a 401 Water Quality Certification
are likely to be applicable at Leepers Creek.
V. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1360 is classified as a major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is a Federal-Aid road.
In the vicinity of the bridge, the west approach of SR 1360 has a
19-foot unpaved width with 2-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). The shoulders
on the east approach vary from 0-2 feet. The 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 2016. 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.
The overall length is 96 feet. The 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 33.3 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
3
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the existing bridge
during the period from February, 1991 thru January, 1994.
VI. ALTERNATIVES
The originally recommended alternative was rejected due to the
presence of the Brevard Iron Forge Site.
The currently recommended alternative avoids the site boundaries.
VII. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost of the currently recommended alternative is as
follows:
Recommended
e1*crnnto
Structure $282,000
Roadway Approaches 5859000
Detour Structure & Approaches 0
Structure Removal 73,000
Engineering & Contingencies 1319000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 39,000
Total Cost of Project $190449000
The estimated cost of the project in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program is $1,263,000.
VIII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 15 should be replaced on new location about 200 feet north
of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2. Approximately 2000 feet of
new roadway and approaches will be necessary. A 22-foot pavement with
6-foot graded shoulders will be provided on the approaches.
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 during construction. 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
4
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.
The current alignment is recommended to eliminate a substandard
section of SR 1360 east of the bridge as well as to avoid the iron forge
site. 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 35 mph, a continuous, paved
secondary road through the area will result.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Natural Resources
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.
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 of 1981 requires all federal
agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. The U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the recommended
alternate would impact soils designated as prime or important farmland.
The SCS indicates that only 0.8 acre of the 4.4 acres required for the
recommended alternate are designated as prime farmland. Further, the SCS
states on the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (AD-1006) that the
farmland's relative value is 15.9 on a scale of 0 to 100 points (See
Appendix A-1).
Completion of the site assessment portion of the impact rating form
results in a total site assessment point score for the impacted farmland
soils of 50.9 on a scale of 0 to 260 points. Point totals greater than
160 indicate that other alternatives should be considered. Although
Alternatives 1 and 2 are preferable in that they do not impact farmland
soils, the impacts of the recommended alternate are not significant.
5
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 (See letter in Appendix A-2).
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.
The three terrestrial communities found in the project area are the
Man Dominated Community, Mixed Hardwood Forest Community, and Riparian
Forest Community.
The Man Dominated Community is located along both approaches to
Bridge #15 and at the northeastern end of the project. This community is
dominated by roadside herbs and grasses such as, wild carrot, red clover,
dandelion, blackberry, smooth sumac, English plantain, and fescue.
Several species of trees are also found in this community including: tulip
tree, red cedar, northern red oak, hawthorn, shortleaf pine, scrub pine,
and honey locust. Trees ranged in size from seedlings to canopy height
trees. Several species of vines are also identified from this community
including: trumpet vine, honey suckle, catbriar, grape, and wild rose.
The Mixed Hardwood Forest Community occurs on upland regions in the
study area. The canopy in this community is dominated by hardwoods such
as, American beech, white oak, sourwood, pecan, sweet gum, northern red
oak, and red maple. Less abundant canopy species were scrub pine,
shortleaf pine, and red cedar. The understory in this community contains
individuals of winged elm, flowering dogwood, American holly, sweet gum,
and other canopy species. Ground cover in this community consists of
violet, Christmas fern, rattlesnake plantain, pipisewa, groundpine, and
other herbaceous plants. Mountain laurel and wild ginger become dominant
along the east bluff of Leepers Creek.
The Riparian Forest Community is located along the banks of Leepers
Creek. This community has a canopy dominated by shagbark hickory,
ironwood, flowering dogwood, northern red oak, tulip tree, white oak, and
sycamore. Ground cover in this community includes: christmas fern,
honeysuckle, catbriar, poison ivy, and violet.
6
Animal species that can be found utilizing habitats in the study area
are not restricted to a specific plant community; instead, species will
migrate from community to community throughout the day. Animal species
typical of habitats available in the study area include: marbled
salamander, slimy salamander, ground skink, black racer, copperhead,
eastern box turtle, Swainson's warbler, red eyed vireo, red bellied
woodpecker, eastern cottontail, white tailed deer, raccoon, and striped
skunk.
Destruction of terrestrial communities in the study area will result
in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for many of the terrestrial
species which utilize this area. Loss of these habitats will result in a
reduction and displacement of species found in the study area. Impacts to
terrestrial communities are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community
Man Dominated
Mixed Hardwood Forest
Riparian Forest
Estimated Impacts*
0.64(1.58)
0.59(1.38)
0.10(0.25)
Total: 1.33(3.21)
Note: Values given are in hectares (acres).
The construction of the project will result in temporary impacts to
roadside communities and the permanent removal and fragmentation of the
mixed hardwood forest and riparian forest communities.
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 is located on the creek banks of
Leepers Creek. Tulip poplar, box elder and microstegium were observed at
the small tributary. Minimal impacts to this community are anticipated.
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, white-footed mouse, gray fox, long-tailed
weasel, striped skunk and white-tailed deer.
The following species of avian fauna are anticipated in the study
area: bobwhite, rock dove, great horned owl, belted kingfisher, red headed
woodpecker, common crow, Carolina Chickadee and tufted titmouse.
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, redback salamander, slimy salamander,
mud salamander, American toad, gray treefrog, spring peeper, green frog,
eastern box turtle, worm snake, ringneck snake, redbelly snake, eastern
ribbon snake, copperhead and timber rattlesnake.
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, sandbar shiner,
fiery-black shiner, redbreast sunfish, pumpkinseed, longear sunfish,
largemouth bass and suckers were observed in samples. White bass 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.
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- y ric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
8
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.
The water resources located in the study area are Leepers Creek and
an unnamed tributary to Leepers Creek. Leepers Creek is approximately
12.2 m (40 ft.) wide, with substrate composed of silt, sand, and pebbles,
and water depths range from 0.3 m to 1.2 m (>lft. to 4 ft.) deep.
The Water Quality Classification for Leepers Creek remains Class C.
No changes in the water quality classification have occurred since the
Natural Resources Technical Report was prepared. No High Quality Waters,
Outstanding Resource Waters, or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II will be
impacted by the construction of the proposed project.
The aquatic community of Leepers Creek provides habitat for species
ranging from crayfish to muskrat. Crayfish, northern dusky salamander,
and freshwater mussels may be found in the infrequent riffle zones, pools,
and around boulders. Turtles, snakes, and other reptiles bask on
boulders, fallen trees and stream banks along the river course. Mammals
and birds forage for fish and insects around Leepers Creek. Other common
species likely to occur in Leepers Creek include northern watersnake,
painted turtle, muskrat, beaver and raccoon.
Fish species that are likely to be found in Leepers Creek include
eastern mosquito fish, redfin pickeral, brown bullhear and madtom.
The quality of aquatic habitats is reduced by the removal of canopy
trees, alterations in the rate of flow, and increases in turbidity.
Removal of canopy trees can increase water temperature and decrease
dissolved oxygen. The rate of flow and turbidity are affected by
construction related activities that change the stream channel and add
additional sediment to the stream. These changes affect the stream by
decreasing water quality and biological diversity.
Potential impacts to water resources include increased sedimentation,
nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff from construction related erosion.
Increased sedimentation can cause mortality in sensitive species, through
9
reduction of dissolved oxygen, smothering of fish eggs and invertebrate
larva, burying deposit feeders, and clogging gills and filter feeding
appendages. To minimize impacts to Leepers Creek in the study area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sediment Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
Approximately 0.04 hectares (0.1 acres) of wetlands are located at
Leepers Creek. Impacts to these wetlands is likely to be authorized by a
Federal Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (23) and a State Section 401
General Water Quality Certification.
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.
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.
10
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.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Effective July 8, 1994 the USFWS lists two federally protected
species (Table 3) for Lincoln County.
Table 3: Federally Protected Species for Lincoln County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMM NAME STATUS
Hexastylis naniflora dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
Suitable habitat for both of these federally protected species exists
in the study area. Plant by plant surveys for Michaux's sumac were
conducted in all suitable habitat zones. The species does not occur in
the study area. Therefore, no impacts to Michaux's sumac will occur from
the construction of the subject project.
Surveys for dwarf-flowered heartleaf resulted in the location of
individuals of the genus Hexastylis along the east bluff of Leepers Creek.
These individuals were later identified as Hexastylis minor, which does
not receive federal protection.
No impacts to federally protected species will result from the
construction of the project.
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.
11
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. The floodplain will not be raised more than
one foot.
This project is expected to be processed as an Addendum to the
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.
B. Archaeological Resources
An intensive archaeological survey of the project's Area of Potential
Effect (APE) was conducted to determine if significant sites might be
disturbed or destroyed. Five archaeological sites were detected within or
very near the APE. Two of the sites (31LN142 and 31LN143) are not
significant archaeological or historical resources. One site (31LN144) is
located outside the APE and its significance has not been fully assessed.
Two of the five sites are archaeologically and historically
significant. One of these is site 31LN62 (see Figures 5-8), the
Brevard-Mt. Tirzah Iron Bloomery Forge site. The forge was built in the
1790s. Large stone ruins of the forge and associated structures remain
preserved on the site.
Brevard's "Mt. Tirzah" Forge Site (31LN62): (Figures 5 through 8). This
site designates the ruins of the Mt. Tirzah Iron Bloomery Forge. The
name, Mt. Tirzah, is a biblical name selected by the original owners. The
forge also is known as the Brevard Forge, with the name taken from its
owner. The forge was constructed about 1795 as part of the Vesuvius
Furnace iron works operation (Ferguson and Cowen 1987:72). The topic of
historic iron works in Lincoln County and the surrounding region has been
of interest to local historical researches for many decades. Local
historians and residents have long identified the Brevard-Mt. Tirzah forge
site as a prominent example of the local iron-working industry. The
current owner of the forge site continues to maintain the larger ruins on
the site.
The site was archaeologically documented and evaluated in 1987 during
a survey of Piedmont iron works sites (Ferguson and Cowan 1987). The site
was considered at that time to be archaeologically and historically
,significant, and potentially eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (Ferguson and Cowan 1987:75).
The Mt. Tirzah Forge operations were important to the family's
ironworks. The forge was used to hammer the raw iron taken from the
furnace (pig iron) into bars that were in turn used by blacksmiths and
other manufacturers. Ferguson and Cowan note that only four iron forge
sites have been.identified in the Southcentral Piedmont region of North
Carolina. Many more furnaces are known than forges. They also note that
12
forge constructions appear to deteriorate more rapidly and extensively
than furnace sites. The Brevard bloomery forge is considered to be a very
well preserved example of a forge site (Ferguson and Cowan 1987:75).
The second significant site is 31LN145 (see Figure 9), the site of
Mt. Tirzah, the Alexander Brevard family home and farm. The residential
site also dates from the 1790s, perhaps slightly earlier.
31LN1459 "Nt. Tirzah" the Brevard.Family House-Farm Site:
This site is located on the east side of SR 1360 at the far eastern
side of the APE (Figure 2). The site includes the foundations of a house
and outbuildings, and various retaining walls from landscaping of the
area. This is the site of "Mt. Tirzah", the Brevard Family Residence.
The early owner was Alexander Brevard, the same person who owned and
operated the nearby iron forge. A later photograph of the site shows a
view of the house that used to be on the site (Figure 9).
The archaeological remains on this site are substantial. Not only
are foundations of a main house and outbuildings present, but the entire
site is surrounded by a stone wall. The wall is deteriorated in places
but it is generally intact and can be easily seen on the ground. Drives
leading to the site also have rock retaining walls along their edges. The
remains of two wells and a modern water pump were detected. Remnants of
ornamental vegetation also are present on the lot.
The site is presently heavily grown over with trees and other low
vegetation. The site is difficult to see from SR 1360 due to the dense
trees along the edge of the road, but the vegetation is less dense near
the center of the site. The site shows clearly on the 1938 aerial
photograph of the area (on file at local Soil Conservation Office). A
main house and several outbuildings are evidenced.
The house at Mt. Tirzah stood until 1968 when it was burned. It had
long been unoccupied. Despite its lack of attention in modern times, the
house remained an impressive example of architecture.
Because of the way in which the house site is defined by retaining
walls and foundations, the contextual integrity of this site appears to be
exceptional. No attempt was made to conduct excavations at the site, but
given the preserved condition of the site, it is likely that artifacts and
activity features can be defined and important information can be
recovered from the site. This site is potentially archaeologically and
historically significant under National Register eligibility Criterion D
for its potential to yield important archaeological data. It also is
believed to be significant according to Criteria A and B because of its
association with the historic iron works industry of the region and its
association with a very prominent family of the region, the Brevards of
the Catawba Valley.
13
The site has been included within the bridge replacement project's
Area of Potential Effect because of its proximity to the part of SR 1360
that will tie into the new alignment. However, it is not expected that
there will be any disturbance of this site. It appears it can easily be
avoided. If plans change and it is found that the site will be disturbed,
then it is recommended that archaeological data recovery be conducted
within the disturbed area before construction begins.
Two -construction alignments, -Alternates 1 and 2, were originally
proposed for the project. It was found that these would disturb site
31LN62, the Brevard-Mt. Tirzah Iron Forge site. A revised alignment, the
recommended Alternate, was subsequently proposed in order to avoid
disturbing the site. It appears that this alignment, which will be
designed with surface runoff controls, will not disturb the site. It
appears that none of the alternatives will disturb the Mt. Tirzah
homeplace site (31LN145)..
The actual bridge replacement over Leepers Creek will not disturb any
significant historic properties.
Because the Brevard-Mt. Tirzah Forge site (31LN62) is a significant
archaeological site with above ground structures worthy of preservation in
place, Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Federal-Aid
Highway Act, as amended, will likely apply to this project if the site is
disturbed. However, avoidance of the site should preclude any involvement
with Section 4(f).
MJ/rfm
Be"
w

im
BRIDGE NO. 15
me
LEGEND
-0-0.0- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 15
ON SR 1360 OVER LEEPERS CREEK
LINCOLN COUNTY
B-2661
0 mile 1
12/90 I i I FIG. I
BRIDGE NO. 15
LINCOLN COUNTY
B-2661
LOOKING WEST

N
d% "I

l_

k i- - LOOKING EAST
a. '? r
p f

i?v f
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
tt? em
eaa - -
?-
3926
\ -007
1`Jf " / - -
- '.'. p:
:. 1
1 hardtl / 00 •fl _ 72 ,-? _ ' '477 _
X25 i ridg asn 731 9+, -
,• i? /
.,,Tuc rove
Tlicke Growe Ch \l a 1-Camp -und.
;ern
-:d 57x K&C it
J!
Z I gf - <-euu /
357
Forney
Cern
39241 27'30„ _
v a - _
871
II(.J 1 I ?_? ?' - .? • ,i 864- w
17
Faith Ch
4R) /
I. ?4z/ Innowel
i -J ` \- I li
39
LIMITS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN '
Q
-211
Re4se
! tom= _ `:??-?? FIGURE 4 a-d ?,
c C)
-s
(D
m Cf)
?r+
(D
w
C). r
? z
ca rn
N
O -h
O
?CC)
(D
c
U)
n
c
m
0.
W
(D
w
0.
(D
a
O
D7
,-t-
O
-s
Q
r -
(D
(D
(D
-1 ' o
m ro
(D Cn
r+ ? (D
(D
? r
(D z
:3< N
?(1)?
o
o)
0.Z' (D
(D
nac
?.
(f)
p to
(n (D a
:3 -h
-7 r+
w
wo
w
r CD
rt
?E n?
W uo
=h ((DD
w w :E
(c)
:3 (C) W
O O
D -
(D C)
W :37
0) (D
r+ v (D
Cs
(D :E
N :7
:3 (D
U
F- ---A Co <
(D Co
() <
O ? W to
O (2 O
C) (D -h (Ji
O C) 7 U)
r+ O
+
:3 r+
a j (D
z I -n ,V
N O W
C) VT • - 1
• ? (Q r
j (D z
0)
Cn N
r+
(D
D
Cn
(D
co
r
Z
N
(D
O
-h
O
(n
(D
c
w
n
(n
0
m
r,-
cn
fi
(D
w
r-
z
rn
N
O
cn
(D
c
-h
W
C)
(a
(D
N
rF
r
m
m
c?
C)
(D
(D
O
r+
m?
lV
(n
rh

- 0 c O (t

O Cl)
N
-
?
r

w C m
fv
O
Z <
c? D -

X 0 }
A

r+ CO
W N

+
CD
-s ? cn a

C ?
7

o
@

•
?`
N m •i.
,r.
O N
x
-
o
+ w ?... .
3 w .
rr t
w o ?;?6
r+
f1l
r+
N
W
1
r
z
rn
N
C?
O
O
cfl
(D
U)
r+
N
U)
T,
N
r+
0-
O
-+,
r+
N
r-i-
C
rh
U)
r-1-
w
rF
CC)
w
• r tI n

o
? E

0
? • w o 0
D o

?D -1
(p O] N 01 CP A (J TJ
o v O. '' n m O o. C
ro
w oc ,? o c ?
"' a S c a
? ti I G ^' •+ w
a 8 7
# ro o
roc ? n ?
.ti ] ro
o E
o .,
r G. o
r.
?= o
w
c ?-
0
•o
m
r -( uj
:3 -o N m
O < 3-: C
O Zl w w
J
:3 Oao
-,, Q)
H
C) CD
O O -s (n
r-+• 0
.. ? rh
07 N
Z I -T1
N O Cl)
C7 Q) -) 1
0)(-Q F
CD Z
CY)
(n N
J.
rmF
(D
N
(D
c+
b
0
c?
w
0q
Iz
0
? D
N (/)
N rr
N
?
O -
: r
z
0 6)
? N
co
(D U)
D7
0-0
.
w w
? w
w 0
O
o ?
w F
N N
0- N
.O
N
~h 7
w U)
?- n
cn
N
N
O
C
rF
(D
U)
r+
-7 CC)
(D
3
w
U)
w_
-? Z
Q)
(D N
Ur)
Y
N iS
a D
cf]
? (D
C0
w u,
W
c
+ O
P) r+
C-
1
? w
U)
O
C
rF
O (DD 0
0+ w Cf)
:5- <
O K N
--h -0 W
C r
Z
O)
N
W ?..
rn
(D
s
O
P) N
C) <
o
:5 N -s
cn cII
? m
? w
O U)
r+
rt
(D 0
(D N -+, U) (n
rh
N
.
U)
(r+
Y
^(nw?o
-h (D O
0 a7
:3
i
(D 0-
O D- d(D
O (D (D
va0 0'?
c o o :5
<
(D cfl w
O 0 1
?a-?r
-t, (D rr -2-
(D
Cy)
m ::E z :3 rr\)
H- (D r+- •-
r+• Cl)
O L7 O
w (?D 0 (<D
o-
S
3 (D (D
(D Z (D
:5 77
r* w
3 O
(D :3
^w0m
cn co ai
mown
C)- - m
-t, (D (n (D
o w
:5 (T
N (D C
(I1 r+• rh
0-3
W (D
O W
O :37 z
< o 0)
(D Z- N
0 77 ((DD
PL)
< (n
(D
O
r-im<rz7
:5 -O (D G) G-)
0 < ::E C
O -a w U+
J 7 -S tri
O 0-0
U - -+,
C) (D -
O 0 7 (n
r+ 0 -
D r+
co (D
Z I TI
N O w
C7 rn "S -'•
• rn cQ r
- (D z
CA
(!) N
r+
(D
o ?>
w
?. U)
C(1 C) (D
I
(D (D )
w (D
(nor
vhz
w N
rt-
(To
_. o
(n 0-
(D
0 -1
U
_.-a
o Q
:3 (D
(n
O
-s w
(o ?
(D
-• S
((D C1
(n
(D
o ,I
(n .
w (n o,
(D
w a.
m
(D Ow
(D :3 Q'
?:.CD C
(
(D
:3 O (D
cr)
w 1
O r
Z
N
(D
C)-
P)
Ui (D
-- w
0
_0 a]
(D
a?
(D
r+ w o'
6• z
.? rn
.-• N
C1 "
(a <
(D --
(D
^i,
w O
CII ?
(D
O (D
0 ?
r} ?
(D o
w
r+ ?
0
(T
C Cn
(
CD (D m (D
w ? r
z
(Q (D N
(D
(D V
77 <
O 07 _.
S (D (D
m o 0
C)
(D
O (D
-+,
a f
(D
CD
cr)
r+ 0
w
=S D) o
?. (n co
(DD r
w :3 z
?•-fiN
3 <
(D m
Nab
r+ o
0
3
O
O
_c
O N
(D U)
r+
O
77 -+
-• m
:3
(n r+
C
C ?
a m
-I CA < rri
H S J. H
:3 -0 (D m G?
C) < ::E C
0 -v w u)
Z -S
?Ocl o
-+, cu
C) (D H
O 0 7 U)
+ O J.
w ? r+
0o m
z I -Tl
N O co
G) -1 1
CY) Q (-
-m z
CY)
cn r\3
r+
CD
O 3 fl_ D
U
r+ N Co
r+
(D
(n () O m
m
w :3 w
m 07 CY
-Umh
:3 o :
:3 m m
m m :3
m :% D rt
O W
m T 1
(Q r-
0
r+<?0)
U) w N
v ? -
<
C 0 m
< D f
+o 1-r
1 o
P)
D (n
Q
cn
meow
m0-`
I + :3 (C)
(p
? O C)
r+ S (L)
:V ID
W r+
= O w
:3 6-
m C
r F :E `+
o D
im
w V--+
3c
CO s r
+ z
o rn
C w N
r+ :3
Z3' C)-
(D
3 r+
N 0 w
w m o
(D-I --+,
-• (D
:3 C)
(D
r+
O? O C)
- (D
C oo
_ w
O
-0 r
z
m
rn
:5 N
n O
? m
m 3
0 W ?
C (n
r+
:y ° 0
W cn -il
U) O
.L
CO .
m
0
w w
?rr
Q Y
m
FIGURE 9 Early photograph of house that used to be present on site
31 LN145, Mt. Tirzah, the Brevard Family Estate. From an article by
Chalmers G. Davidson entitled Mt. Tirzah, Gone With The Wind, in The
Sta,e dune 15, 1969..
Mount Tir:ah, the Lincoln County home of Captain Alexander Brevard and his descendants, was built about 1800; and the shell of the house, long de-
serted and empty, burned last year. This photo, taken in the early 1900's, is the only known picture showing the mansion while it was still in the hands
"I the builder's family.
The elderly gentleman standing at the gate is Alexander Franklin Brevard, lost of three generations to inhabit Mount Tirxah.
y003N - A4O3
a
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Lana Evaiuaiwn deauest A g ` \ CNCI IA
Oate at
PART I !To he cornotered by Fe=era! Agrnr/1 I F.a.rai Ay.nev Imorv.a
Nam. Qt Project 3
(County Ana sat.
ProOosed Lana Use ?; \? 1L Q,\ ? P» sq C. p d S ?£W
Cate RpYgeL e
PART II (To be compiered by SCSI Yes Acru Irrigated Avgra9*'''rin Sire
.40
Does the site contain prime. unique. statewide ddhionel parr ofl this farmland?
??l. e Q 0 ^? a, p lingo in tlFPPA
(/f no, the FPPA does nor apply - do nor Complete Ant Ot F'rrtfa/O 7 p 3, 5
Farrnepla Land in Govt. lunsa?et, % 9 S. ? Acres:
ar Crao,s, Acres: $ 2 5 'D 2 RenirneC By SCS
K M` Name at Loeai Sin Aaaamem synon Oat. Lana
Nang of Lana Evaluation System Usga I . / D W ? q ! Q 4 w lit/
% ?`? ?? /V n?ewat??tg atfn4 -
PART 111 (70 be Completed by Federal Agenr/)
A Tnra1 Acres TO Be Converted DireedY
!. Total Acres To Be
- Iva G:r.
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaiwtsan Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unioue Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Imaortant Farmiand
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
p. Pgn:enagg q1' Farinland In GovL lurisdiCion Y<tn Sam* Or NigAor Relative Value
PART V (To be camp/ared by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sca/a of O to 100 Points)
aximum
PART VI (To be camplered by Federal Agency) MPoints
Site Amenme+t Criteria MWO Criteria am e=iainad in T CFR 6558(bi I
t Area In Nonurban Use
Perimeter In Nonurban Use .??
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4 Protection Provided BY State And Local Government -C)
S. Distance From Urban 8uiltuo Area l
8 Distance To Urban Suoport Services ulnae
7 Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To
a rseation Of Nonfarmabie Farmiand 1
11. Effete Of Cotrrersion vn rare....
12. ComeatibUity With Existing AqrTc
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
PAR 1 V 11 i r.+ ". ??•••?--'-- - •
RNative Value Of Farmland (From Part VJ
oral Site Assessment lFrorrt Parr V1 above or a
to assesntentl
.. ..-.re r r ..,I men6ave 2lined

Site Seleetod:
For Sg/.S 0
[)ate Of Selection
160
100
160
260
A-1
0 0
S •Ck
\S.(?\
A Lami Site Aagesmgnt Usear
Q
Yes Cl

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Heat, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Sec twy
May 13, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 15 on SR 1360 over Leepers
Creek, Lincoln County, Federal-Aid BRZ-1360(1),
State 8.2831201, TIP B-2661, ER 94-8727
Dear Mr. Graf:
CEI
MAY 17 1994

;ft" ?-
Atall?W_Pr \• .
\RONNiE??
Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Kenneth Robinson, archaeologist with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
31 LN62, Mt. Tirzah/Brevard Forge; Criterion D--potential to yield important
archaeological information.
31 LN145, "Mt. Tirzah," the Brevard Family House-farm site; Criterion A--
association with historic iron works industry; Criterion B--association with
prominent family, the Brevards; Criterion D--potential to yield important
archaeological informatior.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
31LN142-143, lack of research potential.
Site 31 LN 144, a farmstead located outside the area of potential effect, was not
intensively investigated. Its significance was not. determined.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
A-2
109 Fist Jooa Stmt • RA918h. Nato Carchu 276012807
Nicholas L. Graf
May 13, 1994, Page 2
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Q.-A.? ?1,? ?--
.David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett