19951006 Ver 1_Complete File_19950918

?F t+
t

5 o0G
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOI?Y P
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS IeARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 V SECRETARY
September 13, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
Subject: Robeson County - Replacement of Bridge N _ R 1935 over Ten
Mile Swamp; State Project No. 8.246110 ; T.I.P. . B-2863
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report
for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway 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. 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 13,, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
Sincere y
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: David Franklin, COE, Wilmington Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
W. F. Rosser, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental

Robeson County
SR 1935
Bridge No. 61 Over Ten Mile Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1934(1)
State Project 8.2461101
T.I.P. No. B-2863
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
29
DAT Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
0493/K xz'J"p
D TE foK Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
Robeson County
SR 1935
Bridge No. 61 Over Ten Mile Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1934(1)
State Project 8.2461101
T.I.P. No. B-2863
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
Documentation Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
Z' //-)- - , -
.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit He
Consultant Engineering Unit
P
-VIhi , Aa
Stacy Y. Maldv dh '
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
.•`??SH CARp1? •.,
. rmESS
SE AL
19732
cP '-ZI NEE?•r Z.
,tiiy......? ?J•;
Robeson County
SR 1935
Bridge No. 61 Over Ten Mile Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1934(1)
State Project 8.2461101
T.I.P. No. B-2863
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.
Robeson County
SR 1935
Bridge No. 61 Over Ten Mile Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1934(1)
State Project 8.2461101
T.I.P. No. B-2863
Bridge No. 61 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement 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
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SLWIMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 61 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 43 meters (140 feet) long and 7.8 meters
(26 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.3 meters (11-foot) travel lanes with 0.6-meter (2-
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 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.3-
meter (11-foot) travel lanes, and 1.2-meter (4-foot) unpaved shoulders on each side throughout the
project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 2A) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $445,700. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $346,000 ($320,000-construction;
$26,000-right-of-way).
1
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central portion of Robeson County, approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles)
northeast of Lumberton, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural woodlands in nature.
SR 1935 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1935 has an 5.4-meter (18-foot) pavement width with 1.2-meter (4-
foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area.
The existing bridge is located on tangent that extends approximately 45 meters (150 feet) east and
400 meters (1300 feet) west from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 4.6 meters
(15 feet) above the stream bed.
The current traffic volume of 305 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 425 VPD by the
year 2018. The projected volume includes 0% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 1% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit through the project area, therefore the speed limit is
assumed to be the statewide maximum of 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour).
Bridge No. 61 is a six-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was
constructed in 1953.
The overall length of the structure is 31.4 meters (103 feet). The clear roadway width is 5.9 meters
(19.2 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 11 metric tons (12 tons) for single vehicles and
19 metric tons (21 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 61 has a sufficiency rating of 39.8, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure nor are there any utilities in the vicinity of the
bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
One accident, resulting in no fatalities and no injuries, has been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No.
61 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. The double tractor trailer sideswipes accident
can be attributed to the narrow clear roadway width of the existing structure. Widening of the
existing roadway will improve the travel way. This improved safety consideration will provide a safer
bridge.
There is no school bus traffic crossing this bridge.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alteratives for replacing Bridge No. 61 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 43
meters (140 feet) long and 7.8 meters (26 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figures 4 and 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters
(200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary off-site detour will be provided during the
construction period. The off-site detour will be 13.4 kilometers (8.3 miles) in length (See Figure 2A).
The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). Alternative 1
is recommended because it is less costly and has less impact on the wetland environment due to the
additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in
each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction
period east (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 31
meters (102 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet) east of the
existing structure. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per
hour). This alternative is not recommended because of the wetlands that would be impacted on both
sides of the temporary detour.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1935.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation of Division Office 6 concurs that an off-site detour
will be the best alternative during bridge replacement.
Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
... Alternative 2
Structure $218,400 $218,400
Roadway Approaches 142,858 142,858
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 299,000
Structural Removal 11,742 11,742
Engineering and Contingencies 52,000 103,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 20,700 21,000
Total $ 445,700 $796,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 61 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 43 meters (140 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width with 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders on each side will be
provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 7.8-meter (26-foot) clear width is recommended on
the replacement structure in accordance with the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1935 is classified as a rural major collector, therefore, criteria for
a rural major collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide, a 6.6-meter (22-foot)
travelway with 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 100 kilometers
per hour (60 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off-site is acceptable because of low traffic
volumes using SR 1935 and the short length of additional travel required along existing secondary
roads. Additionally, wetlands would be impacted by the construction of a temporary on-site detour.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 43 meters (140 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate
drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 21, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
The Floodplain Hardwood Wetland Forest (Cypress-Gum Swamp, blackwater subtype) is on level
areas adjacent to SR 1935 and is a composed primarily of hardwoods. Much of this area is standing
water. The canopy is composed of several species including swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracflua), gum (Nyssa spp.), red maple (Ater rubrum),
loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Sub-canopy trees
include the canopy species plus American holly (Ilex opaca) and blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium).
The shrub/sapling layer is sparse and composed of sweetgum. Vines present are Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
Eel grass (Vallisneria americana) is present along the swamp channel margins.
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins in the vicinity of the
project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses, vines and herbs including: poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier, knotweed (Polygonum spp.), and fescue grass (Festuca
spp.).
5
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside urban/disturbed and forested areas. The forested areas
provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. The
forested areas adjacent to Ten Mile Swamp and associated ecotones serve as valuable habitat. The
forest bordering Ten Mile Swamp has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover)
for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include eastern mole (Scalpous aquaticus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), longtail weasel (Mustela frenata), and mice (Peromyscus spp.).
The observed bird species are typical of rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available.
Species encountered in the forested areas nearby Ten Mile Swamp include slate-colored junco (Junco
hyemalis) and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) were
observed overhead near the subject project study area.
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer), and green tree frog (Hyla cinerea).
Aquatic:
Ten Miles Swamp supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Aquatic invertebrates observed included mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Game species present are redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), redhorse sucker (Moxostoma spp.), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.).
The swamp and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Physical Resources
Soil
Robeson County is located within the Middle Coastal Plain and has gently undulating, plateau-like,
seaward sloping uplands and gentle to steep valley slopes. Elevations in the immediate project area
range from 37 meters (120 feet) along the swamp bottom to 38 meters (125 feet) along the roadside.
6
The parent materials of the soils of Robeson County are unconsolidated rock material, sand and silt,
and clay that make up the sediments of the Middle Coastal Plain. Local changes in subsurface
geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity are Johnson soils. Johnson soils are very poorly drained soils found on
floodplains. Johnson soils have map units that are hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major
component.
Water
Bridge No. 61 crosses Ten Mile Swamp approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) downstream from
its origin west of the project area near Rennert, North Carolina. Ten Mile Swamp drains northeast
into Big Swamp. Big Swamp and subsequent receptor systems are part of the Lumber River Basin.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993).
Ten We Swamp is Class C Sw, indicating waters which are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture and a supplemental classification for
swamp waters; waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different
from adjacent streams.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report no dischargers within 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) upstream of the
proposed crossing.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. BMAN information is not available
for the immediate project area.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Ten Mile Swamp observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
7
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Muck
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 18 meters (60 feet)
Water Depth 61 centimeters (2 feet) to 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Water Color Black "
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation Ellgrass
Adjacent Vegetation Swamp chestnut oak, sweetgum, gum, red maple,
loblolly pine, bald cypress
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.15 hectares (0.38 acres) of Palustrine forested deciduous
wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the recommended
alternative. Field observations indicated wetlands were associated with low-lying land adjacent to the
bridge. Standing water was observed along the embankment along both sides of the approach
roadway.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following
three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence
of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Robeson County as of March 28, 1995.
8
TABLE 2
Federallv Protected Soecies for Robeson Count
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The
bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white.
Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine
stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf
pine (Pious palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 9/28/89
1Vlichaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North Carolina.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and
it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in height.
The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets
that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small
flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which
9
develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to
6 millimeters across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the N ichaux's sumac.
Federal Candidate Species:
There are 11 C2 federal candidate species listed for Robeson County. The North Carolina status of
these species is listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Robeson County
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Plecotus rafrnesquii No Sc
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Yes SC
Carolina crawfish frog Rana areolata capito Yes SC
Georgia leadplant Amorpha georgirnia Yes E
georgimia
Sandhills milk-vetch Astragalus michauxii Yes C
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula No C-SC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea No E
Carolina bogmint Acbridea carohnimia Yes C
Wireleaf dropseed Sporobolus terelii olius No T
Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus Yes C
Awned meadow-beautv Rhexia aristosa No T
NC Status: SC, E, T, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate,
respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state listed
species occurring within 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) of the project site.
10
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 4
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.15 (0.38)
Urban/Disturbed 0.07 0.18
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridge and approach
improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and hardwood forest edges. The
loss of hardwood forest habitat is likely to reduce the number of plant species which serve as shelter,
nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The
Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as greenbrier and Japanese
honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from
construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering Ten Mile Swamp will receive
disturbances next to the existing bridge area. Ten Mile Swamp should continue to provide adequate
habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the stream bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
11
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 Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, 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 N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
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 expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
12
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
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 Title 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 project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994 (see Appendix),
recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project is located in Robeson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable because the proposed
project is located in this attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect
on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.05.20.
13
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
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.
Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate
100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there is one family residence located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
14
3•Puvi Raynha 70.
,\ 1
t
Ha
i 95
Nile?7 3
`• °7 3
¦
obi;
I
I
¦
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Robeson County
SR-1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Bridge #61
B-2863
FIGURE 1
1930 100 I'V w 1 963

F n 1006 1934 ¦ 9ss
''6
¦
?'
Robeson County

A7L
1°'°
72
S`
•
Z
•?•
~ .5 -
SR-1935 over Ten We Swamp
i 931
?
1971 a
•? IJ -
Bridge #61
.
»T R
f 1971
B-2863

i
1 19,31
\, iJ
J S•'' 0 •..c
1974 ' 19 \. Q ,•?
r
.t ?? i 962 !O
.6 .6
1937 f 1931 ?? i
1932 `2 1975 •? <
931 v
1
_ 1924 •? i! ^ 1973
\ •:?

\
1977
? 1974 1004
J? _
!
?
1 19}3 1961 1962
1039 1 7 1003 ???• 917 1935 059 I A 2101
r
?? 1.6 1960
'fi

.2 .7 1•7 19 4 1924 1003 _ 1936 TO
1759 .? 1936 `'r o 9 - J o
ALTERNATIVE 1 a o BRIDGE NO
61
scq s .
1799 (RECOMMENDED) s 1957
1761 Fti
OFF-SITE DETOUR 1939 1917 o
,
71 h _
14ile - s I 5 a 0 2105
o
17e4 2.3 h .y b ` ? y
- f
?1 ?: 1942 1945 t 46
Y i 4
y J
.203 1002
ZJ
1509 1942. 1005 is 6
1A .6 r -
s
1763 -2 .S.
?T??' 1 -r 1529
1767
1954 ` 104
7J
19" 2025
95 .6 329. 1917
? t 766 o'
?'
ry C? ;._;
?
1910
'7191 y
?3 y
?
M09

.? •1: '? ?
1765
2
3
•? -

a
-
1944
? .
1769 O •
i?
1759 •- ,? ! 'J il:,'^ 7 2111
?t l0. 7
X
17" 1-3

- 41

WAR
1329 1732.6 2..::??i••{7 '?_ °' /
/'ii:?.
?• .: a. i i •::a?
0
?'
• 10 '2 ?.3P0
?'? 214
•
Sc.::::::;: •?
a
? 1732 1 ..- Aei
rt 7 .? 1766 22 ' 21 1 iJ iC
,•f:!.! IS
a :i;:•:;;• 2112
1919 1.2
1371 !.O ` _ .. 4 's:!- E ge
:a

_
1759 :v 1371 `3 ?_ r .?? •,_R t
•.::••
<..
•s 301

11 1769 1329 - : 6 1.1 72 r l ?J
95 1001 11530
'
4 fns 2t1' 1530 ,s IS25 LUMBERTON '
.0
.3 1529 1.0 , POP. 18. 241
.2 0
_ :•'.•:p 2.1
70 "28 .7
s .' '?? .y?'?`J 2202
•-
/
1.1 t! f
. IS37 1527 uRS .
.
?/
1 22
J
'
.
-
1524 ? 1003 E
;.....
E1 'B
'} s'.-

1327
is
Q 1659 I 2.3 1 \
4 ::: ?" \

.'
C
1321
1526 : 2
43
l
?
2
16
1003
7f
'•? ,16 1
•
' J
'
'L 1521
..•
1637
c 1316 - 1-` 1 A%V-5
1 204
519
y 1 6 L I
? •
:?
s 2 3 6 1573 f?? 1549 ?
Q
1544 ®e" J
x ::
•
?} r `? 207 fLP
1` 11
! \V 137!0
t 1313 J ?
o o 1
1 13 `, 0 1350 cc

p 711 j ,
J
°

c
i .Q _ . 2:

!3
\?• 2316
ti
\
Lowe
1516 '? IS17 °.' 1007 1•?• 7 '? 154 1? ??
6
2209 2106
9
.8 ?? / c d
.
f?? [? ?:::: 1 .2317
?.
- 9
cv
8
3 211TE>T. .y
.6 157
fAS 1649 8 95
i r J /B 'a7 1379 1599 7
. •_
" a
99 7d 2.
i•I ISSQ I549
h 0 1003
lS?_.:. \[). 4 1.4 2420
\ 2303 5 u.
FIGURE 2A
SIDE VIEW
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
CZ.
o
? d

? w
?
x
a ?- O
? a a
?
Qz
z

w
0 .0
3
O
F
w
a
F
-
O
a U o
O Z U 0

O c
1 Y x N 0
a N 0
f- 00 N
9
?o
i >'?th
E 2
A p pat
F-
a rA cl-,?
O
rn
lot,, rA

I1 9 WW Il
`?+q1
V
° (?
v
o U
M N ?

i H
t/1
z
o ?
z o
?
U

U a
W
c
i? O
U
?
o _
1- o Q
O
U
064
c

M

o
04

~ O N N

O Q rn
? ? II II II
U Q1 IT 00 00
Q rn?o
.? -- N
z
0
H
U

w

C7
w
o

z
w
F LL)
z
a
e
Q?

?
=

3
r z
<z
z O 0
I F I p :7-
p <
O %0 M
O U a:w
U) U) UOzz C F mN
CL n. cnpzU
E- A
N
a >

O
ZFQaW ?'c?•i
C` .

J?f• i
(Yi
o ?
E

J J
z z
O Q
F F-
U ()
w
to w
V)

z _
= 0
a

<Z
w
V
<Cl) .?
n?
c
C3? O N C? 0 0 `-' c
a
L
?
Cl
W
cc
M
M

>
Q
d

J
U
J N
-

CL a
>-
F- }
F-
M
0
a?
W
J J
C
? L
>>

W cq
N a
^-? a
<
U)
CL vI
a
O
r O 5

Cl) L O
N L

> N
F- to
F- C > `
co m 7
J a F-
11 II II
3a H
xl J

w
Robeson County
i
SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Bridge #61
B-2863
.J
M
X
I O
v
W
Z
O
a N
E
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
? FIGURE 6
GL I
??_ y SsjO 020
'?,?J1#JJfff DEC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ;? !
Deputy State F stofic-Preservation Officer
Division of Arc Histo P?
William S. Price,
i
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
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-2830; Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record 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,
NIA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County
Archaeological site 31 OR438* * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438* * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 'on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
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

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation 1?
?
FROM: Renee Gledhill.-Earley
Environmental Revie oorc inator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms
r?
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge, No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-11.00(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek
04,
109 East Jones Street • Ralci;h, North Carolina 27601-2507 :C
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp .
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.-
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
TIP u l3- 2b(f 3 Federal Aid # t97-- M$G 1) County R06ESOrJ
CONCURRENCE FORTM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
F-erL e 6910GE f?a. rol vtJ S(L 193?i odE? TEtJ Mit.? SrJa wlP
On Jaaua." 261 ?9g? , 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
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 are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of thenr-is` necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHwA, f e Divi i n Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date'
Representative, SHP Date
'! ` z b fS
State Historic Preservation Officer ate
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

UNITED STATES NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 756
DEPARTMENT CONSERVATION FAIRMONT, NC 29340 '
OF AGRICULTURE SERVICE TELEPHONE [phone]
April 27, 1995
C E /\
Mr.H. Frank Vick. PE
Planning and Environmental Branch
? AM?
NC Department of Transportation 2 e 1995
P.O. Box 25201 2
Raleigh, NC 27611 D
N
2
w
OF P?
CAf
AYS
?
RE: AD-1006 Bridge Replacement Projects ti
?RONMEt`? P
Dear Mr. Vick:
Enclosed are forms AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impa ct Rating) for
bridge replacement projects B-2907, B-2919, B-29301 B-2850, B-2860,
B-2866, and B-2545. I have completed Parts
B-2863 IT, IV, and V
,
of the form for those projects where the corridor co ntains prime,
unique, statewide, or local important farmland.
In instances where the project area extended across county lines,
I prepared a separate form AD-1006 for the respectiv e acreage that
occurs in each county.
If you have any questions or need additional informa tion, please
contact me at the above number.
Sincerely yours,
Willie E. Spruill
Resource Soil Scientist
.Enclosures
cc: Phil Tant, Asst. State Soil Scientist, NRCS
i. Dr:PAR #MFNT OF AGRICULTURE SCS-CPA-1 Ofi
1 Conservation Service
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING 0141
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
RT I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request 3-22" `!S . Show t of
came of Project SR 193S Ro,Seso.t C.J T/P 6-2863 5. Federal AQency Involved FHwR
---r- N: 9AwAy , 2 /,In e5 6' cO1"ty and state
Rob e sort Coy /VG
f1R-:?1: 'Q ??.Qitt .WOU. .a7W Yv{:{tSx-{9}ki'M}i.vaiii{`vii};}.iii•+F.4::?i-:"r /. :}ii). ...` a
. ... S?:
• - - . ...... ......................1. ux.{-:r::{-:n ,. ,. •::::}r?;;:x..:..t?:.::.? i.. . n..:..}.
..
> ..is r?
: ?
:
F!
:?'Y
r ,:
r .
-
,
:
:>,
= -- 4 :

Z#??soa £
oq X
V a
i otm?<;_;<::><z.::
.
" .....
:"
.
...
..
.......
.
".......Y
......
,"
+.
..-- •- - ' -
2•{. a,.....M-:. ............ ..:.. ... :ns. .r. h .v.,Y.. ,.J{;•: r.....,....?:: :::::..,. .. J: ? >•
:"..::...: -. .....:::.":... '-- ' .. ........... -
:.:r.-J: • 'ir.<:2x::YF??::
•
.. ..".sue.. ::± - { ... ":: ::J.:,...,..::i:v+
..x. - ". .::::.: . .-..`.?7??.'.. .l!I. ... S:?N. !W-.:.J.v.-4.w:s.::Y.ry: ':r>hK{J? C-i?-^
'
?i: .art=t.
/M.IIIi:
.-n ..•.r+t?...a
r. .?j?, ::.??5
na'?e 3?PA'does nat I ..
.Oa.rtot,.aom ..4,::
aPP Y- test?itottaf atthts.7orttt - ::`s-•.-i.
.r'T
?:•:•
rF
^r ? t:i::;;3:'L'r#ira.,.r F??n,.. .n-/i`.:..
•-..: r> :
r:K,}•. >?=uv:
:}r:4{,:.<:;?:. •:>? <>
}, x
GS?` `
f
t

:1i
t
.
r ?
:i'>Xi{QiF•-.?:::i:.v.:;..a-:.-:.FS..v.. .:. , S/?:., emu.?.???. }?? .:
...... ..,}n4 ..LC},nn. ?: n,{•i{;):xh{{}:{-: .::..{.,r¢,{. .v .::: .::::x :{-v .... n .. v ..v
n .. .{4 ,4%:fv :: :::..vvn-h.:.::x::::>_.: •: .nv. J.: ?:: nv?. .;.. xv •::.Y.{.
. G .:..,.'}?. • .. a.}:...JC{:.•..: ;..::.:: {%XJ ?:i; ?.-rt-}..:: ?..?:::: h•:: •::: {.:.: ;..;}>f.W . n } M.....::.:.. tl::. }:. {.n- ?::hJ{. N.,.:{..... } .
!
..
..
, .:-::::
.
, :
:}x.>.:::•:::•-:: i
{•:: x::::.}}}
.
...:.
r
:
:}
:
l
:25„
/
-
r
::+
:
•
,?Yl
i
R
3
•
+
?
?? .
;..
rh.. :.{{J.}-
, •:. .n
?4 h: .: n.:
.. .. is-i i;.J:n^v; .:+...:'•}:
y {??? l?i1
.?:?'•:-r•N.Y!.?
?tPt?t:A1.V>mned:tt}FF.r?}
.v
+:{ii:-:?:i. :...
.,.
.-.
:
?
•:•xo
?h
••:
i
•

,
..
.
.
..
.. .. ...
. .
.
.
.
.. :.
..
.
. ..
... r. .: .
....
...
...
.
:r.,,
:
,
:..: r.:.:
:
s. .x ,• .. .k ... ::,. ........ _, .. ..
...+ ..::::.... .... .....:
, :.,.......r....
: : .. {.. .
o•...n. ...non w.{... ..,. ............ :n r...:. h-r......,:n .u•..; r•
v.
%k
......{.F.• hv.,....hv:RiF.S. .x::i:v.}:: n?-.,::.:{O:^}}J: :: .v.:+::.v:::.. .:v.::.i};.i.
0.v .? .hn.. ... ...}..: r:., v; i:;:n:v:::::: : ......... ......: .... :•. ;.... ..v .:n... ........n{{{::{{{.%'.v:>:-:.. ......: xv l:.....:. .. .........}:..... ...
:,f:.Y{:•.•.::: i.>.:F..y•y:::n: :...:......:..........: n:;........ h. n.... 5.:::::.::: .v::. : ". • . ......:n.... ..:-.. n.......... n........ :::r.>x: ..::.-.. ..:...
RY.+
.. .... .. - .. .n ...: .. .:... .. ".. .".. ..:: ...: ::..: .-: ..:....: ... .... .::..:. x.v n: w. : ...pn.
..:.,...... .... ...::.J:{i .:::.:. .::..
.
.
u
.:
x
.
. ::
i>
4::
J}:hiti,: •. A+:Y`,:J`ix. .::l.4in...:... .
.. .w: .:>:p}w:..: ..l. .: n{. y::::: }::??ri:.{i:ti4Ci::i<
..t .
.v.S.'.?.i{+:i{UVi {nJ:.v};J•: }::F.:J:•i::: J::v
.:}:::{. •ww'r.:{:.{:y::i.:J•:r}''•i::{:ii:::`:::r;
filSM t?.L?na:?Valtt8b00: <•J;>.h :::h•::::.v ?:: o-i J.i<Ji:
...:..:.::.:..:, :.: ............ ........,..........:.........n. 9Rn?tatrtttvf. txat
:........:..... .. .?? :,.:..:.: .....:...... t: .$kaAasessment. ?:.,.x•n...:."....:-{.::{.
•
.
.
.
.: +,,•:
,.::::.
.
:}
n
,n
.
+
:::::::.
:
+
:
r
J
.
JJ:.JJ:
Y;J:'

:;:
£Y8413tibtl?30IIlrned
?.at11f: SES???:':::'

,..
.
,.:.........
.
."." .............
..:......................,.
..
.
.
........
.
.
., ............
:
::
:::::::::.:
:
::n
::::
...:.Y+"
.::
.
n•: •:.::.>....,.... .,.,...:...:..:.rn4:?:.:........:n...,.. ......................,.............:..::
:.:
:...... .....:......:..:.-.:.:.•::::{.: ' ...............:::::::::: -. ...........................
.::::::.;;. ....:. ..:.:::. ?:..: i is ,::JJJ•,}::.. .. .

:.. "."..
::.::.:....:..
IT III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment
Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D
Total Acres To Be Converted Directl
y O 0
Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
Or To Receive Services
, O D
Total Acres In Corridor
D O
;7?IV: o:be.com Jeted=b :SCS : t
ion: 'n ...........
::.
.....
y ) :h,:•}.>::i•:i>:.J•.:::,}:•;::i;.i :.;{.::?.::;::•:<.:{i;,•Ji:;:,::.J:..
.. ..
.
.
. . .. . . . ..... :.:.: .......
..
. .:
. ..
: •J.i' .
'ry:
•
:
. ":$+: `
;:ii
>-:
':
:i-
: {: ??
f .
4
'•

..:. !.C%)i{i%:. •:'•iJJ::i{4:?:;}'i:."Lf {::: '-.':?:::: i:: "y ::.:.: .
.
.
:
:
:: :::. ....::::...:: w::.:n.. i
:
i
:
i..i
.
..: ii:::: is ::
.... . J:. ....
....
•
-otalAcresgtatevnde•And: ' - .,.,{.n.},:•:;:;.:,:....:::.r:.::.:::•::•::..? :•::
tacat•1m rtt t=armlar?: i;:......:.........:.::.:::; •: :::::::::::....
.............. ... .., ---'. :......."_:....
.....: ,..
? ..:..:........ ::r;:i;:::::::> :;.:..:.".:.:.
...: ,. ,.....
Of armtand in :. ... :: .:;,:..::.:.: ... '•..:.::...
Local ?Govi. ?Llnfr:To $e:Cgn .....
...
.

..:: ..:::..:.....::.. :;
.n-::.
:.; .,i., ,... .
?ercceiitaae`OfFarmtartdJifoiti:Jiirisiii ioi?,WwthSa
rrteOr=Hho.
tter-Ae?atweYaiv
..
;:::;:::r::::;::>a:;>:•>;:>:::
:.... :.:...........:.::...
:::.:;;>:~,:<::<:...•:..:..:.•:.

:....... ::...,:..:...:
::h,.,:Y}:.,..:.....+:;::

.,..y:..,,....
..{.::::::,.,.•,.:
... .. .Lend Fv :.. n,
P? ...) alvaHonCri'tedon
+ , ...:. .......... rue ....:.. ........
J• .....
:;:......... '-': ........:.,
::.?,.::{.:,::{.,::n..,;:.J•..:s•:v.
{::::{.,
armla 'Y:h....S
ndit?:8e S
erv/ced:orCanverted`?' cafe of
a-:?aapgt
'
t

:::.}:{..>i.x.,Yh.:::.}.,JA„
i
,?..:t?hJ:+hJ:=:::<•:{«.i:• ::-:.Y?
.-?...
:
:t . r '
.{
Fs
^r;
?.
:,,::
•

z<ria><<i::;>
?
n
S :x:.•
J
..::,. :
,
;
x: r::JJr
.
?:r.:...... :
:
IT VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Maximum
essment C-iteds (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points
t. Area In Nonurban Use
15
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20
4. Protection Provided 8 State And Local Government 20
5. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average . -10
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
7. Availability Of Farm Support Services - 5
B. On-Farm Investments 20 _
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm SuoDort Services 25
0. Compatibility With Existing Aoricultural Use 10
'OTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
T VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
elative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
)tat Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
;sessment) 160
'OTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260
trridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3. Date Of Selection. 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Converted by Project:
YES ? NO ?
iture of Person Completing This Part: DA
•E: Complete a form for each seoment with more than one Altemative Corridor.