D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

USDAͳNRCS FARMLAND NCONVERSION IMPACTS
3 3 3

3

3

3

3

CFP109.3

A011

CFP110

CFP009

CFP062

CFP019

CFP048

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-1_AltAreas_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

[

0612

Miles

1inch=12miles

@8.5x11inches

FigureN-1

BasemapSource:2015USGS

TopographicMap

ALine

S-Line

Doswell

Centralia

Arlington

Richmond

WASHINGTON,D.C.

MARYLAND

PotomacRiver

AlternativeAreas

Townof

Ashland

Cityof

Fredericksburg

Legend

3

CSXTMileposts/

AlternativeAreaLimits

VirginiaRailLines

Area1:Arlington

(LongBridge

Approach)

(CFP110-CFP109.3);

3BuildAlternatives

Area2:Northern

Virginia

(CFP109.3-CFP62);

1BuildAlternative

Area3:

Fredericksburgand

Bypass

(CFP62-CFP48);

3BuildAlternatives

Area4:Central

Virginia

(CFP48-CFP19);

1BuildAlternative

Area5:Ashlandand

Bypass

(CFP19-CFP9);

7BuildAlternatives

Area6:Richmond

(CFP9-A011);

8BuildAlternatives

FAIRFAX

COUNTY

PRINCEWILLIAM

COUNTY

STAFFORD

COUNTY

SPOTSYLVANIA

COUNTY

CAROLINE

COUNTY

HANOVER

COUNTY

CHESTERFIELD

COUNTYHE

NRICO

COUNTY

DAHLGREN

SPUR

CROSSROADS

AMJUNCTION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO 

4. Sheet 1 of

NRCS-CPA-106

(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For Segment

Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor $

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 

value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor

Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

Maximum

Points

15

10

20

20

10

25

7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be

Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail

Transportation - Rail and Road

10/20/16

6

Federal Railroad Administration

Alxndria, Arlngtn, Fairfax, Pr. William, Stafford,

10/20/16 Don Flegel

✔ ✔

corn

LE of LESA none 12/23/16

1A, 1B, 1C, and 2A

0 1.45 0.36 30.10

0 0 0 0

5.12 8.91 9.10 302.75

 committed committed committed 17.1

to to to 13

urban urban urban 0

72

54

0 0 0 3

0 0 0 4

0 000

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 5

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 54

12

0 0 0 12

0 0 0 66
NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant

points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood

control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland

along with the land evaluation information.

 (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?

More than 90 percent - 15 points 

90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?

More than 90 percent - 10 points

90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last

10 years?

More than 90 percent - 20 points

90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs 

to protect farmland?

Site is protected - 20 points

Site is not protected - 0 points

 (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?

(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of

Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)

As large or larger - 10 points

Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

 (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of 

interference with land patterns?

Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points

Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)

Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

 (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, 

processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?

All required services are available - 5 points

Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)

No required services are available - 0 points

 (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees

and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?

High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points

Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)

No on-farm investment - 0 points

 (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support

services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?

Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points

Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)

No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

 (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to

contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?

Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points

Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)

Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO 

4. Sheet  of

NRCS-CPA-106

(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For Segment

Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor $

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 

value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor

Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

Maximum

Points

15

10

20

20

10

25

7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be

Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail

Transportation - Rail and Road

10/20/16

6

Federal Railroad Administration

Stafford, Spotsy., Fred'burg, Caroline, Hanover

10/20/16 Don Flegel/Greg Hammer

✔

corn

LE of LESA none 12/23/16

3A, 3B, 3C, 4A

1.73 17.32 137.51 1.50

0 0 0

103.18 128.78 257.20 158.28

1.03 10.7 61.9 23

.7 6.6 75.6 25

0 0 0 0

64 83 72 51

66 66 54 57

5 5 10 9

4 4 6 2

0 020

0 0 0 0

0 0 10 10

0 0 1 0

5 5 5 5

0 0 20 10

0 0 00

0 0 10 0

14 14 64

66 66 54 57

36

14 14 64 36

80 80 118 93

✔
NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant

points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood

control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland

along with the land evaluation information.

 (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?

More than 90 percent - 15 points 

90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?

More than 90 percent - 10 points

90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last

10 years?

More than 90 percent - 20 points

90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs 

to protect farmland?

Site is protected - 20 points

Site is not protected - 0 points

 (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?

(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of

Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)

As large or larger - 10 points

Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

 (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of 

interference with land patterns?

Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points

Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)

Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

 (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, 

processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?

All required services are available - 5 points

Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)

No required services are available - 0 points

 (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees

and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?

High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points

Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)

No on-farm investment - 0 points

 (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support

services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?

Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points

Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)

No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

 (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to

contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?

Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points

Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)

Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO 

4. Sheet  of

NRCS-CPA-106

(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For Segment

Corridor A/RQJ Corridor $$VK Corridor %/RQJ Corridor%$VK

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 

value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor

Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

Maximum

Points

15

10

20

20

10

25

7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be

Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail

Transportation - Rail and Road

10/20/16

6

Federal Railroad Administration

Hanover, Virginia

10/20/16 Greg Hammer

✔

corn 295,635 97 194,050 64.3

LE of LESA 12/1/16

5

11.52 11.62 14.99 15.44

0 0 0

52.64 52.16 63.22 66.54

25 26 29 31

25 24 24 28

0 0 0 0

76 77 76 76

41 36 41 41

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

0 000

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

10 10 10

41 36 41 41

10

10 10 10 10

51 46 51 51

✔
NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant

points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood

control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland

along with the land evaluation information.

 (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?

More than 90 percent - 15 points 

90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?

More than 90 percent - 10 points

90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last

10 years?

More than 90 percent - 20 points

90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs 

to protect farmland?

Site is protected - 20 points

Site is not protected - 0 points

 (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?

(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of

Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)

As large or larger - 10 points

Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

 (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of 

interference with land patterns?

Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points

Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)

Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

 (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, 

processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?

All required services are available - 5 points

Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)

No required services are available - 0 points

 (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees

and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?

High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points

Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)

No on-farm investment - 0 points

 (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support

services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?

Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points

Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)

No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

 (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to

contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?

Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points

Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)

Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO 

4. Sheet  of

NRCS-CPA-106

(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For Segment

Corridor &/RQJ Corridor &$VK Corridor' Corridor 

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 

value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor

Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

Maximum

Points

15

10

20

20

10

25

7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be

Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail

Transportation - Rail and Road

10/20/16

6

Federal Railroad Administration

Hanover, Virginia

10/20/16 Greg Hammer

✔

corn 295,635 97 194,050 64

LE of LESA 12/1/16

5

152.43 151.32 16.09

0 0 0

159.11 158.68 80.36

82 83 37

35 34 32

0 0 0

79 79 76

48 48 42

11 11 5

7 7 0

20 20 0

20 20 0

10 10 0

20 20 0

5 5 5

20 20 0

0 0 0

10 10 0

123 123 10

48 48 42 0

0

123 123 10 0

171 171 52 0
NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant

points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood

control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland

along with the land evaluation information.

 (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?

More than 90 percent - 15 points 

90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?

More than 90 percent - 10 points

90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last

10 years?

More than 90 percent - 20 points

90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs 

to protect farmland?

Site is protected - 20 points

Site is not protected - 0 points

 (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?

(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of

Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)

As large or larger - 10 points

Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

 (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of 

interference with land patterns?

Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points

Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)

Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

 (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, 

processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?

All required services are available - 5 points

Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)

No required services are available - 0 points

 (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees

and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?

High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points

Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)

No on-farm investment - 0 points

 (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support

services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?

Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points

Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)

No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

 (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to

contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?

Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points

Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)

Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO 

4. Sheet  of

NRCS-CPA-106

(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For Segment

Corridor A Corridor B$ Corridor %6 Corridor&

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 

value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor

Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

Maximum

Points

15

10

20

20

10

25

7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be

Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail

Transportation - Rail and Road

10/20/16

6

Federal Railroad Administration

Hanover, Henrico, Richmond City, Chesterfield

10/20/16 Greg Hammer

✔

Corn

LE of LESA 12/1/16

6

52.88 69.58 50.37 93.89

167.35 238.74 222.07 271.53

33 37 28 38

9 12 5 13

0 0 0 0

- - - -

27 21 20 20

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 000

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

2 2 2

27 21 20 20

2

2 2 2 2

29 23 22 22
NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant

points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood

control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland

along with the land evaluation information.

 (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?

More than 90 percent - 15 points 

90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?

More than 90 percent - 10 points

90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last

10 years?

More than 90 percent - 20 points

90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs 

to protect farmland?

Site is protected - 20 points

Site is not protected - 0 points

 (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?

(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of

Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)

As large or larger - 10 points

Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

 (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of 

interference with land patterns?

Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points

Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)

Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

 (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, 

processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?

All required services are available - 5 points

Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)

No required services are available - 0 points

 (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees

and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?

High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points

Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)

No on-farm investment - 0 points

 (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support

services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?

Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points

Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)

No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

 (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to

contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?

Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points

Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)

Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO 

4. Sheet  of

NRCS-CPA-106

(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For Segment

Corridor ' Corridor ( Corridor )

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 

value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor

Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

Maximum

Points

15

10

20

20

10

25

7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be

Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

Corridor *

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail

Transportation - Rail and Road

10/26/16

6

Federal Railroad Administration

Hanover, Henrico, Richmond City, Chesterfield

10/20/16 Greg Hammer

✔

Corn

LE of LESA 12/1/16

6

45.36 60.04 54.96 54.64

216.21 196.55 226.16 227.83

28 34 29 30

5 9 5 5

0 0 0 0

- - -

20 22 17 17

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 000

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2

0 0 0 0

0 0 00

0 0 0 0

2 2 2

20 22 17 17

2

2 2 2 2

22 24 19 19

✔
NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant

points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood

control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland

along with the land evaluation information.

 (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?

More than 90 percent - 15 points 

90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?

More than 90 percent - 10 points

90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last

10 years?

More than 90 percent - 20 points

90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)

Less than 20 percent - 0 points

 (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs 

to protect farmland?

Site is protected - 20 points

Site is not protected - 0 points

 (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?

(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of

Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)

As large or larger - 10 points

Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

 (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of 

interference with land patterns?

Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points

Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)

Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

 (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, 

processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?

All required services are available - 5 points

Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)

No required services are available - 0 points

 (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees

and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?

High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points

Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)

No on-farm investment - 0 points

 (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support

services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?

Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points

Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)

No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

 (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to

contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?

Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points

Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)

Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points
C

ITYOFALEXANDRIAANA

COSTIA

RIVER

ITTLE

RIVER

POTOMAC

RIVER

POTOMAC RIVER

TIDAL

BASIN

FAIRFAX

COUNTY

ARLINGTON

COUNTY

BEGIN ALTERNATIVE AREA 1 BEGIN ALTERNATIVE AREA 2

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet1of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
BELMONT BAY

MA

R

OCRCIVOQUAN ER

P

O

HI

C

K

B

A

Y

FAIRFAX

COUNTY

PRINCE

WILLIAM

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet2of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
BELMONT BAY

FAR CR MEEK

MARUMSCO CREEK

NEABSCO CREEK

O

C

C

O

Q

UA

N

BA

Y

OCCOQUAN RIVER

POWELLS CREEK

QUANTICO CREEK

FAIRFAX

COUNTY

PRINCE

WILLIAM

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet3of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
A

Q

UIA

C

R

EEK

C

H

O

PA

WA

MS

I

C

C

R

EEK

POTOMACRIVER

QUANTICO CREEK ST A F F

ORD

COUNTY

PRINCE

WILLIAM

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet4of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
A

QUIA

CREEK

STAFFORD

COUNTY

BEGIN ALTERNATIVE AREA 3

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet5of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
C

ITYOF

FREDERICKSBURG

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER

SPOTSYLVANIA

COUNTY

CAROLINE

COUNTY

STAFFORD

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet6of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER

SPOTSYLVANIA

COUNTY

CAROLINE

COUNTY

STAFFORD

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet7of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
ATTA RIVER

SPOTSYLVANIA

COUNTY

CAROLINE

COUNTY

BEGIN ALTERNATIVE AREA 4

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet8of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
C

AROLINE

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet9of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
SO

UTH

ANNA

RIVER

NORTH ANNA RIVER

CAROLINE

COUNTY

HANOVER

COUNTY

B

E

G

I

N

ALT

E

R

NAT

I

V

E

A

RE

A

5

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet10of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
T

OWNOF

ASHLAND

HANOVERCOUNTY

S

O

U

TH

A

NNA

R

I

VER

HENRICO

COUNTY

CAROLINE

COUNTY

§ ̈¦95

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_11_FarmlndSoilsAgFor_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet11of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
C

ITYOF

RICHMOND

HENRICO

COUNTY

HANOVER

COUNTY

BE

G

I

N

ALT

ERNAT

IVE

AREA

6

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet12of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
JAMES RIVER

CITYOF

RICHMOND

HENRICO

COUNTY

CHESTERFIELD

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet13of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
JAMES RIVER C I T Y O F

RICHMOND

CHICKAHOMINY RIVER

HENRICO

COUNTY

HANOVER

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet14of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance
H

ENRICOCOUNTY

CHESTERFIELD

COUNTY

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Natural Resources\Appendices\DC2RVA_AppN_N-2_FarmlndSoilsAgForMapbook_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.23.2017

[

FigureN-2

FarmlandSoilsand

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦66

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

WWaasshh

ington,D.C.

ington,D.C.

RRi

icchhmmoonndd

ColonialHeights

[

Projection:LambertConformalConic

StatePlaneVirginiaNorthFIPS4501Feet

NorthAmericanDatumof1983

Basemap:ESRIWorldTransportation

00.51

Mile

1inch=1mile

@8.5x11inches

DataSource:VACEDAR,USDA-NRCS

Sheet15of15

Legend

AlternativeArea

Limits

DC2RVAProject

Corridor

1,000-footStudyArea

City/County

Boundary

Agricultural/Forestal

Districts

FarmlandClassification

Primefarmland

Farmlandof

statewideimportance