19951067 Ver 1_Complete File_19951003

4r- -
l
i l 3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27011-5201
September 26, 1959
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:

GARLAN D B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
R,p 5
O ?O o ?P?ac 0110
SUBJECT: Avery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 72 over North Toe River on
SR-1164, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1164(2), State Project 8.2720401,
T.I.P. No. B-2804.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 72 will be replaced adjacent to the
existing bridge and will have a clear roadway width of 8.0 meters (26 feet)
and a length of 25 meters (82 feet). Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. Approximately 0.01 hectares (0.03 acre)
of jurisdictional surface-water wetland impacts will occur due to the
proposed project. A Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation was performed and
approved in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5(e)(4).
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

h. September 26, 14
Page 2
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the
Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby
requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to
the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Yn ly,
. klin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Robert Johnson, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, P. E., P&E Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mountain Region Coordinator

Avery County
SR 1164
Bridge No. 72
Over North Toe River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1164(2)
State Project No. 8.2720401
T.I.P. No. B-2804
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:
0 967 2- &-t?ro
DATE . Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
8 31 4 f
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Avery County
SR 1164
Bridge No. 72
Over North Toe River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1164(2)
State Project No. 8.2720401
T.I.P. No. B-2804
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams ??.%% v CARoz,
F,SSIpy?Nq
Project Manager .•'••'o?
SEAL
1521
ames Wang, Ph.D., P.E. •'••FNGIf?E`??•'v
Principal ?'?.,?IES SP
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. I Grime P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
1LL_
R?-4 .? • (-".
Philip Harri , P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
I-P
Avery County
SR 1164
Bridge No. 72 Over North Toe River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1164(2)
State Project No. 8.2720401
T.I.P. No. B-2804
Bridge No. 72 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
2. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect and the
findings will be forwarded to the FHWA prior to right-of-way acquisition.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 72 will be replaced adjacent to the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2. It will be
replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.0 meters (26 ft) and a length of 25
meters (82 ft).
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
grade at this location.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft)
grassed shoulders.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $339,000 including $39,000 for right-of-way and
$300,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $485,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way and
$450,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1164 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily commercial and residential in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Bridge
No. 72 is the only access to the present Minneapolis Elementary School, a church and the
residences south of the North Toe River. The Appalachian Inn is located just north of Bridge
No. 72 and has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic places.
IF
Near the bridge, SR 1164 has a 4.9 meter (16 ft) pavement width with 1.2 meter (4 ft)
shoulders. The intersection of SR 1164/US 19E is located 24.4 meters (80 ft) north. A
Southern Bell Switching Station is located approximately 1.5 meters (5 ft) from the southeast
corner of the bridge, and Minneapolis Elementary School is located 46 meters (150 ft) south of
the bridge. The roadway is approximately 3.5 meters (11.5 ft) above the river bed.
The projected traffic volume is 500 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 900 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and one percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted at the project site but assumed to be 40
kmh (25 mph) due to the congestion and undefined travelway in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber deck on
steel 1-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of masonry
abutments and reinforced concrete pier.
The overall length of the bridge is 24.4 meters (80 ft). The clear roadway width is 4.8 meters
(15.8 ft). The posted weight limit is 9,080 kilograms (10 tons) for single vehicles and 12,712
kilograms (14 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 72 has a sufficiency rating of 34.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994.
Aerial utility lines are located on all sides of SR 1164 in the project area. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
Avery County School buses cross the bridge six times daily. Currently a new school is being
built to replace Minneapolis Elementary School approximately 2.2 kilometers (3.5 miles) north
on US 19E and is scheduled for completion by the summer of 1996.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 72. Each alternate consists of a bridge
approximately 25 meters (82 ft) long with a clear roadway width of 8.0 meters (26 ft). This
structure width will accommodate a 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on
each side. The approach roadway will consist of a 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4
ft) grassed shoulders.
Two of the replacement alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate A: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway with the centerline offset
1.8 meter (6 ft) west of the existing centerline. This offset permits the bridge to be built without
relocating the Southern Bell Switching Station on the southeast comer. The roadway grade
would be approximately the same as the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained by a
temporary detour located downstream (west) of Bridge No. 72 which would encroach on the
school playground. The playground area taken by this alternate requires a programmatic 4(f)
evaluation and approval for involvement with a public recreation area.
2

Alternate B (Recommended) : involves offsetting the centerline of the proposed bridge
approximately 10 meters (33 ft) west of its existing centerline location. The roadway grade of
the new structure would be approximately the same as the existing bridge. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The proposed bridge would encroach on
the school playground. The playground area taken by this alternate requires a programmatic
4(f) evaluation and approval for involvement with a public recreation area (see Attachment No
2).
Shifting the alignment to avoid the playground was not considered feasible due to the additional
cost to relocate the Southern Bell switching station, to build the bridge in half-sections and the
property damage to the residence on the northwest corner and the church. See discussion in
Section VIII Environmental Effects under 4(f) involvement.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1164. No other reasonable method of
providing access to the area appears possible.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the altematives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Structure Removal (existing) $ 8,800 $ 8,800
Structure (proposed) 224,500 224,500
Detour Structure and Approaches 86,100 0
Roadway Approaches 60,400 61,100
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 113,200 88,600
Engineering and Contingencies 82,000 67,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 58.000 39,000
TOTAL $633,000 $489,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate B is recommended because the cost is approximately $144,000 less than Alternate
A. There will be no impact to the house in the northeast corner of bridge and traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction of its replacement.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure be replaced adjacent
to the existing structure.
Bridge No. 72 will be replaced approximately 10 meters (33 ft) west of the existing centerline
with a new structure approximately 25 meters (82 ft) in length. A 8.0 meter (26 ft) clear
roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current
NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft)
shoulders across the structure.
3
'Amfol
?rl
A 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
proposed approaches.
The preliminary hydraulic analysis utilized the 25 year design storm. The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may
be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area of Avery County (Figure 1) in the
community of Minneapolis. The project site lies within the northwestern portion of the Mountain
Physiographic Province in North Carolina. Avery County's major economic resources include
agriculture and textiles.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Newland); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (Newland); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
and N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted within the proposed project limits by Resource Southeast
biologists on October 18, 1994. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified
using a variety of observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Impact calculations were based on the worse case scenario using the full 24.4 meter (80.0 feet)
wide right-of-way limits and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts
should be less, but without specific replacement design information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.)
the maximum possible infringement was assumed for the impact calculations.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being nearly flat floodplain terrace. North
Toe River, a perennial tributary to the Nolichucky River is located in the project area. Project
area elevation is approximately 911.35 meters (2990.0 feet) above sea level.
This portion of Avery County contains soils of the Dellwood Series along the North Toe River
and the Saunook Series along the remaining areas of the project. Dellwood Series soils are
characterized as being moderately well drained soils consisting of dark brown cobbly sandy
loam and very gravely loamy sand on floodplains in the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Saunook Series soils are characterized as being very deep, well drained, moderately permeable
soils consisting of dark brown to dark yellowish brown loam and yellowish brown cobbly sandy
loam on benches, fans, and toe slopes in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. The project
4
AIM
study area has experienced some low-density development including residential and
educational development.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
Man-Dominated and Remnant Mixed Riparian Community are the two terrestrial communities
found in the project study area. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulders and educational/recreational areas
associated with Minneapolis Elementary School. Many plant species are adapted to these
disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Areas are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.),
ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain
(Plantago rugelii) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are
dominated by those species previously listed as well as common morning glory Qpomoea
purpurea), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild blackberry (Rubus sp.) and wild
rose (Rosa carolina).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are often attracted to roadside
habitats. Irregularly maintained areas are suitable habitat for species such as the rufous-sided
towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) and several
species of mice (Peromyscus sp.). Many faunal species, such as the Virginia opossum, which
migrate across heavily traveled roadways become vehicular fatalities and forage items for other
animals, such as the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Remnant Mixed Hardwood Riparian Community
This remnant forested community occurs along the moderate side slopes of the North Toe River
within the project corridor. The moderately sloping topography in these areas support a
sparsely populated variety of remnant mixed hardwoods including tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia),
American beech (Fagus grandiflora), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). The herbaceous layer is
densely populated due to the reduced canopy cover and includes such species as Japanese
5

honeysuckle, wild blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), common morning glory, and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Animals previously listed may be found in this community.
Due to the proximity of low-density development and a rural local thoroughfare, large mammals
would not be expected to regularly inhabit this area. Small mammals such as the gray squirrel,
Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis) may take advantage of food and protective resources offered in this
habitat. Snakes, turtles, and salamanders would also likely utilize this area. Birds such as the
Carolina wren, red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and other small songbirds inhabit this area as
well.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the North Toe River. This waterbody is a
perennial tributary of the Nolichucky River, flowing in a westerly direction through the study area.
River banks, which are moderately sloped, exhibit vegetation previously mentioned in both
biotic community descriptions. Animals such as the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and the
Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) reside along the waters edge. The stream
itself has a moderate flow over a gravel and large cobble stream bed. Few macroinvertebrate
and fish species were observed within the stream bed during the site visit, and included mayfly
larvae (Stenonema sp.), crayfish (Cambaridae), and darter (Etheostoma sp.).
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Due to the limited extent of infringement of natural systems, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal
populations. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC C0110MUNITIES
HECTARES(ACRES)
SR 1164 Man- Remnant Aquatic Combined
Bridge No. 72 Dominated Mixed Community Total
Replacement Community Riparian
Impacts Community
Alternate A 0.04 (0.1) 0.02 (0.05) 0.01 (0.03) 0.07 (0.18)
Alternate B 0.03 (0.08) 0.02 (0.05) 0.01 (0.03) 0.06 (0.16)
Recommended
6
T?
Terrestrial Communities
Few natural communities occur in the project area, and those communities have been highly
reduced due to past and existing development. Impacts of the proposed construction will be
restricted to a narrow strip immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
approaches. Proposed construction on either proposed alignment is not expected to result in
significant adverse impacts to the terrestrial communities in the project vicinity.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the North Toe River. The replacement of
Bridge No. 72 will result in 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of permanent impact to aquatic
communities. Construction of the project is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads to this
aquatic habitat. Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of
invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms such
as many of the filter feeders may be covered by this sedimentation, preventing their feeding.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the North Toe River / Nolichucky River watershed.
Water Resource Characteristics
The North Toe River originates near Newland, NC is a perennial tributary to the Nolichucky
River flowing east to west through the proposed project area. The river has a width of
approximately 14.6 meters (48.0 feet), a variable depth of 0.3 to 0.6 meter (1 to 2 feet), and a
substrate of gravel and rocks. The banks of the North Toe River are well defined and
moderately sloped, and the plane of ordinary high water appears to be approximately 1.2 to 1.8
meters (4 to 6 feet) below the top of the river bank. Vegetation typical of man-dominated and
mixed hardwood riparian areas occur on the river bank.
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources(DEHNR),
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) does not maintain any macroinvertebrate
monitoring stations in this area. The NCDEM maintains a fish monitoring station near Bridge
No. 72. Fish species observed at this sampling station include dace (Rhinichthys sp.), shiner
(Notropis sp.), river chub (Nocomis micropogon), and Northern hogsucker (Hypentelium
nigricans).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) has collected fish population data
on the North Toe River at SR 1164 from 1980 through 1991. According to this information, the
section of the North Toe River included within the project corridor is a Designated Public
Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW) and is stocked annually with catchable-sized trout. No aquatic
endangered, threatened or special concern species are known to occur near this crossing.
Typical fish species observed in the North Toe River at SR 1164 during field sampling include
those species listed above as well as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), darter (Etheostoma
sp.), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi).
7
41
According to the NCDEM, the North Toe River is classified as a WS-III Trout stream, indicating
that these waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in low to moderately
developed watersheds, that point source discharges of treated waste water are permitted, that
local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required,
that these water are suitable for all Class C uses (fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading) and
are suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study
area. No impacts to sensitive water resources will take place as a result of the project
construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result from sedimentation and
turbidity associated with in-stream support piles for a temporary bridge during project
construction. Short-term impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge No. 72
with a bridge instead of a culvert, and minimizing in-stream construction activities. Short term
impacts to the aquatic community will result due to the placement of support piles in the river
channel. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable. Long term impacts to
water resources are not expected as a result of the proposed improvements.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the North Toe River has well defined
banks within the project area. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area
was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Anticipated surface
water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and project
construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts will occur due to
the proposed bridge replacement.
Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Nationwide Permit NO. 23 has been issued by the COE for Categorical Exclusion's due to the
expected minimal impacts. Also, Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny
water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide
8
*IP
Permits 23 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
Avery County is one of 25 counties in western North Carolina designated as having trout
waters, and the North Toe River is listed as a trout water. Projects in these counties must be
reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission prior to issuance
of the COE Permit.
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact wetlands, no mitigation will be required. Mitigation for impacts
to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination regarding
mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process of decline either due
to natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed
for Avery County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification 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.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 9 federally protected species for
Avery County as of March 28, 1995. These species are listed in Table 2.
9

TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR AVERY COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Plecotus townsendii virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying
squirrel E
Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon E
Micruhexura montivaga spruce-fir moss spider PE
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Roan Mountain bluet E
Geum radiatum spreading avens E
Gymnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen PE
Liatris helled Heller's blazing star T
Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T
notes: "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).
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a species that is proposed to be listed as
endangered and which is protected under law while its status is under
review).
The Virginia big-eared bat is a medium-sized bat with forearms measuring 39 to 50 millimeters
(1.54 to 1.97 inches) long and typically weighing 7 to 12 grams (0.25 to 0.42 ounce). The
overall body length is approximately 96 millimeters (3.78 inches), the tail is approximately 46
millimeters (1.81 inches), and the hind foot is 11 millimeters (0.43 inches) long. The bats long
ears, approximately 2.5 centimeters (0.98 inch), and facial glands on either side of the snout are
distinctive. The fur is light to dark brown depending on the individual's age.
The Virginia big-eared bat utilizes caves year-round as roost sites. Most known populations
hibernate during the winter in caves having temperatures ranging from 2.50 to 9.50 celsius
(36.5° to 49.1° fahrenheit). In summer, males separate into smaller groups away from the
females. The females roost in maternity caves to raise the young. The maternity caves have
temperatures ranging from 15° to 18° celsius (59.0° to 64.4° fahrenheit).
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Virginia big-eared bat. Since the
project area does not contain any caves, it can be concluded that the subject project will
not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
10
4f
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along either side of its
body. This furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear.
The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to
tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of North
Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above 1517 meters (5000.0 feet)
in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types
are used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. Since
the project area elevation is approximately 975.4 meters (3200.0 feet), it can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The peregrine falcon is a bird of prey having long pointed wings, dark blue or slate barred
underparts, pale bluish bills, yellow cere and feet, black top of head and cheeks contrasting with
a white throat and sides of neck. The tail is long, narrow, blue-gray and rounded with narrow
black bands and a broad subterminal bar is tipped white.
Historically, the peregrine falcon was a cosmopolitan species ranging from Alaska and
Greenland south through the Americas to Argentina. However, worldwide populations were
reduced during the 1950s and 1960s due to the use of DDT. The peregrine falcon nests on
cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, pinnacles, on the ground, and in the hollows of old trees or in old nests
of eagles, hawks, and ravens. In winter, the peregrine falcon forages in coastal ponds and
mudflats.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the peregrine falcon. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The spruce-fir moss spider measures approximately 3.0 to 5.6 millimeters in length. The most
reliable field identification characteristics for the spruce-fir moss spider are a pair of very long
posterior spinnerets, the presence of a second pair of book lungs which appear as light patches
posterior to the genital furrow, light brown to dark reddish-brown back, and the absence of
markings on the abdomen.
The spruce-fir moss spider is typically found in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders, in well-shaded areas of mature, high-elevation Fraser fir (Abies frasen) and
red spruce (Picea rubens). The spruce-fir moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and
requires conditions of high and constant humidity.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the spruce-fir moss spider, since the
project area does not include high elevation red spruce-frazer fir communities. It can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact this Proposed Endangered species.
11
4ffl
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Roan Mountain bluet is a perennial herb, having shallow roots that form low-growing loose
tufts approximately 10.16 to 15.0 centimeters (4.0 to 5.9 inches) tall. The flowers occur on a
cyme, are bright, deep purple in color, and bloom from July to early August. The Roan
Mountain bluet occurs on high elevation cliffs, spruce-fir forests, rock outcrops, and steep
slopes which are exposed to full sunlight. The underlying substrate is typically composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Roan Fountain bluet. Since the project
area elevation is approximately 975.4 meters (3200.0 feet) and does not contain high
elevation cliffs, rock outcrops of spruce-fir forests, it can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow
radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to early July.
Spreading avens has basal
leaves which are odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger
than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills and ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at
elevations of 1535 to 1541 meters (5060 to 5080 feet), 1723 to 1747 meters (5680 to 5760 feet)
and 1759 meters (5800 feet). Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight
and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy
loam and clay loam. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the spreading avens. Since the project
area elevation is approximately 975.4 meters (3200.0 feet), it can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The lichen can be
identified by its fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found
at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high
humidity environments occur on high elevation (? 1220 m /4000 ft.) mountaintops and cliff faces
which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (< 762 m /2500 ft.) deep gorges in the
Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is
almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The
major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alteration/loss of
12

high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe,
Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey. The lower elevation
habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and
Transylvania.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the rock gnome lichen. Since elevations
throughout the project area are approximately 975.4 meters (3200.0 feet), it can be
concluded that the subject project will no impact this Proposed Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Holler's blazing star is a perennial herb with an erect stem from a globose, semiglobose or
tapering rootstock. The leaves of Heller's blazing star are alternate, cauline and basal, and
decreasing in size upward. The inflorescence occurs in spikes or racemes, flowers from the top
to the bottom of the stem, and is present from late-July through September.
Hellers blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, and
typically occurs on sandy soil on high elevation rocky summits, cliffs, ledges and rocky woods
which are exposed to full sunlight.
No habitat exists in the project study area for Holler's blazing star. Since elevations
throughout the project area are approximately 975.4 meters (3200.0 feet) and no rocky
summits, ledges or cliffs are present, it can be concluded that the subject project will not
impact this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Blue Ridge goldenrod is an erect perennial herb, approximately 10.16 to 40.64
centimeters (4 to 16 inches) tall, arising from a short rhizome. The leaves are cauline and often
basal, elliptic, 3 to 6 centimeters (1.18 to 2.36 inches) long, 0.8 to 2.0 centimeters (0.31 to 0.79
inches) wide, serrate, and ciliate. The flowers are yellow in color, occur in compact corymbs of
20 to 30 flower heads, are 2 to 4 millimeters (0.08 to 0.16 inches) in length, and bloom between
July and August.
The Blue Ridge goldenrod is typically found growing in full sunlight in the crevices of granite rock
outcrops of open mountain summits at elevations above 1402.1 meters (4600 feet). Two
known populations of the Blue Ridge goldenrod occur in Avery County: one near Banner Elk,
and the other near Grandfather Mountain northeast of Linville. This species is considered to be
an early pioneer species on rock outcrops.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Blue Ridge goldenrod. Since
elevations throughout the project area are approximately 975.4 meters (3200.0 feet), it
can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
13
40P
Federal Candidate
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened of Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species listed for Avery
County. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
AVERY COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present
(Common Name) Status
Myotis subulatus loibii SC No
(Eastem small-footed bat)
hficrotus chrotorrhinus carolinonsis SC No
(Southem rock vole)
Sylvilagus transitionalis SR No
(New England cottontail)
Thryomanes bewickii altus E Yes
(Appalachian Bewick's wren)
Clemmys muhlonborgli T No
(bog turtle)
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis SC No
(hellbender)
Speyeria diana SR No
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Speyeria idalia SR No
(regal fritillary butterfly)
Abies fraseri C No
(Fraser fir)
Astilbe crenatiloba C No
(Roan false goat's beard)
Bazzania nudicaulis C No
(a liverwort)
Cardamine clematitis C No
(mountain bittercress)
Carex manhadii C No
(Manhart's sedge)
Goum geniculatum T No
(bentavens)
Saxifraga caroliniana C No
(Gra)(s saxifrage)
14
4P
TABLE 3 (con't)
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present
(Common Name) Status
Juglans cinerea W No
(butternut)
Lilium grayi T No
(Gray's lily)
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana C No
(a liverwort)
Shortia galacifolia E No
(oconee-bells)
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla E No
(short-styled oconee bells)
notes:
Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
denotes no specimen from Avery County has been found in at least 20 years.
E denotes state Endangered species, which are afforded protection by state laws.
T denotes state Threatened species, which are afforded protection by state laws.
C denotes state Candidate species, which are considered by the State as being rare and needing
population monitoring.
SC denotes Special Concern species, which are afforded protection by state laws.
SR denotes Significantly Rare species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended.
W denotes a watch list species that is believed to be rare and of conservation concern but not
warranting active monitoring at this time.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any protected species known to occur in Avery County.
Habitat does exist in the project for one candidate species known to occur in Avery County.
Also, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records
exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
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 bridge replacement will not have an 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 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 relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the
area.
15
4F
4(f) Involvement
The replacement of Bridge No. 72 over North Toe River will necessitate the taking of an asphalt
court on the Minneapolis Elementary School playground. The playground, which is owned by
the Avery County Board of Education, serves the physical education needs of the Minneapolis
Elementary School and allows for the public to use after school hours for "pick-up" games. As
such, this public recreation area is subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act of 1966.
A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f) since: (1) the
project involves a bridge replacement at essentially the same location; (2) the recreation area
involved is located adjacent to the existing roadway; (3) the impact on the Section 4(f) site
resulting from the use of the land is considered minor; (4) the project will result in a right of way
taking of about seven percent of the total Minneapolis Elementary School playground; (5) the
Avery County Board of Education endorses the project as proposed;(6) this project is being
processed as a categorical exclusion (no EIS is being prepared for this project).
The following alternatives, which avoid any use of the public recreation site, have been fully
evaluated:
(1) Do Nothing Alternative. The "Do Nothing Alternative" is not feasible and prudent
because it would not correct the existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance
problems of the existing structure. Additionally, this alternative would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge; this is not prudent due to the traffic service provided
by SR 1164.
(2) Improvement Without Using the Adjacent Section 4(f) Lands. This alternative would
involve replacement of the existing structure with a shift of the alignment away form the
playground. The proposed bridge centerline would be shifted approximately 5 meters
(16 ft) east. This shift would require the relocation of Southern Bell switching station (an
additional $100,000 relocation cost) and proximity damage to a residential property on
the northwest of the bridge (an additional $20,000). This shift to the east would also
impair access to the driveway north of the church. Consideration was given to placing a
retaining wall east of the playground in conjunction with a replacement bridge. while the
wall would reduce the impact on the playground, some damage would still result to the
property due to the limits of the new bridge construction.
(3) Alternate On New Location. In order to replace this bridge on new location and not
utilize the Section 4(f) resource, would result in substantial disruption to the environment
and would not serve the same transportation access and service that the current
location of the roadway provides.
None of the alternatives discussed above are found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the recreational site was performed as an integral part
of this bridge replacement project. This project was coordinated with the officials having
jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) Land, whose correspondence is included as Attachment 1.
Approval of the programmatic 4(f) by the FHWA Division Administrator is included as
Attachment 2 of this document.
16
4OF
There are no publicly owned parks (except as covered above), recreational facilities, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical 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 for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated May 30, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with
NCDOT's finding that one property - the Appalachian Inn - located within the area of potential
effect was considered to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Figure 2 shows the Appalachian Inn site across US 19E from Bridge No. 72. On a concurrence
from dated June 15, 1995, the SHPO concurred with NCDOT's determination that the project
will have no effect on the Appalachian Inn. Copies of the letter and concurrence form are
included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, requested "that a comprehensive
survey be conducted" prior to right-of-way. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the
Appendix. An archaeological survey will be conducted prior to right-of-way. A report of survey
results will be transmitted through the FHWA to the SHPO for review. Further consultation will
be conducted if necessary.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). According to SCS there are no prime or state important
farmlands at this project site. The completed form is included in the Appendix.
The project is located in Avery County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
Traffic volumes will not directly increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
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 air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
17

North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Avery County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The North Toe
River at the project site is not included in a detailed FEMA study. 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.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due
to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
18

REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (9/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Mass.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classification and Water Quality Standards. NCAC:15ANCAC2B.0306.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, N.Y.
Thompson, P. 1985. Thompson's Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America. Houghton
Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Preliminary unpublished
data. Soil Survey of Avery County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (9/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York. its limited scope and insignificant environmental
consequences.
19

Avery County Schoofls
P. O. Box 1360
Newland, NC 28657
704-733-6006
FAX [phone]
Dr. Blll Tate
Peggy Carpenter
Wayne Holman
A. Chris Cornett
Dr. Bill At. Jones
July 14, 1995
1 C E f vF
Mr. H. Franklin Vick P.E.
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201 'JUL 1 7 1995
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 !? 2
DiVISIG'V OF Q?=U
Dear Mr. Vick: 2'IGHWAYS
??,?7RONN(S?P-
I am responding to your letter dated June 21, 199 arding
replacement of bridge #72 on SR 1164 over North Toe River TIP #B-
2804, Avery County.
The answers to the questions posed in your letter are as
follows:
1. Yes, the Board of Education endorses the proposed bridge
replacement.
2. Yes, the Board recognizes the proposed protect will
encroach on publicly owned property.
3. Yes, the Board understands that no mitigation for the loss
of the ball field is currently being proposed in
conJunction with the project.
4. Minneapolis Elementary School will be relocated to a new
facility in the fall of 1996 (August/September) . Yes, the
new facility will be open to the public. The new facility
will be located on Highway 19E, approximately 3.5 miles
north of the present site.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

Franklin Vick
07/14/95
Page 2
5. The Minneapolis Elementary School site is approximately
3.6 acres in size. It should be noted that the playground
area will revert to an adjoining family estate when the
site is no longer used as a school. Miss Itoween Young
should be contacted in reference to this project. Her
mailing address is General Delivery, Minneapolis, North
Carolina 28652.
Since ly,
rooks Barber
Assistant Superintendent
Avery County Schools
CC:
File
BB/gj

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BR7-1 1 64 ( 2 )
State Project 8.2720401
T. I. P. No. B-2804
Description: SR 1164, Avery County
Replace Bridge No. 72 Over North Toe River
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities a
on essentially the same location? X
2. Is the project on new location? El X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
located adjacent to the existing highway? X F7,
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below) X
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. 1 acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land
impair the use of such land for its intended purpose? X
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the ?
proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands? X
ATTACHMENT No. 2

2
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus
property)?
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object
to the land conversion or transfer?
9. . Does the project require preparation of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems., or impacts
of extraordinary measure?
2. Imorovement of the highway without using the
adjacent oublic Dark, recreational land, or
wildlife waterfowl refuae.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or 0 substantial increased costs
Yes No
F-1 X
F] X
17 X
Yes No
F7
7 X
X 7
X7
x?
09P
3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the public park, recreational land, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge. (This would be a localized - ?
run around.") R
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (Bor substantial social, environmental,
economic impacts
or (Bor a substantial increase in project cost
engineering difficulties
and (3of such impacts, costs, or difficulties
truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.

4
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm. ?L
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
O Payment of the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
No special mitigation measures are proposed for loss of use
of the Minneapolis Elementary School playground: however, the
NCDOT proposes to pay the current property owner fair market
value for Minneapolis Elementary School property needed to
construct the bridge replacement project.
Minneapolis Elementary School will be relocated to a new facility
in the fall of 1996. The playground of the existing Minneapolis
Elementary School will revert to an adjoining family estate
when the site is no longer used as a school.
OP
5
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the x
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies _
C. US Coast Guard _
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved _
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are
assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
fz3olo
Dat
9S
0/3,
Date
v .
Manager, Plann)ng & Environmental Branch
NCIOT
OA
vision Administrator, FHWA

PISGAH
s

NATIONAL
..E6 • ?-

FOREST
. __
RIDGE =#17:2,1,
N
mirrecDo
?~ v
RIVER
`

?... .
SS-
S
,? 0 .. beech qc- Mr-ntain
:.'AN
?. Morn i
i
Elk Park
Cranberry. 19aYE?k 18
J1?h`? 3 94 596.
?
^ G,. cf.1h.r
+
Minoeaoolis 4Mtn. d
19E Newland lgt Linvill
A a V E <
Plumtree
^ Pineola
Crossnore FOR.
l
EdBemc
4
a 19?
Ingalls
1
83
Linville
n u
kFalls

v
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 72
AVERY COUNTY
B-2804
3/95 SCALE = 1:15 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
1 1
AVERY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 72
B-2804

LOOKING NORTH
AT INTERSECTION OF
SR 1164 AND US 19E
i
i
iA
i i
AT INTERSECTION OF
SR 1164 AND US 19E
i
SOUTH SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 72

FIGURE 3A
AVERY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 72
B-2804
UPSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 72
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 72

AVERY
COUNTY
B-2804

I
?r -

? 1 ?I` 1 1
l \ {I
MINNEAPOLIS
BRIDGE # 72 .? ?
ZONE A--:
J/ 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN

SCALE 1.24 000
MILE
1000 0 1.000 2000 000 500C 600C 7000 =EE-,
1 KILOMETER
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX

STAT[
rM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 30, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for Replacing
Bridge 72 on SR 1164 over North Toe River, Avery
County, B-2804, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1164(2),
State Project 8.2720401, ER 95-9002
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
0 E I V
`? 'JUN 0 5 1995
DNISIGN OF
'14IGHWAYSS
Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Appalachian Inn, Criterion A--This inn is significant for its association with
the development of the small mountain community of Minneapolis. We
believe the proposed boundary is appropriate for this property.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
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, /
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: {.i. F. Vick
B. Church ?j
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??P
T:P # 5 . n F c
Federal Aid # f5rL2 - N-A (I ) County kSRy
CONCURRENCE FORIM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
i`?r?-c Ya=?t?:t., ??•'72 r,,,j Sa-114 cvFv- tilstz-r4 Tic 'P-lvEr?
On JN1UAry 7 , 119 _ , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
V Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as R-r ,t. •. i? I * 2 4-4 are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of thetrrns necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Sinned:
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHwA,- r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Representative,
// 1
Date

tate Historic Preservation Officer
Date
1 - z ? -mss
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
TIP n, ?•?04 Federal Aid ??? 1164 (Z? County ?•d?R-y
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
t.Ati?, 6R-?yrrE No -72 on1 y? i?!o4 s?? ????tl-1 ToF? ??6?_?lrJrJEApc?ls:
On J NN E lq I q I45 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project-and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Resister-eligiole properties located within the project's area
of cotential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on dic National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential cffect. The prop --rry/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
Rep
ib==--
NCDOT
Fr WA or tLe Division Administrator, or otne; r=uCld1 C1jc ?t?-J
iv , SHPO
Mate Historic Preservation Officer
1
Date
D4ae
- 15
Date
Dat
(over)
TIP n P7 -?-Pbo4 Federal Aid # $R,L - M14 (Z) County AVE2.y
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Resister-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
???A??F?J? 1?J?J CD? J

Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
and describe effect.

r
Initialed: NCDOT C?_FHwA rf-c s' SHPO
V+r qwr .rcr'?
DEC 1 3 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc
DO /]SIC",
F -
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division ? rc$ky?si-a tory? \
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William e^ Jr., Dire
1 MrV,1. r(-?
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tr _l ssportation
FROM: David Brook "
Deputy rr
State ?StoncPreservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0298
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2822, Davidson County on SR 1743 over Abbott's Creek on which
we commented by letter of March 22, 1994 to Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway
Administration, we have no recording of having seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
Wang Engineering Company, Inc., to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-
Earley to check our maps and files or to have her review aerial photographs or
maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge #3 on SR 1547 over Duck Creek, B-2647, Union County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
may be located in the floodplain and first terrace areas of the proposed project.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Bridge #148 on SR 1132 over Rocky River, B-2808, Cabarrus County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994, Page 2
may be located within the proposed project area. We recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify
fhe--presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Bridge #90 on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek, B-2857, Randolph County
Bridge #404 on SR 2830 over Richland Creek, B-2858, Randolph County
Bridge #1 on SR 1526 over Grants Creek, B-2865, Rowan County
Bridge #78 on SR 1556 over East Prong Deep River, B-2833, Guilford County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the immediate project
vicinity. We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed project upon as yet
unrecorded resources until we have a location and project details.. Please forward
this information when it is available.
Bridge #56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, B-2126, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV401 is located on both sides of NC 150 north of Reedy
Creek and may be affected by the proposed replacement. As soon as the project
location and details are available, please forward them to us for our review. If
affected, 31 DV401 should be tested to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Bridge #84 on NC 150 over Fryes Creek, B-2821, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV414 is located east of NC 150 and north of Fryes Creek.
It is probable that this Archaic and Woodland period site will be affected by the
proposed bridge replacement. We recommend that the project area be surveyed
and, if affected, 31 DV414 be tested to determine its eligibility for the National
Register.
Bridge #139 on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek, B-2822, Davidson County
Although no archaeological survey was recommended in our preliminary comments
concerning this project (our letter of March 22, 1994), a thorough staff review
suggests the proposed project area may contain unrecorded archaeological
remains. Our earlier comments did not incorporate the recommendation of our
staff which indicated a high probability factor for the broad floodplain and first
terraces within the proposed project area. Therefore, we recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify
the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Bridge #72 on SR 1164 over North Toe River, B-2804, Avery County
Bridge #54 on SR 1122 over Warrier Creek, B-2874, Wilkes County
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994, Page 3
activities.
Bridge #59 on NC 80 over North Toe River and Seaboard RR, B-3089, Yancey
County
We recommend an archaeological survey_ be conducted if this involves a new
alignment or if there is any other new disturbance.
Bridge #74 on SR 1695 over US 421 and Southern RR, B-3175, Guilford County
Bridge #101, SR 1917 over Norfolk Southern RR, B-2867, Stanly County
Bridge #50 on SR 2245 over Kings Creek, B-2817, Cleveland County
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
N. Graf

d
Tanno roe Ya18y A nhoM, 400 wort Summit KR aNe. Knoxvne, -rWA "37902-1499
January 26, 1995
tir. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Hanager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON GROUP VII BRIDGE REPLACEM IT PROJECTS
As a followup to my letter of December 15, 1994, I
additional comments on the environmental review of
8-2804 (Avery County, SR 1164 over North Toe River)
County, NC 80 over North Toe River).
-FEB 0 6 1995
DNISIGN G .
HIGHWAYS ??-
\`?1i1AOt??
wish to provide
bridge replacements
and B-3089 (Yancey

A search of TVA's heritage database revealed the possible presence of
a sunflower, Heli anthus 1 t c h l ills, within one mile of bridge
B-2804. This species is a candidate for state listing as endangered
or threatened in North Carolina. If the new bridge is proposed to be
built in a different place, the area should be surveyed during the
spring/suraner growing season by a qualified botanist.
Both projects (8-2804 and B-3089) appear to be located on streams used
for boating and rafting. Therefore, a minimum clearance of 60 feet
between bridge piers should ba provided, and no piers should be
located in the deepest part of the river channel.
In addition to the above information, the 26a application for approval
of these bridge replacements should include documentation of
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act or a statement
of intentions to do so with each raqueat-
Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping coznent Should you
have any questions, please call Harold M. Draper at [phone].
Sincerely,
Dale V. Wilhelm, Liaison
Rational Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Management
?e c E t vFO

Tannm3ee Vaiiey Aulrorq, 400 West Summit Ha! Cove. Knomlle. Tennessee 37902
December 15, 1994
Mr. ff. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Hr. Vick:
COMMENTS ON GROUP VII BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
DEC 2 7 1994
01VISfON OF
HIGHWAYS
L?7RONI'¢
Thank you for the opportunitq to provide scoping comments on the
environmental review of fifteen bridge projects in western North
Carolina. It appears that the following two projects involve stream
crossings in the Tennessee Valley Watershed and may require approval
from TVA under Section 26a of the TVA Act:
• 8-2804, Avery County, on SR 1164 over North Toe River
¦ 8-3089, Yancey County, on NC 80 over North Toe River and Seaboard
Railroad
Section 26a of the TVA act requires that no dam, appurtenant works, or
other obstruction, affecting navigation, flood control, or public
lands or reservations shall be constructed without prior approval of
TVA_ When bridge designs are complete, pleasa contact TVA's Upper
Holston Reservoir Land Management Office at the following address:
Mr. Freddie C. Bennett
TVA Reservoir Land Management
Heritage Federal Bank, Suite 218
4105 Fort Henry Drive
Kingsport, Tennessee 37663
In addition, please change the address for NEPA-related correspondence
to:
Dale V. Wilhelm, Liaison
National Environmental Policy Act
400 west Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C-K
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Sincerely,
Dale V. Wilhelm, Liaison
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission'
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733.3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program , <•.;
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for comments on Group VII Bridge
Replacement Projects in North Carolina, SCH
Project No. 95-0298.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have the following preliminary comments
on the subject bridge replacements. Our comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 2 5) .
After reviewing the information provided and data we
have on the subject streams we have the following comments
and recommendations:
1. 2-2126, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Reedy Creek.
Two small tributaries intersect Reedy Creek in the
vicinity of the NC 150 bridge. There is a broad,
forested floodplain along this section of stream which
may be wetlands. The stream is approximately 30 feet
wide with sandy substrate and has fair fish habitat.
There are no known endangered or threatened fauna
concerns at this site. We recommend that the bridge be
replaced with a spanning structure, on-site with road
closure. NCDOT should avoid any channel relocation,
survey for wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation
and erosion control measures.
2. 5-2804, Avery County, on SR 1164 over North Toe River.
The North Toe River is habitat for many pollution
ICWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15:49 No.006 P.07
Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994
intolerant aquatic species and is listed as DPMTW at
this site. we also stock this section of the river
yearly with catchable-sized trout. Downstream we have
found the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana),
federally listed endangered (E) and the blotchside
logpexch (Percina burton!), state listed endangered.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect, the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District S Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, [phone], on this project.
3. B-2808, Cabarrus County, on SR 1132 over Rocky River.
At this site, Rocky River has a wide forested
floodplain some of which may be wetlands. This section
of Rocky River has excellent in-stream cover with a
rocky substrate, deep pools and nice riffles providing
excellent fish habitat. There are no known threatened
or endangered fauna at this site. We recommend that
the bridge be replaced on-site with road closure. No
in-wate_ work should be performed in April or May.
Also, no in-stream cover should be removed including
the old granite bridge abutment located upstream from
the bridge. We also recommend that NCDOT survey for
wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation and
erosion controls throughout the project. If possible,
we ask that NCDOT provide a safe parking area for
fishermen as this area is currently heavily used for
bank fishing.
4. S-2617, Cleveland County, on SR 2245 over Kings Creek.
We have no recent fishery data at this site and no
threatened or endangered fauna is expected to occur in
this vicinity. We recommend close coordination with
our District 6 Fisheries Biologist, Chris Goudreau,
[phone], on this project..
5. 2-2821, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Fryes Creek.
Fryes Creek is a small stream with a sandy substrate
and has poor fishery habitat. We do not oppose a
culvert at this location. However, the culvert should
be placed one foot below the natural stream bed and
have a "dry" box to allow wildlife passage.
6. B-2822, Davidson County, on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek.
Abbotts Creek is a small stream with a fair fishery.
There are no known threatened or endangered fauna at
this site. We have no specific recommendations at this
time.
ACWRC,HCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15:50 N0.006 P.08
Memo
Page 3
December 6, 1994
7. B-2647, Union County, on SR 1547 over Duck Creek. This
may actually be on Goose Creek. Goose Creek is a small
stream with good pools and riffles, rocky substrate and
excellent in-stream cover. There appears to be quality
bottomland hardwood wetlands on both sides of the
stream. Goose Creek is excellent fish and wildlife
habitat and serves as habitat for the Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorates) which is federally
listed endangered (E). We recommend that NCDOT hold an
on-site visit with the U.S. Fish and'Wildlife Service
and NCWRC personnel to discuss this project.
8. S-2833, Guilford County, on SR 1556 over East Prong
Deep River. The stream at this location is too small
to be of fishing significance; however, it is a
tributary to the water supply for High Point. We
recommend that NCDOT survey for wetlands at this
location. This stream likely serves as an important
wildlife corridor, therefore, we prefer that this
bridge be replaced with a spanning structure.
9. B-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1928
This stream provides a fair fishery
catfish. We prefer that the bridge
spanning structure.
10. 3-2858, Randolph County, on SR 2830
Creek. This stream is too small at
of fishing significance.
over Muddy Creek.
for sur_f_sh and
be reolaced with a
over Richland
this location to be
11. B-2865, Rowan County, on SR 1526 over Grants Creek.
Grants Creek is medium sized stream with long pools.
The stream is surrounded by wooded lowlands, possibly
wetlands. We request that NCDOT survey fir wetlands.
We recommend that the bridge be replaced on-site with
road closure. We also request that there be no in-
water work in April or May.
12. B-2867, Stanley County, on SR 1917 over
Norfolk/Southern Railroad. No comment.
13. B-2874, Wilkes County, on SR 1122 over Warrior Creek.
Big Warrior Creek is a warmwater stream approximately
25 feet wide and has a substrate of silt, sand, gravel,
cobble, boulders and bedrock. We recommend standard
soil and erosion control measures be used at this site.
14. B-3089, Yancey County, on NC 80 over North Toe River
and Seaboard Rail-road. This section of the North Toe
River contains many pollution intolerant species.
Downstream in the Toe River the Appalachian elktoe
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15:50 No.006 P.09
Memo
Page 4
December 6, 1994
(Alasmidonta raveneliana), federally listed endangered
(E) effective 12/23/94, has been found. Approximately
2 miles downstream of the project the blotchside
logperch (Percina burtoni), state listed endangered,
has been found near the mouth of the South Toe River.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
Hiah Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordinaCion with our District 8 Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, [phone], on this project.
15. 3-3175, Guilford County, on SR 1695 over US 421 and
Southern Railroad. No comment.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
expects the NCDOT to routinely minimize adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge
replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sed.'nentatiori control measures throughout the life of the
pro-'act and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or
entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with
spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in all cases. Spanning structures
allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat
fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossinas.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David
Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, G' [phone]. Thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on these
projects .
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 30, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart,,Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0298; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Group VII Bridge Replacement Projedts
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be considered in
the Planning and Environmental Studies (Categorical Exclusions)
prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the stream classifications of the streams
potentially impacted by the bridge replacements. The stream
classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
D. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
E. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
F. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 109A post-ccn.,;umer paper

Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
G. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing bridge alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
I. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
J. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence.. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10777er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

State of North Carolina
Departmont of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. Due Date:-
W5 ?.o
After s -oa?? la-t
After raviaw of this project it has txen determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicated may need to be obtained In
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Cuestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are availaZle from the L=nC
Regional o4fiee. Normal process
Time

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Kialutory time
limit)

? Permit to eonstrixt t operate wastewater trsatrnenl A, plication 90 days before begin construction or award Of DO days
facillties, sewer system extensions, t sewer C_-%siruclion czontrat7s On-site inspection. Poll-i;•pl"tlon
systems not dtWarging into state auriact waters. whnical ccinference usual (30 asys)
NPDES • permit to disc.I.arpe into sur!a=t water arwor A;,olrution 100 days before b ,in setlvlty On-site Insprectwn. CO-120 days
? permit to operate and Construct wastewater facilities PrT•a,^•plicltion pnfttence usual ACCitionally. ootain perrnrt to
drschafgiN into state suriace waters. construct wastewater treatment fazility•grariteC after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after rrceipt of pars or =ut of NPDES
permit•whiehe• irr is Later.

i?
water the Pvmit
Pty-appficat*r% technical canfeierce ursually necessary x cat's
(NIA;
7 days
Well Wnstrud:ian Permit GYnptete ac.fication must be re,;eived and permit issue'
prior to tN instartation of a well. (15 days)
- '- Aprh Cation edgy must be str,ed on each &clazent npa•ia^. property _S days
Dfedgt srvC Fill Permit owner On-site iruCectien. Pre-aDplicat on conference usual Filling
may re Quire Easernent to Fill from N C Department of 6C days)
Administration anal Federal DfKge and Fitt Permit.
Permit to constfuct i o:,e:ate Au Pollution Abatement
' 60 days
facilities andio•
emission Sources ss per 15A NCAC 21M. NIA (9C day')
Any open burning its=ate: wilh sut)ect prop0ul
must be in e_-rn;%ance with t_A NCAC 2D.CL.
GzmofU,on or rencra: cns of structures containing
asreslCs mate!ia' mus: to in Ccrr.pt.anCe with 15A h,: days
J NCAC 20 CS:S wh,C!% requires nets/ af.cn and removal NIA
prior to Cemohl,on Contact Astesics Control Grou;
gig 733.0°20 t5C days)
Compre. Source Fe:m t fegai,eC under 1_A NCAC 2D 0300
e Std;,,en:ai,on Pd',ut.on C;,r.tro! Act of 157: mus: tre pio;,er!) add,essed for any rand d.siurt,ny aCttvity An e,cs,on 8 sed.Mentat,o.
? Conirc! plan will to requ-red if one or more acres to to disfur`„ed P:an tiled with p,cper Reg,cnai Office (Land Cual-ty Sect 1 at least 30 2C days
da.% tero,e te; nn,nr ac vii A fee of S'.C (of the first are anC S2^ryJ (of ea:^% acC.i era' acre or a^i mus+ ac1o0m:;anv the clan 0C Cavst
J The SeC,menut,on Potlulion Co^tfol Act of 157: must be aCCfeaeC with respect to Me re'erlenced Local rfdlnanee: OC' Cays)
Cr. site fnspection usual Sufe!y bond filed with EHt1R 6Jnd arncunt
Mining Permit varies with Type mine and numtef of acres of sffecied land Any area 3L Cays
m.ned greater than one acre must Ce permlte^. The a„prepnale bond (`v' Cays)
must Ce received before the permit can t-e issued.
J North Cafdlina Burning permit On site inspe:l;on Cp N C. Division Fores( Resources if permit 1 day
e3ceeds 1 days (NIA)
Special G,ound Clearance Qurning Permit • 22 Cn site inspection ty N 0. Civ;s;on Fo,est Resources required -If more 1 day
Count;es In eca_ia! N.C. wile organ)c "l.,t tt.an five acres of ground Cfeanng acIM:;es ate invcl•eC Inspections (NIA)
should to requested at feast ten days t cfole actual turn is planned.'
120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (I+ A)
If pe:mll rCqu;'t",- acl:l;c3lldn fr7 days t?fote tc^,.'n can-!t"Iion.
Ap;t•c3n1 mus: h;-r N C. q„21.Led end:r.Cer fo p-epa:e plans. 3}C days
D.m ?:fC:y Perm t ;r;?v':I i;I,fiSlnr. :, CC' :r•:IrVC:;Cn fL d COtQ ng IC E1 a/ a?pldy.
. e': plan:. )!3y at;'.: I?quiie pt:mfl Undci no-,q;;;10 Con:ICJ ptOgfam. And IV, days)
. a 404 pLrrnil rfum Coi;s of EnQuivers Ar, in•^•ecl.on cf si:c is neces-
Lary to volt, 10:afd C:h-f.c3:ion. A m;n;mum for c! CY must ac,
c:' ',any Me a;pr ca on. An a^d t V^ p•,:C:_-r•^ 'VC ;cd en a
nom.,. •nfi^.r of tf•C :C!;. :'(: -! C.:'.. w,,: t., fr^.. ., ., '^, rr;,.!i,t,on

Slate of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
n
Revfewino Office: ?'r C?
Project Numoer. Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be ootatned in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
'statutory ;lm
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS I
limit) ;
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions. 3 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post aoolicatfon
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andror Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site Inspection 90.120 days
permit to operate ano construct wastewater facilities Pre application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
? liscnarging ;r.to state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility granted after NPDES Reply IN1AI i
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES

-whichever is later.
permit
20 cars
r ..ater use ?errnit Pre•aoplicatlon technical conference usually necessary j
IN/Ai
7 days
C Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued

pnor to the installation of a well.
(15 day
s)
i
I
Application copy must be served on eacn adjace.^.t riparian property 55 nays
e arc ;:, t Permit
Crecc owner. On-site Insoection. Pre•aoolication conference usual Filling
L-I _ may require Easement to Fill from N C. Deoartmeri of 190 gavSi
Administration and Feceral Dredge and Fill Permit
rI! -cns;ruc: i operate Air Pcilutlcn Abatement dG _a._
_-.,;r Emis_sicn Sources as oe. 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A ° •". a': sI i
Any oven purning associates with suoiec! procosal
must pe n acmpi once with 15A NCAC 2D 0520.
'?e^ioi,,,_ _ c.a..cns of ,truc,.:res containing
asces;cs 'ra:e, aI must be in commiance with :_ 60 .ass
NCAC 2_ ,___ -,nicn requires netir,cat,on ano remo,ai NiA
prior :_ ,.pn Contact Ascestcs Control Grcuo

r-I C: mc!e, So ._e :"e'7-. it required uncer 15A NCAC 20.0800.
?O:luhcn Control Act ct 1972 must oe properly atldresseC for any land dlsturcing ac:IVnv An ;res;cn ? ae_:mentaucn ,
1 rcl ;;a,, pe required it one or more acres :o be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lana Cuallty Sec: at least 20
r i 20 oa,S
!
_ _mr,nr, activity A 'ee of S20 ter •he +irst acre and 520 00 for eac^ aoeitional acre or cart must = ccmr,anv !re oian
_.... 3D

-7
?-
1 Tne on cOilu UOn Cpntrd Acf 7f 197must be addressed with respect !o the referrenced Local Ordnance: I I
2C ;,.. SI
I
On-site inspection usual. Surety bona filed with EHNR. Bond amount
I- Mining Pear varies with type mine and number of acres of aifec:eC lantl. Any area ,?:.a+s
mined greater than one acre must be oermited The appropriate bond 160 garsi
must be received before the permit can be issues
.. ,• ,. E, nr perm, On-site Inscec!Ion py N C. Division Forest Resources if permit 7;.
_ exceeds s days I NiA
C:e3rarce Burning P•_rrno 22 Cn site nscec:icn cy N D. Division Forest Resources recuireo if more ga;
ecuntle;; n .oastat N.C with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections IPuA?
should be requested at least ten days before ac:ual burn is planned '
?I 90 120 gay=
I CI
?,•!u•Irr r; -_r;ll!IeS I
N/A (N/A4
If permit requited. aepncation 60 days oelore oegm construction
_ Arciicant must hire N.C qualified engineer to: ore.-are plans.
:.. ••• •rI I inspect construction certify construe::on Is ac:o'oinq to EHNR adprr.v
ed clans M iv al;o require permit unner mnsgu,tq ccn!rnl program Anq
a ..,,- permit ;rcm .:gyros of Englneels .t r, unspeC: ,n of site s neces
nary to verily hazard C1as5ificaUan A minunum 'ee of 520000 must au
company the .-=I canon An additional orocessing fee basee on a
cercentaue or the total protect cost xnl re recuireg innon -omzlelirn
C,?nunuuu on -.r ..
s
I.J1 .11.k...! t ) I',?`.I\?I.I`.1..'!??I1'iI'.I?•I i .'t.?.. I.I1.'.i?! !!'1 -_..../,_^...?!.C.i?......_.._ ---
"i? ll rl l: ?? // -
lntcr-\gcney f'rojccc hev;ew O.csponse --
'•1ojc Z Nal' [Ypc of Project
1 l
1 _-? The applicant should be advised that 1)1-lns and specifications for all \vacer syscelr:
-.-? improvemerlcs must be approved by Lhe Division of 1 iw1'l'O11i11e11La1 I-Ieal.th prior to:che•awarc
of a contract or Lice iniclaclor. of c6nscrimioll (as requi-ed by 15A. NTCAC 18c .0300 el. seq.)
For information, eoncaa the Public Wacc:- Supply Se_Li.on, [phone].
roject wi11 be classified as a. non-community puc is water supply and must compi ?r!L"
This-
?--? p
state ana feaeral drin!:illg waccr 111onicoring reculrernes•:ts. For more :nformac:on the ap•plica:l
should contact the Public Walcr Supply' Seccien, (91c'? 733-232-1.
-- .If this project is comcruaed as proposed, we gill recc-:mend closure of legit-of adjace
r
?
t --! ??aLel's to the han"esc o shdllfish. For iaform.acior! -egardir.g the .shellfis T an!cauon progr
olicam should concac: the She!lilsh S knical: Dn Branch ac [phone].
the a
c
on,
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project ::.a. ,roduce a mosquito breeding•proble: -
?--? For information concerning appropriate mosquito :onlrol measures, Lhe applicant-shou_
Management Section c (919) 726'-8970.
contact the Public Health Pest
.
licanl shouid be advisees Lhat prior to the removal ov eenZo:LClon of a:,aplrlatF
The ap
_
structures, ar, exterls:ve rodkinc Control program al._•' be necessa--; i.n orc,er to prevent t
mioracion of-tl.e rodents Lc adiacen: The :-=oraaation.co:.lcerning rodent co.?trc
art:-,enc or t?!c Pubiic )'=-talth Pest Thal:agen:ent Secciorl..ac X91
de
he local healer
p
,
contact t
7 3 3-6? 07.
t , 1 O'
The a-•,,,?,t•ant shc)ulc be advised co c:;atac- the loci1 he:,lt:1 dc,.-art zer.c r.c,nvra? L,
N??,,;?,?; „7der !.,!'. N<_•A?: 12A 1900 et. see
l::ns,?allac:c^? (as
"ci tar
- ro:
.
.
_
reoui;:.: .
?'Or lnrLi:':?1?.t'O^. C-?n:_mIn'T ^r1i.'C. t^. 11 lrct :rn"r !1^. SI!:° ??2S.e Q!S!1Osa, my-hodS, conr.Acz i.

-- The appl:canl should he ;,dvlscd co Coll:racl. ! ae. 1oca nealell del?arcnlen:: ie;;ardinb L C S. r1* .
1
! _.. .? MciI'Lrc.qtlircd fol. chic pr?;;rc:e
i I
!• -••l .? tISC!'? aLC:' 11!lr:.: lVlll I).^_ l)dL!l:`. C.oll$LIUCI'.lilll, jD ta:lti Uli' tllC W',lLCC
- -? 1•CloCll:cn 111L1sc b;: subinll-LCCI cc) Lhc: Of L-n.lronmcncal 1-ic:1 t11, 1'ul?lIC V?al'C.1'
1(:Cl:loil, ?Ial? 1\I.?'lCw Bi-ancl'1, 1.3.)0 `L M.I-U i t) LICC: -.11Cn, !NLll'l.11 (_.:,1. 111:12., 73.3-.x-
?:.'?'?•?;?.:±??,cv!eviet' ? ... Section/branch. -' •'Duc' .

i ?.
40
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COHMNTS Charles H. Gardner
W1111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: q 5 - d Z 1`' County: , / .& 7-
Project Name: Z 9,?
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic suurvey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box' 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
a C?^^!' * ?? '`?
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer- -A
Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
This projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
r/ If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion•and sedimentation control plan.
r/ If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
^RA1
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
M
U.S. Oeoar:ment or Agrncuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (,-o 7e cofnncierev by -e.'J/ .:ge reY/ ^ r? I Cate Ct Lana tvaiuanon rieeunt (x/30 1-/ 7
Name ?;t ;ra1K F
. 8-2 r,o Fjrc ar"e- 1 `I lo . _7L I eaanl I?'F9W j?va?veG r
Prooosea Lana Use Caunry Ana State
AI C' -XW Y I AvEzY N
PART It (TO oe como/ered by SCSI I cat* Request Rececvea av SCS
Oaes me site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes Va ACr" Imyated I Average warm Sae
(if no, the ?r7PA does nor aoo/y - do nor camolere addirianal parts of this form). ?
Major Croofsl Fsrmaais Lana in Govt. Junsdicnon Amaunt of Farmana As Catinea in i•PPA
Aercx: % I Acres:
Name Ot Lana Evaluation System Usea I N" m Ot l.otal Site Asu=ment System I Oate Lana cvaiuation Aesurrtea By SCa
Airernatrve rice arena
PART III (To be ccmp/er-d by ederul Agency) Site A I Sice a I Site C Site o
A. Total Acres To Se Converted Oiree:ty 1 '04 1 . C) -1 1 I
B. Total Acres To Be Convened Indirecdy I . I I I
C. Total Acres In Site I _ , o4- 1 '04- 1
PART IV (To be camplered by SCSI Land Evaluation Information I I I
A. Total Acrn Prime And Unique Farmland I I I I
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland I - I I I
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Laeal Go+rt_ Unit To Be Converted I
0. P rctntaq+ Of Farmiana In Gcvr. Junsaicson With Sarno Cr Hiqner Relatnce Vaiu• I I 1 I
PART V (To be camo/ered by SCSI Land Evaluation C.-itrsion
OPoina)
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (-'-=leof0ro 10
PART VI (To be camp/erect by Fsderal Agenc/) Maximum
5tt Atsas pert C.irena (These crirans are esotainrd in 7 CFR 65dS(6) Points
1. Area In Nonuroan Use ( i _ _ I I I
2_ Perimeter In Nonuroan Use 1 I I I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed I I I I I
4. Protecton Provided By State And LoCJI Government I I I I I
5. Oistance From Uroan Suiituo Area I __ I I I
6. Oismnca To Ur=n Sucoort Servicrs 1 I __I I I
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Avaraga I I I
EL Creation Of Nonfarmacle Farmland I I I I I
9. Availabilitv Of Farm Sucaort Serviczs I I
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effec= Of Conversion On Farm Succort Ssrtk= I I I I
12 Cemoatibiiity Witri Existing Aariculturaf Use I I _ ___ I I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160
PART VII (To be camplered by Federal .agency) I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr VJ 100
Total Site Assessment (From Parr VI above Ora /0=
srrr assesrmenr) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Toral of above ? lines) I 2B0
Was A "-%C9 Site Ass unem Useal
1ta Selevmd: ( Oats Of Selection ( Yes ? No ?
',mason ror Snecion: