19930147 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

P9
JUN 2 ?
??..3
ON
. NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources hereby gives public notice
as required by N.C.G.S. 113A-119(b) and 143-215 3(a)(1)(c) that North Carolina
Department of Transportation filed an application on 14 June 1993 for a permit from the
Division of Coastal Management to develop in an Area of Environmental Concern and for
certification from the'Division of Environmental Management that a discharge of fill
material in project wetlands will not violate applicable water quality standards.
According to said application, North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to
replace an existing 26' wide by 220' long bridge with a 26' wide by 245' long bridge.
The project site (Bridge No. 40) is located on SR 1427 over Wiccacon River in FIertford
County, North Carolina.
A copy .of the entire application and additional information may be examined (or copies
furnished upon request and payment of reproduction costs) during normal business hours
of the Division of Coastal Management, 1424 Carolina Avenue, Washington, North
Carolina, and/or the Division of Environmental Management, 1424 Carolina Avenue,
Washington, North Carolina.
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take final action on this water
quality certification on or before 26 July 1993. The issuance of the CAMA Major
Development permit and the Section 401 Certification may deviate from this projected
date depending upon the nature of the comments submitted and subsequent hearings that
may result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in writing to Mr. Roger Schecter,
Director, Division of Coastal Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, prior
to 18 July 1993 for consideration in the CAMA permit decision, and to Mr. John Dorney,
Division of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
prior to 13 July 1993 for consideration in the water quality certification decision.
Later comments on the CAMA application will be accepted and considered up to the time
of permit decision. Project modifications may occur based on review and comment by the
public and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in this matter
will be provided upon written request.
Please publish on 28 June 1993 in The Herald

M YAR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMB B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 12, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
q310
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Subject: Hertford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 40 over
the Wiccacon River on SR 1427, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1427(1), State Project No. 8.2070301, TIP No.
B-2049.
Attached for your information are three copies of the
project planning report for the subject project. The project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(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.
We anticipate that a permit will be required from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management, for this project.
DOT will apply directly to DEHNR for that permit when plans
r?

have been developed.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-9770.
Sincerely/
J
B. J. Quinn E
4 "_
Assi ant ranch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lexson, COE-Washington
!?*f-. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
Mr. Doug Huggett, Planning and Environmental Branch
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C.O. White, PE, Division 1 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
' c
Hertford County
SR 1427
Bridge No. 40 over Wiccacon River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1427(1)
State Project No. 8.2070301
T.I.P. No. B-2049
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
TE L. ?. J. ard, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?! 3 4L C'.
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
PA Division Administrator, FHWA

Hertford County
SR 1427
Bridge No. 40 over Wiccacon River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1427(1)
State Project No. 8.2070301
T.I.P. No. B-2049
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1992
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
9J2- l -
2--For North Carolina Department of Transportation
C?/) All-L Qttln?
L. Gail Imes, P': g., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager

Hertford County
SR 1427
Bridge No. 40 over Wiccacon River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1427(1)
State Project No. 8.2070301
T.I.P. No. B-2049
Bridge No. 40 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program. The location is
shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including best management practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary.
Il. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 40 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 26 feet and length of 240 feet. The
structure will provide a 20 foot travelway and three foot shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade
at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 20 foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
A design exception will be required for this project.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $516,100. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $431,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1427 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is not a Federal-Aid Road. The paved secondary road serves a rural area of Hertford
County near Cofield (see Figure 1). The land is predominately wooded and swampy in the
immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 1427 has an 18 foot pavement width with three foot shoulders (see Figure
2). The roadway approaches are flat on each side of the bridge. The horizontal alignment is
tangent at the bridge with a 2°00' curve approximately 340 feet from the bridge to the north
41,
and an approximate 260 foot radius curve about 20 feet from the bridge to the south. The
roadway is situated about 20 feet above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 500 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1995 and 800 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted. The design speed is 30 mph. The speed limit
is assumed to be 55 mph. Therefore, a design exception will be required.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1964. The superstructure consists of a timber
floor on steel girder/timber joists/timber stringer/steel floor beam system, and the substructure
consists of timber caps on timber piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 211 feet. Clear roadway width is 19.1 feet. The posted
weight limit is 16 tons for single vehicles and 22 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST).
Bridge No. 40 has a sufficiency rating of 41.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported on the bridge approach during the period from January 1, 1989 to
December 31, 1991. The accident, attributed to operator error, involved one vehicle running
off the road in the sharp curve on the south end of the bridge.
No school buses use this bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for the replacement of Bridge No. 40. Each alternate consists
of a bridge with a length of 240 feet and a clear roadway width of 26 feet. This structure
width will accommodate a 20 foot travelway and three foot shoulders. The approach roadway
will consist of a 20 foot pavement width with six foot graded shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate 1: (Recommended) involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment. Traffic will be detoured during construction along existing roads as shown in
Figure 1.
Alternate 2: will relocate the bridge approximately 550 feet downstream of the existing bridge.
This will require about 1600 feet of approach roadway construction on new location to obtain
a 60 MPH design speed. This alternate would eliminate the sharp curve in the southern
approach and provide a more acceptable site for stream crossing.
The alternative of providing an on-site detour to replace the bridge in its existing location is
not feasible due to excessive costs and low traffic volumes.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1427.
2

The Division Office recommends closing the bridge and that traffic be detoured along existing
roads during construction (see Figure 1). This would be less expensive and would cause
fewer environmental impacts.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Structural Removal
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous & Mobilization
Engineering & Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
$ 20,150 $ 20,150
305,760 329,280
30,290 252,080
73,800 123,490
65,000 100,000
21,100 25,000
$516,100 $850,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 40 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure having a length of
approximately 240 feet. Minor improvements to the existing approaches are recommended for
a distance of about 250 feet on each side of the bridge. Traffic will be detoured onto existing
roads during the approximate twelve month construction period as shown in Figure 1. The
Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternate.
A 20 foot pavement with six foot graded shoulders will be provided on the approaches. A 26
foot clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the
current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 20 foot travelway with three foot shoulders
across the structure. The design speed is 30 MPH; therefore, a design exception will be
required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 240 feet. An increase in elevation of approximately two feet was
recommended by this analysis based on the estimated design frequency of the 25 year storm
plus freeboard. However, based on field information from local residents, the existing bridge
has not been overtopped during the past 43 years, and the maximum depth of flooding was
estimated to be approximately 1.5 feet below the deck of the bridge. As a result of this
historical information and because of the costs of the additional approach work necessary to
raise the bridge two feet, it is recommended the bridge be raised only as much as possible
within the length of approach construction proposed. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
3
.1 1
Utilizing the existing roadway provides the least amount of environmental impacts and the
lowest costs. The relocation alternative, while improving the existing design speed, has
excessive costs and severe environmental consequences. This is not considered reasonable
or feasible given the low traffic volumes using the road.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Environmentalists visited the project site on June 9, 1992 to verify documented information
and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts incurred by the
alternatives being considered in the bridge replacement proposal.
The investigation examined the vegetation and conditions surrounding the proposed project in
order to (1) search for protected plants, and evidence of habitation by protected animal
species (2) identify unique or prime-quality communities, (3) describe the current vegetation
and wildlife habitat, (4) delineate wetlands, and (5) provide information to minimize adverse
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement project.
From the north, the existing bridge crosses the Wiccacon River at N 25 degrees E, roughly at
a right angle to the river, forming four quadrants. The road generally follows the crest of a low
ridge, crossing the Wiccacon River bottomland at one of its narrowest places. The land
surrounding the current bridge is completely forested, except for the roadsides. Active forest
management is evidenced by freshly painted boundary lines and a young and vigorous
loblolly pine plantation on a site aerial photography shows was cut in 1985. It appears that
the bottomland hardwood stand is currently being managed as a riverside buffer.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 600 feet. Plot center was located in the
middle of the Wiccacon River, 400 feet downstream from the current bridge. Plant
communities within this plot were delineated from aerial photographs and ground-checked on
site. Community types follow Schafale and Weakley (1990). Within each community, a list of
member plant species and general site description was developed on-site. Dominance (ft2/ac)
of woody vegetation layers was determined by the variable plot method (Husch, Miller, and
Beers 1972). Dominance (percent foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or communities was
determined by ocular estimation, using foliar cover guides developed by Belanger and
Anderson (1989). For communities dominated by trees, tree age, stem diameter at 4.5 feet
above the ground (dbh), and total height were measured for the largest trees. Age was
determined from 2-mm increment borings; dbh and height were measured using d-tape
dendrometers and Abney-level hypsometers, respectively (Wilson 1976). Ground distance
was determined either by estimation on the ground or by measurement on aerial photographs,
but all other measurements and all species lists were developed from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was sought on-site through close observation of all
available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, and typical wildlife
communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was given to
features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, or deserving
special concern.
4
Aquatic system features were noted at two locations on the site: at the bridge and 300 ft
downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality was reviewed.
Wetland determinations followed procedures described by the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987).
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three natural plant communities occur within the study area; Cypress-Gum Swamp,
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Natural Lake Shoreline. At the extreme northern end of
the project area, forest land gives way to agricultural land on drier soil. Agricultural land is
regularly managed, and natural processes do not dominate. Therefore, it is not considered
further in this section. Compared to forest community groupings of the Society of American
Foresters (1967), the Cypress--Gum Swamp is the same as Type 87, Baldcypress--Water
Tupelo, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is comparable to Type 82, Loblolly
Pine-Hardwood.
Cypress-Gum Swamp. The Cypress--Gum Swamp community occupies about three-fourths
of the project area. It occurs throughout the bottomland on wetland sites adjacent the river
and in a very old river oxbow, located in the southern part of the project area. This
community occurs on Dorovan muck soils that invariably flood in winter and early spring and
episodically flood during the growing season after heavy rainfall. Plants of this community
must tolerate long hydroperiods, a fact that limits species diversity. Heavily-decayed stumps
measuring at least 24 inches across and the age of the current stand indicate that this area
was logged about 55 years ago, but it has regenerated and developed into a high-quality
stand.
The upper canopy contains pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens) and water tupelo N ssa
a uatica . Numerous cypress knees occur. The lower canopy contains red maple Acer
rubrum and Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) at low density. The ecotone between the
Cypress-Gum and Mesic Mixed Hardwood contains laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). Basal area of the canopy averages 140 ft2/ac.
Pondcypress and water tupelo provide 60 ft2/ac each, and the other four species more-or-less
equally share the remaining 20 ft2/ac. Cypress is the largest tree, averaging 16 inches dbh
and 90 feet tall. The shrub layer contains only Virginia willow (Itea virginica). Ground layer
vegetation is lacking except for scattered lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), and false nettle (Boehmeria
c lindrica . On drier microsites, like stumps and tree bases, climbing hydrangea (Decumaria
barbara occurs.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype). The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
occurs on the best drained soils within the project area. It occurs upslope of the
Cypress-Gum community and along the bluff on the south side of the river. The upper
canopy contains sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
white oak (Quercus alba), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), American elm (Ulmus americana), water
oak (Quercus nigra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and
southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The largest trees are loblolly pines, 80 years old, 29
inches dbh, and 95 feet tall. The increment cores indicated periods of release, undoubtedly
selective logging, in about 1960 and 1935. More commonly, the loblolly pines are 31 years
old and 17 inches dbh, trees undoubtedly regenerated following logging in 1960. Basal area
for canopy species equals 110 ft2/acre; loblolly pine and sweetgum provide the most basal
area, 25 ft2/acre each. The remaining area, 60 ft2/acre, is more-or-less equally shared among
the other species listed above. Stand quality is low, owing to selective logging that has
removed large, well-formed trees and left low-quality trees.
The lower canopy contains red mulberry (Morus rubra), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
American holly (Ilex opaca), and waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera). The shrub layer contains silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum), Hercules' club (Aralia spinosa), deerberry (Vaccinium
stamineum), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and Virginia
willow (Itea virginica). The ground layer includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), bear-grass (Yucca filamentosa), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera iaponica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), false
Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), mayapple
(Podophyllum peltatum), panic grass Panicum sp.), sedge Carex sp.), bloodroot
(Sanquisorba canadensis), hog peanut (Amphicarpa bracteata), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium
virginianum), passion-flower (Passiflora lutea), and wingstem Nerbesina occidentalis).
Periods of selective logging have heavily disturbed the ground layer, and the current species
composition contains a mixture of site-sensitive species, like bloodroot, that survive from
pre-logging periods and aggressive weedy species, like Japanese honeysuckle and trumpet
creeper, that have invaded after logging. Japanese honeysuckle and greenbrier dominate the
ground layer, providing 65 percent of the foliar cover.
Natural Lake Shoreline. The Natural Lake Shoreline community occurs along the riverbank.
Even though named "Lake," this established community type describes conditions along the
riverbank. A single vegetative layer grows either rooted in the shallow water along the
riverbank and/or on frequently flooded mud bars within the river. All of this community
qualifies as wetland, and in this report it is considered part of the bank-to-bank river wetland.
This community contains smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), sedge Carex sp.),
swamp rose (Rosa palustris), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), bedstraw Galium
tinctorium , and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). The wettest locations were covered with
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) and spatter-dock (Nuphar luteum),
Wildlife (General)
Sport and commercial fishing in the Wiccacon River was historically excellent but has
apparently declined due to increasing pollution of the river. Bass and herring, once abundant,
are reported to have declined significantly, and even brim and speckled perch are reported to
be less abundant than they once were.
Due to exceedingly wet conditions little specific evidence of wildlife could be observed during
the site visit. However, the area surrounding the project site obviously provides a rich
diversity of ecotones and habitat types within a fairly small area. Hardwood bottomlands are
typically the most productive terrestrial environments for wildlife because they concentrate and
juxtapose water, forage, and shelter requisites. In the moist transition zones between river
6
and uplands, amphibian and reptile species are also abundant. Small mammals, especially
raccoon (Procyon tutor and possum Ondatra zibethica , traverse the area.
Among avian species, the prothonotary warbler (Prothonotaria citrea would probably be most
characteristic of this habitat, representing a group of birds that limit their breeding habitat to
swamps, river bottoms, and other low-lying, frequently flooded areas. All of the warbler's life
requisites (running or standing water, sparse shrub layer in intermediate to mature forest
successional stages, and cavities in snags, stumps and decayed cypress knees) can be
found here.
At higher elevation, the mixed hardwoods and pines provide cover and abundant mast, and
the pine plantation provides dense, early succession habitat. Farther away, agricultural fields
provide another habitat type with food and different edge effects and a correspondingly
diverse component of wildlife species.
Physical Resources
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on the Yorktown Formation, Tertiary-aged sediments of
fossiliferous clay and fine-grained sand in the Coastal Plain physiographic region (Brown
1985). Three soils occur within the project area; Dorovan muck, Tarboro sands and Winton
(Kirby 1984). All bottomland areas contain Dorovan muck, a very poorly drained organic soil.
Dorovan muck is invariably a wetland soil, and the boundary between wetland, and
non-wetland occurs approximately at the three feet contour line. North of the bottomland,
Tarboro sand predominates, a very well-drained, non-wetland soil. On the bluff south of the
bottomland, Winton soils occur, a well-drained to moderately well-drained, non-wetland soil
found only on river bluffs.
Although width of the bottomland typically formed by the Wiccacon exceeds 1800 feet, the
width in the project area is only about 700 feet, because the river passes through a small
saddle between adjacent ridges. The topography is generally level; only about 25 feet of
elevation separates ridge tops from river bottoms. The river bank on the south side rises more
quickly than on the north side, forming a low bluff about six feet above the river. The
presence of the narrow bottomland and the bluff undoubtedly influenced the location of the
original road and river crossing.
Water
Arising in Hertford County from the confluence of Turnpike Branch and Ahoskie Creeks, about
one mile above the project location, the Wiccacon River flows easterly for about 17 miles
before it joins the Chowan River between the towns of Cofield and Harrellsville.
Waters of the Wiccacon River are classified as C-NSW, or "nutrient sensitive waters" suitable
for fish propagation and agricultural (not human consumption) uses but which "require
limitations on nutrient inputs" (NCDEM 1991b). BMAN studies (NCDEM 1989, 1991a) indicate
that a previous "Fair" (8/84) rating was downgraded to "Poor" (8/89). According to the OEM's
Water Quality Section (NCDEM 1991 a) "it appears that water quality is fairly stable at most
sites in the [Chowan] basin, but the most recent data from the Wiccacon River (1989)
7
suggested a decline in water quality. The changes observed in the Wiccacon, however, may
reflect the impact of nonpoint source pollution during a high flow year (1989).' Historically,
waters in the Chowan Basin have persistently experienced algae blooms, which some
observers attribute to sewage pollution and agricultural runoff along tributaries upstream.
With the rains received in the region this year, it seems safe to say that high flow conditions
now exist. When visited, the Wiccacon was turbid and stormwater swollen, though still placid
due to its flat gradient and the extensive breadth of floodplain available to absorb the high
flow. Characteristics observed at the crossing are shown in Table 1. The existing bridge
occurs at a slight bend in the river, which accounts for the channel's greater width than is
observed either above or below the bridge. However, as noted above, the floodplain is
considerably wider above and below the existing crossing. Channel bank height at the
crossing is higher than at other locations along the river as a result.
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Wiccacon River Crossing.
Observation Point Existing Downstream
Substrate Indeterminate
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width (ft) 180.0 80.0
Bank Height (ft) 6.0 0.5
Water Depth (ft) Indeterminate
Water Color Brown, Turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation Duckweed and Pickerelweed
Adjacent Vegetation Cypress, gum and other hardwoods
Wetlands Associates Broad floodplain adjacent on both sides
Jurisdictional Topics
According to Steven Hull, of the NC Natural Heritage Program, a significant natural area
known as the "Upper Wiccacon River Swamp" has been identified upstream from this project.
That area is mentioned in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study for its representation of
important ecological attributes. Many of the general characteristics exhibited by that natural
area are also exhibited at the project site, except that human-induced disturbances are
apparent in the area surrounding the bridge.
Wetlands
The site occurs in a Lower Perennial Riverine System, bordered on either shore by forested
palustrine wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). As noted in the vegetation section, extensive
Cypress-Gum wetlands surround the project site, so that 100 percent of the dominant species
are Obligate or Facultative wetland species. The bottomland forest experienced past logging
8
activity some fifty years ago but has recovered substantially and exhibits characteristics of
mature habitat. Cypress knees, old stumps, and downed and decaying material are abundant
throughout.
The Dorovan muck which underlies the floodplain is a hydric soil and, when examined, was
either inundated or saturated to the surface. Munsell soil color observed was 10YR 6/1
(black).
The north end of the existing bridge is connected to the adjacent upland by a filled causeway
extending approximately 280 feet into the cypress-gum swamp from the original ridgeline. The
alternative relocation alignment considered includes approximately 840 linear feet of wetland
and 60 feet of open water channel. Even a more westerly realignment would only reduce the
length of wetland crossed by about 160 feet. The relatively flat topography ensures that all
areas below the bluffs along the river will remain wet for extended periods.
Higher areas adjacent the floodplain are dominated by mixed hardwoods and pine, giving way
to agricultural fields at varying distances. However, an extensive wet slough occurs
approximately 320 feet south of the bridge and is surrounded by a 50 acre pine plantation.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Listed Species:
A US Fish and Wildlife Service publication Species in North Carolina Federally Listed as
Endangered or Threatened identified the species listed in Table 2. Habitat requirements and
available records concerning these species have been reviewed, and conditions at the bridge
site have been examined in light of species requirements. More specifically, following Table
2, the investigators have evaluated whether habitat exists in the project impact area for
federally-listed species in this county and, if existing, whether habitat is being used by the
species.
Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Hertford County, NC.
Species Status* NC Distribution
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E Eastern NC
Bachman's Warbler ermivora bachmanii) E Eastern NC
Peregrin Falcon Falco er rinus E, SA Statewide
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) E Statewide
American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) E Statewide
*E= endangered; T= threatened; CH= critical habitat determined; P= proposed; SA=status
due to similarity of appearance to another species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpecker nesting colonies usually occur in mature pine (preferably
Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where pines dominate the
surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. "Suitable habitat consists of pine or
pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older.' Although some
colonies may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred,
this situation is relatively rare.
The description of plant communities above should make it obvious that suitable habitat does
not occur in the immediate project area, which is surrounded by Cypress-Gum swamp
bottomland forest. The few remnant loblolly pines in the project area constitute far below 50
percent of the stand. No red-cockaded woodpecker colonies were observed on or near the
site, and no impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker will occur as a result of the proposed
project.
State Listed Species:
Records kept by the Natural Heritage Program of North Carolina do not indicate the presence
of any threatened and/or endangered plants or wildlife species in or near the project area.
During the field investigation, no protected plants and no evidence of any protected animal
species was observed. All plants encountered are common species. No adverse impact to
plant populations is anticipated from this project, since adequate populations exist outside the
project area.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat:
Neither the Cypress--Gum nor the Mesic Mixed Hardwoods communities can be considered
unique, since they occupy 15 and 21 percent, respectively, of the forest cover in Hertford
County. The Cypress--Gum community is of good-quality, but having regenerated after
logging about 55 years ago, it is not prime-quality. The Mesic Mixed Hardwood community is
only of fair-quality, since it has been selectively logged at least twice, with resultant lowering
of stand quality and species richness. Thus, unique and/or prime-quality communities do not
occur within the project area.
10
Impacts
The site was examined with two alternatives being considered: (1) road closure and
replacement of the exiting bridge with a wider structure, or (2) a bridge relocation to the inside
of the sharp approach curve from the south, approximately 550 feet downstream. The
preferred alternative is an off-site detour, so environmental impact will be limited to
construction of the new bridge. If the bridge is replaced at the current location, then
vegetation losses will be limited to removing 10 feet from the forest edge on each side of the
current bridge during construction activity. Thus, a rectangular strip measuring about 10 x
400 feet would be cut from each side, removing a total of about 0.18 acre of forest cover.
Replacing the bridge at a new location, about 550 feet downstream from the Curren ridge
would require clearing a rectangle measuring about 100 x 1250 feet, or 2.9 acre. bout 2.1
acre of the Cypress--Gum and about 0.8 acre of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood would "ut.
Removal and restoration of the area occupied by the current bridge and roadway would return
about 0.5 ac of Cypress--Gum and about 0.1 acre of Mesic Mixed Hardwood. Thus, the net
forest loss from the second alternative would be 2.3 acre, 1.6 acre of Cypress--Gum (wetland)
and 0.7 acre of Mesic Mixed Hardwoods.
Within Hertford County as a whole, Cypress--Gum currently occupies 21,881 acres, 15 percent
of the total forest area and 10 percent of the entire county (Thompson 1990). The Mesic
Mixed Hardwoods currently occupy 31,557 ac, 21 percent of the total forest area and 14
percent of the entire county. The permanent forest losses needed by this project for either
alternative are small, and they come from relatively common forest communities. Since 1984,
regional forest cover has been stable at about 58 percent in the 23 counties of the Northern
Coastal Plain (Thompson 1990). Thus, no adverse impact is expected from the forest cover
losses required by this project, although replacing the bridge in its current location would
minimize forest losses.
The preferred alternative would minimize effects on wetland, even assuming minor filling-to--.,,
accommodate a wider northern approach to the new bridge./Less than 0.1 acre of wetland---
would be affected. In contrast, the relocation alternative wouresulrln-a-ne-3-Toss of aUou?
acre of wetland after recovery of the existing causeway. Moreover, relocation would fragment
the bottomland forest habitat, whereas rebuilding in place would, at most, move the forest
edge father back from the existing road.
In light of the Wiccacon's status, potential nutrient inputs to the river are a concern, but the
proposed project should not affect the level of nutrient inputs to the river. Accelerated soil
erosion is always a concern when constructing around streams, for erosion contributes to soil
loss and erosion sediments are deposited downstream. In sufficient quantities, these deposits
clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic organisms, especially bottom-dwelling and
bottom reproducing species. But soil erosion is largely avoidable, and appropriate measures,
consistent with current Best Management Practices, will be taken to control erosion during
construction.
11
A
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
Since the preferred alternative is classified as a categorical exclusion and since less than one
acre of wetlands will be impacted by the project, it is likely that this project will be subject to
the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any
activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment.
However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army
Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), will be required. This certificate is issued for any
activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Since the project area falls within the definition of public trust areas as described in
subchapter 7H.0207 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, a CAMA Permit for
development is required for activity in this area. The permit is administered through
NCDEHNR Division of Coastal Management.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction to minimize
unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will
also be implemented.
The second alternative, a relocation, would require a Section 404 permit due to the amount of
wetland fill required to cross the extensive floodplain on either end of a new bridge. Such a
proposal would probably require mitigation to compensate for a loss of wetland, since removal
of causeway fill at the existing location would only partially recover losses incurred by the new
alignment.
Literature Cited
Belanger, R. P. and R. L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note SE-352.
Pp. 2.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Dept of Interior: Washington, D.C. 103 pp.
12
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rep. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. Pp. 100, appendices.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration. The Ronald Press
Company, NY. Pp. 410.
Kirby, R. M. 1984. Soil Survey of Hertford County, North Carolina. USDA, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, DC. Pp. 99, maps.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.,
Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macro inve rte brate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Chowan River Basin. Division of Environmental Management, NC Dept. of Environ., Health,
and Nat. Res. Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. NC Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and Rec., NC. Dept. of
Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. 325 p.
Society of American Foresters. 1967. Forest Cover Types of North America (Exclusive of
Mexico). Soc. of Amer. For., Washington, DC. 67 p.
Thompson, M. T. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina, 1990.
USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Bul. SE-113. Pp. 52.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary Forest Surveying and Mapping. State Univ. Book Stores, Inc.,
Corvallis. Pp. 183.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate
bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human
or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
13

No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The bridge, built
in 1964, is the only structure located within the APE.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register within the
APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the archaeological aspects of the project
and determined that an intensive survey will not be required.
Since the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The project is located within the Northern Coastal Plain Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Hertford County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply
to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 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
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
14
Hertford County is not a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same or greater magnitude. The alignment of the
project is perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
15
N. CUNT
r
................................................................................
c. .
' + Winton ^r•
%i 9 I 7
3 Tunis
Menol a .. Co Rtlif
i
un.
H E ' TA
e F O 'S fl`
JIM loft *Ahoswie %I Haneflinl
e I S, t t 10 /-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPAILTMUNT OF
TRAZIOPORTATIOlf
DIVIOION OF IIIGIIWATO
PLANNING AND I.21VIROMMICTAL
rn DRANCII
a
BRIDGE NO. 40
HERTFORD COUNTY
B-2049
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 5'2? ^i FIG. 1
?f
n ..IL

AM7

3 M. l`•

{ m

m

o ??4 M a~dpM9?
?
M
-1 Q O
' ?Y
M'

w .v
1?C?
iWQ
N Q
0 o O
(000
n

A
Ip?O?
loo-
..0.4 0
a
0 0
"CZ 0 4
O
ai

? ...VVV r M

BRIDGE NO. 40
HERTFORD COUNTY
B-2049
LOOIQNG NORTH
LOOIQNG SOUTH

SIDE VIEW
`? s
FIGURE 3
' HERTFORD COUNTY
_ BM 12.8 \?`?\ I •••/•
_ • ''
4023
V ;
130
\j
a ??? • ?? 6 IvI 20'
n v (? ? / r'. ? l
1u -- _
`022
?,L.?\ `_ _ =_= a ;%; I• B-2\049' N
BRIDGE NO. 406
m;:ll '021
10
y-
1 iii i? - -' - ' -- < -- -, -
+' ? ` - ?y,•y?e-?\ -?'-? IG't}. '? -??,r1000IL.O!a ~_ - _ _
11 rte' _ - Yt
n 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
y
1 u -Vann /; •?C. \ ? ? t0
u Cem
1 0y
' ° 1427 j
Green
?..? Cem 4019
-. i
1430
'74 3 2'
w ? ?? ? fi - ? -_ _ -/ ? V ? ` 1 i :Cem ? ?
a 1 _ i
? 1124 - - J' - ? - C!t` - _ - ? i ?J ? • ? '018
10
?? 6 _._ _ > FIGURE 4
M
iy w $TAr, o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Q
JUL 201992
U
OF
i? GI)IyA ?C?
YS
RFSE4RC?,?
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our 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, J \
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East ones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
¦
Replace Bridge No. 40 on SR 1427 over Wiccacon River,
Hertford County, B-2049, ER 92-8488
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed bridge replacement upon
archaeological resources without a map indicating the location of the proposed
project. Please forward a map and a project description as soon as possible so
that we may complete our review.
July 16, 1992
swa v
r?M
fl
SEP 8 1992,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour Djv,s
' ro,% l CF ZZ,
r,!-llrH4l? ,
James G. Martin, Governor Division Archives ar?d,lid's o
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William 4SEk;cwi¢ or
September 3, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #40, B-2049, Hertford County, ER
92-8488
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for forwarding additional information concerning the above project.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed 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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc L. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 EastJones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
?5LAro
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
3 September 1992
Mr. Keith D. Lewis,
DSA Design Group
5511 Capital Center
Suite P-100
P. E.
Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Roger N. Schecter
Director
This letter is in reference to your 25 August 1992 request to
review a bridge replacement project in Hertford County to determine
if CAMA jurisdiction is warranted.
The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 040 on SR 1427 in
Hertford County was inspected on 3 September 1992, and it was
determined that this area does fall within the definition of Public
Trust Areas as described in Subchapter 7H.0207 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code. Therefore, a CAMA permit for
development is required for activity in this area. I have enclosed
a Permit application form and instruction booklet.
I appreciate your concern ad effort to comply with the permit
requirements of this Division and encourage you to continue to
consult representatives of the Division for future questions
regarding CAMA jurisdiction. Thank you for your time and concern
in these matters of importance. If you have any questions, please
call me at 919-946-6481.
Sincerely,
David W. Moye
Field Representative
DWM/aht
cc: Terry Moore - District Manager, Washington office, DCM
John Parker - Major Permits Coordinator, DCM
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

? - a.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Project:
County:
Description:
P. 0. Box 748
Ahoskie, North Carolina 27910
April 3, 1992
8.2070301 (B-2049)
Hertford
Replace Bridge No.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
40 over the Wiccacon River
Project: 8.2100401 (B-2597)
County: Northampton
Description: Replace Bridge No. 47 over Seaboard
Coastline Railroad on SR 1333
Subject: Comments on Projects
Mr. Keith D. Lewis, P. E.
DSA Design Group
551 Capital Center Drive
Suite P-100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This letter is to follow-up your visit to the Division
and to furnish comments on the two (2) projects we reviewed.
Regarding project B-2049, a
recommended. Replacement of the
location is recommended. If the
without widening or with minimum
approaches, the required permits
obtained.
n off-site detour is
bridge in its present
replacement can be made
widening of the existing
will be more easily
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
i
APR ' ° X92 g Ld'
1 14 do
Mr. Keith D. Lewis, P. E.
Page 2
April 3, 1992
Regarding project B-2597, an off-site detour is
recommended. An at-grade crossing is recommended in lieu of
replacing the bridge.
Very truly yours,
C. 0. White, P. E.
DIVISION ENGINEER - SIO ON
BY: J. L. McDonald, P. E.
DI SION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
COW/JLMc/swo
o4
PT
U.S. Oeoartment of agrjcuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date at Land ?e3ua? n .i.ovat
PART I /To -;e cornorerec ov =e?erJl sgency/ _
Name vt arolect ' Fto?rar Agency Inveivq
Proooteo uno Use
.-. I County And State
PART 11 (To cc coma/ered JV SC.SJ I Data Request Rece+ved By SCS
Oocs trte site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Ycs No?}Acm'm;3tti* I Aww"I r•rm SiZa
[If no..7re r"PPA does nor Joo/v - do nor camo/ere additional parts of rlrit form). Q Q' I '-
Wice Croolsr Farmaote Cam in Govt. Junsdtttton
C L, ^_% I Acrt s: 1 8 Lf I -7 ? % i O! Fsrrraand As Oettneq rn r• PA
i=11? : l 7 `0' 7 C? l % 7p 5 -
Narne Of L.2no Eves"tron Svatern used Nanw Of Goal Site Assmment System
??--?t-c•: r1 fit- ? Cate uno Evahation Returltad By S=
? (y ??.?-?.?.

PART 111 (To be comp/erect by Feaeral Agency)
Site A I
Alternative Tito anti
Tiff
Site a Site C Site O
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Oireetly I O I t..
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly - I I
C. Total Acres In Site I G I c L_
PART IV (To br complerrd by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unicue Farmland I I I
13. Total Acres Statewide And Local Imoormnt Farmland I I Ci
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Countv Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted 1 o1r ; I I
0. Pwcarrtage Of Fermiand in Govt. junsdicnon VYith Sane Or Migner Raisave Value I I (AY:Ip I
PART V (To be camp/ered by SCZ) Land Evaluation Cmmncn
Relative Value Of Farmland To BeConvcrmd(Sn/eofOra 100Po(ntS1 t?1
PART VI (To br coma/eted by Fracml Agency) I
S® Austurnent Cntans /'hers crrray+e err exviamed in 7 CfR 6W.5(b) Maximum
Poitrts I I
1. Area In Nonurban Use I I I I
Z Perimeter In Nonurcan Use I ( I I
3. Percent Of Site Beinq Farmed I I I I I
4. Protacaon Provided By State And Local Government I I I I I
5. Oistanca From Urcan Builtuo Area I I I
S. Distance To Uraan Sucoort Servicrs I I
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Camoared To Averaga I I I I
& Crution Of Nonfarmaole Farmland I I I
9. Avaiiat)ility Of Farm Sucoort Sarvicns I I I
10. On-;:arm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Sucoort Service
12. Comostibility Witn Existing Agricultural Use I ? I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160
PART V11 (To be compered by Zraerwl Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) I 100 I l
Total Si En Assessment ! rom Par. VI above or a loot I 160
sir* assrssmenrl
TOTAL POINTS (Tars/ of above 2lines) 260
Wcs A LA ' Site As=9smsrrt Llasor
Stn Selected: I Oars Of Seie=on I Yu Q No Q
Reason For Sciection: