The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-R-32 RESOLUTION # ?-DO+ r ~r 3-::l ACCEPTANCE OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT WHEREAS, the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana, acting through it's duly appointed Sewer Board has caused a Preliminary Engineering Report dated October 2007 to be prepared by the consulting firm of Jacobi, Toombs and Lanz, Inc. for the Long View Beach Sanitary Sewer Installation and Septic Tank Elimination. WHEREAS, said report has been presented to the public at a public hearing held February 7,2007 for their comments; and WHEREAS, the City of Jeffersonville fmds that there was not sufficient evidence presented in objection to the recommended project in the Preliminary Engineering Report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Preliminary Engineering Report dated October 2007 be approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Jeffersonville; and 2. That said report be submitted to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for review and approval. Passed and adopted this ~ day of November, 200~ by the Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville, Clark County, Indiana. ATTEST: ~b)J)pJ Peg lder Clerk/Treasurer ~ Presented by me as Clerk and Treasurer to the Mayor of said City of Jeffersonville this Ldayof November, 200~. Approved and signed by me this ~ day of November S :ISydneyIWPDOCSISIS70SIS70SSlresolution.DOC .. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT LONGVIEW BEACH SANITARY SEWER INSTALLATION AND SEPTIC TANK ELIMINATION City of Jeffersonville Clark County, Indiana October 2007 Revised October 26,2007 City of Jeffersonville Sanitary Sewer Board PREPARED BY: JACOBI, TOOMBS AND LANZ, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 120 BELL AVENUE CLARKSVILLE, INDIANA 47129 (812) 288-6646 (812) 288-6656 FAX . , .. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT LONGVIEW BEACH SANITARY SEWER INSTALLATION AND SEPTIC TANK ELIMINATION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT AREA II. CURRENT SITUATION A. Description of Existing System B. Problems with Existing System III. FUTURE SITUATION A. Current Population B. Population Projections C. Proposed Design Wastewater Flows and Loading IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES A. No Action R Force Main (Pressure Sewers) C. Installation of Gravity Sanitary Sewers D. Recommended Alternative and Rationale for Selection V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTATION A. Biota R Wetlands C. Soils/Geology D. Hydrology E. Groundwater F. Natural National Landmarks G. Coastal Zone Program H. Historic, Architectural, and Archaeological 1. Induced hnpacts 1. Air Quality K. Open Space and Recreational Opportunities VI. SELECTED PLANS A. Project Description R Project Phasing C. Preliminary Design Summary D. Project Costs E. Project Schedule F. Land Acquisition TABLES Table 1: Estimated Project Costs SRF Project Financing Information Page No. 1 1 1 2 3 6 Rev. October 26, 2007 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT LONGVIEW BEACH SANITARY SEWER INSTALLATION AND SEPTIC TANK ELIMINATION I. PROJECT AREA The proposed project is located in the south portion of Clark County just North of the Town of Utica approximately 3.5 miles north of port road along Utica Pike. The project area is located in Survey Nos. 17 and 27 of the Illinois Grant (also know as the Clark Military Grant), as shown on the Jeffersonville, Ind.-Ky. Quadrangle map. The project area is shown on Figures 1 and 2. II. CURRENT SITUATION A. Description of Existing System The homes along Longview Beach Drive, Conservation Drive, and Upper River Road currently dispose of wastewater through various on-site systems. A majority of the homes are connected to septic tanks. B. Problems with Existing System The homes in the project area were developed several decades ago. Since that time, the regulations governing residential development have been changed. The lots in the project area are approximately one quarter (0.25) of an acre. Due to the small lots, septic systems are difficult to install and maintain. The Clark County Health Department (CCHD) supports the installation of sanitary sewers in this area because of the health concerns associated with the septic systems and the proximity of the homes to the Ohio River. See Appendix A for the supporting documentation from the CCHD. III. FUTURE SITUATION A. Current Population The current population of the Project Area is estimated to be 180. (75 homes x 2.39 persons per home = 180) This population is based on the actual number of homes connecting on to the new sewer system. The populations shown on the sanitary sewer permits were based on preliminary estimates that were done prior to the final design. 1 Rev. October 26, 2007 B. Population Projections For the purposes of this report, the future residential population in the project area is projected to remain the same. The lots fronting the proposed improvements are fully developed. However, there are proposed developments on the Indiana Department of Resources (IDNR) property that will impact this project. IDNR has planned a 50- seat restaurant and a 50-room lodge. The IDNR development has been included in the loading design. C. Proposed Design and Wastewater Flows and Loadings 1. Wastewater Flows Domestic Flows Peaking Factor Peak Hourly Flow 63,900 GPD 3.9 173 gpm 2. Design Loadings (1) CBODs (1) TSS (1) NH3N (1) 40lbs/day 45lbs/day 4.7Ibs/day (1) Ten State Standards 3. Impact on Existing System The existing receiving lines and lift stations have sufficient capacity to accept and convey the estimated loads. The new sewers will discharge into an existing 12" diameter sanitary sewer located at Quarry Bluff Subdivision. The capacity of this sewer line has been verified; therefore this project will have a minimal impact on the overall system. IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES The alternatives considered include no action, installation of a pressure system with grinder pumps, and the installation of gravity sanitary sewers. A. No action The no action option consists of maintaining the existing septic systems. The CCHD supports the installation of sanitary sewers in the project area. Continued use of the existing septic systems will create more health hazards in the project area. This option is not considered an acceptable option due to the site constraints and the potential impact to public health and safety. 2 Rev. October 26, 2007 B. Force Main (pressure Sewers) A pressure sewer system with individual grinder pumps was considered as an option as an alternative to the lift station and gravity sewer system along Upper River Road. The residents in the project area were against the use of grinder pumps, therefore this option was not chosen. C. Installation of a Gravity Sanitary Sewers The third option is the. installation of a gravity sanitary sewer system. The City of Jeffersonville and the CCHD have a policy to recommend the use of a gravity sanitary sewer system whenever possible. Gravity sanitary sewers are possible in the project areas, therefore this will be the only option considered. Under this option, gravity sewer lines will be installed on Longview Beach Drive, Conservation Drive, and Upper River Road. D. Recommended Alternative and Rationale for Selection Alternatives were evaluated based on cost effectiveness, practicality, technical feasibility, reliability, resident support, ease of implementation and environmental effects. The only option that satisfies all of the criteria is the installation of a gravity sanitary sewer system. The proposed plan is shown on Figures 1 and 2. v. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTATION Environmental impacts are either direct or indirect. Direct impacts result from the construction, operation, and maintenance processes of the project. Indirect impacts are those that are made possible by the project, whereby creating a change which will ultimately effect the environment. Most of the improvements will occur within road rights-of-way and easements along previously disturbed areas. As such, limited undisturbed areas, trees, or brush will be disturbed. The following sections will discuss specific environmental impacts. A. Biota The construction and operation of the project will not negatively impact state or federal-listed endangered species or their habitat. The project will be implemented to minimize impact to non-endangered species and their habitat. B. Wetlands Wetlands will not be impacted by the construction or the operation of the project. There is a stream crossing of Battle Creek in this project. A creek crossing of Battle Creek with a six-inch (6") force main will be required to complete the project. The creek crossing will be approximately 40 feet. The force main will be installed by open 3 Rev. October 26,2007 cut, and will be encased in concrete. The force main is being installed perpendicular to creek to limit the amount of disturbed area. Alternate routes were studied to eliminate the crossing, however none were possible. A National Wetlands Inventory map is included as Figure 3. A photograph of the creek crossing location is included in Figure 6. C. Soils/Geology 1. Soil Characteristics Soils in the project area consist of Caneyville-Rock, Elkinsville-Millstone silt loams, and Huntington silt loam. Due to the small lot size and the proximity of the lots to the Ohio River, the project area is not suitable for septic tanks regardless of the soil. Soil map is included as Appendix B. 2. Prime Farmland A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating request has been submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Once the rating has been completed, we will submit the rating and forms to be included in this report. The letter and forms requesting the rating is included in Appendix A. 3. Land Characteristics The land adjacent to the proposed sewers is developed as residential lots. The gravity portion will be constructed within sewer easements between twelve (12') to twenty feet (20') wide. There will also be a temporary construction easement approximately twenty feet (20') wide. The temporary construction easement will be used to store material, equipment, and dirt spoils during construction. A small portion of the force main route, approximately 400 feet, will be in an undisturbed area. This area consists of small trees and some brush. The construction corridor for the force main will be approximately fifteen feet (15') wide. The route was chosen to minimize the amount of impact to the undisturbed areas. The disturbed area will be limited to what is necessary to construct the sanitary sewers. A creek crossing of Battle Creek with a six-inch (6") force main will be required to complete the project. The creek crossing will be approximately 40 feet. The force main will be installed by open cut, and will be encased in concrete. The force main is being installed perpendicular to creek to limit the amount of disturbed area. Alternate routes were studied to eliminate the crossing, however none were possible. Also, the two lift stations are located in undisturbed areas. Both of the lift station sites have small trees and brush that will be removed. The disturbed area will be limited to what is necessary to construct the lift stations. Photographs of the two lift station sites are included in Figure 6. 4 Rev. October 26, 2007 . . 4. Karst, Bedrock, Hydric Soils Soil types do not include karst, bedrock, or hydric soils and thus the proj ect will not be adversely affected by such. 5. Siltation and Erosion Any measures necessary to reduce both siltation and erosion will be implemented. Erosion control measures have been shown on the plans, and will be implemented during construction. Erosion control and siltation measures include the following: a. The contractor will be required to install silt fence along all ditches, creeks, or top of banks. All disturbed areas must be covered with seed and straw as soon as practical, but no longer than 14 days. b. Natural vegetation will be retained wherever possible. c. Excavations will be limited to rights-of-way and easements. d. Appropriate best management practices, such as silt fence, seeding, and mulching, will be implemented wherever possible to control runoff throughout the project. e. All surface drainage, including ditches and creeks, will be returned to their pre-construction state as soon as feasible. f. Roadways and driveways will remain stabilized during construction as much as possible. g. When possible, construction activities will be scheduled to avoid excessively wet conditions. h. No more than 100 feet of open trench will be allowed. Where possible, excavated material will be kept on the upland side of the trench. Excess materials will be used elsewhere on the project, or removed from the site. 1. The existing topsoil will be reused during the restoration where possible. J. If necessary, discharge from dewatering may be directed to silt fence or a straw check dam prior to discharging into the surrounding surface waters. D. Hydrology 1. Creek Crossings A creek crossing of Battle Creek with a six-inch (6") force main will be required to complete the project. The creek crossing will be approximately 40 feet. The force main will be installed by open cut, and will be encased in concrete. Anti-seep collars will be installed on both sides of the creek crossing to prevent groundwater from 5 Rev. October 26, 2007 draining into the sewer trench. The force main is being installed perpendicular to creek to limit the amount of disturbed area. Alternate routes were studied to eliminate the crossing, however none were possible. A photograph of the creek crossing location is included un Figure 6. 2. Floodplain The project is situated near a known floodway. All above ground components have been placed at elevations to minimize flood hazards. Also, all manholes require bolt down, watertight lids. The flood map for the project area is provided as Appendix C. 3. Water Supply A portion of this project is near water wells on the IDNR property. The sanitary sewer lines have been designed to maintain the minimum distance of 50 feet from all wells. Also, IDNR is currently under design to relocate the existing wells further away from the sewer project. E. Groundwater Soil borings were taken throughout the project, and groundwater was not encountered. F. Natural National Landmarks Construction and operation ofthe proposed project will not impact Natural National Landmarks. G. Coastal Zone Program The proposed activity complies with Indiana's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program. H. Historic, Architectural and Archeological Sites There are no known historic, architectural or archaeological sites that will be impacted by this project. No architectural features of any sites will be affected. All work activities will be limited to rights-of-way and easements. A map of historic features is included as Figure 4. An archaeology study is being completed for the project area. An archaeological report will be submitted once it has been finalized. 6 Rev. October 26,2007 I. Induced Impacts The City through the authority of the sewer board, or planning commission will ensure the future development, as well as future collection system or treatment works projects connecting to SRF funded facilities, will not adversely impact wetlands, archaeological/historic/structural resources, or other sensitive environmental resources. The City will require new development and treatment works projects to be constructed within the guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, IDNR, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and other environmental review authorities. J. Air Quality Construction activities may generate some noise, fumes and dust normally resulting from such activity. The adverse impacts caused by dust may be alleviated by periodically wetting the exposed soil and unpaved roadways. To reduce noise impacts, construction will be limited to daytime hours. The dust, fumes, and noise are all short-term impacts, and will last only throughout construction. Construction activities should not impact ozone, airborne pollutants or other current or future air quality concerns. K. Open Space and Recreational Opportunities The proposed project's construction will neither create nor destroy open space or recreational opportunities. VI. SELECTED PLAN A. Proj ect Description Installation of a gravity sewer system with two lift stations is the recommended alternative. Figures 1 and 2 show the proposed layout. Sanitary sewers will be installed along Longview Beach Drive, Conservation Drive, and Upper River Road. Installation of the sewers will be in the road rights-of-way and sewer easements. The sewers will discharge into an existing gravity sewer. Based on capacity studies, there is sufficient capacity in the existing sewer lines and system. B. Proj ect Phasing Completion and operation of this project will neither benefit nor hinder the completion of any other projects proposed in the City of Jeffersonville's PER. The City has bid this project as an individual project. 7 C. Preliminary Design Summary Rev. October 26,2007 The proposed improvements are shown on Figures 1 and 2. The design of this project is based on the 10 State Standards, IDEM policies, and accepted engineering standards and practice. A final design summary for this project is as follows: 12" SDR 35 Sanitary Sewer 12" SDR 26 Sanitary Sewer 8" SDR 35 Sanitary Sewer 8" SDR 26 Sanitary Sewer 6" Force Main 2" Force Main Manholes Lift Stations Property Connections 1,600 LF 3,031 LF 2,123 LF 1,235 LF 4,685 LF 1,032 LF 31 Each 2 Each 75 Each Please note, the quantities shown on the two permits for these projects were based on a preliminary design. The quantities above, including the property connections, are based on the final design. D. Project Cost The estimated cost and itemized breakdown is shown on Table 1. E. Project Schedule Advertise for Construction Bids Bid Opening Submit PER to IDEM Submit Plans & Specs to IDEM IDEM Approval of PER SRF Loan Closing Contract Award Approval Begin Construction Substantial Completion Initiation of Operation F. Land Acquisition June 2007 June 2007 October 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 December 2007 December 2007 June 2008 July 2008 Most of the sewer is located within the road rights-of-way. Easements will be required along the IDNR property, and Conservation Drive. All easement acquisition is being accomplished by donations, and will be completed prior to construction. 8 Table 1 Estimated Project Costs Longview Beach Sanitary Sewers Installation and Septic Tank Elimination Rev. October 26, 2007 Item Approx. Unit Unit Price Total Crushed Limestone 0 TON $ 16.00 $ Bank Run Sand 0 TON $ 16.00 $ Formed Conc. Non-Reinforced 0 CY $ 400.00 $ Non-Formed Cone. Non-Reinforced 0 CY $ 300.00 $ Reinforcing Steel 0 LBS $ 1.25 $ Sod 0 SY $ 4.50 $ Seed, Fertilizer and Mulching 0 SY $ 0.75 $ 8" SDR 35 San. Sewer 2123 LF $ 52.28 $ 110,990.44 8" SDR 26 San. Sewer 1235 LF $ 105.00 $ 129,675.00 12" SDR 35 San. Sewer 1600 LF $ 38.00 $ 60,800.00 12" SDR 26 San. Sewer 3031 LF $ 42.00 $ 127,302.00 6" Force Main 4685 LF $ 33.99 $ 159,243.15 2" Force Main 1032 LF $ 10.69 $ 11,032.08 Manhole Type '8' 19 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 58,900.00 Manhole Type 'C' 9 EA $ 2,900.00 $ 26,100.00 Manhole Type 'E' 3 EA $ 6,500.00 $ 19,500.00 Air Release Valve 2 EA $ 4,800.00 $ 9,600.00 Property Connection 12" x 6" Wye 41 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 73,800.00 8" x 6"Wye 34 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 61 ,200.00 Anti-Seep Collar 4 EA $ 720.00 $ 2,880.00 Concrete Encasement 70 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,750.00 LVB Pump Station (Two 176 gpm Pumps) 1 LS $ 188,000.00 $ 188,000.00 URR Pump Station (Two 20 gpm Pumps) 1 LS $ 45,500.00 $ 45,500.00 HMA Surface 1055 TON $ 60.00 $ 63,300.00 HMA Intermediate 256 TON $ 54.00 $ 13,824.00 DGA, No. 53 775 TON $ 30.00 $ 23,250.00 7' Chain Link Fence 4350 LF $ 13.79 $ 59,986.50 Double 8' Wide Gate 1 EA $ 1,300.33 $ 1 ,300.33 Construction Entrance 1 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 1,100.00 Stream Bank Restoration 200 SY $ 11.30 $ 2,260.00 Silt Fence 4300 LF $ 2.00 $ 8,600.00 Construction Stakeout 1 LS $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Removal of Fence 1 LS $ 6,700.00 $ 6,700.00 Removal of Poles 1 LS $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800.00 Subtotal $ 1,279,393.50 Contingency (10%) $ 127,939.35 Subtotal Construction Costs $ 1,407,332.85 Inspection/Construction Engineering $ 172,000.00 Total Project Costs $ 1,579,332.85 Less Resident Contribution to Construction $ (480,000.00) TOTAL $ 1,099,332.85 Aaron\0642\0642 Table 1-Estimate.xls.xls{Table 1 rev} S:\Jeffersonville PERIPER DOCUMENTSISRF PROJECT FINANCING INFORMATION-L VB.docllOl707 GRAPHIC SCALE 1.500 0 ~....., 750 I 1.500 , 3.000 I ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 1500 ft WETLAND MAP LONGVIEW BEACH SEWER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA DATE OCT. 15, 2007 REVISED: OCT. 29, 2007 e ~ FIGURE 3 2-944-025 . NORTHERN PART E c& "" ~ I r-.. 2 C\i 0)' C\i 8 SOUTHERN PART q; & ~ "tl I ~ - GRAPHIC SCALE ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl e5 ll.: .- ei ll.: 10,000 0 ~-~ 10,000 I ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 10,000 ft. 5,000 I 20,000 I '" ;:::: .s <:: o ~ ~ "-' J Vi ~ l.;: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA DATE OCT. 29, 2007 e ~ JEFFERSONVILLE WWTP . SERVICE AREA FIGURE 5 GRAPHIC SCALE F..-~ 750 I f~ ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 1500 ft. JEFFERSONVILLE COLLECTOR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PHOTO ORIENTATION MAP PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA i~ DATE OCT. 29. 2007 e , --- FIGURE 6 ...... ~ Q) ..... ..... ..... en 6"n CZl l=l ....:I 0 '"g ....:I OJ) ~ l=l 0 ~ ~ ;:.- Q) ~ -a I-< 8 Q) 0- l=l 8- .a s Q) Q) -S 2 ~ 0 ~ OJ) s:: ~ ;Q Q) 0 -S 0 - .....n .....n en en c;j Q) ~ .~ ~ OJ) gfo s:: ..... .u ~ ~ c;j u ~ ~ c;j -<i Q) C'io::l Q) -S S ~ Q) ..... ..... CZl CZl ....:I o::l >.g ....:1- Q)u -S s:: ..... .8 c;j ~ gf~ ;Q ~ o s:: o 0 -U .....n Q) en .... Q)'+:i ~ 0 OJ)..... .s 8 ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~ Q) ..... ~ 8 s:: ..... c;j S Q) U I-< o ~ ~ Q) -S ~ OJ) s:: . :..;;;l~ o Q) o e -u .....n Q) en_ ~~ ~o::l '+=ll.+-< ~ 0 o OJ) CZl s:: OJ) ..... l=l ~ .u 8 c;j u ~ Q) ~-S APPENDIX A · Letter from Clark County Health Department · Letter and forms sent to NRCS Clark County Health Department 1320 DUNCAN A VENUE JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA 47130 812-282-7521 September 25,2007 Mayor Robert L. Waiz, Jr. 500 Quartermaster Court Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Re: Longview Beach Road Dear Mayor Waiz: It has come to the attention of the Clark County Health Department the properties along Longview Beach Drive may be eligible for grant money for installation of sanitary sewers. This area was developed several decades ago with septic system as the means of wastewater disposal. Since that time the rules and regulations concerning residential land development has changed both with this office and the Clark County Plan COmmission. . The lots within this area are one quarter (0.25) of an acre which is approximately one quarter (0.25) the size required (0.918 of an acre) by the plan commission for residential home development. This has caused the use of septic systems very difficult to implement due to extremely small yard space left 'on these sites for installation and practically no other areas for repairs to septic system when and if these systems fail. It is the policy of this office to recommend sanitary sewers for wastewater disposal whenever available. Centralized wastewater treatment is a more viable and long term solution to areas of consolidated population where septic system failures can create a more substantial threat to the public's health. This department supports all efforts to provide sanitary sewer connections to all areas of Clark County. If you have any questions about this subject, please call me at the Clark County Health Departmeat. Respectfully, ~l('~^^, ~ ~ Kevin Burke M.D. Clark County Health Officer Cc: Jorge Lanz JACOBI, TOOMBS AND LANZ, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS e ~ 120 Bell Avenue Clarksville, Indiana 47129 (812) 288-6646 (812) 288-6656 Fax October 15,2007 Lisa Bolton Natural Resource Conservation Service 6013 Lakeside Blvd. Indianapolis, IN 46278 RE: City of Jeffersonville Preliminary Engineering Report - Longview Beach Sewers Ms. Bolton: The City of Jeffersonville is submitting a Preliminary Engineering Report to the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) to request funds for sewer construction to serve the residents ofLongview Beach. As a part of the approval from the SRF, the City is required to complete a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Fonn AD-I006. As such, included with this letter is the completed fonn and necessary soils map identifying the location of the proposed project. The majority of work to be completed under this project will occur in previously disturbed areas. Should you have any questions regarding this project or the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. incerely, COBI, TOOMBS S:\Jeffersonville PER\JeffPER - NRCS lO-12-07.doc , J Soil Map-Clark County, Indiana, Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Oldham County, Kentucky (LONGVIEW BEACH PER) 616000 616800 617600 618400 619200 620000 620800 N A o soo 1,000 2,000 Meters 3,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 Feet 12,000 USDA Natural Resources ~ Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 4 U.S. Department of Agriculture PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 'lame Of Project Longview Beach PER Federal Agency Involved EPA through State Revolving Fund L Proposed Land Use Sewer Construction County And State Clark County, Indiana PART II (To be completed by NRCS) . Date Request Received By NRCS Does the site contain prime, unique. statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated/ Average Fann Size (If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional paris of this form). 0 0 Major Crop(s) '- . Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: % Acres: % Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Ratina Site A SiteS Site C Site 0 A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0.2 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 13.3 C. Total Acres In Site 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) . Lal'ld Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Familand .., .-'c B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Fannland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 0 0 0 0 Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 6. Distance To Urban Support Services 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 10. On-Farm Investments 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 0 0 0 0 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 0 0 0 0 Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local 160 0 0 0 0 site assessment) TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 0 0 0 I Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Site Selected: Yes 1:1 No rJI FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING Reason For Selection: (See Instructions on reverse side) This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff Form AD.1 006 (10-83) Soil Map-Clark County, Indiana, Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Oldham County, Kentucky (LONGVIEW BEACH PER) 616000 616800 617600 618400 619200 620000 620800 N A o 500 2,000 1,000 2,000 Meters 3,000 o 4,000 8,000 Feet 12,000 USDA ~ Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/12/2007 Page 1 of4 ~ o :) "E ~ >; "E :) o o E cu .c "t:l o "t:l c: cu >;~ 150:: :)w "Ea. ~tj ~~ 3m 03: Ow 55 r!!G ~z Q)O -,::::!. cO c: cu '5 -= >; "E :) o o -t!: cu (3 !. cu ~ .0 U) z o i= <( :!!: D::: o LL ~ ll. <( :E cD G3 ~ ~ CIlQ)o. 5:5 0 ~~::: g~m .g ~-;j 2"~g. ~iU'E ~Eti ~ Qih m ~ > c:: o.~o ~0J! Q).c cu ~ailil ~~m Q)CIl.o -;j g>~ 0.; ...... cu c: c: E.;:: 0 . >tQ.~.!!} Cl) -g ~ ~ 2:CUQ)E ~.!!:! ~ ~ '5BJ!ijl CIl CIl a. cu - 0)....: Q) ~ .5: ~ E :~ ~ :!21 g. 05l5E 21 ~ ._ 0) 2: ai Q)"t:l U)CIl :) c: . .2 11 7a C: 2: :>. Q) Q) CIl 2: c: :) o CIl O:=z CIlotC) 21Jl-- ... Q) Q) 5 ~ g ~ iiN o::::::~ _.ct- ~ ::l :) .. -...J ~ 0:: .. ::lE >.2 '. Q) CIl 0.2:>' cu:)U) ~U)Q) .... - 0:= cu 21~:a :i.o(s ~~8 Gi .c o '" f .a ... ~~ Gl :; C " :::i iii .u Gl Cl. I/J Q) Cl. o c;; Co Q) .g! I/J 1:: o .c I/J '"" a.. ;= e o OJ .... o CIl cu cu 1ii "t:l "t:l Q) l;:: :e 21 U) o 0:: Z ~ U) ::l Q) =;ii E 0 0- ... Q) .....0 "t:l"t:l Q) Q) C5U; 03= c: ~ Q)~ O)Q) .!l! ca _"t:l o c: :) 0 "t:l ._ e ~ o.Q) CIl > .- Q) .:::; caS Q) cu "'0 <( cu >'Q) Q) ... 2:<( :)>. U) Q) ._ 2: o :) U)U) I"- o CIlo C:C\I CIl _ '5"<t c: 0. :~ "E - :)ClO o <: o 0 -c .~ .!!!~ o a: Oi > ~ " o 18I * . X .: @J) -< ~ ~ @ @ > >. .><: o 21"- C:o Q)O ~C\I ~T-h Co 50 o C'; <: c: g .2 G1 ~ ~~ -, .. iti cu- ~~ <(cu >'Q) Q) ... 2:<( :)>. U)Q) ._ 2: o :) U)U) Ul CIl i!' <( c: Ol .c :s '" c: Ol III Q) E 8 .s ... Gl lL .. Gl ~ ~tC) 00 :)0 "EC\I Q) - ~~ ->. .?:-CIl 5:!: o - OM E g CU .- .cr!! "2~ o m€1l"t:l ~ lii~~lijcu >'~-CIl->. Q)~CQ)Q) 2: CIl Q).- 2: ::sO~1:::::'::s ~ 2 ~ 8.~ '0 ~ ii ~ ~ ~~1ii:=gj 5:Co~e r::1UU)(/)~ gal~:gQ) Q)o.:;:;E~ og.'E~g> EE~:!:~ ~~~5"* "t:lQ)"t:lo.c:. .2.o-cuE g~~E8 .- CIl "t:l c: ::::::-.r. c: "- ... o >. .-E =: 0 <( cu :) c: ~ E .E ~ .g ~ ~ Q) ~- L;. Q) (I) co (\1 .!!~::JE:5 .5: ~ -g en ~ '0 ~ .!!! ~ .Q u) co ::J 'E . E .~ *~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~5 o.c"C,-_o >- t- CIl 0 .5: .0 j ~ ~ 0:: Ul >- ~ .c Cl J: .g! .l!l f!! Q) E Gi ~ rn 'c c: i!' Q) a.. ClO m m -- 0) c: Q) @ ... .c ~ -g ~ en ::s g .~ ~.E -..>:: Q) .0 lil E CIl .0 0 a.l a.l CIl .c ..c _h ~-E:; o CIl :ce~ ~...cu.. c:: ~ (/) c:: o~<(~ g.'5 &~ E~cua.l Q){lE.o ~.g~iU' ~ Ci.~ E :S ~ ~ .~ O.!:::i 0 n; o:s,-g-g 0:0 >.:) o"tJ~o ..c:: c: 0..0 Q. cu .!l! ;t: O"t:l "t:l c: ..c:: a.l ~:) t:=a.lo. o o.O)cu a.l E cu E ~ 8.~ '0 Ul '0 Ol o a:: Gi .c i5 Q) o .c "'" c: U3 .9- c;; o Q) :Q c;; I"-"<t 0.... 00 ~C\I C\I Q) ~Ol o cu --a. >. Q) 2: :) au) c-.i'5 >.u) ~ ~ ::s+:;; U)~ .- Q) 00. U) 0 .0 0 Q)O 3:(ij c: .2 1ii z (5 Co I/J u 'C o I/J (5 Co I/J >- c: o (jj Ol i!' <( .0 Co I/J CD U CIl .~ CD CD ~U) ::I l: o 0 m; o::~ ~ CD ::I III 1a 5 zo (5 Co I/J >- c: o (jj e:- ~ (5 Co I/J ~ .I!l 'c ::J Co Ol ::; '0 l/) III E .s ~ '5 lLo 0;= E .0 10 a.. iii '2 Zi Cl. I/J Gi .c i5 III Ul ! :: ~ .a ..... (3 = ii lL Co "ii 'u u .c .. E ~ "0 "" a.. [f] (5 Co I/J ~ Oi > ~ " iE '0 c: Ol -' .. iti CIl- a.l cu "'0 <( CIl >'a.l a.l ... 2:<( :)>. U) Q) ._ 2: o :) U)U) Ul rn c: Ol U '0 <: Ol Ul E Ol i!' (jj !!l c 'm :8 c:: ... 1:: o Cl. III C l!! I- M m m -- -i::i a.l .c 0. ~ 0) o "0 ..c:: 0. ~ ~ CIl Q) 0) CIl .~ (ij Qj cu Ul 2' cu o Ul .sl :J o 0:: I/J ::J Ul >- ~ .c Cl J: Q) m (jj Ul '0 lU o a:: rn u o -' <> ,Q.,~ III <;) c z w C> W ..J ll. <( :E e .. .. o $ 1i5 i!' Q) o ~ ~ ~ t) ~ E <( oS .s ... ~ 0 ~ <( I/J (5 Co I/J >- Ol C3 c: o .0; '" i!' Q. a.l o "0 a.l '" o 13 I ( ;= o u:: Ol > Ol -' e:- :;; :J o o Q) c: ::E ~ .g! ~ Ul :J o Q) c: .!!! ~ Ul ::E Co e .B :J o "'" u o a:: (5 Co l/) '0 Q) '0 e UJ >- ~ Q) > Q) I/J ~l' .c f!! Ol ::; (5 Co I/J Q) .~ rn I/J 15 Co I/J >- '0 c: Ol I/J + III .. Soil Map-Clark County, Indiana, Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Oldham County, Kentucky LONGVIEW BEACH PER Map Unit Legend Clark County,lndiana (IN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CcaG Caneyville-Rock outcrop 372.6 34.3% complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes CspB2 Crider silt loam, 2 to 6 percent 60.8 5.6% slopes, eroded CxgC3 Crider-Haggatt complex, 6 to 12 38.1 3.5% percent slopes, severely eroded CxhC2 Crider-Haggatt silt loams, 6 to 36.7 3.4% 12 percent slopes, eroded CxmC2 Crider-Haggatt silt loams, karst, 1.5 0.1% rolling, eroded CxnC3 Crider-Haggatt complex, karst, 31.3 2.9% rolling, severely eroded EesA Elkinsville-Millstone silt loams, 80.8 7.4% o to 2 percent slopes EesB Elkinsville-Millstone silt loams, 134.5 12.4% 2 to 6 percent slopes EesC2 Elkinsville-Millstone silt loams, 2.4 0.2% 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded EesD2 Elkinsville-Millstone silt loams, 5.8 0.5% 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded EesFQ Elkinsville-Millstone silt loams, 22.9 2.1% 18 to 40 percent slopes, rarely flooded GykD2 Grayford silt loam, karst, hilly, 0.8 0.1% eroded HcgAW Haymond silt loam, 0 to 2 0.0 0.0% percent slopes, occasionally flooded, very brief duration HtwD2 Haggatt-Caneyville silt loams, 11.8 1.1% 12 to 25 percent slopes, eroded HtzD3 Haggatt-Caneyville complex, 25.5 2.3% 12 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded HufAK Huntington silt loam, 0 to 2 67.3 6.2% percent slopes, occasionally flooded, brief duration HuhD2 Haggatt-Caneyville silt loams, 9.2 0.8% karst, hilly, eroded Pml Pits, quarry 68.5 6.3% RtcB2 Ryker silt loam, 2 to 6 percent 5.5 0.5% slopes, eroded USDA = Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/12/2007 Page 3 of4 Soil Map-Clark County, Indiana, Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Oldham County, Kentucky LONGVIEW BEACH PER Clark County, Indiana (IN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI RztC2 Ryker-Grayford silt loams, 6 to 12.8 1.2% 12 percent slopes, eroded UnpA Urban land"Udarents, loamy 14.8 1.4% substratum, complex, terrace, 0 to 3 percent slopes W Water 67.9 6.3% Jefferson County, Kentucky (KY111) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI W Water 11.4 1.0% Oldham County, Kentucky (KY185) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI W Water 2.0 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) 1,085.1 100.0% USDA = Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/12/2007 Page 4 of 4