19920773 Ver al_Complete File_20100726

ST 7r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
16
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
11
August 25, 1992
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
-4
Ds GR(1!r-
K
LITY Sf
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 69 on US 64 over North Fork French
Broad River, Transylvania County, B-2171, State Project
8.1000401, Federal-Aid Project BRF-15-1(8)
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 Adminis-
tration 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 do not anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.

LJW/plr
Attachment
Sincerely,
Om
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
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. V. A. Edwards
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
US 64
Bridge No. 69 over North Fork French Broad River
Transylvania County
State Project 8.1000401
Federal-Aid Project BRF-15-1(8)
B-2171
V
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
? L3 9?
y D to

K. J. ward, N. t., manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
71/31 f'z
Date Nic s Graf; P. E.
FOA'Division Administrator, FHWA
US 64
Bridge No. 69 over North Fork French Broad River
Transylvania County
State Project 8.1000401
Federal-Aid Project BRF-15-1(8)
B-2171
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June, 1992
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ju A. Hun ins
Pr ect Planning Engineer
9/a Y A a
Wayne E iott
Bridge P oject P1 ng Engi ee
H. ran in Vic, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
US 64
Bridge No. 69 over North Fork French Broad River
Transylvania County
State Project 8.1000401
Federal-Aid Project BRF-15-1(8)
B-2171
Bridge No. 69 is 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. 69 should be replaced on new location about 40 feet south
(downstream) of its present location, as shown by Alternate 3 in Figure 3.
The recommended structure consists of a bridge 40 feet wide and 180 feet
long. The approach roadway will provide a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot
useable shoulders. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure
during the construction period.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 868,000. The
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the current Transportation
Improvement Program is b 665,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. Strict erosion control measures should be
implemented due to the proximity of the project to the West Fork French
Broad River, which is classified as a High Quality Water. No wetlands
will be disrupted by implementation of this project. Best Management
Practices will be utilized to minimize construction impacts.
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county, a letter
of approval must be obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. This letter of approval will be obtained prior to
construction.
The State Historic Preservation Officer will be given the opportunity
to review the archaeological aspects of the 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..
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 64 is classified as a minor arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is part of the Federal-Aid System (FAP-15-1).
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 64 has a pavement width of about 20
feet with 5-foot grassed shoulders (see Figure 2). The posted speed limit
is 55 MPH.
The existing roadway slopes downward toward the bridge on both
approaches. However, the downgrade on the west approach is more severe
than the slight downgrade from the east.
The horizontal alignment is poor on the west approach to the project.
A curve of about 16 degrees begins 75 feet east of the US 64/SR 1135
intersection and continues to Bridge No. 69, a distance of approximately
200 feet (see Figure 3). The east approach to Bridge No. 69 consists of a
380-foot long curve of about 13.5 degrees; the intersection of US 64 and
NC 215 is located on this curve about 180 feet east of Bridge No. 69.
NC 215 slopes gently downward as it approaches its intersection with
US 64.
The current traffic volume of 5400 VPD is expected to increase to
approximately 9200 VPD by the year 2015. The projected volume includes
1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3 % dual-tired vehicles (DDT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 2), constructed in 1924, consists of
a two-span reinforced concrete deck girder bridge on reinforced concrete
abutments and a reinforced concrete pier. The structure is approximately
92 feet long with a 20'-2" clear travelway. Bridge No. 69 is not posted
for restricted weight limits.
Bridge No. 69 has a sufficiency rating of 14.2 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
Several utilities are located in the project area. A major power
transmission line parallels US 64 in the northeast quadrant of the project
on the hillsides and crosses US 64 overhead at the existing bridge.
Overhead telephone cables parallel the existing roadway on the south side
in the immediate vicinity of Bridge No. 69. Low hanging overhead cables
also span the creek on the north (upstream) side of the bridge. Attached
to the existing bridge are a fiber optics cable on the south (downstream)
side and a telephone line on the north (upstream) side.
Twelve accidents were reported in the project area during the period
from July, 1988 to June, 1991. A minimum of four of these accidents
occurred in the immediate vicinity of Bridge No. 69 and may be attributed
to the poor alignment of the roadway along the west approach. Three
accidents occurred at the US 64/NC 215 intersection and were caused by
vehicles slowing to turn or failing to yield to thru traffic on US 64.
There are ten school bus crossings daily over this bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three methods of replacing Bridge No. 69 were studied. All of the
alternates studied assume traffic is to be maintained on-site during the
construction period due to lack of a suitable detour route. The
replacement structure for these alternates consists of a bridge 180 feet
long and 40 feet wide. This structure width will accommodate a 24-foot
travelway with eight feet of lateral clearance on each side. The approach
roadway will have a 24-foot pavement with 8-foot useable shoulders. The
roadway grade at the proposed structure should be approximately three feet
above the existing roadway at this crossing.
The alternates studied, shown in Figure 3, are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace bridge in existing location. Traffic would be
maintained on-site by constructing a temporary detour south
of the existing bridge. A slight shift in the alignment
over the river would be necessary to provide a smooth,
continuous alignment through the project area. Approxi-
mately 250 feet of work on the west approach and 350 feet
of work on the east approach would be necessary to tie in
the new bridge to the existing roadway. A minimum design
speed of 40 MPH would be provided.
Alternate 2 - Replace bridge about 20 feet south of its present location
by phase-constructing the new structure. Reworking of the
approaches to the new structure would be needed for a
distance of about 400 feet on the west approach and 800
feet on the east approach. Phased construction would allow
the maintenance of traffic on-site during the construction
period. A design speed of about 50 MPH would be provided.
Recommended Alternate 3 - Replace bridge on new location about 40 feet
south o its present location. Traffic will be maintained
on the existing bridge during the construction period. New
approach roadways to the replacement structure will
necessitate construction for a distance of about 400 feet
on each side of the new bridge. A design speed of about 50
MPH will be provided.
Alternative designs for replacement of the bridge to the north of its
present location were also investigated. Construction of a bridge on the
north side of the existing structure would involve extensive excavation
into the hillsides on the north side of the project area and would also
necessitate the relocation of utility lines located on the hillside east
of NC 215. In addition, due to the need for additional right of way
acquisition and associated costs and the potential for increased erosion
due to the excessive cut, these alternatives were dropped from further
consideration.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
US 64.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
4
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate Alternate Alternate
1 2 3
Structure $ 450,000 $ 519,000 $ 450,000
Roadway Approaches 98,000 284,000 168,000
Temporary Detour 180,000 -- --
Structure Removal 21,000 21,000 21,000
Engineering &
Contingencies 112,000 124,000 96,000
Right of Way, Utilities 78,000 113,000 133,000
Total $ 939,000 $ 1,061,000 $ 868,000
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
4

Bridge No. 69 should be replaced approximately 40 feet south of its
present location, as shown Alternate 3 in Figure 3. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during the construction period.
The recommended structure is a bridge about 180 feet long and 40 feet
wide. The bridge width will accommodate a 24-foot travelway with eight
feet of lateral clearance on each side. The size of the structure may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
Approximately 800 feet of new roadway will be constructed to improve
the horizontal alignment through the project area. The curvature along
the western approach will be decreased from a 16-degree curve to a curve
of about 7.5 degrees. The eastern approach will also be improved by
reducing the curvature of the roadway from 13.5 degrees to about 7.5
degrees. A design speed of about 50 MPH will be provided by the
recommended alternate. Eventhough the curvature of the roadway will be
improved, a design exception will be required during design because the
design speed is anticipated to be less than the posted speed limit of
55 MPH.
The grade of the roadway at the new crossing will be approximately
three feet above the existing grade. The Hydraulics Unit recommends this
increase in the roadway grade since the existing roadway was overtopped by
5

¦

about four feet during the flood of 1977. This flooding, in conjunction
with the poor horizontal curvature of the roadway, resulted in the loss of
two lives.
Of the alternate studied, recommended Alternate 3 provides an
improvement in the vertical and horizontal alignments through the project
area at the lowest cost. The division engineer concurs with the
recommended alternate.
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 human life or natural environment with the use of current
NCDOT standards and specifications.
No businesses or homes are to be relocated. Therefore, 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 project is located just west of Rosman in Transylvania County in
the Mountain Physiographic Province. The study area is located in a rural
setting. Forested and disturbed communities are located in the study
area. Topography in the area ranges from gently to strongly sloping.
Elevation is approximately 2200' above mean sea level.
Two plant communities were identified in the study area: disturbed
community and cove forest. A disturbed community exists adjacent to US 64
and the banks of the North Fork French Broad River. The canopy is not
continuous. Tree species that reach canopy size include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and red maple (Acer rubrum). An area south and
east of the existing bridge appears to be a flat bar dominated by a shrub
thicket. The following species are present: blackberry (Rubus sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild rose (Rosa sp.), pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), and members of the Asteraceae. Elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and tag alder
(Alnus serrulata) are common along the banks. Several great laurel
(Rhododendron maximum) are also located in the study area but are sparsely
distributed. Bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) is a typical ground cover
species observed in the study area. Japanese honeysuckle is common along
roadsides.
6
In the northeast quadrant of the project area is a steep hillside,
which is dominated by a cove forest. The canopy includes a variety of
hardwoods such as northern red oak ( uercus rubra), southern red oak
( uercus falcata), tulip poplar, beech (Fagus grandifolia), red maple,
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and one evergreen species pitch pine
(Pinus ri ida). The shrub layer is well-developed and includes great
laurel, purple laurel (Rhododendron catawbiense), Rhododendron
(Rhododendron minus), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). The ground
cover was seasonally absent at the time of the site visit, but Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) and galax (Galax aphylla) were observed.
It is anticipated that construction of Recommended Alternate 3 will result
in the disruption of 0.8 acre of the disturbed community and 0.2 acre of
the cove forest community.
Proposed construction will reduce available habitat in the cove
forest and disturbed plant communities. These communities may serve as
foraging habitat, a source of food and cover for certain species. Erosion
potential is high along the steep slopes in the cove forest community;
therefore, efforts will be made to minimize impact to this community.
Avian fauna anticipated in the study area include red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus),
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), and field sparrow (Spizella usilla).
Amphibians and reptiles that may inhabit the study area include mole
salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum), redback salamander (Plethodon cinerus),
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis
and H. versicolor), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), coal
skink (Eumeces anthracinus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), black racer
(Coluber constrictor), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).
Mammals anticipated in the study area include eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamais striatus), woodchuck
(Marmots monax), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis).
Fish species anticipated in the North Fork French Broad River and
French Broad River include rainbow trout (Oncorrhyncus mykiss), brown
trout (Salmo trutta), central stone roller (Campostoma anomalum), river
chub (Nocomis micropogon), Tennessee shiner (Notropis leuciodus), mirror
shiner (Notropis spectrunculus), warpaint shiner (Notropis coccogenis),
blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys
cataractae), northern hog sucker (Hypenrelium nigricans), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), and
mottled skulpin (Cottus bairdi).
Soils information obtained from the Transylvania County Soil Survey
(Soil Conservation Service, 1974) indicates two soil mapping units are
located in the study area: Rosman fine sandy loam and Talladega channery
silt loam. Both of these soils are classified as non-hydric.
7
The project is located in the French Broad River Basin. Approximately
60 feet downstream of the bridge, the North Fork and the West Fork
converge to form the French Broad River. The North Fork French Broad
River is approximately 60 feet wide in the study area and has a moderate
flow rate. The bottom is composed of cobbles and silt. Best usage
classification of the North Fork French Broad River and the French Broad
River is WS-III Tr (DEM, 1991). Best usage recommendations for WS-III
waters are a water supply segment with no categorical restrictions on
watershed development or discharges. WS-III waters are suitable for all
.? class C usages. Best usage recommendations for Class C waters include
aquatic propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. The supplemental Trout Water classification (Tr)
indicates suitability for native trout propagation and maintenance of
stocked trout. Specific buffer zone requirements are necessary for
development in designated trout waters (DEM). These requirements are
stated in the Sedimentation Control Guidelines (T15A.04B.0025).
The West Fork French Broad River is classified as a High Quality
Water (HQW) immediately upstream of the confluence of the West Fork and
North Fork French Broad Rivers. Since construction activities will occur
adjacent to the West Fork French Broad River by placement of fill material
immediately south of the existing roadway, construction should adhere to
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" stated in the Sediment Control
Guidelines (T15A.04.0024). With stringent erosion control measures, no
impacts to Outstanding Resource Waters or waters classified as WS-I or
WS-II will occur from proposed construction.
The French Broad River, located immediately downstream of the study
area, is considered a Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water (DPMTW) by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Efforts should be made during the design and construction of this project
to minimize erosion and increased sedimentation in these waters.
Five federally protected species are listed by the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Transylvania County as of March 16, 1992.
These species are as follows: Carolina Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
sabrinus coloratus), American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
Mountain Sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra var. 'onesii Spreading
avens (Geum radiatum), and Swamp-pink Helonias bullata . The project
area does not support suitable habitat for any of these species;
therefore, no impacts to federally- protected species are anticipated from
proposed project construction.
x A number of species are listed by the USFWS as Candidate species in
Transylvania County: New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis),
y Rafinesque's big-eared bat Plecotus rafinesquii), Bog turtle Clemm s
muhlenbergii), Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), Green salamander
Aneides aeneus French Broad stream crayfish Cambarus reburrus),
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana), Diana fritillary butterfly
S e eria diana Alexander's rock aster Aster avitus Gorge moss
(Bryoucrumia vivicolor), Manhart's sedge (Carex manhartii), liverwort
(Cheilolejeunea evansii Rock gnome lichen G mnoderma lineare French
Broad heartleaf (Hexastylis rhombiformis), Fraser 's loosestrife
8
(Lysimachia fraseri Carolina mnium Mnium carolinianum), liverwort
(Plagiochila caduciloba), liverwort (Plagiochila echinata), liverwort
(Plagiochila shar ii liverwort (Plagiochila s. var. sullivantii),
liverwort (Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana), liverwort (Plagiochila
virginica var. euryphylla), Pringle s eurhynchium (Platyhypnidium
pringlei), Highlands moss (Schlotheimia lancifolia), and Oconee-bells
Shortia galacifolia). These species are not afforded federal protection
at this time, but their status may be upgraded in the future.
.? No occurrence records of state-protected species in the study area
are found in the NCNHP files. However, a known population of a Special
Concern species, the hellbender, exists approximately 1000 feet downstream
of the study area in the French Broad River. Measures should be enacted
to minimize disturbance to the river during construction.
Some federal candidate species have been afforded state protection.
Of those species, several may occur in the study area due to the presence
of suitable habitat: Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), Manhart's
sedge Carex manhartii), Fraser's loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri and
Highlands moss (Schlotheimia lancifolia). Species identified as
Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special
Concern (1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979. While suitable habitat at the project site exists for these
species, no surveys were conducted.
The project is located within the Western Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Transylvania County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this
project.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality assessment
requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 (highway traffic noise) and FHPM 7-7-9 (air
quality), and no additional reports are required.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) of this project has been
delineated and reviewed by a staff architectural historian. Bridge No. 69
is the only structure within the APE which is over 50 years old. The
"? architectural historian has determined that the bridge itself is not
historically significant. Bridge No. 69 is one of 489 extant pre-1940
reinforced concrete deck girder (simple) type bridges maintained by NCDOT.
Because the bridge is one of a commonplace type found throughout the
State, it is not considered a distinctive representative of its type and
is, therefore, not eligible for the National Register.
9
Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer indicates
that an archaeological investigation may be necessary. The State Historic
Preservation Officer will be given further opportunity to review the
archaeological aspects of the project to determine whether an intensive
survey should be undertaken. If necessary, the survey will be
accomplished prior to construction.
Transylvania County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain are
shown in Figure 4. This bridge replacement project is not anticipated to
adversely affect the floodplains at this crossing.
An individual permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers
since the Nationwide Section 404 permit provisions are applicable, and the
provisions of 330.5(b) and 330 will be followed.
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation is required to obtain a letter
of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and to
fulfill its Section 404 permit obligations. The final permit decision
rests with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. A Section 401 General Water
Quality Certification is required for any activity which may result in a
discharge and for which a federal permit is required.
Coordination with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service indicates that
all of the alternatives studied will impact prime farmland. Alternates 1
and 2 would impact 1.8 acres and 3.2 acres of prime farmland,
respectively, while Recommended Alternate 3 will impact 2.2 acres. The
Soil Conservation Service indicated that the impacted prime farmland soils
are of high relative value, rated at 92 on a 100-point scale. However,
none of the land which would be acquired for the alternates studied is
currently being farmed. Since the total site assessment value was
determined to be low, 118 on a 260-point scale, no mitigation for prime
farmland is proposed as part of this project. The Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating Form (Form AD-1006) is included as Attachment 1.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
JH/plr
r
w
s
•
w
10 .0 00K 'q /
-11 1309 1322 64 1 39 4 195
h eta Calvert
1
y rj 1129
•?\ LL 1_388
Pr. •4 r.,. ??
1 129
PP ? 309 1320 1203 ++
1319
15 . 4 3 131 5 FAP '? :r QP
1316' /-> 1 OSMAN?'O?
- 5 .2?b " 9 h 1 139 ' • POP. 512
131 yQUebec, 1 1168 17 O
D tixaway ' • 1107 •`f
/ 1130
116 1 144 • i? 1 13-1
_' BLUE 1138
1 147 N Q
4 S ; 1 140 172 I FO??
• 11 ' 1180 /
114
1
1139
Q`a 1139 9 RjV
1103
4 1
.•0111,
10 I

•
•
I.
ad \
I Oral
Gap 1 mllA?.? y b
I-- F nFdl [
l add •' ?'? ?I
6 e
t ???H`a!n
215 evar0 Faeit?nl.`tl
TRAN
hCherr d 6 1
T•
?L•kr ','4 N'?? 176 II `'
ra44 ay Lak 1 ROSman 7
Cedu Mountain
ire I18 /? •
oaaway
!t' Tuxou o?R '+ J
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 64
BRIDGE NO. 69 OVER
NORTH FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
8-2171
0 mile 1
FIG 1
t
ao
r
N
U
z
c
z
Q
cc
D
LL
O
z
O
H
U
W
Cl)
m
w
H
z
Q
O
F-
H
W
3
o?
O
z
0
z_
Y
O
O
J
H
z
m
O
U
Q t?.
N
Z T
9J m
z
w_
W
0
cn
F-
U)
W
'S
C3
z
0
O
J
F-
Q
W
0
z
Y
S
J
N
cr
U
LL,
• j ..
40
a ,
FIGURE 4
f
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Osts Ot Land Evaluation Aequeet 7Gt G??o ??? CA 2?1-
PART I (To be corno/ered by Federal Agency)
Feoeral Agencv Involved
Name Of ?rolact
County And Statfl. C r
%;?tN CD ProposeO Land lJie \kuc' ?\' Gt" O-- C V
` Cate Request Rec ved BVSCS *A ow AY . I PART I I (To be completed by SCS) Acres lrriMtb Average Form Size
I Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes , No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do nor completeadditional ?sn parts c this form). C3
A^'ou^t errt11'^d As Defined in FPPA Jurisdiction --
Major croo(t)
n,2 e, Acres: say 4 % 16012- Acres: 3 S % /0-0
Name f LOCO Site Aaaessmant System Date land ^ / O lue_tidn Returned By SCS
Nerve Ot Lsnd valuation System Used ?
• (' r- ? L A--* Alternative its sari
Site A Site a Site C Site 0
PART I11 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect) , a 3
C. Total Acres In Site ,
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
o T„r.l O- Statewide And Local Important Farmland 1A
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. percentage Of Ferenland In Govt. Jurisdiction With some Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of FarmlandTo BeConverted (Sca/eof0to 100Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Points
Site Assessment Criteria (Thms eritwis en expiafned in 7 CFR 659.S(b)
1. Area In Nonurban Use
1 perimeter In Nonurban Use
9
L
\C
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
O
O
4. Protection Provided BY State And Local Government
S. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Avallabili Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Su rr Services
12 Com atibili With Existing A 'cultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 alp
APART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 Q\a
Total Site Assessment J From Parr VI above ora local 160 d k,;,
site assessment)
260
`ta
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
Date Of Selection
T
Site Selected:
--- -
Ramon For Selection:

C
p t
O I
CAN 'ae a?.
s A LOaI Site As sument Used?
C3
Yes ?
ATTACHMENT 1