19950599 Ver 1_Complete File_19950608

SVt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 25, 1995
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
G55 "
?Jl ISSUED
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
wr\ic!Z
?- MW
Subject: Rutherford County - US 64 Bridge No. 126 over Clinchfield Railroad
and Bridge No. 127 over Second Broad River; T.I.P. No. B-2072;
State Project No. 8.1890601
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the
two referenced bridges on new location. This project is being processed as a
Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). We expect to
proceed with this project under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of this project.
In accordance with current procedures for projects located in the
designated trout counties, the concurrence of WRC must be obtained prior to
construction. By copy of this letter, we hereby request that WRC review the
proposed project and provide any comments they find necessary. A copy of the
CE document is included for the WRC review.
0
April 25, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
Cyndi Bell at [phone] extension 306.
Yank y,
lin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/cb
Attachment
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville Field Office
Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Leigh Cobb, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
I • 4 r
Rutherford County
US 64
Bridge No. 126 over Clinchfield Railroad and
Bridge No. 127 over Second Broad River
Federal-Aid Project BRF-15-2(5)
State Project 8.1890601
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2072
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
and
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
i 0. Naas
'MTE H. Franklin Vick, .E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DAVE ich as Graf P.E.
?ivision Administrator, FHWA
J . J T
Rutherford County
US 64
Bridge No. 126 over Clinchfield Railroad and
Bridge No. 127 over Second Broad River
Federal-Aid Project BRF-15-2(5)
State Project 8.1890601
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2072
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
January, 1995
s4sr,TSOTer,e
?r ^? w
Documentation Prepared by Wang Engineering Company:
1-1

C,
James M. Greenhl1 , P.E.
Pr jec Manager
T
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
J.A. Bissett, P.E.",'Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Leig Co
Project Manager
I ' , f
Rutherford County
US 64
Bridge No. 126 over Clinchfield Railroad and
Bridge No. 127 over Second Broad River
Federal-Aid Project BRF-15-2(5)
State Project 8.1890601
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2072
Bridge Nos. 126 and 127 have been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. The project is not expected to have a significant
impact on the human environment and has been classified by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridges No. 126 and 127 should be replaced on a new location downstream (east) of the
existing location as shown by Alternate 1 in Figure 2.
The recommended width of the replacement bridges is 12 meters (40 ft). The cross
section on the structures will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulder which includes a 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved shoulder.
Approximately 560 meters (1835 ft) of new roadway approaches will be required. The
approach roadway should consist of a 7.2 meters (24 ft) pavement with 2.4 meters (8 ft)
shoulders which includes a 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved shoulder.
Preliminary hydraulic studies indicate that Bridge No. 127 over the Second Broad River
should be approximately 79 meters (260 ft) in length. The elevation of the new structure will be
approximately 1 meters (3 ft) higher than the floor elevation of the existing bridge due to the
vertical clearance required for the adjacent Bridge No. 126 over the Clinchfield Railroad. The
length of the proposed Bridge No. 126 should be approximately 40 meters (131 ft) and will be
approximately 1 meters (3 ft) higher than the floor elevation of the existing bridge.
During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and bridges.
The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is 52,111,000 including
$61,000 right of way and 52,050,000 for construction.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $1,570,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental commitments are necessary.
'Best Management Practices"(33 CFR 330.6) will be utilized to minimize any possible
impacts.
2. Since the project is located in one of the 25 designated "trout" counties in western North
Carolina, approval must be obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Further coordination will be done during the permit application phase.
3. Bridge No. 127 over the Second Broad River has been determined to be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge will be removed after
the new bridge is constructed and Bridge No. 127 is recorded in accordance with the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (see Appendix).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US Route 64 is classified as a rural minor arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is part of the Federal-Aid System (BRF-15-2(5)).
In the vicinity of the bridges, US 64 has a 7.2 meter (24 ft) wide pavement with 1.8-2.4
meter (6-8 ft) shoulders (see Figure 3). Vertical alignment of the approach roadway is rolling.
Horizontal alignment of both structures is tangent with an approximate radius of 295 meters (6
degree) curve on the south approach and a radius of 585 meters (3 degree) curve on the north
approach. The structure deck of Bridge No. 126 is located about 7.3 meters (24.3 ft) above the
railroad. Vertical clearance under Bridge No. 126 is about 6.6 meters (21.8 ft). The structure
deck of Bridge No. 127 is located about 14.3 meters (47 ft) above the stream bed.
The posted speed limit is 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph).
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is primarily scattered rural-residential
and agricultural. A lumber company is located in the southeast quadrant of the project area.
Known utilities in the vicinity of the bridge include underground telephone lines with an
above ground crossing at the bridges, and above ground electric lines.
The 1995 traffic volume for is estimated to be 4800 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
expected to increase to approximately 8100 VPD by the year 2015. The projected volume
includes 20/"0 truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (D'fT).
The existing bridges, as shown in Figure 3, were constructed in 1938. Bridge No. 126
over the Clinchfield Railroad is a 23 meters (75 ft) long, 3-span bridge with a superstructure
consisting of a concrete deck on steel beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced
concrete abutments and piers. The posted weight limit is 27 tons for single vehicles. Bridge No.
2
127 is a 78.6 meters (258 ft) long, 3-span bridge consisting of a concrete deck on steel beams
and reinforced concrete abutments and piers. The center main span is an unique 41 meter (135
ft) long steel deck-truss type structure. The posted weight limit is 27 tons for single vehicles and
32 tons for trucks with trailers. Clear roadway on Bridge No. 126 and Bridge No. 127 is 7.2
meters (24 ft). Based on field observations, the bridges and approaches are above the 100-year
flood elevation.
The horizontal clearances associated with the Clinchfield Railroad from centerline of
tract to pier #1 is 3.4 meters (11.2 ft) and to pier #2 is 3.4 meters (11.2 ft). The vertical
clearance is 6.6 meters (21.8 ft). A crashwall is not provided at any of the substructure units.
Bridge Nos. 126 and 127 have sufficiency ratings of 58.8 and 58.0, respectively,
compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on or near Bridge Nos. 126 and 127 during the three year
period from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991.
School buses cross the studied bridges eight times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
This project proposes the replacement of two bridges: one over the Clinchfield Railroad
(Bridge No. 126) and one over the Second Broad River (Bridge No. 127) located along US 64 at
Logan in Rutherford County. Three alternative methods for replacing the subject bridges were
studied. In each alternative, the proposed structures will accommodate two 3.6 (12 ft) lanes and
2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders. The approach roadway should consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway
with 2.4 (8 ft) shoulders which includes a 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved shoulder. The minimum profile
grade on the proposed bridges will be 0.3% for surface drainage. On all alternatives, the
elevation of the proposed bridge over the Clinchfield Railroad and roadway will be raised
approximately 1 meters (3 ft) to provide for current vertical clearance requirements. The
elevation of the proposed bridge over the Second Broad River will be approximately 1 meters (3
ft) higher than the floor elevation of the existing bridge. The proposed design speed for all
alternatives is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).
The alternatives studied are as follows (see Figure 2):
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves construction of the replacement bridges on new
location immediately east (downstream) of the existing structures. The lengths of the
proposed bridges over the Clinchfield Railroad and the Second Broad River will be
approximately 40 meters (131 ft) and 79 meters (260 ft), respectively. Improvements to
the alignment of the proposed bridge approaches include approximately 560 in (1835 ft)
of new pavement. The existing structures will be used to maintain traffic during the
construction period.

Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structures along the existing alignment. The lengths
of the proposed bridges over the Clinchfield Railroad and the Second Broad River will be
approximately 40 meters (131 ft) and 79 meters (260 ft), respectively. Improvements to
the alignment of the proposed bridge approaches include approximately 300 meters (990
ft) of new pavement. A temporary on-site detour will be provided immediately
downstream during construction for maintenance of traffic. The temporary detour will
consist of two bridges. The length of the temporary bridges over the railroad and the
river will be approximately 29 meters (94 ft) and 79 meters (260 ft), respectively. The
detour roadway will consist of a 6.6 meters (22 ft) wide pavement with 1.8 meters (6 ft)
shoulders. The proposed temporary bridge width is 7.8 meters (26 ft). This width will
accommodate two 3.3 meter (11 ft) lanes with 0.6 meter (2 ft) shoulders. The detour
grade will be about the same as the existing elevation. The design speed of the
temporary detour is 60 kilometers (35 mph).
Alternate 3 - involves construction of the replacement bridges on new location immediately west
(upstream) of the existing structures. The lengths of the proposed bridges over the
Clinchfield Railroad and the Second Broad River will be approximately 40 meters (131
ft) and 82 meters (270 ft), respectively. Improvements to the alignment of the proposed
bridge approaches include approximately 555 meters (1820 ft) of new pavement. The
existing structures will be used for maintenance of traffic during the construction period.
This alternative requires the acquisition of 3 dwellings. The proposed 7° 30" degree
curve on the south approach will require an design exception.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridges. This is
not prudent due to the traffic service provided by US 64.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridges is not feasible due to their age and deteriorated
condition.
Alternatives discussed in this section and shown on Figure 2 are based on functional
plans prepared on an uncontrolled photo map. All distances and directions are approximate.
Final construction plans will be based on detailed survey information and may slightly vary from
the alternatives presented here.
4
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Structures S 940,800 $940,800 S 940,800
Roadway Approaches 369,100 211,400 474,600
Temporary Detour -0- 625,000 -0-
Structure Removal 55,900 55,900 55,900
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 409,200 361,900 441,700
Engineering & Contingencies 275,000 230,000 287,000
Right of Way & Utilities 61,000 41,000 134,450
Total $2,111,000 $2,466,000 $2,334,450
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge Nos. 126 and 127 should be replaced on a new location downstream (east) of the
existing location as shown by Alternate No. 1 in Figure 2. Alternate No. 1 is the least costly of
the three alternatives and requires no acquisition of homes, as with Alternate No. 3.
The recommended improvements will include about 560 meters (1835 ft) of new
roadway approaches. This includes 290 meters (950 ft) on the north approach, 239 meters (785
ft) on the south approach, and 30 meters (100 ft) between the two bridges. A 7.2 meters (24 ft)
pavement with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders which includes a 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved shoulder should
be provided on the approaches. A 12 meter (40 ft) clear width is recommended on the
replacement structures. The structures will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4
meter (8 ft) shoulders. The replacement structure over Clinchfield Railroad will have a
minimum vertical clearance of 7 meters (23 ft) and horizontal clearance to substructure units
between crashwalls of 13.4 meters (44 ft) will be provided. Due to the amount of south bound
truck traffic turning left turning into the Parton Lumber Company, a left-turn lane may be
desirable. The feasibility of this left-turn lane will be determined with a detailed traffic study to
be completed during the design phase.
The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).
During the construction period, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridges.
Based on preliminary hydraulic studies, it is recommended that the new structure over
the Second Broad River be a bridge approximately 79 meter (260 ft) long. It is anticipated the
elevation of the new bridge will be approximately l meters (3 ft) higher than the elevation of the
existing bridge in order to obtain vertical clearance requirements over the adjacent Clinchfield
Railroad. Based on field observations, the existing bridge and roadway is well above the
5
project's 50-year design storm frequency. The length and height may be increased or decreased
as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by future hydraulic studies.
The recommended length of the proposed bridge over the Clinchfield Railroad is 40
meters (131 ft). The anticipated elevation of the new bridge will be about 1 meters (3 ft) higher
than the elevation of the existing bridge.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation that Bridge Nos. 126 and 127
be replaced on new location downstream of the existing location and that traffic be maintained
on the existing bridges during the construction period.
Alternates No. 2 and 3 were not favored due to their higher estimated costs. Alternate
No. 3 was not favored due to the increased amount of right of way required and the acquisition
of two houses.
VIII. 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 the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any existing or planned land use and/or zoning
regulations. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated and no. families or
businesses will require relocation. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No 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.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located northeast of Rutherfordton in Ruther-ford County in the
southwestern section of the Piedmont physio-graphic province. The study area is located in a
rural setting of farm fields and scattered residential sites. Farming is the major industry in this
predominantly rural county. A large lumber company is situated in the southeast quadrant of the
study area.
6
NOISE & AIR U(? ALITY
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Rutherford County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures. The project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area
The project will not substantially 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 SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, the 1990 CAAA and NEPA and no
additional reports are required.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant Life
Along both sides of the existing bridges, the only mature wooded area occurs along the
banks of the Second Broad River. Other areas contain weedy clearings, lawns, driveways, power
line right-of-ways, cultivated fields, remnants of upland hardwoods, or thickets of young pines.
A small wooded rocky ridge lies between the river and the railroad. .
The forest along the river is typical of a Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest. The
community here is Betula I iM - Plantanus occidentalis / Acer negundo / Carpinus caroliniana /
mixed vines / Arundinaria =ic antea. Canopy hardwoods include river birch (Betula ni ;ra),
sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer ne =undo), black walnut Quglans nigra), and
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).. Understory species include ironwood, (Carpinus
caroliniana), tag alder, and dogwood (Corpus florida). The upland areas have increasing
numbers of oak ( uercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), sassafras, poplar, and pine (Pinus
virginiana, Pinus echinata). Vines in the area include grape (Vitis sp.), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata), coral berry (Svmphoricarpos
orbiculatus), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and smilaxes (Smilax spp.). Herbs along the river
are dominated by river cane (Arundinaria igantea). In the more open disturbed areas a mixture
of tall weedy species exist, including Solidago spp., Aster spp., Eupatorium sp., and Phytolacca
americana.
The proposed Alternate No. 3 calls for over 150 meters (500 ft) of US 64 to be relocated
approximately 15 meters (50 ft) northwest of its present location. This new route is across an
upland area including three residences with lawns. The remainder of this route passes through a
second growth Virginia pine forest, a power line right-of-way, and a cut-over area with scattered
mature pines, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and rock chestnut oak (Quercus pr inus). Other
7
than scattered specimens of Yucca filamentosa, the herbaceous plants in this area are largely
weedy species typical of disturbed areas.
Animal Life
Wildlife habitats have been disturbed and fragmented in this area by residential,
commercial, and agricultural activities. Only species able to tolerate close proximity to man are
likely to be here.
The only mammal seen was an Eastern gray squirrel. Woodchuck burrows were also
seen. In addition, eastern cottontails, opossum, mink, and white-footed mice would also be in
the area. Likely snakes would include black rat snakes, eastern garter snakes, and northern water
snakes.
Birds seen included cardinals, red tail hawk, white-throated sparrows, and blue jays.
Various other songbirds would feed and/or nest in the area during the summer.
Most of the species in this area would move out of the construction area, and are
somewhat adapted to man's activities. The aquatic species would be most at risk from siltation
and hazardous materials spills.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has no special concerns
regarding fishery resources for this site; however, added siltation or contact with wet cement
would have a detrimental effect on the fishes and their food supply.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
According to the soil map and other information supplied by the Rutherford County Soil
Conservation Soil Scientist, the construction site contains several soil types.
Beginning at the northern end of the project, there is Hiwassee clay loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded. The Hiwassee series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately permeable
soils that have formed in residuum and/or old alluvium derived from intermediate and mafic
crystalline rocks.
Along the narrow floodplain of the river, there is Chewaclea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil on a nearly level
floodplain. It fonned in recent alluvium washed largely from soils formed in residuum from
metamorphic and igneous rocks.
8
The upland along the railroad contains Pacolet sandy clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes,
eroded. This is very deep well-drained moderately permeable soil formed in material weathered
from acid crystalline rock of the Piedmont uplands.
The ridgetop and sideslope at the southern end of the project contains Pacolet sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded.
The soils in the vicinity of the lumber mill are classified as Udorthents, loamy, with a
small inclusion of Udorthents, loamy, 0 to 5 percent slopes, rarely flooded. Udorthents are soils
in areas where natural soils have been greatly altered by excavation, intensive grading, or
covered by earthy fill material.
A former borrow area is located at the end of a small dirt road west of US 64 between the
river and the railroad.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impacts to prime or important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime or 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 to complete Form-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The
completed form is included in the Appendix. According to the SCS, the proposed project will
not impact any prime or important farmland soils.
Water Resources
The Second Broad River is a tributary to the Broad River at river mile 10.7. The river
averages 70' wide; has moderate depth; and an average flow over 10 CFS; bottom type is sandy.
The game fishing reported form this river is carp, catfish and sunfishes.
No Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) samples were collected in the
Broad River basin in 1990. Samples were taken from the Second Broad River at Cliffside in
1983, 1985, 1987, and 1989. These collections indicated improvement from Poor in 1983 to
Good--Fair in 1987.
The Second Broad River's current classification by the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources is WS-V. This class includes waters protected as water supplies
which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters; no categorical restrictions- on
watershed development or treated wastewater discharges are required, however, the
Environmental Management Commission may apply appropriate management requirements as
deemed necessary for the protection of downstream receiving waters. WS-V waters are suitable
for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
9
NCWRC listed no special concerns regarding fishery resources in this stream other than
the standard control of sedimentation and the prevention of wet concrete contacting water
flowing in or into the stream.
Possible stream impacts will be restricted to some limited sediment debris after project
completion. Likely adverse impacts can be minimized through the employment of silt basins,
berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control measures required of contractor and specified in
the state approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. "Best Management Practices"
(33 CFR 330.6) will also be implemented to minimize adverse effects of construction activities.
Overall environmental stream impacts are expected to be negligible as a result of this
project.
Rutherford 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 are no practical alternatives to crossing the flood-plain area. Any shift in alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. The proposed widening will not raise
the floodplain more than 30.5 cm (1 ft). The floodplain in the adjacent area of the crossing is
woods and farm fields. The Clinchfield Railroad appears to be above the 100 year floodplain in
the vicinity of the project, as shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain and floodway to be
affected is not considered to be significant and no modification of the floodway is anticipated.
All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible harm.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Wetlands
No wetland soils exist at this site, nor is the vegetation or hydrology indicative of a true
wetland.
Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the United States Department of the Interior-Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted to obtain current lists of protected species known to
inhabit Rutherford County. Also, an on-site survey was conducted by carefully walking through
the entire project area to search for suitable habitat or species of concern.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E) and Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Federal
10
Candidate (C) species have also been listed, but are not provided protection under this Act. No
survey was conducted to determine the presence of candidate species.
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) - (E)*
A medium-sized bat with dark gray, or brown to light brown, fur, not glossy. The base of
each hair is black for over two-thirds of its length, followed by a narrow grayish band which is
not sharply delimited from the black base. The tips of the hairs may be dark gray to black, or
dark to light brown. The nose is pink. Hairs on the foot are short and inconspicuous. The
calcar, a cartilage support in the outer edge of the "tail membrane", is strongly keeled.
Range: Midwest and eastern United States, from western edge of Ozark region in
Oklahoma to Central Vermont, to southern Wisconsin, south to northern Alabama. In North
Carolina, know from only five localities in the mountains.
Habitat: In winter, this bat hibernates in large clusters in caves. In summer they roost in
hollow trees, or under dead bark, feeding at night in the upper canopy layer above small streams.
Suitable habitat (caves) does not occur at this site for this species. Therefore, this project
will not impact the Indiana bat.
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines anatum) - (E)
A crow-sized bird 15-21" long with a 40" wingspread. Adults are slate-gray above and
pale below, with fine bars and spots of black; narrow tail; long pointed wings; conspicuous black
"mustaches". Young birds darker below and browner.
Range: Formerly bred from Alaska to Greenland south to Georgia and Baja, California,
but now restricted to the northern parts of its range in the East. Winters north to British
Columbia and Massachusetts. Also breeds in southern South America, Eurasia, Africa, and
Australia.
Habitat: Open country, especially along rivers, also near lakes, and the coast. Migrates
chiefly along the coast. Nests on cliffs or windowsills and ledges of buildings in large cities.
Peregrine falcons have been introduced at several sites in the western mountains of North
Carolina where cliffs exist to provide nesting sites. However, this project area does not contain
cliffs or other suitable nesting sites for this falcon. This project will not impact on the peregrine
falcon.
White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum) - (E)
Scapose, cespitose perennial. Roots fibrous. Leaves linear,
erect, or spreading. Scape flattened, very similar to the leaves, bearing two terminal spathes,
sessile and twinned near apex of Scape. Each spathe two-bracted, the outer usually longer.
Perianth white, actinomorphic, sepals and petals very similar, separate to base, oblanceolate,
notched at apex and caudate or acuminate. Stamens united, 4-5 mm long; pistil slightly longer,
protruding beyond apex of anthers. Capsule globose; seeds black, globose.
Range: Historically reported from Henderson, Polk, and Rutherford Counties in North
Carolina. The NCNHP indicates that all three of these populations are probably extinct.
Habitat: Thin woods, especially over amphibolite, in the escarpment region of the
mountains.
Suitable habitat for this species does not occur at this site. This project will not impact
on the white irisette.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) - (T)
Acaulescent, rhizomatis, glabrate herbs. Leaves cordate to orbicular-cordate, 4 - 6 em
long, or wide, lobes usually 1/4 or less the total length. Calyx tube cylindrical or slightly
narrowed apically, reticulate-ridged within, 7 - 10 mm long, 5 - 8 mm in diameter, lobes 5 - 6
mm long, ascending-spreading. Anther connective not extended; style extension merely notched
at apex. Flowers, April to early-May; Vegetative, year-round.
Range: A few counties in the Piedmont of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Habitat: Rich, deciduous forests, bluffs, and ravines at low elevations. Because the
habitat for this species could possibly exist at this site, all areas within 23 meters (75 ft) of any
proposed construction were carefully searched by walking transects at 1.5 meter (5-foot)
intervals. No Hexastylis species were found. This project will not impact on the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf.
Federal candidate species listed for Rutherford County are:
Eastern small-footed bat (M•yotis subulatus leibii)
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
Green salamander (Aneides aeneus) *
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare)
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) *
Gray's saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana)
Puck's orpine (Sedum pusillum)
Divided-leaf ragwort (Senecio millefolium)
* Indicates no specimen from Rutherford County in at least 20 years.
State Protected Species
The NCWRC reported no special concern for this site. The NCNHP has no records of
State protected species being reported from the vicinity of this project. No state protected
species will be impacted by this project.
PERMITS
It is anticipated that 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 330.6 will be followed.
Since this project is located in a designated "trout" county, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation is required to obtain 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 Water Quality
Certification which is administered through the North Carolina Department of Environment,
12
Health, and Natural Resources is required for any activity which may result in a discharge of
dredged or fill material and for which a federal permit is required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The "Area of Potential Effect" of this project on cultural resources has been delineated
and is shown on Figure 2.
The bridge (No. 127) over the Second Broad River has been determined eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The finding is made pursuant to 36 CFR
Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. Part 470f). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the recording of Bridge No.
127 prior to removal, as accepted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, is attached
in the Appendix.
There appears to be no other historic architectural resources in the vicinity of the project
that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation Officer was consulted and concurred with the above statements. (See letter in
Appendix).
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. Per a
discussion between Kenneth Robinson, NCDOT, and S14PO no archaeological survey is required
for this project.
IX. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that with proper implementation of
the Department's erosion and sediment control measures and "Best Management Practices" no
serious adverse environmental effects will result from the implementation of this project along
the recommended alignment.
13
Sandy ?, 1713 ?c`
16U2 1504 17o i level .s
-- ? - Ch.,'•c
`? ?'' 1715 {
emu' X? 1519. y ?ar? o CJ
1602 ':, 01510 -n 1702 171,
y -
ur 1705 1702 4
a 1715 `.
1525 _ ?-? Westminster l.8 f
1706
^ 1007_ , b 1707
1527 1520 1510 ?r b t- e S
1520 9 6
.cr rv v 1.5 / .1550 1007 fi 1706
0 1527 1524 Fqs 1625 p } y?, \ 1 5 D
tRutherford c 1558
59
534 15 ? aunty,
'p a Wilson Ch. ?. o
.S T- / 1510 Logan 1706
I614_ / 1515 1796
y 9
` b 2 D 523 1522 0 / 155 1007
1 F
? ? 1538 cb
1526 152o /At. • YS non
D - j
•1554 5 1561
- b ,. ?,' 3 1 ??
p r? .3 15 52
1535 ` -.1621 1594
s
ls?o
I N 1560 U
s 1520 rf 1549 ? A % r-, 100
1 - _f 4
1539 1510 it 8 .- ?? X562 1561
PR 1538 \
' URB. 64 _,
_ z
?'-•?~-' Thermal Gb !d
`Union ?j ID
5 ` IrlJls „
h hlmneT?toca R U T H 'E RA F Jp' Sunshine
r ?J.LawLurr w 'lest- r
roster Nolhs PDT
olan
ak l.!a y.?r e J T iWashbum
\ Rutnerl«atoForest ostlc !
\ . ci c
i
pmdaL 71
l 14 rI nb?
??Alt?ndlr ills ?
29
?Y (11 C7r01ten
1?ery /
^ ffsl,d ?? '
/
`Nuns- =6 S .000 •=t '
1 111T?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 64, BRIDGE NO. 126&127
OVER CLINCHFIELD RAILROAD
& SECOND BROAD RIVER
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, B-2072
4/93 0 mile 11 FIG.1

W7
.1 rv?,?A .
?
Q.
??
? L
\?
SD- .... . .. .. ... ?

?` O .a n A N N
N d n
I O O
? a i' 0
w
`
s

,;
a
2 cp p
N H 04 ro
? d W
" ` w 04 9

C OA04H
a
O?cx.?? za z
WHO _
?'
aaao0 C7fS+0U
UO:e?
SOU Ax04
HUOQA
t
o
a 04 z 04
°Qa
w 0
?
z cam -UOa
x
?
?O 04 W x M
1 WEn H as
cn >. O
O O oa 04 .t
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
(NEAR BEGINNING OF PROJECT)
? ., 1.
17 to
.? n
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
(SHOWING BRIDGE NOS.
126 & 127)
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
B-2072
BRIDGE NO. 126 & 127
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
FIGURE 3-A
II
BRIDGE NO. 127
DOWNSTREAM SIDE VIEW
BRIDGE NO. 126
SOUTHEAST SIDE VIEW
B-2072
BRIDGE NO. 126 & 127
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
FIGURE 3-B
i
~ ?L,1 a tel. ` \ ,1- ( / 1 \
\ 922
-`,
J h 1\ /?... ?. West
mi
h _
N?l
--??? -
_ 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN"'?'?<t.. 1? J " i ?r ???f =
1037y
PROJECT
SITE Logs
B-2072
77
97 -_ / ?l f l_'? T ,_\\\ o`r _ ?_\? j i_ _ 1? ys2'* ?•?,-- ,j/-? ?11 / / t Y. /
77
i-?,, ( '? i ?? ? _1 ` '?\?j -? ? I• ?- - ?\ \ //°???? ?r ? yam- ? ?'` - ? ?;,- r?? ? ? 96c ? _ .-`!` Vl\
JJIR 1056? ? // if ° /- ????„//f J %f'`?? .?? ? -?,/'. ilk +? _ -_
?
B-2072
L ?//:' `L?% = 1 127
126 &
BRIDGE NO.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY r?
SCALE IN FEET FIGURE
L j \ \C 1000 0 1000 , ?'11\? i, I 4 cpJ /-"3 \ 3? IJ 11 ?'i
J _ l
\', ? _ ..1. ?? ., ? r.,i,/= ? .. -- 1005` ??1•I??--?1 ?_C/ , nl'/i _? ? _
APPENDIX
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRF-15-2(5)
State Project 8.1890601
T. I. P. No. B-2072
Description: Bridge No. 127 over Second Broad River
on US Route 64, Rutherford County
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or rehabilitated with
Federal funds? `/ F7
2. Does the project require the use of a historic bridge
structure which is on or eligible for listing on the - ?
National Register of Historic Places? ?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic Landmark? ?
4. Has agreement been reached among the FHWA, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through pro-
cedures pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic ? ?
Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be
feasible and purdent:
Yes No
1. Do nothino. ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety hazards?
2
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different location without ?
affecting the historic integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already been located
at the only feasible and prudent site
or/and (ii) Adverse social, environmental, or
economic impacts were noted
or/and (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
or/and (iv) The existing bridge cannot be preserved
due to the extent of rehabilitation,
because no responsible party will
maintain and preserve the historic
bridge, or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
Rehabilitate the historic bridge without of,, ectino
the nistoric integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements and
meet National Register criteria
or/and (ii) The bridge is seriously deficient
geometrically and cannot be widened
to meet the required capacity and
meet National Register criteria
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning to ? ?I
minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the
historic integrity of the bridge is preserved,
to the greatest extent possible, consistent with
unavoidable transportation needs, safety, and
load requirements.
3
b. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the
point that the historic integrity is affected or
that are to be removed or demolished, the FH14A
ensures that, in accordance with the Historic
American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, or
other suitable means developed through con-
sultation, fully adequate records are made of
the bridge.
C. For bridges that are to be replaced, the
existing bridge is made available for an
alternative use, provided aresponsible party
agrees to maintain and preserve the bridge.
d. For bridges that are adversely affected, agreement
among the SHPO, ACHP, and FHWA is reached through
the Section 106 process of the NHPA on measures to
minimize harm and those measures are incorporated
into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are discussed below:
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) and FHWA whose correspondence is
included as Memorandum of Agreement. The proposed
mitigation of the removal of Bridge No. 127 is through
photographic inventory and to record as agreed upon
through the following Memorandum of Agreement.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide a(f) evaluation.
4
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer ?
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation _
C. Local/State/Federal Agencies
d. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findinas made are
clearly applicable to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives t;, the use of the historic
bridge. The project includes all possible olannire to minimize ;'arm, and
there are assurances that the measures to minimize harm -ii'I be
incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been suc?ess=ui'. ?ompiee?.
Approved:
ate
s/
Date
i
Manager, Planning a 5nv,ronmenta
NCOOT
3rancn
r-G?; /vision Aaministrator, FHWA
j ?,)G ,146 a
14EMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
UM41TTED TO
THE ADVISORY COUNC ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.5(e)C4)
REGARDING TIP ) B-2072
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 110. 127
ON US 64 OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHHA) has determined that the
replacement of Bridge Number 127, a property eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, will result in an adverse affect on
that bridge, and has consulted with the North Carolina Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 804, regulations
implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. Part 470f); and
NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA and the SHPO agree that if the Council accepts
this Memorandum of Agreement, the undertaking shall be implemented in
accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account
the effects of the undertaking on Bridge No. 127.
Stipulations
FHHA will ensure that the following measure will be carried out:
1. Bridge No. 127 will be recorded in accordance with the recordation
plan attached hereto as Appendix A.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina
Historic Preservation officers its subsequent acceptance by the Council,
and implementation of its terms, evidence that FHHA has afforded the
Council an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Bridge No. 127 on
US 64 over Second Broad River, Rutherford County, North Carolina, and that
FHHA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic
properties.
r'
Date: S-//2 4,
ACCEPTtO for
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Date: I' I - ??
Date: / l 13?z I
Date: 7 V?4--

Appendix A
Historic Structure Recordation Plan for
the Replacement of Bridge No. 127
Rutharford County
North Carolina
Photographic views of the bridge, including:
Overall views
Distant views showing the property in its setting
Details of construction or design
35mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
8" x 10° black and white prints (all views)
Color slides (ail views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
Conics and Curation
One (1) set of all negatives and prints will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Prasorvation Office
and made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic
collection.

ROBERT Z. HAWK SS
Chap IIsaI
C. RUSSELL DUNCAN
Vice Cha1r=1K
FRANKLIN GOODE
COmml9t101ker
TONYITELTON
Commudoncr
ADEN LYNCH
Comnilufoner
October 13, 1994
Ms. Pam Williams
WANG Engineering
119 West Maynard
Suite 208
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Ms. Williams;
Rutherford County
601 North Main Street
Rutheriordtou, NC 28139
[phone]
[phone] FAX
JOHN W. CONDREY
Coup hfanagcr
JOE L_ 5'%TiG
PersonneJMmarsug Director
5TELLA WONIACK
Rxance DlCeclor
WALTER DALTON
County Attorney
HAZELS, HAYNES
Clerk to tie DO.rd
The county has not objection to DOT proceeding with the replacement of Bridge No. 127 over
Second Broad River, Number B•2072, If you need any additional information, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
7
hn W. Condrey,
runty Manager
JWC/hh

??e
December 16. 1994
Memorandum
To: David Moore. NC Office of State Archaeology. Asheville
From: Kenneth Robinson. NC Department of Transportation
Subject: Bridge Replacement Project. TIP No. B-2072. Bridges
No. 126 and 127 over ClinchfieldVRailroad and Second Broady
River.
This project was brought to my attention today in a phone
call from Renee Gledhill-Earley. She was followinn up on the
details of a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement regarding
historic bridles associated with this project. ThisyMOA is
now in the hands of the Advisory Council. During their review
of the MOA, the Advisory Council noted that NCDOT had
commented in a draft document that an archaeological survey
of the project area would be conducted. Unon further
inouirv, however, it was found that SHPO apparently had never
commented on the nroiect with regard to archaeoio?-ical
resources.
The Advisor.' Council does not wish to prod--d with completion
of the MOA until the archaeological concerns under Section
106 are addressed. NCDOT project engineer Leigh (7obb
consulted today with Renee Gledhill-F'Farlty rt2=irdin« the best
way to proceed with this matter in a timely manner. Renee
sues!ested we send documentation about the project directly to
you and ask for your comments on whether an archaeological
survey should or should not he conducted for the project.
I would appreciate your review of the project as soon as
possible. Should an. archaeological survevyhe necessary.
please inform us so that we can begin to make plans to
conduct the assessment. If you have any questions. or need
additional documentation. please do not hesitate to contact
me. Thanks!
cc: T. Padgett
Leigh Cobb

.71
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCaig, Se=tary
September 27, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
RE: Replace Bridge No. 126 over Clinchfield Railroad
and Bridge No. 127 over Second Broad River on
US 64, Rutherford County, B-2072, BRF-15-2(5),
ER 94-7320.
Di
i
SFP 3 ??y3
n t?, i.veslaad Historyi ?V cc. Jr.. Directo
Thank you for your letter of August 24, 1 993, concerning the above proiect.
We have reviewed the phase I historic architectural resources survey report
prepared by .Kitty Houston for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the protect. We understand that rive structures over fifty years of ace
are located in the area of potential effect. Based upon the information in the
report, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's determination that
Bridge No. 127 is eligible for listing in the National. Register of Historic Places
under Criterion C for engineering. We also concur that the remainino four
structures--Bridge No. 126 and the three bungalows--are not eligible for the
National Register since they have little historical or architectural significance.
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, n
t - Y'? '5k '
r
avid Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc. L.J. Ward
3. aturcz
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 rG'
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request .e C. 2 3 , 1992 e v .
i%oye-1her 30, 11 U)
Name Of Project T T P N 2 0 7 2 R 1 d Federal Agency Invorved F11WA
.. O. :i- ?CVS(? 1
Proposed Land Use I County And State
1-11anV i?utherford Co. C
Date Request Received By SCS.
PART 11 (To.be completed by SCS)
Does the
site contain prime,p.nique,statewide of local;important,farmlandT Yes No,
(!f no; the FPPA does not appii- do rrotcomplete additional- pan -s oft/his form!. a ` m
es. I rrigated' _
Average Farm Size,
Major Crop(t1

L''C.'n;.
Jurisdiction. -
Farmable Land In Govt-
ACres;• i? .C7C?
Amount Of Farmland As. Defined in FPPA
Acres: j.. %
CIAO
Name Of Land Evaluation, System Used Name Of Local Site Assess enc System- ; .. Date. Land Evaluation Returned By SCS

er
native Site
Alt Rti
n
PART II I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A
B
Si
te
Site
C
site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 2 .60 0 . (i4 5.80
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 U 0
C. Total Acres In Site 2 . 00 0.64 5.80
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land.Evaluation Information* a
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland ;
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted L r 1:/V o ' c -L, OilI4o
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment C. iteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6) I'v1aximum 1
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
b. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
o. Distance To Urban Support Services
i. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Avaiiability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
1 it. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Aaricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART V11 i To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland 'From Part l!1 100
i otal Site Assessment (From Part Vl anove or a locai
;ire assessment) 160
-_-TAL POINTS (Total oraoove dines) 21 60
I
Site Selected: Date Of Selection dJas A Local Site Assessment Jsea?
yes - "10 _
?eason rJr Jelecnon