19930132 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO March 17, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301329 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E,. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference is made to Mr. Barney O'Quinn's letter of February 12, 1993,
concerning the proposed construction of an interchange at the existing
Interstate 95 - N.C. 125 grade separation near Roanoke Rapids, Halifax County,
North Carolina (State Project 8.1301001, T.I.P. Project I-2004). Based upon
that letter and the attached environmental documentation, it is our
understanding that the project is being processed as a "Categorical Exclusion"
and will involve adverse impacts by filling to 2.0 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands associated with an unnamed tributary to Quankey Creek.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively has a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your proposed work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished
in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This NWP does not relieve
you of the responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval.
You should contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management, [phone], to obtain the necessary Section 401, Water Quality
Certification prior to starting work.

-2-
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
% Environment, Health and
V Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
v
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

? - {{ Ilp- I / a3
TO: \\ {??1/??
--• ?1( ' REF. NO. OR ROOM J, 4BLDG

R)e 1.1 1
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

JAMES B. HUNT. JR
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI 1. N.C. 27611-5201
February 12, 1993
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Si e -ely,
J. C'Oui n, P.E.
As_ s n allager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
District Engineer
Army corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
It 4:A
Dear Sir:
SAM HUNT
SECRL.TARY
D ??
L 3 1'93 '
`11LniJDS GROUP
VIATE11 0l"'I ITY L.CTiC1J
Subject: Halifax County, I-95/NC 125 - Proposed Interchange;
State Project Number 8.1301001; Federal Aid Project
IR-95-3(570170; T.I.P. Number I-2004
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix; A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
X3132
t?r'?)
T
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: COE, Raleigh Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
C.A. Gardner, Jr., P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Charles Cox, P&E
Davis Moore, P&E
Interstate 95-NC 125
Proposed Interchange South of Roanoke Rapids
Halifax County
Federal Aid Project IR-95-3(57)170
State Project 8.1301001
T.I.P. Project 1-2004
r?
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
December, 1992
w
APPROVED:
12- 3 9z
ate d, L. J Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
? 4aeNic ola Graf, P. E.
tt Division Administrator, FHWA

Interstate 95-NC 125
Proposed Interchange South of Roanoke Rapids
Halifax County
Federal Aid Project IR-95-3(57)170
State Project 8.1301001
T.I.P. Project I-2004
w
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December, 1992
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
C Nxiez' R. ox
Project Planning Engineer
Zichar B Davis, P. .
Project Pinning Engi?yeer, Unit.,He i
H Franklin Vick, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
C lo
SEAL
944
.rGl NE??:
? J , • Cep.
,1,,?ti ?.
"'' Oil, 11111
SUMMARY
Categorical Exclusion
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
4 ,
t
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Administrative Action
"categorical exclusion".
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct
an interchange at the existing Interstate 95-NC 125 grade separation. The
project is located south of the City of Roanoke Rapids in Halifax County
(see Figure 1). The total estimated cost for this project is $3,822,000.
3. Alternatives Considered
The recommendations indicated in this document for a three-legged
diamond are regarded to be the best and most feasible way to provide full
access to the project area. A full diamond design was considered briefly
but was not selected because of a historic home in one quadrant. The "no
build" option was not selected because of the need of additional access to
Roanoke Rapids from Interstate 95.
4. Environmental Impacts
Based on the studies associated with this project, it is expected
that the overall effect will be positive on the area by providing access
to southern Roanoke Rapids from I-95. Negative impacts include the
relocation of one home, minimal impact to one historic structure,
conversion of some farmland to highway use and the disturbance of
approximately 2 acres of wetland. Also, during the construction period,
stream siltation and noise levels may temporarily increase.
5. Actions Required !?y Other Federal Agencies
Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE), a
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for
proposed construction.
This permit authorizes any activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by
another federal agency or department has determined pursuant to the
Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the CE
and concurs with that determination.
6. Federal, State and Local Agencies Contacted at the
Beginning of this Study
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of the Army-Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Administration-State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources-Division of Archives
and History
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region L. Council of Governments
Halifax County
7. Basis of Categorical Exclusion
From the planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated that
the project will have an overall positive effect on the area. No major
realignment is occurring and overall impact on the area is not
significant. All appropriate agencies have commented on the project and
all minor problems have been resolved. Therefore, a Categorical Exclusion
is appropriate for this project.
8. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information
about this project:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
}• Mr. L. Jack Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Highway Building
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

w•
1.
Page
SUMMARY
I. STATUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................... 1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................... 1
A. Roadways ........................................... 1
B. Structures ........................................ 1
C. Traffic Volumes .................................... 2
D. Accident Study ................................... 2
E. Capacity Analysis .................................. 2
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................... 4
IV. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ...................................... 4
V. ALTERNATIVES ............................................ 4
A. Recommended Alternative ............................ 4
B. "No Build" Alternative ............................. 5
VI. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 5
A. Natural and Ecological Resources ................... 5
1. Plant Communities ............................. 5
2. Animal Communities ............................ 5
3. Soils .. ................................... 6
4. Water Quality ............................... 6
5. Protected Species . ..... ................. 6
6. Wetland Quantity and Stream Impacts ........... 8
7. Permits ....................................... 8
B. Historic and Cultural Resources .................... 8
1. Historic and Architectural Resources .......... 8
2. Archaeological Resources ...................... 9
3. Other Cultural Resources ...................... 9
C. Land Use ........................................... 9
1. Status of Planning ............................ 9
2. Existing Land Use ............................. 9
3. Existing Zoning ............................... 10
4. Proposed Land Use .. ..................... 10
5. Project Compatibility With
Local Plans .............................. 10
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
D. Prime and Important Farmland ....................... 10
E. Geological Factors .............................. 10
F. Flood Hazard Evaluation ........................ 11
G. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ...................... 11
H. Economic and Social Impacts ........................ 11
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .................. 11
2. Economic Impacts ... . .... ................... 11
3. Public Facilities and Services Impact ......... 12
4. Relocation Impact Analysis on Individuals,
Families, Commercial and Other
Establishments ........................... 12
I. Hazardous Waste .................................... 14
J. Aeronautical Impact ................................ 14
K. Geodetic Markers ................................... 14
L. Conclusion ......................................... 14
TABLES
Table 1 - Levels of Service .................................. 3
Table 2 - Soil Summary, Halifax County ........................ 6
Table 3 - Federally-Protected Species ......................... 7
Table 4 - Summary of Plant Community Impacts .................. 8
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Roanoke Rapids
Figure 4 - Traffic Data
Figure 5 - Photos of Historic Home
Figure 6 - Landscape Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX
Comments Received ......................................... Al-All
r.

iv
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Interstate 95-NC 125 Interchange
Halifax County
Federal-Aid Project IR-95-3(57)170
State Project 8.1301001
TIP No. I-2004
I. STATUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project is currently in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP schedule calls for right-of-way acquisition to
• begin in Fiscal Year 1993 and construction to begin in Fiscal Year 1994.
The project consists of constructing a three-legged diamond
interchange at the existing grade separation on Interstate 95 and NC 125
south of Roanoke Rapids (see Figure 1). This is to be accomplished by
replacing the old bridge with a new one, realigning NC 125 and adding
three ramps and a loop.
The TIP funding for the project is estimated at $2,225,000. The
current estimated cost is a total of $3,822,000, of which $3,400,000 is
for construction and $422,000 is for right-of-way. The cost increase is
attributed to the replacement of the existing bridge. The current bridge
does not have adequate horizontal clearance to allow for the addition of
the acceleration lane on Interstate 95. The proposed bridge will have
adequate horizontal clearance to accommodate the future widening of I-95
to 6 lanes.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Roadways
The section of Interstate 95 in the area of NC 125 was constructed in
1968. The interstate is a 4-lane divided facility with a 60-foot median,
12-foot paved outside shoulders and 4-foot paved median shoulders. The
existing right-of-way ranges from 264 feet to 580 feet with full access
control. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour. Interstate 95 is
classified as a Rural Interstate in the Functional Classification System.
NC 125 is classified as a Major Collector in the Functional
Classification System. The roadway is a 2-lane facility with 20 feet of
pavement width and shoulder width of 6 feet. Existing right-of-way is 60
feet. On the bridge, the roadway width is 24 feet with a shoulder width
V of 2 feet. The existing speed limit is 55 miles per hour. The latest
improvement to the roadway was a 1 inch resurfacing completed in 1977.
B. Structures
The existing bridge, constructed in 1965, is 330 feet long and has a
roadway width of 28 feet. The vertical clearance above I-95 to the base
of the bridge is 16'-6". The structure consists of a reinforced concrete
floor on I-beams. The sufficiency rating is 64.8% and the remaining life
is estimated to be 25 years. The existing bridge has no posted weight
restriction.
2
C. Traffic Volumes
The existing average daily traffic on Interstate 95 in the vicinity
of the proposed interchange is 35,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The
existing average daily traffic on NC 125 in the vicinity of the proposed
interchange is 3900 vpd. Figure 4 exhibits the current daily traffic
volumes and the projected future volumes with and without the interchange
in place. Also included in this figure are the design hourly volume and
truck percentages.
D. Accident Study
An accident study, covering the three-year period from May 1, 1989 to
April 30, 1992, was performed on the area of I-95 in question. The study
revealed a total of 116 accidents, of which only one involved a fatality.
The total accident rate was 63.61 accidents per 100 million vehicles per
mile (acc/100 mvm), which compares to the statewide average of 48.6
acc/100 mvm for rural interstate highways.
NC 125 was also analyzed during the
There were 9 accidents within 1 mile of
fatalities. The total accident rate was
the statewide average of 193.8 acc/100 m
highways.
same period for accident rates.
either side of the bridge with no
157.34 acc/100 mvm, compared to
vm for 2-lane rural North Carolina
E. Capacity Analysis
A capacity analysis was performed for NC 125 & I-95 using the
estimated peak hour traffic demands to determine the level of service
(LOS) for the years 1994 and 2014, both with and without the interchange
in place. I-95 was evaluated using a 4-lane cross-section in 1994 and a
6-lane cross-section in 2014. A capacity analysis was performed to
determine the level of service along the merge and diverge area of the
proposed ramps along Interstate 95. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
analyses.

3
Year
1994 (4-lane)
2014 (6-lane proposed)
TABLE 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE
I-95 ANALYSIS
WITHOUT INTERCHANGE
LOS C
LOS C
NC 125 ANALYSIS
WITH INTERCHANGE
LOS C
LOS C
1994 LOS B LOS C
2014 LOS C LOS D
I-95 RAMP ANALYSIS
North Off North On South Off South On
1994 LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C
2014 LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (NC 125 and Ramps)
Northbound Ramps Southbound Ramps
1994 LOS E (Minor left) LOS D (Minor Left)
A (Major left) A (Minor Right)
A (Major Left)
2014 LOS F (Minor left) LOS F (Minor Left)
B (Major left) B (Minor Right)
A (Major Left)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ( NC 125 and Ramps)
Northbound Ramps Southbound Ramps
1994 LOS A LOS A
2014 LOS A LOS B
4
The analysis for different areas of study (highway, ramps and
intersections) yielded generally positive results. The addition of the
interchange will not cause the overall level of service to reduce to an
unacceptable standard. The analysis for the year 2014 for I-95 yielded
satisfactory LOS when evaluated for a 6-lane cross-section.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed project is designed to be a fully functional interchange
by adding ramps in the northeast and southeast quadrants and both a ramp
and a loop in the northwest quadrant. A new structure of approximately
360 feet long with a roadway width of 40 feet will be constructed adjacent
to the existing bridge. Because a new structure is required, NC 125 is to
be realigned. The ramp terminals are to be located to allow for adequate
site distance on both ends of the bridge. SR 1692 will be relocated to
intersect NC 125 beyond the ramp terminals as shown on Figure 2. NC 125
will be widened to 3 lanes in the vicinity of the bridge to allow for left
turn lanes at ramp terminals. The bridge will be lengthened to
accommodate the future widening of I-95. The proposed design speed on
NC 125 is 60 mph.
IV. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to provide additional access to the
Roanoke Rapids area by constructing an interchange at the existing grade
separation of Interstate 95 and NC 125. Currently, the City of Roanoke
Rapids is served by an interchange at US 158. The new interchange will
serve to reduce congestion at the US 158/Interstate 95 interchange by
approximately 5000 vehicles per day by the year 2014. The proposed
interchange will be located approximately 2.2 miles south of the US 158
interchange and 3.0 miles north of the NC 903 interchange, thus meeting
the desirable minimum spacing between interchanges of 2 miles in rural
areas.
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative to construct an interchange will provide
a direct access from Interstate 95 to NC 125 and to Roanoke Rapids. These
improvements will also reduce traffic congestion at the US 158 interchange
2 miles north on I-95. The three-legged Diamond design was selected
• because it avoids conflict a historic property in the southwest quadrant.
The existing alignment of NC 125 and the existing bridge cannot be
utilized due to the lack of horizontal clearance for the addition of
ramps. 'Therefore, a new bridge will be constructed adjacent to the
existing bridge. This new bridge will have sufficient clearance to
accommodate the future widening of I-95 to 6 lanes.
B. The "No Build" Alternative
A "no build" situation would avoid the minor negative impacts
accompanying the project. However, the long term benefits of this
interchange outweigh the negative effects on the Roanoke Rapids area.
VI. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Natural and Ecological Resources
1. Plant Communities
Agricultural and associated residential areas, forested and
logged sites comprise the impact areas. Small upland forested areas
are dominated by loblolly pine Pinus taeda , sweetgum (Liquidambar
st raciflua , water oak Ouercuuss ni ra , red cedar Juni erus
vir iniana and vines such as poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans ,
grape Vitis spy, and catbrier Smilax s In some areas one may
find American holly Ilex o aca , sassafras Sassafras albidum ,
blueberry Vaccinium spy, winged sumac Rhus copallina) and sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum . Immature stands of this community are present
in the northwest quadrant of the project and along the I-95 right of
way. A second type of upland hardwood stand contains sugar maple
Acer saccharum), red maple, willow oak uercus hellos , and
blackcherry Prunus serotina .
A logged wetland site in the southeast quadrant has a few
remaining red maples Acer rubrum , in addition to rush Juncus spy,
a sedge Carex sp.), bulrush Scrir us cyperinus), and blackberry
Rubus sp. TYis area is heavily disturbed and appears to be
periodically flooded.
An established homestead in the northwest quadrant and two
abandoned homesites in the southeast and northeast quadrants are
located in the proposed impact zones adjacent to agricultural areas.
Various plant assemblages are found near these homesites and at edges
of fields. One may find wild onion Allium spy, rose Rosa sue,
honeysuckle Lonicera Japonica), cow itch (Cam psis radicans ,
cnidoscolus (Cnidoscolus stimulosus), and dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium).
2. Animal Communities
Since the majority of the impacted area is agricultural in
nature, a wildlife discussion of this community follows. Animal
diversity tends to increase in open, agricultural fields as the
community progresses from early pioneering grasses to final
successional stages. Characteristic mammalian fauna includes eastern
mole Scalo us a uaticus , eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus , woodchuck Marmota monax , cotton rat Si modon
is i us , pine vole Microtus pinetorium), red fox Vu es fu va
and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
6
Avian Fauna that might occur in open areas such as fields and
residential areas include killdeer Charadrius vociferous), bobwhite
Colinus virginianus), mourning dove Zenai a macroura , horned lark
Eremo hila aal es?tris), mockingbird Mimus polyglottos), eastern
bluebird Sialia sialia , bobolink (dolichonyx oryzivorus),
meadowlark Sturnella magna), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis
and rufous-sided towhee Pi ilo er_ythropthalmus).
3. Soils
Halifax County is in the process of updating a soil survey at
this time. A soil survey dated September, 1990 indicates that the
following soil mapping units are located in the study area:
TABLE 2 Soil Summary, Halifax County
Name Slope Classification
Emporia loamy fine sand 0-2% Non-Hydric
Emporia loamy fine sand 2-6% Non-Hydric
Bonneau loamy fine sand 0-4% Non-Hydric
Marlboro fine sandy loam 2-6% Non-Hydric
4. Water Quality
One small drainage ditch is crossed by the project. It is
unnamed and it is likely that it flows into Little Quankey Creek.
Little Quankey Creek has a best usage classification of C (OEM,
1991). Best usage recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture.
No High Quality waters, Outstanding Resource Waters and waters
classified WS-1 and WS-II are located in the study area or 1 mile
downstream.
5. Protected Species
Federal law states that any action, which has the potential to
result in a negative impact to federally protected plants or animals,
is subject to review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
-• and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service under one or more
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise
jurisdiction over protected species in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act of 1979. Certain plants and animals, which
are endemic to North Carolina and/or whose populations are in severe
decline, are also protected by North Carolina law.
7
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species act of 1973, as amended.
The USFWS lists 1 species as federally protected for Halifax
County as of August 28, 1992.
Table 3 Federally-Protected Species for Halifax County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
The habitat requirement for the Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is
pine-dominated forests where pine (loblolly, long leaf or pond pine)
constitute more than 50% of the forest. The bird is most successful
in open, uncluttered forecasted stands where fire maintains
relatively low groundcover and midstory densities. Foraging trees
must be at least 30 years old and nesting trees 60 years old.
A site visit revealed that much of the forested community in the
southeastern quadrant of the proposed action was suitable foraging
and/or nesting habitat for the species.
The forest in this quadrant compositionally was suitable and the
pine component was abundantly represented by large, mature loblolly
that would pass the 60 year old test. Since colonies occupy circular
foraging ranges with 0.5 mile radii, it was necessary to survey the
entire forested stand which borders the southbound lanes of I-95
within the study area of the proposed interchange. The forest
community was bordered to the west by an agricultural field and to
the south by a forest, which was dominated either by young pines
and/or hardwoods.
Surveys for cavity trees were conducted and none were found. In
addition, no other evidence of RCW activities was noted. Although
the forest composition and age of pines is generally favorable to the
RCW, it is obvious that mid-story encroachment by hardwood saplings
and vines in this forest increases the likelihood that predation
could place unfavorable stresses on any populations which colonized
the area.
• Based upon the results of this survey, it was determined with
certainty that no populations of RCW utilize any forested areas
likely to be impacted by the proposed action; therefore, the project
is not likely to threaten, harm, or otherwise affect the RCW.
a
6. Wetland Quantity and Stream Impacts
Wetland and upland impacts associated with the interchange
construction are summarized in Table 2 below. Plant communities are
described in the earlier section.
Table 4 Summary of Plant Community Impacts*
Quadrant Residential Agriculture Wetland Uplands
Northwest 1.6 6.9 - 0.1
Southeast 0.3 3.6 2.0 0.2
Northeast - 2.1 - -
Totals 1.9 12.6 2.0 0.3
*Acreage estimates are based on:
1) exit ramp construction of 75 feet
2) circular on-ramp construction area
3) realignment of NC 125 and SR 1692
Wetland impacts are totalled from two sites: a disturbed wetland and
a drainage ditch both located in the southeast quadrant. The
disturbed wetland is approximately 450 feet long by 150 feet wide.
Total impact is approximately 1.6 acres. Impacts to the drainage
ditch are approximately 0.3 acres, based on an impact length of 375
feet.
7. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be
applicable for the proposed construction. The final decision rests
with the Corps of Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required
for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
federal permit is required. State permits are administered through
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).

B. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Historic and Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 900. Section
106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted
project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
NCDOT staff architectural historian delineated and surveyed the
area of potential effect of this undertaking and NCDOT consulted with
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). (Copies of SHPO
Correspondence are included in the Appendix.)
Only one property, the L. T. Garner Farm, was determined to be
eligible for the National Register. (It was subsequently listed in
the National Register). (See figure 5 for photographs.) In a letter
dated July 24, 1992, the SHPO concurred with DOT's finding of No
Adverse Effect on the Garner Farm based on the landscape mitigation
plan. Due to access control on NC 125, the existing rear entrance
will be upgraded and the front entrance closed, the option preferred
by SHPO in its July 24, 1992 letter.
The summary documentation concerning the No Adverse Effect
(Section 800.8(a)) is being submitted to the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation for review. This will complete compliance with
Section 106.
2. Archaeological Resources
A survey showed no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites
within the project area. The North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources has concurred with the recommendation of no further
investigation. The comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
3. Other Cultural Resources
There will be no use of land from publicly owned recreation
areas, parks or wildlife/waterfowl refuges. Therefore, no Section
4(f) lands will be impacted by the project.
C. Land Use
1. Status of Planning
• The proposed interchange lies
County. The most recently adopted
Stud and Land Development Plan
commissioners in 1976, and is now
county also has a zoning ordinance
2. Existing Land Use
within the jurisdiction of Halifax
planning document, Land Potential
was approved by the county
effectively out of date. The
in effect.
The area of the proposed interchange is rural in character. The
land in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is currently
used for farming. Farm houses and accessory buildings exist at the
site.
10
3. Existing Zoning
All four quadrants of the intersection of NC 125 and I-95 are
zoned Residential - Agriculture District, which permits residential
uses on lots no less than 20,000 square feet in size in addition to
agricultural and other related uses.
4. Proposed Land Use
According to the 1976 Land Use Plan, the area of the proposed
interchange is classified as rural, providing land for farming,
forestry, or mining, depending on its natural resource potential.
The land use is not expected to change.
5. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
The possibility of an interchange is addressed in the adopted
1992 Thoroughfare Plan. An interchange is generally considered
compatible with agricultural land uses, although its existence may
increase pressure for highway, commercial, or "strip" development in
its vicinity. Given the zoning designation for the area, such
development could not occur without concurrence from the County
Commissioners in the form of approval of a formal re-zoning
application.
D. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires that all federal agencies
and their representatives consider the potential impact of construction
projects on prime, unique, and important farmland soils as defined by the
Act. The purpose of such consideration is to minimize the loss of
farmland through federal actions.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine the
possible impact each alternate alignment may have on prime or important
farmland soil in the area. The SCS responded with maps indicating the
location of prime and important farmland soils in the vicinity of each
alternative. The SCS was unable to complete Form AD 1006.
The construction of the proposed interchange will impact
approximately 1.6 acres of prime farmland and 6.9 acres of state important
farmland soils in the northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange. In
the southeast quadrant, approximately 2.5 acres of prime farmland will be
impacted. In the southwest quadrant, roughly 5.2 acres of prime farmland
and 2.8 acres of state important farmland soils will be affected.
The project as proposed will impact a total of approximately 9.3
acres of prime farmland and 9.7 acres of state important farmland.
E. Geological Factors
A geotechnical evaluation team reviewed this project and made a field
reconnaissance. It was determined that adverse impacts of this project on
the geologic environment are not anticipated. Geo-environmental elements
11
include: soil, rock, ground water, topographic setting, soil and rock
chemistry, mineral resources, water wells, and erosion-siltation
potential.
F. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The immediate area surrounding the proposed interchange is not within
the 100-year floodplain for the Roanoke Rapids area.
G. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
• The project is located within the eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Halifax County has been
determined to be in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this
project.
The project consists of converting the existing grade separation to an
interchange. The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes
and no additional through travel lanes will be added. Therefore, the
project's impact on noise and air quality will be insignificant. Noise
levels could increase during construction, but the increase will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements of 23 CFR 772 (highway
traffic noise) and 23 CFR 770 (air quality) and no additional reports are
required.
H. Economic and Social Impacts
1. Neighborhood Characterstics
Halifax County, located in the northeastern section of the
state, is bounded by Bertie, Martin, Edgecombe, Nash, Warren and
Northampton Counties. Based on the 1990 U.S. Census, Halifax County
has a population of 55,516. By the year 2010, the population is
projected to be 57,633.
The proposed project is located in a rural farm area.
Development in the area is residential. There is one occupied
residential home and one abandoned home in the path of the proposed
interchange.
2. Economic Impacts
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates for
May, 1992 indicated that Halifax County has a labor force of 24,400.
Out of this total, 22,206 persons were employed. This left an
unemployment total of 2,180 or 8.9 percent.
12
The proposed project may change the land use and tax base. The
land use will possibly give way to highway commercial development
after the proposed interchange is constructed. This will probably
increase the tax base along the proposed project site.
3. Public Facilities and Services Impact
There are no public facilities along the proposed project site.
If any public utilities are adversely impacted during the actual
construction, it will be for a brief period of time. Community
residents will be given prior notice.
4. Relocation Impact Analysis on Individuals, Families,
Commercial and Other Establishments
The proposed action will relocate one occupied dwelling. It is
the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing
will be available prior to construction of state and federally
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
Relocation Assistance
Relocation Moving Payments, and
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership),
the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133- 18).
The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for
this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
13
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at
least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or
federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired
for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement
to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed
$22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing
provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down
payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a
replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been offered
or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time
• prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be
considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security
Act or any other federal law.
14
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can
be provided. It is not felt that this program will be necessary on
the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities for
relocation within the area.
I. Hazardous Waste
A field survey was undertaken to identify any environmental hazards
such as underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, dumps,
landfills, or similar sites that may directly impact the roadway
construction, cause delays, or create contingent environmental
liabilities. In addition to the field survey, a records search of the
environmental agencies was also conducted. The files of the Solid Waste
Management Section were investigated to determine if any unregulated dumps
or landfills are present within the corridor. The EPA's Superfund list
was reviewed to determine if any known hazardous waste sites are within
the corridor. The files of the NC Division of Environmental Management,
Groundwater Section, were reviewed to determined if underground storage
tanks identified within the proposed right of way are registered with that
agency as required by 40 CFR 280.22.
As a result of this investigation, no sites were identified as
containing potential environmental hazards.
J. Aeronautical Impact
The area was investigated to determine aeronautical impacts of the
project. No airports or other aviation facilities appear to be negatively
impacted by highway construction along the corridor for this project.
This project will be desirable from aeronautical standpoint since it will
enhance access to the Halifax County airport from south of Roanoke Rapids.
K. Geodetic Markers
Three horizontal and one vertical geodetic survey markers will be
impacted. The N. C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction.
L. Conclusion
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
document, it has been determined the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment. This CE completes the environmental
review.
70 2.3 f A.?
3 1 eah. ` /
,? cl v e'. ROANacC ? /
s (?•::
RArID$ O
'OP. 14.702
T
fv
F. 1.82 \ e 117
1' moo lu0 `ro Leie
nl
i
t 'n Lr211e77'- r -.h 7e ` I"r' 4y104° + l t?
14
Ins
o

_
n
1
?ei
!.i
?
`
? ,, 7
117
`
7
'
/ 1
_
?
HaGfna
le) '
.7
?r
,'? 4
f ?
F
? A;,P." eDT.
il. $
?
, e lf 'r: / y It»
IrI ? .
Te PROPOSED
? -

r? /
"" '? ``x
:. 1
! J, PROJECT I I is
'S 7D

1Lt. 7 u _iqo ?eM -???
, lett
y1' lue
leer _ F I 7
J
j7p

r ? S
?

\ ?i Do
i ? f CraYOYaldl
n
I.l

to lIl
al`12 'v X11 0
o

J11

?j 4 J 11
_ t

1100 pay,
?
Mdervool

Craerood 1"

l . y vo! '? leer a s
h
l
111° ey0
Cralr°odl 21
?
in 7eoa e ?
ll
... _ 1 reie \'if
•
\\\ ,? ? lei!
... lee ? i.liv
? ? •s
r
1t ?..
ralroodl ?eiv 'ei! . -
'.17
!ooh loll f
ei.
a
re11 1/ie
° .411 V' ILS 1 .
3
Ie0! ^r!a! a? G1?lN ° `e Nel?ls•
revs ;. °

ror. Le.e
HAUfAx
ror.ls3 f
l ]d'10'
HALIFAX COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NUMBER 1-2004
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMEINT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
h food 1311ANC14
1-95/NC 125 INTERCHANGE
FIG. 1
f
r
't r
a
,I
U W
+- U
CE L'
n
1
O N
D
Z
w

r

G
/ o.
f i

h
JX•'?
?
1 1 1 }y
i:1?1.
'
?
r
4RG sG.._.
_
y
J
14 .1 r7 h >41?'f K
?? I

?
?
, .a.9.yryr?..

?'µy fyxF 14rr' /

?
`
!
I
?J b,
I"i .
nk
I

A,

y-

.. a ..? J/MA•wvMk !IN!dr4

r !i ?
i f i

I f
! {
? 9 ?
I i ? ? l

t

i
. i
I
V 1 i l
1 I i
r 1 ??
si " !1l ? ''
1 _
p? ? ?\ Ili ,. I•I ?' ?,, it ?? ?- ?\ 4 ? ,?i,

.t --
it
ro
t
t
E
\ l \
0
Ins
i
p ;
• D _
= GObd 7 ?,.? .I•• -
00 40
1A 10< -M, wr >
ee
"o -M 'A 8
70
m D O t Zy 3
,,y?t? ?F•"•'•': •'•'• •?III„111 oQ ?;III ? fllll 11;?i;'hil
Z C) 0 M 0(1'11 ???!IIICI??II??l?ii??;??Illl?ii ?iljl?ji'll???l?l?l??`i?j1
?..1. I
00
?, t f II
r
t
r
r
I ..
s r
I-95/NC 125 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
ESTIMATED 1994/2014 ADT (IN HUNDREDS)
PR OJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITH INTERCHANGE AT NC 125
PROJECTED ADT VOLUMES WITH PROJECTED ADT VOLUMES
INTERCHANGE AT NC 125 IN PLACE WITH NO INTERCHANGE AT NC 125

357 1-95 357 1-95
653 653

US 158
TTST = 2%
42
73 3o DUAL = 3% ^6
SIT 32
79
DHV = 10% 60
346 13 28 21
2
r ?. \21 939f> 34 13
_
.` 607 23? 23 23
316
g
42 555
13) r?+ 1- 8 1s " 294 US 1 58 13 1 r. {
B ? a US 1 58
24
ja 27 16 526 23 1
1fi 44 17
HOLIDAY 20 s

9
DRIVE
2
5
HOLIDAY 20 s
20 29
36 52 25 DRIVE 3! 30 39
45 53 71 33
61
i
339
624
7 NC 125
?2 2 TTST = 3%
62 3 4 10
112 J? ?
39
5 12 7 52 DUAL = 6% 69
94
DHV
10%
=
NC 125
s
-
2 NC 125
8 2
14 3 I
a
3
10 350
17 1-95 646
345 TTST = 18%

634
DUAL = 5% s 8
4
7 4 DHV = 10% 16 16 f

18 1 3

'T2 \` 5 3
1 5 24 16 2 7

2 42 30 3 r 13
2_ 7
32
3 ?f k 13 60
1~ ?. 2 1 r NC 903 _NC 903 1 " { a 1 R NC 903
a
z a z 2 TTST = 2% a 7
-4
DUAL 2
i
3 = 3%
3
6 DHV = 10%
5 5
I-20U4, HALIFAX CUUNTY
I-95/NC 125 INTERCHANGE
L.T. GARNER FARM, SOUTHWE!
QUADRANT OF INTERCHANGE
F
WEST SIDE OF MAIN HOUSE

\
\

In
Y

a
Ld
w
m
vi v v
M "T v
-- - ri K1 t+1 _ul yr N -
ln
d = _ - cv v ri
+- +-
O
z m CO m O m
m m U U m
Z) CO
ti M M

(r 1
- c
w
o_ 1

a
V1 U 1
L -

w O 00 N v
ri N 1 I I 1 1 1
a CO v v m w M
a - -

w
p
o w p

w a vl
z a
c
a o
a

C? o N O
u p f- x _
D
m o v o
bq ? ? V 3 ? J

W
A
d

W

A
z O J
N

.b .U

9 u
7
L
Z
g o = °

O L
co
j
v
j
U
d
L C
J
• ° h
h
N L L L C

- 0 0 0 - 0 04

Q a Q a a
Z w w w w w w
Z w N - - O op
a - - - to

O
u a' ? v v' v v
w m O m m m
I/1 00 00 co w co co
M M
t O
w U) J J
o v W
N N N N
\ s ri
_4,
f. r
l l o\ \\ \\
z ?'d \ \ \
I,a. vii ? \ \ \ \
\ \ \ < ?A\'
u
I o
\ 1,
CD
r;
1
I
3
I pl,
I
I
I
I
I
I
al
z I
u.
0
z I
¢I
U I
F- I
wl
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
Z

Lo Q
Z
w Z
D
U
U

CD

C)
Z
LO
r--
Q

U
Z
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II cn I
II O I
II Q I
II ? I
II W i
II ? I
I z I
I o I
I ? I
I o I
Ln
110
w
c?
LL-
APPENDI)(
41
• ?r?y ? 4rr'??,•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 24, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Departmenr.of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 125 Interchange with 1-95, Halifax County, 1-
2004, IR-95-3(57)170, 8.1301001, ER 92-8568
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 26, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the documentation provided to us to determine the effect of
this project on the National Register-eligible L. T. Garner Farm. We concur with
the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) determination of No
Adverse Effect upon the property. We feel that the landscape mitigation plan and
selection of plant materials are appropriate to the historic character and setting of
the farm.
Also, we understand that the existing front driveway to the farm must be removed
due to the required control of access for the new interchange. Based upon our
review of the driveway options and our phone conversation with Mr. Raymond
Garner, Jr., the representative for the property owner, we prefer that NCDOT
improve the existing rear driveway (Option No. 2) rather than relocate the front
entrance parallel to NC 125 (Option No. 1), which would take existing farmland.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
A-1
109 Eastjones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincer.ely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
A-2
f0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Re
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 28, 1990
Nicholas"L, Graf
Division'Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Archaeological study, Interchange at NC'125 and
1-95, Federal Aid IR-95-3 (57 )170, TIP 1-2004,
Halifax County, CH 89-E-4220-0788, ER 91-7247
Dear Mr. Graf:
.z? d0 n r^ 1glbl
0661
Zp100
U
M3 •„
,,.
Divisior nd History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1990, and the archaeological
survey report by Thomas Padgett of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
During the course of the survey no prehistoric or historic archaeological
sites were located within the project area. Due to the absence of
archaeological resources Mr. Padgett has recommended that no further ,
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
_ Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
• Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
• concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,"
DDeputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
/ A-3
cc: i/L. J. Ward09 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
T. Padgett

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 26, 1990
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Redesign of I-95 and NC 125 Interchange,
Halifax County, ER 91-7048 7-,?oo4
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
G
? O ?gQOc ?¢
OC ?, cc
IgNN/ ?` 4?
NG &
We have received a July 10, 1990, letter and interchange design for I-95
and NC 125 from Barbara Church, architectural historian with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. After reviewing the plan we have
determined that the proposed interchange will not adversely affect the
L. T. Garner Farm, a property which has been nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places, if an appropriate landscaping plan is
developed for the interchange's northwest quadrant.
A finding of no effect is not appropriate since the project will introduce
visual and audible changes in the setting of the farm. In particular-
the undertaking will introduce additional traffic lanes, on and off
ramps opposite the property, and remove elements of the rural landscape.
If the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation agree to developing and implementing a landscaping
plan in consultation with us, we can then recommend a finding of No
Adverse Effect to the Advisory Council on Historic Places based on this
above condition.
• The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
A-4
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf, Page Two
July 26, 1990
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
r? l
avi Broolc
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: t. rank Vick
Barbara Church
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
A-5
S1A1(„
4 J
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 13, 1990
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
NC 125 interchange with I-85, I-2004
Halifax County, RR 90-8267
Dear Mr. Graf:
?2 •ciG
©ui'? S d'
ion of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of May 9, 1990, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the historic architectural resources report and concur
with its finding that the L. T. Garner Farm is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The farm-was placed on the state study
list for future inclusion in the National Register this past January.
We also agree that the Bass-Holford-Willey House is outside the area of
potential effect.
We cannot, however, make a determination of effect without the plans for"
the new interchange design. Please forward these plans-to our office as
soon as possible so we can complete our review of'this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on-Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CPR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If-you have questions
?• concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Parley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
DavI B lokr l?`J
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw A-6
109 East Jones Street • Ralcigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
cc: . J. Ward
B. Church
nr?,. SIA7L .
4

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May 30, 1989
MF.MORnNn1iM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State / ;, ??.
II
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 125 Interchange along I-95, I-2004,
11alifax County, CH 89-E-4220-0788
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within
the general area of the project:
L. T. Garner Farm. West side of NC 125, .1 mile south of SR 1627,
Day's crossroads vicinity. Turn-of-the-century farm complex with.
two-story frame triple-A main residence, interior moderately
altered. Outbuildings include smokehouse, washhouse, barns,
equipment shed, kitchen, and packhouse. Property already adversely
affected by I-95 located several hundred feet to east.
Bass-Holford-Willey House. North side of SR 1692, .7 mile northeast
of NC 125, Day's Crossroads vicinity. One-story frame hall-and-
parlor plan house built ca. 1825-1850, deteriorated condition.
Twentieth century frame smokehouse and ruinous shed also on property.
The above properties were recorded in the mid 1980s during 'a comprehensive
historic structures inventory of Halifax County.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the general vicinity
of the proposed interchange. However, this area has never been surveyed
to locate and evaluate archaeological resources. Depending upon the
location of the interchange and the amount of land area involved, the
proposed project may affect archaeological resources. Please forward to
A-7
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
J. M. Greenhill
May 30, 1989, Page Two
our office information concerning the alternative plans for the interchange
as soon as they are available.
17ie above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CPR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
` environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church/E. Kirkland
T. Padgett

A-8
Ede°com e
Halifax
Nash REGION L COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Northampton P.O. DRAWER 2748
Wilson ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA 27802-2748
Counties TELEPHONE [phone]
March 22, 1989
Mr. J. M. Greenhill, P.E. Mh1?G ?g$?
Manager of Planning and Research
N. C. Department of Transportation
` P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 -,???
Dear Mr. Greenhill:
RE.610N
( i

I am very supportive of the 1988-1996 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program., Region L Council of
Governments does not require any permits or approvals where the
construction of an interchange at NC 125 and I-95 in Halifax
County is concerned. We are aware of no potential environmental
impacts of the project; however, we do support the project as
currently proposed.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. Feel free
to contact Region L if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,'
Thomas W. Elkins
Executive Director
TWE:nw
cc: Victor A. Marrow, Technical Assistance Director
Dock M. Brown, Halifax County Region L Representative
Neal C. Phillips, Halifax County Manager

A-9
Research. Planning ind Development Ihrnunh IntnrnnvPrmmnnlnl rn„n,.,,t,,..,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
April 21, 1989
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. J. M:. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Greenhill:
' APR 2 ? 19?
We have reviewed your letter of March 20, 1989, requesting
information for "NC 125 Interchange along I-95 in Halifax County,
I-2004" and offer the following comments.
The proposed project may require a Department of the Army
permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
of 1977, as amended, for the placement of any excavated or fill
material in waters of the United States and their adjacent wetlands.
Accordingly, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review the plans, when they become available, for a project-specific
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. Should'
you have any questions, please contact Ms. Kathy Trott, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance to you, please do nit hesitate to contact
ll9_

4
.
Ily,
Lawrence W. aundors
Chief, P1 ning Division
A-10
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Aori 1 4, 1'?8•':i
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Randy C of t en?.
THRU: Crary W. Thomoson
.n
SUDJECT: NC V5 Interchange Along I-95 in Halifax Co., I-2004
s -
We Ilc3Ve'". Y`f?CE?.IVC?d the ct?:JOVf:? Y`E?T(r_'Y?eY'IrE?('J DY`??lE'Ct and find that 3
1 horizontal and 1 vertical gee ?C1pt l c survey markers will pr! ? ua b l y
be imoacted.
The N. C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at R. D. Dox 27687.
Raleigh. N. C. 27811. (917) 733-:3836 orior to r_on5truct ion, So
that' these monuments can De relocated. Intentional destruction
of a geodetic survey monument is a violation of N. C. General
Statute 102-4.
GW /r.l
cc: Joe Creech
P
A-11