The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20131282_Environmental Assessment Comments_20090504Beverly Eaves Perdue Govemor MEMORANDUM To: From: e�n NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Coleen H. Sullins Director May 4, 2009 Dee Freeman Secretary Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs David Wainwright, Division of Water Qualiry� Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed NC 32 Connector from existing US 64 to the existing intersection of NC 32 and NC 94, Washington County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(252), TIP R-3620. SCH#: 09-0286 This office has reviewed the referenced document dated March 2009. The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts tojurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The NCDWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document: Project Specific Comments: L This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team member, the NCDWQ will wntinue to work with the team. 2. The document should include a presentation or discussion of all stream classification(s) and any supplemental classifications, along with the NCDWQ Stream Index Number, for any streams which have the potential to be impacted. 3. The document should discuss any streams which may be listed on the most recently available 303(d) list. If none are included on the list, it should be noted. 4. The document discusses raising the existing roadbed four to six feet above the water table. However, the document does not discuss why this is necessary. Some of this information has been presented to team members during past Merger team meetings; however, as a matter of record a full discussion should be presented in the dowment. This is especially critical since this design criterion wi(I increase impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands, relocations, and cost. While it is understood that the high water table in conjunction with the poorly draining soils may necessitate the need to raise the road, the direct impacts of these two factors are not clear with respect to the existing road. Is ponding or flooding on and around the existing road an issue? Ifthese are not Transportafion Permitting Unit 1650 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Location: 2321 CrebVee Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone:979-733-17861FAX:919-733-6893 Intemet hltpJlh2o.encstate.naus/navetlandsl An Equal Opportunity 1 Affrmative Ac0'on Employer NonrthCarolina �aturallr� issues with the existing road, why do the upgraded road sections need to be raised so much higher? Again, this issue is important to clarify and record because it will lead to increased impacts to both the natural and human environment. General Comments: 5. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification application, should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping. 6. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. Environmental assessment altematives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These altematives shall include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of the NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc. 8. Afrer the selection of the preferred altemative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum ex[ent practicaL In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mitiga[ion will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation. 9. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (i5A NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. 10. The NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic emironments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts. 1 l. The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including bu[ not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water QualiTy Certification application. 12. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation. 13. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams. 14. The 401 Water Qualiry Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters. 15. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and cotresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate. 16. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. 17. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary strucmres the area shall be cleared but not gtubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the azea to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance. 18. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis- equilib�ium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by the NCDWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NCDWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required. 19. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation, floodplain benches, and/or sills may be required where appropriate. Widening the stream channel shall be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposirion that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage. 20. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. . 21. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of the NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. 22. Heary equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the Ijlcelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. 23. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures shall be properly designed, sized and installed. 24. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing seasnn following completion of construction. NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide commenu on your project. Should you have any questions or require any additional infortnation, please contact David Wainwright at (919) 715-3415. cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy) Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy) Cathy Brittingham, Division of Coastal Management Garcy Ward, NCDWQ Washington Regional Oftice File Copy Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Project Review Form Date Respoiue This project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville �, Air Soil & Water � Marine Fisheries Fayetteville � Water V Coastal Management Mooresville � Aquifer Protection � Wildlife 'y�7' Raleigh Land Quality Engineer �, Forest Resources v Washington _ Water Resources � Environmental Health Wilmington � Parks & Recreation _ Waste Mgmt Winston-Salem �`i Water Quality t'), oT _ Radiation Protection Air Quality _ Other ManagerSign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: Response (check all _ No objection to project as proposed _ No comment Ins ficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments) �,te, /� ��"h'u �TU�, To: Melba McGee Environmental Coordinator 1601 Mail Sen�ice Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 ' ��a�� ot�,,. r� � 6 �'Ong !J � rt . ., s�SAk;..,.. APPROVED: ,3 �� a9 ate � Proposed NC 32 Connector From US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 Washington County Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(252) WBS No. 34548.1.1 TIP No. R-3620 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager evelonment and Environmental J! �!!oq (�.�?.n-��—�✓ C�/�' Date �ohn F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Federal Highway Administration Branch, NCDOT � APPROVED: Proposed NC 32 Connector From US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 Washington County Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(252) WBS No. 34548.1.1 TIP No. R-3620 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHVVAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager evelopment and Environmental Arya�(ysis Branch, NCDOT J! ��/Q� � Y "` � Date C�,,��ohn F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division �� Federal Highway Administration � 1 Proposed NC 32 Connector From US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 Washington County Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(252) WBS No. 34548.L1 TIP No. R-3620 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT North Carolina Department of Transporta6on March 2009 Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmeutal Analysis Brauch by: � �� 1 , q ate ' 3 66 e Project Engineer �1es R. Cox, P. Project Engineer .5�� t� 3qq3g t ¢ ;r wGINENe' V�,t� PROJECT COMMITMENTS Proposed NC 32 Connector From US 64 to the IntersecNon of NC 32 and NC 94 Washington County Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(252) WBS No. 345481.1 TIP No. R-3620 There are currently no special commitments foi this project. R-3620 Environmental Assessment March 2009 Page 1 oT 1 SUMMARY I. II. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. TrPE OF ACTION ............................................ DESCRIPTION OF ACTIOIV ............................... SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED ................ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................... NCDOT RECOMMENDED ALTERNATNE....... SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..... PERMITS REQUIItED ........................................ COORDINATION .........:.................................... CONTACT INFORMATION ................................ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................. A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................ B. HISTORICAL RESUME & PROJECT STATUS C. COSTESTIMATES .................................---- PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT .................................... ............. I .................................................1 .................................... ............. I .................... �.............................I ................................................ I I ............................................... II .............................................. III ................................................. N ................................................ N ...................................................1 ...................................................1 ...................................................1 ................................................... l A. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ...........................................................:................ B. NEED FOR PR07ECT ............................................................................... 1. Description of Existing Conditions ..................................................... a. Functional Classification ................................................................. b. Physical Description of Existing Facility ........................................ l. Roadway Cross-Section ........................................................... 2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ......................................... 3. Right of Way and Access Control ........................................... 4. Speed Limit .............................................................................. 5. Intersections/Interchanges ..............................................:........ 6. Railroad Crossings ................................................................... 7. Structures ................................................................................. 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............................................. 9. Utilities ..................................................................................... c. School Bus Usage ............................................................................ d. Capacity Analysis (No Build Scenario) .............................................................. 1. Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 2. Existing Levels of Service .................................:...................... 3. Future Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 4. Future Levels of Service ........................................................... e. Airports ............................................................................................. £ Other Highway Projects in the Area ................................................. 2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ...................................................... a. NC Transportation Improvement Progam (TIP) ............................. b. Local Thoroughfare Plans ................................................................. c. Land Use Plans .................................................................................. 3. System Linkage/Trave] Time/Access Need .......................................... C. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................'- .............................2 .............................2 ............................ 2 ..........................2 ..........................2 ............................2 ...........................2 ............................2 ............................2 ............................2 .............................4 ............................. 5 ............................. 5 ............................. 5 ..........................5 5 6 6 III. ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... A. PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 1. No-Build Altemative ..........................:.............................................................. 2. Alternative Modes of Transportation ................................................................ 3. Transportation Systems Management ...............................:............................... 4. Build Altematives ............................................................................................ B. DETAILED SNDY ALTERNATNES .................................................................... C. CAPACITY ANALYSIS (BUILD SCENARIO� ................................:........................ 1. Future Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 2. Future Levels of Service .................................................................................. 3. Travel Times .................................................................................................... D. NCDOT RECOMMENDED ALTERNATNE .......................................................... IV. PROPOSED 1MPROVEMENTS .........:..................................................... A. ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION AND ALIGNMENT ................................................. B. RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS CONTROL ........................................................... C. DESIGN SPEED & SPEED LIMIT ......................................................................... D. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS .................:..........................................:.... E. INTERSECTIONS/INTERCHANGES ...................................................................... F. SERVICEROADS ............................................................................................... G. RAILROADCROSSINGS ..................................................................................... H. STRUCNRES ................................................................................................... I. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ........................................................... J. UTILTTIES ......................................................................................................... K. NOISEBARRIERS ............................................................................................. L. WORK ZONE, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING ................... V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ................ A. NATURAL RESOURCES ..................:................................................................. ]. BioticResources ............................................................................................. a. Tenestrial Communities ........................................................................... 1. PineWoodland ................................................................................. 2. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ........................................................ 3. Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest .......................................................... 4. Cypress-Gum Swamp .....:................................................................. 5. Successional Land ............................................................................ 6. Agricultural Land .............................................................................. 7. Maintained/Disturbed Land .............................................................. b. Tenesh-ial Fauna ....................................................................................... c. Aquatic Communities .............................................................................. d. Summary of Anticipated Effects ............................................................. 2. Waters of the United States .......................................................................... a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments .............................................................. b. We[lands ................................................................................................... c. Summary of Anticipated Effects ............................................................. .................... � ....................7 .............7 ................... 7 .................... 7 .................... 7 ..................8 ...................10 ...................10 ...................10 ...................11 ................... ] ] ....................12 ....................12 ....................12 ....................12 ....................12 ....................12 ...................12 ...................12 ....................13 .....................13 ..................... ] 3 .....................13 ..................... l 3 .....................14 .....................14 ...................... l 4 ......................14 ......................14 ......................15 ......................15 ......................16 ........ ..............16 ......................16 ......................17 ........ ..............17 .....................19 .......................20 .......................20 .......................21 .......................22 ......................23 d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ................._............... 1. Avoidance ............................................................................ 2. Minimization ....................................................................... 3. Compensatory Mitigation .................................................... e. Anticipated Permit Requirements ................................................ 3. Rare and Protected Species .............................................................. a. Federally Protected Species ......................................................... b. Bald Eaele Protection ................................................................... c. Federal Species of Concem and State Protected Species....,....... 4. Soils ............................................:.............................................. ......., 5. Coastal Zone Issues ........................................................................... a. Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) ..................................... b. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ............................................... B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 1. Compliance ....................................................................................... 2. Historic Architectural Resources ...................................................... 3. Archaeological Resources ..............:.................................................. C. SECTION 4(F�/6(F� RESOURCES .......................................................... D. FnttNn..�D ......................................................................................... E. SOCIAL EFFECTS ................................................................................. 1. Demographics ................................................................................... 2. Neighborhoods/Communities ............................................................ 3. Relocations ofResidences and Businesses ....:........:..................:. ...... 4. Environmental Justice ........................................................................ 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................:.. 6. Recreational Facilities ................................................:....................... F. ECONOMICEFFECrs .:.......................................................................... G. LANDUSE ........................................................................................... 1. Existing and Future Land Use ............................................................ 2. Project Compatibility with Local Plans ............................................. H. INDIRECT AND CUMIJLATIVE EFFECTS ................................................ I. FLOODHAZARDEVALUATION ..:.................:..................................:. ... J. TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS .................................................................... 1. Ambient Noise Levels ......................................................................... 2. Analysis Results .................................................................................. 3. Noise Abatement Altematives ............................................................ a. Highway Alignment Selection ........................................................ b. Traffic System Management Measures .......................................... c. Noise Barriers .................................................................................. d. Other Mitigation Measures Considered .......................................... 4. Construction Noise .............................................................................. 5. Summary .............................................................................................. K. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS .........................................................:............ l. Background CO Concentrations .......................................................... 2. Air Quality Analysis Results ................................................................ ......................26 ................................26 ..................................26 .................................27 ...............................27 ................................. 27 ..................................27 ........................:.........29 ......:...........................29 ................................. 3 0 ................................. 3 2 .................................32 ................................ 3 2 ......................:.......... 3 3 ................................. 3 3 ................................. 3 3 ................................. 34 .................................34 ...:............................. 3 5 .................... ............. 3 5 ................................. 3 5 ................................ 3 7 .....:.......................... 3 7 ................................ 3 8 ................................ 3 8 ................................ 3 8 ................................ 3 8 ................................ 3 8 ................................ 3 8 ................................ 3 9 ...............................39 ................................ 3 9 ...............................40 ............................... 40 ............................... 4 ] ............................... 44 ..............................44 ..............................45 ...............................45 ................ 3. Construction Air Quality Effects ............................................................. 4. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) ....................................................... 5. Summary ................................................................................................... L. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ............................................................................ VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................. A. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL.WORKSHOP ................................................... B. PUBLIC HEARING ..................................................................................... C. NEPA/404 MExGER PROCEss ................................................................. D. OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION ......................"................:...................... TABLES .......................... 47 ..... ..................... 4 8 ...........................48 ...................49 ............................51 ..........................5 ] .......................... 51 ...........................51 ...........................52 TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ..................................:...................... TABLE 1: EXISTING HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES .................................................................... TABLE 2: 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (VPD) ................... ...................................................... .. TABLE 3: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE & MAX QUEUE FORNO BUILD SCENARIO...... TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ............................................................ TABLE 5: TRAFFIC VOLUMES (VPD) .................................................................................... TABLE 6: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE & MAX QUEUE FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 ............. TABLE 7: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE & MAX QUEUE FOR ALTERNATNE 2 ............. TABLE 8: TRAVEL TIMES (MINUTES) .................................................................................. TABLE 9: PROPOSED HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES ............................. ............................... .... TABLE I O: TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES PRESENT WITHIN PROIECT CORRIDOR ............... TABLE 11: CHARACI ERISTICS OF WA'IER RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR .......... TABLE l2: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - ALTERNATIVE 1 ...................................... TABLE 13: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - ALTERNATIVE 2 ...................................... TABLE 14: FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY .............................. TABLE l 5: FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN (FSC) FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY .............. TABLE l 6: EFFECTS TO HISTORIC ARCHITECTORAL RESOURCES ...................................... TABLE 17: POPULATION GROWTH,1990-2000 ................................................................. TABLE 18: POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2000 ......................................................... TABLE 19: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2000 .............................................................: TABLE 20: AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (LEQ�� ..................................................................... TABLE 21: APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED RECEPTORS ....................................... TABLE 22: PREDICTED SUBSTANTIALNOISE LEVEL IMPACTS .......................................... TABLE 23: PREDICTED LEQ NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS ................................. TABLE 24: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STTES .................... .................. ni ................... 3 ...................4 ...................5 ................... 9 ..................10 ..................10 ..................11 .................11 ..................13 ..............:...17 ..................21 ...................24 ...................25 ...................28 ...................30 ..................34 ..................36 .................. 3 6 ....................37 ....................41 ....................42 ....................43 ....................44 ....................49 APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figures 4A-4F Project Vicinity Map Typical Section Aerial Altematives Map Traffic Forecast 2007/2035 Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies Appendix C Merger Concurrence Forms Appendix D Relocation/Displacement Policies Proposed NC 32 Connector � From US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 Washington County Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(252) WBS No. 34548.11 TIP No. R-3620 SUMA'IARY A. Tvpe of Acfion This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of this proposed transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) do not anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will occur as a result of this proposed project. A. final determination will be made in supplemental documentation, likely a Finding of No Significanf Impact (FONSI) document. B. Descriation of Action The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a connector from US 64 to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 in Washington County (see Figure I). 'I'his project is included in the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation improvement Progam (STIP). The total cost in the STIP is $16,589,000, which includes $300,000 for right of way, $189,000 for mitigation and $]6,100,000 for construction. The current estimated total costs vary from $19,367,000 to $27,572,000 based on the alternative chosen. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FF1� 2012 and construction in FFY 2014. C. SummarV of Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to improve connectivity in the study azea. D. Alternatives Considered There were originally six (6) build a]ternatives considered for this project, Altematives 1 through 6, a combination of new location altematives and improvements to existing roadways. Altematives 3 and 4 were dropped from consideration at the Concurrence Point 2 meeting on March 16, 2006. Altematives 5 and 6 were dropped from consideration at the Concurrence Point 2A meeting on November 13, 2008. The remaining altematives include Altemative 1 and Altemative 2. i Alternative 1 begins at the Tyson Fanns interchange (US 64 at SR 1139 (Beasley Road)). It then follows Beasley Road for approximately 4500 feet north and continues northward on new location to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94; which is locally refened io as the Pea Ridge Y. Altemative 2 also starts at the Tyson Farms interchange, and continues north onto existing SR l l36 (Holly Neck Road). At the intersection of Holly Neck Road and NC 32, Altemative 2 follows NC 32 east and continues to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94. E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative � No alternative is recommended at this time. Comments received at the combined public hearing will be reviewed and additiona] coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. F. Summarv of Environmental EfTects Adverse impacts to the human and natural environment were minimized through the development of altematives. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a result of the project. One property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places may be adversely affected if Altemative 2 is chosen as the preferred altemative. None of the altematives will encroach upon any known archaeological sites on or eligible for listing in the National Register. Relocations range from one (1) to 18, depending on the altemative. Further information can be found in Table S-1.... There are only two federally protected species that are listed for Washington County, the American alligator and the red wol£ A biological conclusion was not required for the American alligator since Threatened Due to Similarity of Appeazance [T (S/A)] species are not afforded ful] protection under the Endangered Species Act. The red wolf was found to have a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect due to the fact that suitable habitat does exist within the project azea. There have been documented occurrences of red wolves in the past and there are recent occurrences in the surrounding areas. Due to the Endangered, Experimental Nonessential [E(XN)] status for this species, it is only considered to have federal protection on public lands, none of which are contained within the project study azea. Table S-1 gives a summary of the resources and impacts due to the recommended alternative. Figure 3 shows the altematives cunently under consideration. ' ii Table S-1: Summary of Resources and Impacts Resource Areas and Parks ional Register Eligible Properties • Hopkins House • Fann on NC 32 • Rehoboth Methodist Church • Albemazle Grill haeological Sites 00-Year within Corridor al Relocations Relocations is Material Sites Noise Impacts >ly Watershed Protected Areas :fuQes and Game Lands Income onstruction Cost ight of Way Cost �tilities Cost otal Cost Altemative 1 N/A N/A N/A No Effect 0 1** Yes 0 1 0 193 1 191 0 0 0 0 Low Low ] 6,300,00� �2,775,000 $1 'No adverse et(ect with speci(ic conditions "This project may aflect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red wolf. G. Permits Required Alternative 2 5.7 0 0 0 0 1 � No Effect Adverse Effect No Adverse* No Adverse* 0 I** Yes 17 1 0 8.5 3 621 0 0 0 0 Low Low $3.71 Due to the a�nount of potential wetland and stream impacts, it is anricipated that an individual Section 404 permit will be needed for this project. Moreover, in accordance with the 111 Clean Water Act, a Section 401 Water Quality Genera] Certification must be obtained from the NC Division of Water Quality prior to issuance of the individual permit. H. Coordination Federal, state, and loca] agencies were consulted during the preparation of this Environmental Assessment. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted with an astensk (*) during the preparation of this assessment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service * National Marine Fisheries Service * State Clearinghouse * N.C. Department of Cultura] Resources * N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources * N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission * N.C. Division of Coastal Management * N.C. Division of Forest Resources * N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries * N.C. Division of Water Quality Washington County * Chowan County * Southern Albemazle Association * Town of Columbia I. Contact Information Additional information conceming the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting either of the following: John F. Sullivan III, P. E. Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-4346 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Deparcment of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone: (919) 733-3141 '" iv Proposed NC 32 Connectar From US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 Washington County Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(252) WBS No. 345481.1 TIP No. R-3620 L DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION A. General Descrintion The North Carolina Depar[ment of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the Federa] Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a connector from US 64 to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 in Washington County (see Figure 1). The proposed two-lane facility will have 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (2-foot paved). The length of the project varies from 3.7 to 5.7 miles, depending on the alternative chosen. There are currently two altematives under consideration, one of which utilizes existing facilities and the other that is partially on existing ]ocation, partially on new location. B. Historical Resume & Proiect Status The scoping meeting for this project was originally held August 23, 2001. This project was included in the IVlerger process; Concunence Point 1 meeting was held on July 23, 2003. A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on November 17, 2004 to update the public on the project. Concurrence Point 2 meeting took place on Mazch 16, 2006, at which point the Merger team decided to drop Alternatives 3 and 4 and develop an additional route, Alternative 6, in response to the high wetland impacts on Altemative 1. Most recently, the Concurrence Point 2A meeting was held on November 13, 2008; at this point, the Merger team concluded that Alternatives 5 and 6 should be dropped from further study. C. Cost Estimates This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The total cost in the STIP is $16,589,000, which includes $300,000 for right of way, $189,000 for mitigation and $16,100,000 for construction. The current estimated costs vary from $19,367,000 to $27,572,000. 1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT A, Purpose of Proiect The purpose of ttus project is to improve connectivity within the project study area and does not preclude improving the existing facilities. B. Need for Proiect 1. Description of ExistinQ Conditions a. Functional Classification SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) are both designated as local routes on the Nor[h Carolina Statewide Functional Classification System. NC 32 and NC 94 aze both classified as major rural collectors. b. Phvsical Description of ExistinE Facility 1. Roadwav Cross-Section SR ] 139 (Beasley Road), SR 1 l36 (Holly Neck Road), NC 32, and NC 94 are all two-lane facilities with 12-foot lanes and 2-foot unpaved shoulders. , 2, Horizontal and Vertical Alianment The existing horizontal and vertical alignments along existing NC 32, NC 94, SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) aze suitable for the posted speed ]imits. 3, RiQht of Wav and Access Control The existing nght of way along NC 32 and NC 94 is ]00 feet. The existing right of way along SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) is 60 feet. 4. Speed Limit The posted speed limit along NC 32, NC 94, SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) is 55 miles per hour (mph). 5. IntersectionsMterchanEes There are five existing intersections included as a part of this project, including: SR ll 39 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road); SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) and NC 32; NC 32 and NC 94; NC 94 and SR 1303 (Jones White Road); and NC 94 and SR 1304 (Scuppemong Road). All of these intersections are currently stop sign controlled. There are also two interchanges 2 located just beyond the project limits, US 64 and SR ] 139 (Beasley Road) and US 64 and SR 1141 (Benson Road). 6. Railroad Crossines There are no railroad crossings on the project. 7. Structures There are three existing major hydraulic structures on this project. Table 1 gives further detail on these existing structures, while Figure 3 shows the ]ocation of each. Table 1: Existing Hydraulic Structures Hydraulic Location Stream Type of Structure Site Intersection of SR 1139 Unnamed tributary 2 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (UT) to Chapel Dua16' x 4'metal pipe arches (Ho11y Neck Road Swam NC 32, approx. 0.6 miles east UT to Albemazle 6' x 4' Reinforced Concrete Box 3 of SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) Sound Culvert RCBC intersection � � 4 NC 32, approx. 0.4 miles west UT to Albemarle Dual 6' x 4' RCBCs of intersection with NC 94 Sound 8. Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities A portion of NC 32 from the intersection with SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) to the Albemarle Sound Bridge is designated as NC Bike Route 3(Ports of Call Route). The bike route follows NC 32/NC 94 from Chowan County across the Albemarle Sound Bridge and west on NC 32 towazd the Town of Plymouth. 9. Utilities Major utilities on this project include existing water lines along NC 94 and a power transmission feeder line that would cross all alternatives. c. School Bus Usase The Washington County School District has four (4) schoo] buses that travel twice daily along SR 1139 (Beasley Road), SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road), and NC 32 to the Pea Ridge Y. There are a]so three (3) school buses that have twice daily routes along NC 94 between the Pea Ridge Y and the US 64/NC 94 interchange. 3 d. CaPacit�� Analvsis (No Ruild Scenario) 1. Existin¢ Trafsc Volumes According to the 2007 summer peak traffic counts, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on NC 32 varied from 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 2;200 vpd, while the existing ADT on NC 94 ranged from 3,300 to 3,700 vpd. The existing ADT on SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and SR l 136 (Holly Neck Road) was approximately 400 vpd. 2. ExistinQ Levels of Service The capacity analysis was performed following the NCDOT Congestion Management Section's Capacity Analysis Guidelines for TIP Projects. Simulations were completed for both the build and no-build scenarios using the present yeaz (2007) and the design year (2035) traffic forecasts. Fifteen different intersections were analyzed as part of this project, all of them unsignalized. Under current traffic conditions, the intersection of SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) and the intersection of SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) and NC 32 both operate at Level of Service (LOS) A during peak hours. The intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 is currently operating at LOS B during peak hours, while the intersection of NC 94 and SR 1303 (Jones White Road) also has a LOS B. 3. Future Traffic Volumes Future year (2035) traffic volumes were predicted for the "no build" scenario as part of the planning process. Table 2 below shows the range of ADT for each roadway facility on the project. Table 2: 2035 Traffic Volumes (vpd) No Build NC 32 3,JW NC 94 6,600-7,100 SR 1139 (Beasle Road) 300-600 SR 1136 (Holl Neck Road 200-600 New Location Connector N/A 4. Future Levels of Service Table 3 shows the predicted LOS and max queues for the major intersections and tuming movements in the design year (2035) for the no build scenario. 4 Table 3: Peak Hour Levels of Service & Max Queue for No Build Scenario East-West Route North-South Route Direction Movement Level of Max Service Queue (LOS) (feet) SR I 139 (Beasley Road) SR ll 36 (Holly Neck Road) EB LR A N/A NC 32 SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) NB LR B N/A NC 32 NC 94 & NC 32/94 EB L D 226 To NC 32 and NC 94 NC 94 SB L B 222 NC 32 and to NC 94 NC 32 EB L A N/A SB R A N/A SR 1303 (Jones White Road) NC 94 WB LR B N/A e. Airaorts The neazest airport to the project azea is Northeastem Regional Airport, located approximately seven (7) miles away in Edenton. f. Other Hi2hwav Proiects in the Area There aze two other TIP projects in Washington County. R-4909 proposes to construct a new two-lane facility from SR 1126 (Newland Road) to SR ll 25 (Millpond Road) neaz Roper. It is scheduled for right of way in FFY 2012 and construction in FFY 2013. B-4314, which is currently under construction, will replace Bridge No. 29 on SR 1163 (Spruill Town Road) over Maul Creek neaz Cherry. 2. Transaortation and Land Use Plans a. NC Transportation Improvement Proaram (TIP) This project is currently included in the 2009-2015 TIP. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2012 and construction in FFY 2014. b. Local Thorouehfare Plans The Thoroughfare Plan Study Report for Washington County was completed by NCDOT's Transportation Planning Branch in October 2001. This transportation plan includes this project as a recommended transportation improvement. c. Land Use Plans Washington Cowiry is in the process of updating their land use plan and anticipates its completion by eazly 2009. 5 3. Svstem Linkaye/Travel Time/Access Need The proposed NC 32 connector will provide a much needed link from the new US 64 to NC 32. Under TIP Project R-2548, US 64 was shifred south of its existing alignment and severed the existing connection between US 64 and NC 32. A freeway primarily on new location, the new US 64 provides a high-speed corridor serving Washington County and other areas of northeastem North Cazolina. NC 32 currently provides a means of north-south movement throughout the county. However, there is no direct connection between the new US 64 and NC 32, leading to increased travel times via local roads for travelers wishing to travel from US 64 to the Albemazle Sound and Edenton, or vice versa. The location of the new US 64 creates the need for new and improved connections with the existing roadway system. C. Benefits of Proposed Proiect The proposed NC 32 connector will provide a more efficient connection between US 64 and NC 32 than cunently exists. Vehicles traveling northeast to the Albemarle Sound and Edenton will experience a travel time savings over the existing route. . The project would also help to separate local traffic on existing NC 32 and NC 94 from seasonal beach traffic using US 64/NC 32 to Edenton. 6 III. ALTERNATNES A. Prcliminarv StudV Alternatives 1. No-Build Alternative "I'he No-Build Altemative offers no improvements to the project area. This altemative will not allow for the upgrade of existing facilities along SR ll 39 (Beasley Road), SR 1] 36 (Holly Neck Road), NC 32 or NC 94, nor will it provide a more efficient means of travel from US 64 to the Albemarle Sound. Travelers will continue to use the existing facilities and will not experience any reduction in travel times. Since the No-Build Altemative does not address the purpose and need of the proposed action, it is not recommended. However, it is used as a basis for comparison of the other alternatives. 2. Alternative Modes of Transportation Altemative modes of transportation, including transit options, would not meet the purpose and need of this project since they do not provide a more efficient means of trave] between US 64 and the Albemarle Sound. There aze limited transit options wttently available in this section of Washington County. Public transit is provided by the Washington County Human Services Center, which has services available for county residents by subscription, demand-responsive transit, and periodic out-of- county medical trips. Transportation is provided for employment, job training and education, aging prog-ams, developmentally disabled programs, medical, and general public needs. 3. Transportation Svstems Mana2ement The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) altemative includes those types of limited consriuction activities designed to maximize the utilization and energy efficiency of an existing roadway. A possible TSM improvement option with this altemative includes improvements to existing roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project. However, intersection improvements alone do not adequately address the purpose of the project. 4. Build Alternatives Altematives range from upgrading existing facilities to constructing a new commector roadway. The following two existing location altematives were considered for this project: • Alternative 2— This alternative begins at the Tyson Farms interchange (US 64 at SR 1139 (Beasley Road)). Alternative 2 continues north onto SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road). At the intersection of Holly Neck Road with NC 32, Altemative 2 follows NC 32 east and continues to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94. 7 • Alternative 3— This alteinative beans at the Tyson Farms intercbange (US 64 at SR 1139 (Beasley Road)). Altemative 3 continues north on SR 1139 (Beasley Road), then turns east on new location near the intersection of SR ll 39 (Beasley Road) and SR l 136 (Holly Neck Road). Altemative 3 ends at the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94. • Alternative 4— This alternative begins at the Roper interchange (US 64 at SR 1125 (Mill Pond Road)). Altemative 4 proceeds for approximately 3,000 feet on new location before tying into existing NC 32. This altemative continues to follow NC 32 east to �ts �ntersection with NC 94. • Alternative 5— This altemative begins at the Scuppernong Interchange (iJS 64 at SR 1304). Altemative 5 follows NC 94 northwestward to the intersection ofNC 32 and NC 94. Altematives 3 and 4 were dropped from further consideration at the Concurrence Point 2 meeting held on March 16, 2006 because of the lazge number of impacts associated with each. Altemative 5 was removed from further consideration at the Concurrence Point 2A meeting held on November 13, 2008 since it.did not meet the purpose and need of the project. The following two new partially new location altematives were considered for this project: • Alternative 1— This altemative begins at the Tyson Farms interchange (US 64 at SR 1139 (Beasley Road)).. It then follows Beasley Road for approximately 4500 feet north and continues northward on new location to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94. • Alternative 6— This altemative begins at the Tyson Farms interchange (US 64 at SR 1139 (Beasley Road)). It then follows Beasley Road For approximately 4500 feet north and continues northward on new location to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94. This altemative approximately pazallels Alternative 1 to the east. Alternative 6 was removed from further consideration at the Concurrence Point 2A meeting held on November 13, 2008 since it has such significant impacts to wetland and streams. B. Detailed Studv Alternatives Two of the altematives that were considered during the preliminary study were carried forward for detailed study (Altematives 1 and 2). The impacts associated with each altemative aze noted in Table 4 below. One of the major design constraints on this project was the recommendation by the Geotechnical Engineering Unit to raise the gade of the existing roadway. A vertical distance of four (4) to six (6) feet was recommended between the subgade of the road and the water table, even though the high water table is not always evident due to the drought experienced in this area and the slow recharging clay soils. The grade change will require NCDOT to construct a new facility adjacent to the existing roadway in all existing location sections of the project because it is E� impossible to maintain traffic on the existing facility with such a substantial change in grade taking place. This will translate into an increase in wetland and stream impacts, relocatees, and consequently, project costs, along the existing location portion of the project. 2009. Table 4: Summary of Resources and Impacts Resources Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Length (miles) 3.7 5.7 Railroad Crossings 0 0 Schools 0 0 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 Churches 0 0 Cemeteries 0 1 ajor Utility Crossings 1 1 ationa] Register Eligible Properties • Hopkins House N/A No Effect • Farm on NC 32 N/A Adverse Effect • Rehoboth Methodist Church N/A No Adverse* . • Albemarle Grill No Effect No Adverse* chaeological Sites 0 0 Federally-Listed Species within Corridor 1** 1** 1-00 Year Floodplain Crossings Yes Yes Residentia] Relocations 0 17 usiness Relocations 1 1 Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 etland Impacts (acres) 19.3 8.5 Stream Crossings 1 3 Stream Impacts (linear feet) 191 621 Substantial Noise Impacts 0 0 ater Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 ildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 Section 4(�/6(� Impacts 0 0 ow Income Population Impacts Low Low Minority Population Impacts Low L,ow Construction Cost $16,300,000 $23,400,000 Ri t of Way Cost $2,775,000 $3,716,000 tilities Cost $292,000 $456,000 otal Cost $19,367,000 $27,572,000 No adverse e�fect wi�h specific conditions. " This project may affect, but is not likely to adversely aflect the red wolf. A Prime Farmland Analysis is currently underway and is anticipated to be complete in Apnl 9 C. Capacity Analvsis Build Scenario) 1. Future Traf1"ic Volumes Future year (2035) traffic volumes were predicted for both of the proposed altematives. Table 5 shows the range of ADT for each roadway facility on the project. Table 5: Traffic Volumes (vpd) 2. Future Levels of Service For Altemative 1, Table 6 displays the predicted LOS and max queues for the major intersections and tuming movements in the design year (2035). Table 6: Peak Hour Levels of Service & Max Queue for Alternative 1 East-West Route North-South Route Direction Movement Level of Max Service Queue (LOS (feet) SR 1139 (Beasley Road) SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) WB LR A N/A SB LT A N/A NC 32 SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) NB LR A N/A NC 32 and NC 94 NC 32 Connector & NC 32/94 EB L F 84 EB TR C N/A WB LT B N/A WB R B 225 SB L A N/A SR 1303 (Jones White Road) NC 94 WB LR B N/A For Alternative 2, Table 7 displays the predicted LOS and ma�c queue for the major intersections and tuming movements in the design yeaz (2035). 10 Table 7: Peak Hour Levels of Service & Max Queue for Alternative 2 East-West Route iVorth-South Route Direction �lovement Level of Max Service Queue � � (LOS) (feet) SR 1139 (Beasley Road) SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) EB LR A N/A NC 32 SR 1139 and NC 32 EB LR B N/A SB R A N/A NC 32 NC 94 & NC 32/94 EB L D 397 To NC 32 and NC 94 NC 94 • SB L C ]'76 NC 32 and to NC 94 NC 32 EB L A N/A SB R A N/A SR 1303 (Jones White Road) NC 94 WB LR B N/A 3. Travel Times Travel times were calculated for two different routes, one traveling northeast from the US. 64/SR 1139 (Beasley Road) interchange to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94, and one traveling northwest from the US 64/SR 1114 (Benson Road) interchange to the intersection ofNC 32 and NC 94. Table 8 below shows the results of the travel time calculations for each altemative. Table 8: Travel Times (minutes) As seen in Table 8, when traveling northeast or northwest, travelers will experience a noticeable travel time savings by using Altemative 1 over Altemative 2, due to the shorter distance and limited access. D. NCDOT Recommended Alternative No alternative is recommended at this time. Alternatives 1 and 2 will be carried forwazd in the public hearing. Comments received at the combined public hearing will be reviewed and the additional coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. 11 IV. PROPOSED IAZPROVEMENTS A. Roadwav Cross-Section and AliQnment The proposed typical section for both altematives will have two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (2-foot paved). The existing location sections of diis project will be built adjacent to the cunent roadway facility due to a four (4) to six (6) foot change in gade (see Section III.B for further discussion). B. Right of Wav and Access Control The proposed right of way for this project varies from 160 feet to 200 feet along the length of the project. Additional right of way is required due to the need to raise the grade of the existing roadway. There will be limited control of access on all new location sections and par[ial control of access on all existing location sections. C. DesiQn Speed & Speed Limit The design speed for the proposed NC 32 connector will be 60 mph and the posted speed limit will be 55 mph. D. Anticipated Desien Exceptions There are no design exceptions anticipated for this project. E. Intersections/In terch anges Depending on the altemative chosen, there will be either two (2) or three (3) intersections as part of the proposed project. If Alternative ] is chosen, one new intersection will be created at the proposed NC 32 Connector and SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and the intersection of NC 32/NC 94 will be modified to include a fourth leg where the new NC 32 Connector will join it. If Altemative 2 is chosen, three (3) existing intersections, including SR 1139 (Beasley Road) and SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road), NC 32 and SR 1139 (Beasley Road), and NC 32 and NC 94, will be modified as part of the proposed project. No interchanges aze proposed. F. Service Roads There are no service roads proposed. G. Railroad CrossinQs There are no railroad crossings on this project. 12 H. Structures One new major hydraulic structure is anticipated on the new location section of Altemative 1, a 10-foot by 7-foot RCBC near the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 that will carry an unnamed tributary of the Albemarle Sound. Altemative 2 is primarily on existing location and includes three existing (3) major structure crossings. One of the crossings is the proposed replacement of dual 6-foot by 4-foot pipe arches with a 9-foot by 6-foot RCBC. The other two crossings anticipate extending or replacing existing box culverts, depending on their condition. Table 9: Proposed Hydraulic Structures 1. Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities No additional sidewalks ar bicycle accommodations aze proposed. J. Utilities Major utilities on this project include a power transmission feeder line that would cross all altematives and would need to be relocated. K. Noise Barriers No noise bamers are proposed as part of this project L. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction Phasin For the new location sections of the project, maintenance of existing traffic will not be required. However, during the improvements to the existing ]ocation sections, traffic will be maintained along the existing route. Since significant grade changes would require traffic to be detoured, a para]]el facility will be constructed adjacent to the existing facility and traffic wil] continue to be maintained on the existing facility for the � duration of construction. Once construction is completed, the old roadway will be removed. 13 V. ENVIRON�'IENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION A. Natural Resources The project study corridor is located in the Chesapeake-Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Mazshes ecoregion of the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Cazolina. Topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level to flat. Elevations within the project study area range from a topographic low of 0 ft above mean sea level (MSL) to a topographic high of approximately 1� ft above MSL. T'he project study corridor is dominated by forested and agriculture lands with scattered residential land uses. The project vicinity is rural in nature. 1. Biotic Resources a. Terrestrial Communities Seven terrestrial wmmunities were identified within the project study area: Pine Woodland, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest, Cypress-Gum Swamp, Successional Land, Maintained/Disturbed Land,and Agicultural Land. 1. Pine Woodland Areas designated as pine woodlands are characterized by a predominance (geater than 80 percent cover) of pines in the canopy. w�thin the project study comdor, pine woodlands represent a combination of natural communities, silvicultural stands, and successional forests occurring under various hydrologic conditions from hydric to mesic, and may be ditched or unditched. This community designation includes the Mesic Pine Flatwoods and Wet Pine Flatwoods natural communities, silvicultural pine stands, and young successional pine forest stands. Under natural conditions, some of the silvicultural pine stand locations may have supported the Mesic Mixed Hardwood community. The distinctions between the various potential pine stand designations are bluned by current and past ]and management practices, such that for the purposes of this vegetative community evaluation, pine stands are treated together as a single community type. Stands of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) are prevalent in interstream areas. Many pine stands are silvicultural plantings managed for timber or pulpwood production while others represent narizral pine woodland communities or represent seral stages resulting from old-field succession or from timber management. Pine woodlands are common throughout the project study corridor and vicinity. Species composition within pine woodland communities varies with the age, abiotic features, and landscape position of the stand. In young stands (five (5) to ten (10) years of age), the canopy is mostly closed and excludes most other species. Hardwood saplings may become established as the stand ages. Common species within the project study corridor include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and water oak (Quercus nigra). S}uvb and 14 herbaceous species composition more directly reflects the hydrologic conditions with species such as flowering dogwood (Cor�nus floridn), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and bracken fem (Pteridium aguilinwn) common in upland areas. Red bay (Persea borbonia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) are more.common in areas with a]onger hydroperiod. Vines such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbriers (Smilax laurifolia and S. rotundifolia), and blackberry (Rubus spp.) aze sometimes common in disturbed stands. 2. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Mesic mixed hardwood forest is found within the project study corridor along stream channels and mesic slopes bordering intermittent tributaries. These areas are usually associated with gentle to moderate slopes adjacent to stream floodplains or in floodplain areas of deeply cut intermittent streams. The community is dominated by two species of oaks (Quercus alba and Quercus rubra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, sweetgum, ar�d an occasionai American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Pines may be present, but represent less than 20 percent of the canopy coverage. The understory varies in density and includes saplings of the canopy species, dogwood, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and wax myrtle. Groundcover consists of vines such as honeysuckle, greenbrier, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens). On some slopes along natural drainage areas, these communities may include seepage areas which support ironwood (Ca�pinus cm-oli�tiano), various sedges (Carex spp. and Cyperus spp.), cinnamon fem (Osmunda cinnamomea), and netted chain-fem (Woodwardia areolata). 3. Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest This community is characterized by the co-dominance of pines and hardwoods in the canopy. _Pines, especially loblolly pines, confibute between 20 to 80 percent of canopy dominance, with the remainder of the canopy typically dominated by a mix of hazdwood species such as water oak, sweetgum, red maple, mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa), southem red oak (Quercus falcata), and tulip poplar. Depending on landscape position, this community may represent a successional stage of various other natural communities including the Wet or Mesic Pine Flatwoods, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Forest. Pine to hardwood ratios vary considerably from site to site depending in part on age of the community and previous land management practices. Understory/shrub composition for much of this community resembles that of pine woodlands with a mixture of horse sugar, American holly (Ilex opaca), wa�c myrtle, dogwood, and saplings of canopy species present. Giant cane, greenbriers, fems, honeysuckle, poison ivy, Virginia creeper (Pard:enocissus guinguefolia), and other herbs occur sporadically throughout herbaceous ]ayers, dependent in par[ upon the degree of disriubance and hydrologic conditions. 15 4. Cvpress-Gum S�vamp Cypress-Gum Swamp is found within the floodplains of the ]arger creeks. Cypress-gum communities generally experience more prolonged flooding than bottomland hardwood communities. The semi-permanent flooding results in dominance by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), although bald cypress may be lacking due to past forestry operations. Other species such as geen ash (Frazinus penruylvanica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak, and red maple may be present as sub-dominants. Understory species include sweet bay, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), possum-haw (Viburnum nudum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and sweet pepperbush. Vines include geenbriers. Herbaceous cover is spazse, usually concentrated on hummocks; and includes royal fem (Osmunda regalis), cinnamon fem, Virginia chain-fem (Woodwardia virginica), netted chain-fern, and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). Peatmoss (Sphagnum spp.) is prevalent throughout the shallowly flooded portions of this community. 5. Successional Land Successional azeas within this community designation include fallow fields and wt-over forest land that have one (1) to ten (10) yeaz-old natural and planted vegetation. This community type is differentiated from other forest communities by the dominance of herbaceous or shrub strata rather than h'ee stratum. Most of the successional areas described within the project study comdor occur as the result of timber operations, but succession from abandoned farm operations is also evident. These systems are variable in species dominance. Species composition varies depending on soil type, available moisture, and other factors. Eazly successional areas in upland or ditched areas aze characterized by a number of opportunistic herbs such as broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrods (Solidago spp.); dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), honeysuckle, blackberry, and various grass species. Eazly successional areas subject to prolonged surface saturation or periodic inundation may be dominated by various hydrophytic species including black willow (Sa[ix nigra), wax myrtle, groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), titi, soft rush (Juncus effusus), cattails (Typha spp.), and sedges. Later successional stages in a range of hydrologic conditions exhibit an increase in loblolly pine, red maple, and sweetgum saplings. Cut-over forests typically show similaz early successional herbaceous vegetation species, but exhibit rapid regowth from stumps of hardwood species. 6. AQriwltural Land Agricultura] land is used for the cultivation of row crops and field crops as well as for grazing pasture. Fanning is one of the main occupations of Washington County and a lazge portion of the project study area is in agricultural land. The primary crops noted within the project study area are com (Zea mays), cotton (Gossypium sp.), and soybean (Glycine max). Pastures are dominated by gass and herb mixes. 16 7. Maintained/Disturbed Land Maintained/disturbed azeas occupy a]arge percentage of land within the comdors, especially along the existing US 64 highway and secondary roads. This category includes areas with disturbed vegetation and/or soils with man-made structures including buildings, roadways, parking lots, maintained yards, and areas where other human activities dominate. Wide maintained roadside rights-of-way, power line corridors, maintained road frontages, private home sites, residential communities, and commercial complexes are included in this category. Ornamental trees, shrubs, and grasses intermix with native pines, hardwoods, and occasionally invasive weeds in an anthropogenic landscape setting. Table 10 summarizes acreages of tenestrial communities located within the project study corridor. The terrestria] communities within the project study corridor were delimited on an aerial photograph base and verified in the field. Impervious road surfaces are not included in the terrestrial communities within the project study comdor. Table l0: Terrestria► Communities Present within Project Corridor Plant Communi Alt 1' Alt 2° Area % of Area % of (acres PSA (acres) PSA Pine Woodland 221.4 41.4 41.5 9.8 Mesic Mixed Hardwood 0.1 <0.1 15.5 3.7 Forest Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest 1.6 0.3 15.0 3.6 C ress-Gum Swam 6.0 1.1 20.4 4.8 Successional Land 63.6 11.9 58.1 13.7 A�cultura] Land 184.2 34.5 ]34.4 31.8 Maintained/Disturbed Land 48.4 9.1 115.9 27.4 Total: 525.3 98.3 400.8 94.8 aAlt 1 is approximately 534.4 acres in areal extent and indudes impennous road sudaces (9.1 acres) (1.7 percenQ ihal are not included in �his terrestrial community assessment. °Nt 2 is approximately 422.6 acres in areal e#ent and includes impervious road suAaces (21.8 acres) (52 perceni) ihat are not included in this terrestrial community assessment. Acreages and percentages do nW total 100% due to errors in rounding to the 1/10 acre. b. Terrestrial Fauna The majority of the project study region is rural; however, much of the landscape has been altered or disturbed through fire suppression, conversion to pine plantations, agriculture, and limited residential development. The project study corridor is primarily forested, though there are agricultural fields and small areas of residential development. The clearing and conversion of tracts of land for residential uses and roads has eliminated cover and protection for many species of �vildlife while increasing habitat for other species able to utilize these anthropogenic habitats. 17 Developed or maintained areas not only provide food for wildlife, but also create edge habitat favored by many species. Most of the mammals expected to occur within the project study cotridor are the conspicuous larger and medium-sized species that have wide habitat tolerances. Mammal species documented within the project study area included gray squinel (Sciw-us carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiaria), eastem cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), river otter (Lutra canadensis), groundhog (Marmota monax), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), coyote (Canis latrans), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and black bear (Ursus americanus). No quantitative surveys were conducted to document the small maminal populations within the project study azea. The forested communities within the project study azea aze expected to provide habitat for small animals, including insectivores such as southeastem shrew (Sorex longirostris) and southem short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), and rodents such as white- footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli). Birds commonly observed in residential yards and other maintained/disturbed azeas included turkey wlture (Cathartes aura), mouming dove (Zenaida macroura), northem mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), European stazling (Sturnus vulgaris), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), and American crow (Corvus brachyr/aynchos). Successional areas included these species, as well as northem bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Birds observed in forested azeas included many of these species, as well as wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileari�s), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northem flicker (Colaptes auratus), Cazolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), gay catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and orchard oriole (Icterus spurius). Species found in or near aquatic habitats included snowy eget (Egrerta thula); �eat blue heron (Ardea herodias), and prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea). Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians observed within the project study corridor include eastem box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), black racer (Coluber constrictor), southem toad (Bufo terresiris), and squinel treefrog (Hyla squirella). Common reptiles expected to occur within the project study area include timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), corn snake (Elaphe guttata), and eastem garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Common tenestrial or azboreal amphibians expected to occur within the project study corridor include red salamander (Plethodon glutinusus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and spnng peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). 18 c. Aquatic Communities Aquatic Habitats Aquatic habitats within the project study area include ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waters present in streams, depressional wetlands, and m�erine habitats. These aquatic habitats are defined by having a hydroperiod long enough to support various stages or the entire life cycle of aquatic dependent species. Aquatic Fauna None of the streams within the project study area are considered Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat identifies the extent of endangered or threatened species populations and the tributaries and headwaters of their habitats. There are no designated Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas within the project study area. However, the lower reaches of Chapel Swamp and Deep Creek, more than a 1.0 mile downstream of the project study comdor, aze considered to be Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas. According to North Cazolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF), Deep Creek is considered to be an Anadromous Fish Spawning Area for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife (A. pseudoharengus). Fish sampling was not conducted within the projecf study area. In addition, the waterbodies within the project study corridor have not been sampled by the DWQ Biological Assessment Unit. Species expected to occur within the project study area include, but aze not limited to, American eel (Anguilla rostrata), bowfin (Amia calva), eastem mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), eastem mud minnow (Umbra pygmaea), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus g[oriosus), yellow perch (Perca Jlavescens), wazmouth (Lepomis gulosus), and sawcheek darter (Etheostoma serrijer). Eastem mosquitofish were noted in waters of intermittent streams and agricultural ditches during the course of field work. The larger streams within the project study area would be expected to support populations of game fish such as chain and redfin pickerel (Esox niger and E. americanus), lazgemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and several sunfish species including red breast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), as well as bluegill. Streams within the project study area provide riparian and benthic habitat for amphibians and aquatic reptiles. Aquatic reptiles observed within the project study area include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), cottonmouth (Agla'strodon piscivorus), red-bellied water snake (Nerodia erythrogasler), and banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata). Aquatic amphibians observed within the project study azea include bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and southem leopard frog (Rnna sphenocephala). I�] d. Summar�� of Anticipated Effects Altemative 1 is expected to have more impact on tenestrial communities and wildlife populations compared to Altemative 2 due to increased fragmentation of the existing wildlife corridor between US 64 and old US 64. • Overall, any of the altematives for the project will likely cause temporary impacts to the aquatic communities in and around the project study corridor. Potential impacts to downstream aquatic habitat may be avoided by maintaining regular flow and jurisdictional connectivity for stream and swamp systems within the project study azea. Impacts to Deep Creek may have the potentia] to result in impacts to anadromous fish runs or to fish spawning habitat. Support structures should be designed to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. Bridge Demolition and Removal (BDR) should follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts during all construction phases. 2. Waters of the United States Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the USACE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. - Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "Waters of the United States." Wetlands have been described as: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictiona] determination. Jurisdictional areas within the project study comdor have been reviewed by the USACE. A formal Jurisdictional Determination will be forwarded to NCDOT once it has been received from the USACE. A traditional delineation was applied to the widening portion of the project study area. However, at the recommendation of the USACE, a two-step approach to the wetlands delineation was applied within Alternatives l and 6 due to the drought conditions, complexity, and disturbance of the flatwood systems. This was also recommended due to the large expanses of hydric soils 20 within these two alternatives. The two-step approach included 1) in the areas where the wetland/upland break was well defined, a traditional delineation was applied and 2) in ditched flatwood areas where the wetland/upland break was not well defined, a zone of influence off each ditch was used to approximate the jurisdictional line. a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments As part of the Natura] Resource Im�estigation, all surface waters were classified using the Cowardin Classification. The streams within the project study azea aze considered to be riverine systems. Riverine systems may be perennial or intermittent and aze identified as those areas contained within a channel that are not dominated by Vees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and contain less than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) ocean-derived salts. Stream lengths, flow characteristics (perennial or intermittent), and other characteristics are provided in Table 11. Table 11: Characteristics of VVater Resources in the Project Corridor Stream Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Len th (feet) Len th (feet) Important 1,353 2,375 Lower Perennial Unimportant 352 1,199 Intermittent Important 0 385 Intermittent Total: 1,705 3,959 Cowardin Classiftcations Riverine, Lower Perennial (R2) —S2, S3, S5, S7, S8, S9, 510, and S11 are considered to be lower perennial riverine systems. These systems aze characterized by low gradient, slow to moderately moving water with no tidal influence. Riverine, Intermittent (R4) —S1, S4, S6, and S12 are considered to be intermittent riverine systems. These systems are characterized by having flowing water for only part of the yeaz. Water may remain in pools or be absent during the summer and dry seasons. Stream Importance To aid in altemative analyses and to help determine stream mitigation requirements, the USACE designates streams as either important or unimportant. Streams that have perennial flow, associated wedands, significant aquatic fauna, or associated Threatened and Endangered species are generally considered to be important and impacts to these streams would require mitigation. Infermittent streams may be considered important if the associated wetlands, significant aquatic 21 fauna, or Threatened and Endangered species criteria are met. Streams designated as unimportant do not support important aquatic function based on USACE's determination and typically do not require mitigation. S2, S3, S5, S6b, S7, S8, S9, S10, and S11 are considered important stream channels by the USACE and impacts to these streams will likely require mitigat�on. S4 and S6a aze considered to be intermittenUunimportant stream channels and should not require mitigation by the USACE. Final decisions on importance and mitigation requirements rest with the USACE. S1 and S12 were claimed as jurisdictional ditches by the USACE, but were claimed as jurisdictional stream channels by DWQ. These features were considered to be Waters of the U.S., but were not considered to be isolated. S4 was claimed as a jurisdictional in4ermittenUunimportant stream channel by the USACE, but was not claimed as a jurisdictional stream channel by DWQ. SS was claimed by USACE and DCM, but was not claimed as a jurisdictional stream channel by DWQ. b. Wetlands The wetland areas present within the project study comdor are primarily identified as palustrine in nature as identified on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping. Table 12 presents the breakdown of wetland types within each altemative. Palustrine systems include all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal azeas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5%. Some wetland systems are defined as palustrine, but are hydrologically influenced by adjacent streams through periodic overbank flooding and are considered riverine wetlands. Non-riverine wetlands are not typically influenced by overbank flooding. Due to the widely overlapping nature oF the altemates, a breakdown of wetlands within each altemative is provided in the full text of the Natural Resowces Technical Report (NRTR). Wetlands within the project study corridor vary in vegetative composition, depending in part on hydrologic regime and site-specific disturbances. The wetlands within the project study azea were identified as palustrine, forested (PFO). The class Forested Wetland is chazacterized by having woody vegetation that is 20 feet tall or taller. Wetland systems vary in vegetative composition, depending in part on hydrological regime and site specific disturbances. All wetlands within the boundaries of this project have been disturbed and altered to some extent, so special modifiers denoting particulaz disturbance factors have not been utilized in this classification scheme, except where necessary to differentiate communities. Four (4) wetland types were identified: palustrine forested, palustrine scrub-shrub, palustrine emergent, and palustrine unconsolidated bottom. Each of these community types is discussed below. Palustrine Forested (PFO) These areas are identified as forested jurisdictional wetlands which aze palustrine in nature. Vegetation within this wetland type varies throughout the project study comdor. Four general wetland forest types are present including: 1) needle-leaved evergreen communities (NWI designation PF04), ]ocated primarily in interstream flat systems; 2) mixed needle-leaved 22 evergeen/broad-leaved deciduous communities (NWI designation PF04/]), primarily located in interstream flat systems; 3) deciduous hardwood communities (NWI designation PFO]), primarily located in interstream flat systems and floodplain areas of smaller streams; and 4) deciduous communities (NWI designation PF06) pnmanly ]ocated within the floodplain of the larger tributaries within the project study area. Palustrine Scrub-shrub (PSS) These azeas are identified as scrub-shrub junsdictional weUands that are palustrine iri nature. Woody vegetation is less than 20 fr in height within these communities. The majority of these communities are recently timbered areas. Hydrologic regimes exhibited in these areas range from seasonally flooded to semipennanently flooded. Pines, red maple, sweetgum, geenbrier, blackberry, and other opportunistic species are common components of this wetland type. Palustrine Emergent (PEM) These areas are identified as palustrine emergent wetland systems. Within the project study area, these systems typically have persistent vegetation and are found in low landscape depressions or partially excavated azeas where woody shrubs and trees cannot establish or are kept from establishing by routine maintenance or disturbance. Hydrologic regimes exhibited in these systems range from seasonally flooded to semipermanently flooded. Soft rush, cattails, and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) are common components of this wetland type. Palustrine Unconsolidated bottom (PUB) Areas identified as palusU-ine, unconsolidated bottom wetlands within the project study azea are typically small ponds or ditches with permanent or semipermanent flooding with an ordinary high water mark that have been claimed as jurisdictional features by the USACE. c. SummarY of Anticipated Effects Jurisdictional areas are present in the project study corridor within each of the altematives. Table 11 provides a summary of the wetland and stream impacts within each altemative. Approximate locations of wedands and surface waters aze presented in Figure 3. Wetland and stream impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake, plus an additional 25 feet outside of each limit as determined from the current preliminary design plans for eacb altemative. .The totals are rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre. 23 Impacts to individual wetland sites and streams for Alternatives 1 and 2 are included in Tables 12 and 13, respectively. Table 12: Wetland and Stream Impacts — Alternative 1 Riverine/Non- Wetland Riverine Length of Wetland Wetland/Stream Wetland Area NC DWQ (wetlands Stream Identification Type Impacted Rating Perennial / Quality Impacted (ft (Acres) Intermittent (streams D2 p* D22 p* D23 0* D28 p* D33 �* D34 0* D36 p* D38a �* D39a 0.1 D4 �* DS �* D6 �• S8b 19] p W23 PF04/] 0.7 16 NR Medium W24a PF04 0* 17 NR Medium W24b PF04 0* 17 NR Medium W29 PEM 0* 15 NR Medium W31a/c PF04/1 3.7 49/23 R Medium W33a PSS 0.3 2] NR Medium W33b PF04 0* 21 NR Medium W35 PF04/1 6.5 24 NR Medium W36 PF04 0.2 14 NR Medium W37a PSS 1.9 21 NR Medium W37c PF04/l 0.4 24 NR Medium W3a PSS 1.5 20 NR Medium W3b PSS 2.4 20 NR Medium W4 PSS 1.5 20 NR Medium W41 PF04/1 0.1 10 NR Medium TOTALS: 19.3 191 '-- Indicates ihat the wetland impad is less lhan 0.1 acre, but greater tnan u 24 Table 13: Wetland and Stream Impacts — Alternative 2 Riverine/ �Vetland Non- Len th of Wetland/Stream WeUand Area g NC DWQ �°erine Wetland Identification Type Impacted Stream Rating N'etlands Quality (Acres) Impacted (ft perennial / Intermittent (streams) D10 0* � D14 0* D18 0.1 D2 0* D20 0* D21 0* D22 0* D23 0* � D28 0* D3 0* D4 0* DS 0* D6 ` 0* D9 0* S3a 174 P SSa 44 P SSb 167 P S6a 85 I S7a 55 P S7b P Wllb PF06 0.6 80 R Hi W13a PEM 0.1 20 NR Medium W13b PSS 0.1 20 NR Medium W15 PSS 0.8 15 NR Medium W17 PF04/1 '03 15 NR Medium WI9 PFO1 0.1 15 NR Medium W20a PF06 0* 80 R High W20b PF06 0.1 80 R Hi W20c PF06 0.5 80 R Hi W22a PF04 0.1 ll NR Medium W24a PF04 0* 17 NR Medium W33a PSS 03 21 NR Medium W33b PF04 0* 21 NR Medium W3a PSS 1.5 20 NR Medium W3b PSS 2.4 20 NR Medium 25 W4 PSS W6 PFOl W8 PFOl W9 PF04 TOTALS: l.5 0* 0.1 0* 8.5 525 -- Indicates that the wetland impact is less than 0.1 acre, bu� greater than 0 20 15 15 6 d. Avoidance A7inimization, and D4itiEation NR NR NR NR Medium Medium Medium Medium Mitigation has been defined in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations to include efforts which: avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the environment. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) step-down procedures, mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of Ageement (MOA), Executive Order 11990, and USFWS mitigation policy directives. Section 404(b)(1),Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order ll990 sVess avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands. Practicable altematives ana]yses must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed. The FHWA policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken to avoid or minimize harm to �vetlands which will be affected by Federally funded highway construction. A sequencing (step-down) procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is not practicable. Mitigation employed outside of the highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis. 1. Avoidance Due to the location of wetlands, streams, and surface waters within the project study corridor, avoidance of all jurisdictional impacts is not possible. Avoidance of some wetlands and streams within the project study area has been accomplished during the design. 2. Minimization The approved jurisdictional delineation within this project study comdor y�ill be utilized to further minimize wetland and surface impacts when choosing an altemative. Reduction of fill slopes at stream and wedand crossings will reduce unnecessary impacts. Impacts to the stream can be minimized by designing support structures to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. The jurisdictional delineation within the project study corridor will be utilized to further minimize wetland and stream impacts when designing the proposed alignment within the chosen Alternate. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging azeas within �vetlands. � Due to the presence of wetlands and streams throughout the project comdor, complete avoidance of these resources is not possible. Several efforts were made to reduce the effect of the project upon wetlands and streams, including developing alignments that avoided or minimized impact to these resources to the maximum extent practicable. Altemative 6 was proposed as a possible means of reducing the wetland impacts incurred by the new location alternative, Altemative 1. However, due to the significant number of wedands in the comdor, Altemative 6 actually had higher impacts than Alternative 1. Another minimization effort included using culverts at two stream crossings as opposed to bridges, which minimized the impact to both wetlands and streams. Because of the grade change required to build bridges, the footprint of the bridge and the slope stakes was actually less for culverts at the two sites in question. 3. Compensatorv MitiQation Compensatory mitigation wi]] likely be required for al] unavoidable losses after all practica] avoidance and minimization options aze utilized. A specific mitigation plan cannot be developed until final design is completed and actual impacts determined. NCDOT will evaluate the potential for, on-site mitigation once the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Altemative (LEDPA) has been selected. NCDOT will use the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet mitigation requirements provided there is no suitable on-site mitigation available. In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Cazolina Deparhnent of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Departrnent of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington DistricY' (MOA), July 22, 2003, the North Carolina' Department of Environment and Nahual Resources EEP will be requesfed to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal CWA compensatory mitigation requirements for this project. e. Anticipated Permit Reauirements Due to the amount of potential wetland and .stream impacts, it is anticipated that an individual Section 404 permit will be needed for this project with the USACE. Moreover, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must be obtained from NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) prior to issuance of the individual permit. 3. Rare and Protected Snecies a. Federallv Protected Species Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing, aze protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended. Table 14 presents the federally protected species listed for Washington County. Descriptions of these federally protected species along with habitat requirements and biological conclusions for this project are presented following the table. 27 Common Name American alli� Red wolf Table 14: Federall,y Listed Species for «'ashington County Scientitic Name Canis Federal Status' E Habitat Present Yes Biological Conclusionb N/A = T(SIA)- Threatened due �o similariry of appearance, E— Endangered (XN) Experimental Nonessential populations are Ireated as threatened species on public land, br consuita�ion purposes, and as a species proposed tor listing on pnva�e land. ° MNNLAA— May AflectlNot Likety to Adversely Affect ' This species is lreated as'Proposed" species for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Ad. Proposed species are taxa proposed for ofliciai listing as endangered orihreatened. Red wolf (Canis rufus) The red wolf is a medium sized, wild canid that resembles the coyote, but is larger and more robust. Adults measure 4.5 to SS ft in ]ength, and weigh from 35 to 90 pounds. This species is slightly sma]]er than the gay wolf (C. lupus) with a more slender and elongated head, and longer legs. Its pelage is shorter and coazser than in any race of C. lupus and individuals vary in color from reddish to gray to black.. The red wolf prefers habitat that provides lazge amounts of cover, including both upland and swamp forests, coastal marshes, and prairies. Small to medium sized mammals are normal prey items, but the red wolf is also heavily dependent on white-tailed deer. The red wolf was once found throughout the southeastem United States, but was extirpated from most of its range by 1920. Captive-bred animals were released at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in the fall of 1987, and successful reproduction resulted in 26-30 adults by August 1993. Biological Conclusion: May A(fecdNot Likely to Adversely Affect North Carolina Natural Heritage Progam (NCNHP) records indicate no documented occurrences of the red wolf within 1.0 mile of the project study comdor. No individuals were observed during the field investigation. According to USFWS, there are no red wolves in the area at this time. However, there have been documented occurrences of red wolves in the past and there are recent occunences in the surrounding areas. Due to the E(XN) status for this species, it is only considered to have federal protection on public lands. No public lands aze contained within the project study corridor. This species is treated as a"Proposed" species for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (iJSFWS), the outcome of an infonnal or formal "conference" for a proposed species is not legally binding unless the species becomes fully listed. American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) The American alligator is a large reptile that generally reaches adult lengths of six (6) to eleven (11) feet in North Carolina. No other crocodilians occur naturally in North Carolina and adults aze readily identifiable in the wild. In North Carolina, mating reportedly takes place in May to eazly June, with eggs deposited in nest mounds in July and hatching occumng in September. The m young, who are black with conspicuous yellow crossbands, aze easily identifiable by their appearance as well. American alligator reaches its northemmost distribution near the Albemarle Sound in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, although it is less common north of the Pamlico Sound. American alligator may be found in brackish water and tidal estuarine habitats as well as freshwater habitats. American alligator inhabits swamps, marshes, ponds, lakes, and large streams. Biological Conclusion: Not Applicable NCNHP records indicate no documented occunences of American alligator within 1.0 mile of the project study azea. Potentia] habitat is present within the ]arger swamp systems and tributaries that flow into the Albemarle Sound. American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance [T(S/A)] to other federally-]isted crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North Carolina. A Biological Conclusion is not required for this species. b. Bald Easle Protection Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle (Halieaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from the Endangered Species Act. A biological conclusion is no longer necessary for this species. The bald eagle is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines restrict disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 330 to 660 ft outward from a nest tree, which is considered critical for mainfaining acceptable conditions for bald eagles. Accordingly, bald eagle occurrences and nesting habitat were surveyed. Habitat for the bald eagle pnmarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typicaily within one mile of open water. Suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the bald eagle is a significant distance from open water. During the most recent survey in July 2007, no individuals or nesting sites were observed within 660 ft of the project limits. This project will therefore have no adverse effects on the bald eagle. c. Federal Saecies of Conce'rn and State Protected Saecies The USFWS also maintains a category of species designated as"Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). 'I`he FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. However, these aze listed since they inay attain federally protected status in the fuhu-e. The presence of potential habitat within the project study area has been evaluated in Table ]5 for the FSC species listed for Washington County. 29 Table 15: Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Washington County Common Name Scientific Name State a gabitat Presentb ilacionatinn American eel Anguilla rostrata N/A Yes Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens waynei SR Yes Lake Phel s killifish Furzdulus cf. diaphanus SR No Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii T Yes aN/A—Notapplicable—nostatedesignation,E—Endangered,SR—SlgnificantlyRare,T—Threatened. - b Potential habitat based extensively on Franklin (2006) and LeGrand et al. (2006), and olher IiteraWre previously cited. A review of the NCNHP records indicates that no FSC have been documented within 1.0 mile of the project study corridor. 4. Soils The general soils associations within the project study area include the Augusta-Altavista- Wahee and Cape Fear-Portsmouth-Roanoke associations. The Augusta-Altivista-Wahee association is characterized by nearly level, somewhat poorly diained and moderately well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy or clayey subsoil. This soil association is on low ridges near small streams that flow into the Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound. The Cape Feaz-Portsmouth-Roanoke association is characterized by nearly level, very poorly drained and poorly drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy or clayey subsoil. This soil association is mainly in the Blacklands. The Blacklands aze areas of soil in the southem portion of W ashington County that have surface layers that are muck. Each general soil association contains one or more mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape position. Soil mapping units are named for the major soil or soils within the unit, but may contain minor inclusions of other soils. There are six hydric soil mapping units, two non-hydric soil mapping units that inay contain hydric inclusions, and four other non-hydric soil mapping units mapped within the project study corridor. Soils descriptions are listed below. • Argent silt loam (Typic Ochraqualfs), (Ar), is mapped in the eastem portion of the project study area. These nearly level, poorly drained soils occur on broad flats neaz small streams that flow into the Albemarle Sound. This soil mapping unit is hydric. • Cape Fear loam (Typic Umbraquults), (Cfl, is mapped in lazge areas in the eastem and westem portions of the project study area. These nearly level, very poorly drained soils 30 occur on broad flats and in slight depressions near small streams that flow into the Albemarle Sound. This soil mapping unit is hydric. • Dorovan mucky silt loam overwash (Tvpic Medisaprists), (Dr), is mapped within drainages throughout the project study azea. These nearly level, very poorly drained soils occur on the flood plains of the Albemazle Sound and of major streams and their tributaries. This soil mapping unit is hydric. • Muckalee loam (Typic Fluvaguents), (Me), is mapped in the northwest portion of the project study area. These nearly level, poorly drained soils occur on flood plains of small streams that flow into the Albemazle Sound. This soil mapping unit is hydric. • Roanoke loam (Typic Ochraquults), (Ro), is mapped throughout the project study azea. These neazly level, poorly drained soils occur on broad flats and in small drainageways that flow into the Albemazle Sound. This soil mapping unit is hydric. • TomoUey fne sandy loam (Typic Ochraguults), (1'0), is mapped in the northwest portion of the project study area. These nearly level, poorly drained soils occur on slightly elevated areas on broad flats and in depressions near small streams that flow into Albemazle Sound. This soil mapping unit is hydric. • Augusta fine sandy loam (Aeric Ochraquults), (At), is mapped in the nor[h central portions of the project study azea. These nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils occur on broad flats adjacent to smal] streams and waterways that flow into Albemarle Sound. This soil mapping unit is non-hydric but may contain hydric inclusions of poorly drained soils in depressions and drainageways. • Wahee 1"ine sandy loam (Aeric Ochraquults), (Wa), is mapped throughout the project study area. These nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils occur on low ridges neaz the small streams that flow into Albemazle Sound. This soil mapping unit is non-hydric but may contain hydric inclusions of Roanoke loam in depressions and drainageways. • Altavista Tine sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slope) (Aquic Hapludults), (AaA), is mapped in the northem central and northwest portions of the project study area. These moderately drained soils occur on low ridges neaz small streams that flow into Albemarle Sound. This soil mapping unit is non-hydric. • Bojac loamy fine sand (0 to 3 percent slopes) (Typic Hapludults), (BoA), is mapped within the north central portion of the project study area. These well drained soils occur on low ridges near small streams that flow into Albemarle Sound. This soil mapping unit is non- hydric. • Dogue £me sandy loam (0 to 3 percent slopes) (Aguic Hapludults), (DgA), is mapped in the westem and northwest portions of the project study area. These moderately well drained 31 soils occur on low ridges near small streams that flow into Albemarle Sound. This soil mapping unit is non-hydric. • R'ickham loam�� sand (0 to 4 percent slopes) (Typic Hapludults), (WkB), is mapped in the northem central and northwest portions of the project study azea. These well drained soils occur on low ridges near streams that flow into Albemazle Sound. This soil mapping unit is non-hydric. 5. Coastal Zone Issues a. Coastal Area ManaEement Act (CAMA) The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) provides for jurisdictional review of impacts affecting Areas of Environmental Concem (AEC) in 20 designated coastal counties, including Washington County. Chapel Swamp Creek, located in the project area, is designated as inland fishing and as a Public Trust Watec Therefore, Chape] Swamp Creek may be considered an AEC. Encroachment on an AEC resource may iequire a Major Development Permit per CAMA regulations. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that federal actions (i.e.,.404 permit issuance) comply with requirements of state administered coastal zone management programs; therefore non-AEC impacts in Washington County will require a CAMA consistency determination as part of the permit process. According to the Division of Coastal Management (DCM), Altemative 1 will not have any impacts to AECs. Altemative 2 may bave potential impacts to three AECs, including Chapel Swamp (S2) and two UTs to ihe Albemarle.Sound.(SS and S7, see Figure 3). b. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as "those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturit}�'. For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: "VJaters" include aquatic azeas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hazd bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "necessar}�' means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturit�' covers a species' full life cycle. An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed action on EFH and mandatory contents include: a description of the proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the federal action agency's views on those effects and proposed mitigation, if applicable. An adverse effect includes any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g, loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. EFH is only designated for federally managed species that have a management plan under a Fisheries Management Council. The South Atlantic Fisheries Council manages such species as, but not limited to, red drum (Sciaenops 32 ocellatus), bluefisb (Pomatomus saltntrix), summer flounder (Pm-alichthys dentatus), and severa] species of shrimp (Penaeus spp.). During agency review of the Envirorunental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project, the USACE makes the initial determination of whether or not a proposed project "may adversely affect" EFH. This determination by the USACE is submitted to the NMFS for their review and comment. NMFS will then determine if additional consultation is necessary regarding the proposed project or if they concur with USACE's decision. According to the NMFS, no impacts are expected to Essential Fish Habitat. B. Cultural Resources 1. Compliance This project is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, 36 CFR Part 800, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. 2. Historic Architectural Resources There aze four (4) historic properties on this project that are either eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 33 Tab1e ]6: Effects to Historic Architectural Resources Historic Pro erty Status Alternative Effects For Altemative 1, there will be no effect. For Altemative 2, there will be Albemarle Grill DE l& 2 no adverse effect — parking will be (Skinnersville Civic Center) temporarily impacted by construction easements. Ho kins House DE 2 No effect For Alternative 2, there could be a possible adverse effect if drainage Fann on NC 32 DE 2 work impacts trees within existing right of way. No adverse effect if tree protection measures are employed, historic mazker is reinstalled after " Rehoboth Methodist Church NR Z construction, and temporary fence is erected along existing right of way � during construction. DE — Delertnined eligible for the Nationai Hegis�er ot r+is�onc naces NR— Listed on the National Register of Historic Places According to the Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects dated November 14, 2008, the NCHPO stated that there would be no adverse effects on anyof these properties except the farm on NC 32. Under Alternative 2, the construction of drainage ditches could negatively impact the trees on this site that aze a contributing factor to the setting and historic character of this particulaz property. 3. ArchaeoloQical Resources In a letter dated May 6, 2002, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) stated that there were no known archaeological sites within the project comdor. Based on their knowledge of the azea, it is unlikely that any archaeological resowces that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by this project. They recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. After Altemafive 6 was developed, a second letter was received from NCDCR dated September 22, 2006 stating that since Alternative 6 was adjacent to and very similar in scope with Altemative ], no archaeological investigation needed to be conducted. C. Section 4(�/6(tl Resources Section 4( fl of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 protects the use of publicly owned pazks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and histonc properties. If � Altemative 2 is chosen as the preferred alignment, there will be an adverse effect to a farm on NC 32 that has been determined eligible far inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. However, since impacts to this property would be kept within the existing right of way line; this would not be a Section 4( fl impact, but only an adverse Section 106 impact. Under Alternative 2; the Albemarle Grill, also known as the Skinnersville Civic Center, will experience a temporary impact due to a construction easement. This site is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but will not fall under the province of Section 4(fl. During a meeting with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) held on November 14, 2008, it was determined that there would be no adverse effect to this property. Section 6(fl of the Land and Water Conservation Act applies to the conversion of certain iecreation lands to non-recreational purposes. The act applies to recreation lands that have received Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money. Any land conversions on property that has received LWCF money must be approved by the US Department of the Interior—National Park Service. Section 6( fl also requires that any applicable land converted to non-recreational uses must be replaced with land of equal or greater value, location, and usefulness. No Section 6( fl protected properties will be impacted by this project. D. Farmland North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Fores[ Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils are determined by the Soil Conservation Service and based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of economic resources. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires that applicable environmental documents evaluate fannland 'unpacts and comply with FPPA guidelines to minimize impacts. A soil survey of the proposed project area by Washington Soil and Water Conservation showed areas ofAltavista and Wickham soils, which aze designated as prime farmland soils: Cape Fear soil is also in the area and designated as farmland soil of statewide importance. NCDOT is currently performing a Farmland Impact Assessment for this project and will include the assessment in determining a recommended altemative. E. Social Effects 1. Demoeraphics The Demographic Study Area is comprised of Census Tract 9501, Block Groups 1 and 3. The Demographic Study Area is generally the smallest statistical area, as determined by common US Census boundaries that fully contaiIls the Direct Community Impact Area. The data for the Demographic Study Area provides a demographic overview of residents in the azea. The information obtained by the Census may not reflect the exact aspects surrounding the project but should provide accurate information on the area trends. 35 Washington County had a decline in population of almost two percent (2%) between 1990 and 2000, as seen in Table 17. As of July 2005, the county's population of 13,418 ranks as the 10`h smallest in North Carolina. However, in contrast to the overall slight decline in population in the county between 1990 and 2000, the Demographic Study Area had a population increase of ]4.2% (202 residents), primarily the result of a 34.7% increase of 215 residents in Census Tract 9501, Block Group 3. According to the North Carolina State Demographics Office, the Town of Plymouth's population in 2005 was estimated at 3,985, the Town of Roper's was 629, and the Town of Creswell's was 261. Only the Town of Roper experienced a population increase at that time. Category 1990 Po1 2000 Po Increase Percent � Table 17: Population Growth,1990-2000 Demographic Study Area �� 1,427 1,629 202 14.2 Block �rou 1 807 794 -13 -1.6 Block ,rou 3 620 835 215 34.7 W ashington 13,997 13,723 -274 -2.0 North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4 The race and ethnicity oF the Demographic Study Area is predominately white as seen m Table 18, with 59.2% of the population being of Caucasian descent. The percentage of African Americans located within the study area is 40%, which is lower than the county rate of 49.8%. There are no notable minori4y populations in the Demogaphic Study Area. Table 18: Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 Category Demographic Block Block Washington North Carolina Stud Area Grou 1 Grou 3 Coun White 963 (59.2%) 531 431 (51.6%) 6,562 (47.8%) 5,648,953 (70.2%) (66.9%) Black or African 653 (40%) 263 390 (46.7) 6,832 (49.8%) 1,720,197 (21.4%) American (33.1 %) American Indian 0 0 0 0 97,289 (1.2%) and Alaska Native Asiac� 0 0 0 73 (0.5%) ll0,167 (1.4% Native Hawaiian 7(0.4o�o� p � 7(0.1%) 3,081 (0.1%) and other Pacific Islander Some other race** 0 0 0 90 (0.6%) 96,662 (1.1°/a Hispanic or Latino 7(0.40�0� p � 159 (1.2%) 372,964 (4.6%) (of any race) Total Po ulation 1,630 (100%) 794 (100%) 835 (100%) 13,�23 (100%) 8,049>313 (100%) 36 In the Demogaphic Study Area, 8.9% of the residents were unemployed in 2000, compared to 7.l % overall in Washington County in that same year. The December 2005 unemployment rate in Washington County was 6.7%. Table ] 9 displays the median household income distribution throughout the study area. The $31,989 median household income of the residents in the Demographic Study Area is slightly higher than the County's $28,865 median. The Demographic Study Area'and Washington County both have over 1 I% of the population achieving a Bachelors degee or higher. There aze 11.8% of residents in the Demogaphic Study Area with income below the poverty level, compazed to 21.5% in Washington County. The unemployment and poverty rates are reflective of the fishing, farming and forestry economies in the county, and a low education level. Table 19: Median Household Income, 2000 Over 47% of the vacant homes in the Demographic Study Area aze used for seasonal, recreational or occasional use, as compazed to the countywide rate of 27 percent The median home value of $77,950 in the Demographic Study Area is higher than the county's value of $69,400: The - higher cost of housing in Census Tract 9501 Block Group 3($94,500) may be directly related to the waterfront houses along the Albemarle Sound that are dissimilar in size and age to neighboring single family and modular homes. 2. Nei¢hborhoods/Communities A rural population reduces the potential for and magnitude of displacement-related community impacts for this project that ranges from 3.7 to 5.7 miles in lengih. Both altematives will temporarily impact the Skinnersville Civic Center's pazking and also the Pea Ridge Convenience Center as part of the widening of the NC 32/NC 94 intersection. Altemative 2 will impact the Holly Neck Church of Christ cemetery on SR 1 l39 (Beasley Road) and the historic fann on NC 32. This project will not create a barrier effect, split, disrupt or isolate the community. It is expected that neighborhood cohesion will remain intact and the project will not interrupt social interaction among residents. 3. Relocations of Residences and Businesses For Altemative 1, it is anticipated that there will be one (1) business relocation. Altemative 2 is expected to have one (1) business and 17 residential relocations. 37 4. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 requires that Environmenta] Justice principles be incorporated into all transportation studies, programs, policies, and activities. The three environmental principles are: 1) to ensure the full and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision making process, 2) to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority or low income populations, and 3) to fully evaluate the benefits and burdens of transportation programs, policies, and activities upon low-income and minority populations. No disproportionate and adverse unpacts to minority, low income, or tribal populations are expected for this project. $. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Residents, tourists and recreationa] bike riders have access to NC Bike Route 3 on NC 32 (former US 64). Washington County officials stated that NC 32 and NC 94 have increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic as a result of the realignment of US 64 and the shifting of heary traffic and tluough-travel to that road. Because Alternative 2 uses NC 32 on existing location, there would be an increased effect on bicycle traffic. Altemative l would have little effect o� bicycle traffic. 6. Recreational Facilities There are no recreational facilities that will be impacted as a result of this project. F. Economic Effects The Pea Ridge Convenience Store is a long-standing social gathering spot at the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94, located across the street from the Skinnersville Civic Center. Construction and intersection widening would impact pazking and access for this popular locally owned store. At this same intersection, property occupied by a vacant store building was recently sold. Located on a 64-acre pazcel, future plans for this commercial site are unknown. Agricultural products, including potatoes, wheat, com, soybeans and cotton, comprise an important part of Washington County's economy. In 2002, Washington County had 193 fazms with an average of 593 acres. The agriculture and forestry industries employ 8% of the workforce, generating $59,407,000 cash receipts in 2004. Both proposed altematives bisect active farm operations and may impact prime soils and farmlands. G. Land Use 1. ExistinQ and Future Land Use The Direct Community Impact Area is zoned County Rural Agricultural. It is possible that a conversion to a more intensive use for some properties could occur as a result of this project, as a k�:3 new and better connection would be expected to increase traffic counts. Current employment centers will not be directly affected. Any impacts to property taxes because of this project are not known at this time. Residential development is underway in both Washington and Chowan Counties, with emphasis on the azeas near the Albemarle Sound. These include: • Albemarle Acres — 76-unit residentia] developinent southeast of the NC 32 and NC 94 intersection. • Waterside at the Pointe — 175-unit residential development north of the NC 32 and NC 94 intersection, south of the Albemar]e Sound Bridge. • Sandy Point — 1600-unit residential development just north of the Albemazle Sound Bridge in Chowan County. • Sandridge Phase I— 24-unit residential development located approximately %2 miles norfheast of the NC 32 and NC 94 intersection. • Sandridge Phase II — 67-unit residential development ]ocated approximately %2 miles northeast of the NC 32 ar�d NC 94 intersection. _. _ _ • Cedar Shores. Phase II — 47-unit residential development ]ocated approximately % miles northeast of the NC 32 and NC 94 intersection. 2. Project Compatibilih� with Local Plans As noted in the Community Impact Assessment, the Edenton-Chowar� Planning Department feels that the project is a"much needed connector from (Highway) 64 to NC 32 to the north side of the Albemarle Sound and could tremendously benefit all communities on the north side with regard to tourism and economic development." Washington County Manager David Peoples has also fervently expressed the county's desire for a new connector from US 64 to the Albemazle Sound Bridge during the most recent Merger meeting. H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects An Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening is currently being performed by NCDOT staff and will be incorporated into the FONSL I. Flood Hazard Evaluation Washington County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Regulaz Progam. Though there is one stream crossing on Altemative 1 and three (3) on Altematrve 2, this _ project will not affect any designated flood hazard zones, and the proposed improvements will not have any adverse effect on the existing floodplain areas. A more detailed impact analysis will be c39 performed during the project drainage design. NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with FEMA and local authorities to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances. J. TrafBc Noise Analvsis In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedw�es for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772), each Type I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. Type I projects are proposed Federal or Federal-Aid highway projects for construction of a highway on new ]ocation or improvements of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity. Traffic noise impacts aze determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise found in Tifle 23 CFR 772, which also includes provisions for traffic noise abatement measures. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Traffic Noise Analysis — Proposed NC 32 Connector can be viewed in the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Room 443, Raleigh. 1. Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic erivironment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing equivalent sound level (Leq) noise levels in'the project corridor were measured fifty feet from the edge of pavement and ranged from 61 decibels (dBA) to 64-dBA. A backgound noise ]evel of 50-dBA was determined for the project, to be used in areas where traffic noise was not the predominant source. The ambient measurement locations are described in Table 19. The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise prediction model to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged less than 1-dBA difference from the measured noise levels for the ]ocation where noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed. � Table 20: Ambient Noise Levels (Lec�� ' Ambient noise level sites were measured at (ifty fee� from the edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traflic. 2. Analysis Results A]and use is considered impacted by highway traffic noise when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise ]evels either: • Approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meamng within 1-dBA of the value found in Table 2 of the full Traffic Noise Analysis), or • Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of Table 2(see ful] Traffic Noise Analysis). . Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category. The number of receptors in each activity category, for each section, that aze predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise aze shown in Table 21. These receptors include those expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, no residences aze predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project azea. 41 � Table 21: Approzimate Number of Impacted Receptors Activity Cate ory Description A g C D E ALTERNATIVE 1 SR 1139 (Beasley Road) from US 64 to Start of p 0 0 0 0 ew Location — No rec tors within this section ew Location from SR 1139 (Beasley Road) to the Intersection of NC 32/NC 94 — No receptors within 0 0 0 0 0 his section C 32/ NC 94 from the Intersection ofNC 32 and N � 0 0 0 0 94 to the end of ro�ect ALTERNATIVE 2 SR 1139 (Beasley Road) from US 64 to SR 1136 p 0 0 0 0 (Holly Neck Road SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) from SR 1139 (Beasley � � Q p 0 Road) to start ofNew L.ocation ew Location from SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) to � 0 0 0 0 C 32 C 32 from end of New Location to the Intersection � 0 0 0 0 fNC 32 and NC 94 C 32/NC 94 from the Intersection of NC 32/NC 94 � 0 0 0. 0 o the end of project Table 22 exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by roadway section. There are no substantial noise level impacts anticipated due ro this project. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +13 dBA. The amount of substantial noise level impacts for each roadway section can be found in Table 22. VJhen real-life noises are heazd, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable. 42 Table 22: Predicted Substantial Noise Level Impacts Exterior Noise Level Increase Substantial Noise Impacts Due to Description Level Increase � Both Criteria < 9 10-14 > 15 dBA dBA dBA ALTERNATIVE 1 SR 1139 (Beasley Road) from US 64 o start of New Location 0 2 0 0 0 o rece tors within this section ew Location from SR 1139 (Beasle oad) to the Intersection of 1 0 0 0 0 C 32/NC 94 o rece tors within this section C 32 from the Intersection of 12 0 0 0 0 C 32/NC 94 to the end of roject ALTERNATIVE 2 SR 1139 (Beasley Road) from US 64 4 0 0 0 0 o SR l 136 (Holly Neck Road SR 1136 (Ho1lyNeck Road) from SR 1139 (Beasley Road) to start of 1 0 0 0 0 ew Location ew Location from SR 1136 (Holly 3 0 0 0 0 eck Road) to NC 32 C 32 From New Location to the 22 0 0 0 0 Intersection ofNC 32 and NC 94 C 32/NC 94 from the Intersection o 12 0 0 0 0 C 32 and NC 94 to end of roject ' As defined by only a substantial increase (See botlom of Table 2 in the full TraHic Noise Malysis) In accordar�ce with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, federal and state governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development where building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the "Date of Public Knowledge." The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of Categorical Exclusions (CEs), Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) or Records of Decision (RODs). For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local goveming bodies are responsible for ensuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. 43 Table 23: Predicted Leq Noise Levels and Noise Contours Maximum Predicted Leq l�Tois A'Iaximum Contou Description Levels (dBA)� DistancesZ 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 72-dBA 67-dBA ALTERNATIVE 1 SR 1139 (Beasley Road) from US 64 to 66 60 54 <37 55 start of New Location ew Location from.SR 1139 (Beasley Road) to the Intersection ofNC 32 and 65 59 53 <37 47 C 94 C 32/NC 94 from the Intersection of 68 62 56 <37 69 C 32 and NC 94 to the end of ro'ect ALTERNATIVE 2 SR 1139 (Beasley Road) from US 64 to 5� 51 46 <37 <37 SR 1136 Holly Neck Road SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road) from SR 1139 (Beasley Road) to start of New 57 51 46 <37 <37 Location ew Location from SR 1136 (Holly 57 51 46 <37 <37 eck Road) to NC 32 C 32 From end of New Location to the 65 59 54 <37 47 Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 C 32/NC 94 from the Intersection of 68 62 56 <37 69 C 32 and NC 94 to the end of project ' 50-ft, 100-fl, and 200-ft dislances are measured from the etlge ot nearesi travel iane z 72-dBA and 67dBA contour distances are measured iran the center of proposed roadway 3. Noise Abatement Alternatives If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of altemative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. Based on this analysis, there aze no predicted impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project azea with any of the proposed alignments. The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project. a. AiQhwav AliQnment Selection Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of altemative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the ba]ance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment 44 selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a suf5cient distance from noise sensStive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not� a viable altemative for noise abatement. b. Traffic S��stem A7anasement Aleasures Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of operations, aze often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures aze not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed facility. Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2-dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3-dBA, and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure. This and.other traffic system management measures, including the prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with the project's objective of providing a high-speed, limited-access facility. c. � Noise Barriers Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels aze ofren applied with a measurable degee of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the receptors to effectively diffract, absorb, and ieflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls. The project will maintain partial or limited conVol of access, meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access wnnections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concem. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located fifty feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier four hundred feet long. An access opening of forty feet (10 percent of the barrier length) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4-dBA. Consequently, this type of control of access effectively eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures. Additionally, businesses, churches, and other related establishments ]ocated along a particulaz highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, wou]d not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. 45 d. Other 1�1itiQation A7casures Considered The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allov��ed abatement cost per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control. The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project, due to the substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier must be approximately one hundred feet wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in.noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of addltional right-of-way are required. The cost of the additional right-of-way and to plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement cost allowed per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project. 4. Construction Noise The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working neaz the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, Ihese impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. 5. Summarv The traffic noise analysis determined there is no predicted substantial impacts to any noise receptors within the study area for this proposed highway project. Based on this preliminary study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this project unless warranted by a significant change in the project scope, vehicle capacity or aligrunent. In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State govemments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSn. For development occumng after this date, local goveming bodies aze responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. 46 K. Air Oualih� Analvsis Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to i�nproving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic pattems are a primary concem when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOz), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented herein is concemed with determining expected cazbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow. 1. BackQround CO Concentrations Automobiles are considered the major source of carbon monoxide (CO) in the project area. In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cazs operating on highways in the neaz vicinity (i.e., distances within 400 feet) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a poilutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources." This project is located in a CO attainment area, therefore no CO microscale analysis was peiformed. ' _. 2. Air Oualitv Analvsis Results The project is located in Washington County, which complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This project will not add substantial new capacity or create a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Therefore, it is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment azea 3. Construction Air Ouality Effects During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, bumed or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any buming done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure buming will be done at the geatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions aze such as to create a hazazd to the public. Buming will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. 47 4. D1obile Source Air Toxics (�7SATs) In addition to the criteria air polluta�ts for which there areNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g, dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unbumed. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine weaz or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) progam, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standazds and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standazds and on-highway diesel fuel suifur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diese] PM emissions by 87 percent. As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fue] standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(]) that H�ill address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the primary six (6) MSATs. 5. Summarv Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of pollutants into the air. Changing traffic pattems are a primary concem when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. New highways or the widening of exiting highways increase ]ocalized levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in congestion and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway. Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle traffic has increased rapidly. CE: L. Hazardous blaterial Based on the Geogaphical Information Systems (GIS) technology and a field reconnaissance study conducted on February 14, 2007, the GeoEnvironmental Section determined that there are three (3) possible sites presently or formerly containing petroleum undergound storage tanks (USTs) within the project limits (see Table 24). No hazardous waste sites or landfills were identified within the project limits; however, one active and one former automotive repair facility were found to be ]ocated within the project limits. I,ow to nonexistent monetary and scheduling impacts are anticipated from the three (3) possible UST sites and the automotive repair facility. Table 24: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Davenport's Service Center J�es & Sandra 14830 Highway 32 Davenport N/A N/A Ro er, NC 27970 This active caz repair garage is located on the south side of NC 32 and 0.3 miles east of SR ] 136 (Holly Neck Road). A waste oil abovegound storage tank (AST) is located next to the building. The business has never installed USTs and the property does not appear on the UST Section's registry. This sitc �i�ill have a negligible impact to this project. Property Location Property Owner UST O�vner Facility ID # Simp's Pit Cooked BBQ Rachel Cale Simpson 15061 Highway 32 E.T. Four, Inc. 0-006295 Ro er, NC 27970 This closed restaurant and former gas station is located on the north side of NC 32 and 0.6 miles east of SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road). The building is set back 54 feet from the NC 32 median. Two (2) pump islands are located at the front of the store. Two (2) rectangular asphalt patches were noted in the front parking lot and are 35 feet from the highway. A monitoring well is present near the southwest comer of the building and is set back 40 feet from the median. The UST Section's registry indicates that two (2) USTs were removed in October 1994. There is no other evidence o USTs or UST removal. This site wil1 have a low impact to this project Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Red Apple Mazket 14 16650 Highway 32 Artie B. Ange E.T. Four, Inc. 0-006310 Ro er, NC 27970 � This former gas station and convenience store is located across' from the intersection of NC 32 and SR 1317 (Pritchard's Loop Road). The storefront is 68 feet from the NC 32 median. At the time o this investigation, the parcel was for sa]e. A pump island is located at the front of the property and 49 feet from the highway. A concrete slab is in front of the pump island. The UST Section's registry indicates that four (4) USTs were removed from the property in April 1994. A groundwater incident occurred on this site and was assigned number 12830. The soil and pavement in front o the store has been removed and disturbed. Therefore, there is no remaining evidence of USTs or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to this project. Property Location Property Owner AST Owner Facility ID # Pea Ridge Convenience Store pea Ridge Pea Ridge 106 NC 32 N N/A Convenience Store Convenience Store Ro er, NC 27970 This active gas station and convenience store is located on the northeast comer of the NC 32 and NC 94 traffic triangle. Three ASTs are located at the south side of the store and are set back 112 feet from the NC 32 median. The store is 85 feet from the highway. The property does not appeaz to be on the UST Section's registry and there is no evidence of USTs or UST removal. This site will have a ne li ible im act to this roject. � VI. COMD4ENTS AND COORDINATION A. Citizens ]nformational Workshop A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on November 17, 2004 at the Vernon G. James Research Center on US 64 in Plymouth to introduce this project to the public and obtain their comments and suggestions about improvements. Approximately 38 people attended. Eleven written comments were received during and after this workshop, most of which supported Altemative I, although two citizens expressed interest in Alternatives 3 and 5 as their primary choice. Several citizens also requested that the existing intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 be upgraded to a safer configuration than the current Y-type intersection. B. Public Hearin¢ A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concems regazding the proposed project. C. NEPA/404 Meraer Process i Merger O] is a process to streamline the project development and permitting processes, agreed to by the USACE, NCDENR-DWQ� FHWA, and NCDOT and supported by other stakeholder agencies and local units of govemment. To this effect, the Merger Ol process provides a forum for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on w•ays to facilitate meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transpor[ation projects. The Merger O1 process allows agency representatives to work more efficiendy by providing a common forum for them to discuss and find ways to comply with key elements of their agency's mission. It engenders quicker and more comprehensive evaluation and resolution of issues. The Merger process helps to document how competing agency mandates are balanced during a shazed decision-making process, which results in agency representatives reaching a"compromised-based decision" to the regulatory and individual agency mandates. Concurrence Point 1: On May 8, 2002, the initial Merger meeting was held. On July 23, 2003, the Merger team met and concurred on the Purpose and Need of the project. The purpose of the proposed project is to "improve connectivity in the study area. This does not preclude improving the existing facilities." Concurrence Point 2: On March 16, 2006, the Merger team met and concurred on altematives to carry forward for detailed study. Of the five design altematives presented, three existing altematives were carried forward (Altematives 1, 2, and 5) and one new altemative was developed (Altemative 6) in an attempt to reduce wetland impacts. 51 Concwrence Point 2A: On November 13, 2008, the Merger team met to discuss bridging options for this project and to detennine which altematives should be camed forwazd. At this point, the Merger team concluded that Altematives 5 and 6 should be dropped from further study. Copies of signed concunence point fom�s are provided in Appendix C. D. Other AaencV Coordination Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this Environmental Assessment. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted with an asterisk (*) during the prepazation of this assessment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service * National Marine Fisheries Service * State Clearinghouse * N.C. Department of Cultural Resources * N.C. Department of Envirorunent and Natural Resources * N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission * N.C. Division of Coastal Management * N.C. Division ofForest Resources * N.C. Division ofMarine Fisheries * N.C. Division of Water Quality Washington County * Chowan County * Southem Albemarle Association * Town of Columbia These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed in this document. KOG/kg 52 APPENDIX A MAPPING & FIGURES �� J � 1^� 1 �� , ��'l 1 � � � . i t`n: , � f� �� N 94 �` �� ,�� 9v�U ;- �� az . , 11 �� w. �� ,�:I , 1 ;�I��i��L�i _ — — `' r -� - _". 1 f � .S - � -: r ��►,RIDGE;Qa _ - . � � 94 ' ; . .. : ��..IT, % �� -/� � .\. � �. ` i . - ,r � ? . - ,.��.�� . I�b�G�➢�s��PC��IaM . .... .,;: . . -. � s -�• �_: ..�. . _ ��Puro�O��ut� _., .,..,«;�_ . � R- _ � - .� N .. .... _ -.. 3z " ��. :� � �eP-5 I � i. �� ' ALT. 5 .." .x� w'a, h�, - � ' � ��f� r�'G��AY : �.. '�' ' ' - - '" � ,;��'�cl�\��''? �' `S''�`I y� . ' t �� `�r, ' ,' : a 'L"�1 ` ji� ' �� `� ;: ;.. _ .,_ ,, ; ' oo• 6 94 JJ C/UAP � ,f5' ��O", ` �. I WOODSON . � � � x ,�.� �50��' - � . � � , EA3T � _ _ — �� -' , ": ��r ��a�o� w: ' � , ' . � , . '. $ �. -• ALT.'E,2,6 , , ,�t;' � , .. . , , ., J I ' � J .l. QQ • _ _ � . • .. � � ) � ;- � . . � 7 � . � • . ' . 1 � . � � •t ( ... . ' . �. I .. . f a _ II� I . � _ _. _ ' �' ,'� � ,�� ._.�.1 � �,4� � �� . �64 64 l' � . � ` ..? _� ' - � j I` . � , �� ~I � 1 ' . : i i � ti 1 � r �. i. � � .� - . . C- . �- << ' > _ .� _ r. i � : �' . . , ` ....`t.:.� t - . • _ Legend � , , ;, � ;+_ o�c7%n�r i �r f._ � - -�: __ .-- , o^ o • -`'" : � . .��'� - ♦ og ALT. 2 � � - . - � - � _ ��y� ALT 5 �'? . . . ` _. - _ I�' I w. � ; �^�j�%ALT 6 � r " - s��go Alt. 7, 2. 6 �� - . � J - v ' 0 0.5 1 — Britlges . ' � � �'� {, i'��t 1 G e n�Y h `, -��^- Creeks, 5treams, ftivers p ��' .' _ ` � MII@S �.�Z. .M; i:" - ' ' '�i:. ..1,' _ ,„ VICINITY MAP Co�nry WASHINGTON •904�. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT NC 32 CONNECTOR FROM . OF TRANSPORTATION US 64 TO THE INTERSECTION Drv 1 TiPk R3620 Figure �IVISION OF HIGHWAVS OF NC 32 AND NC 94 .� PROJECT OEVELOPMENTAND WBS. 34548.1.1 1 r p. ,fi ENVIRONMENTALANALVSIS BRANCH y�qSHINGTON COUNTY .N" BY: J.TORTORELLA TIP PROJECT R-3620 Da�e:NOVEMBER 2008 ��... � �� a _L .. -� '� �Y' : . � � �, _ . ��. `�� <�,1�'� �T�Y' : �: ,_. � � ,,� � , - 4'yt{,'. -� �� -�. " - �'�G��"""'rrWis:s� i �� y��{'fj ... ' � .. . A�� . � =c � . . � / �? A 4 ��V i ;:i . s Jq � t.;' �` �y � a _ 1�� J � y � �' r. !l� �. �sal . 1 . ��i . tr y � r,Fn. � sro . � ��z.• _��• j �. - '�(y.� J 3.i �.} . + , r ; -� Y ` , • ' " _r� 1-' _ p a. ' -'''Y 4 �'' ° i�}� �, " �L' �r�� _ . t � r. � ., �� .r'K tA 1/ .'� �..... .- , a � . ��,._ + 1 .�� ,Y� :. �.i �� .. � . 4 �- ��i f y% ' � � � ... f S. '".i �� . .: r .. �� . � +Yr:� ..` � � �. ��s � �� :� '� S� d'i.��s..�- . . 7�i �K.y� � � � � � �,� �. Al' • '� . � :�.I. e ?%�{ �5 !l� � � ,(��', : �.' � .� �� . i � � � �. .`.��'i.�: \�r.�i.Lt�l .9�#3('+�� ,�t � ,, ` _ _ T., F4„ J . . �e 4 � �. `-s'�'�� '�� . � 5 .'a � � � � � _.+ '� ` - �_ KF � "' � Y -', a ":r � �. _ �, E�, e �� ;�rF _' : �`� � � '"\ +� :;#s� ��.�r. � ' ` "� �$ ! ' �_ ` xl•' ' ': _ I�' I STREAM AND WETLAND MAP �` I NC 32 CONNECTOR FROM o US 64 TO THE INTERSEGTION o I OF NC 32 AND NC 94 m \ / WASHINGTON GOUNTY I5 /j V TIP PROJECT R3620 �� NORTHCAROLINA DEPARTMENT �F� OFTRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAVS PROJECTDEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAlV51S BR4NCH � 0 b+ c A v �� k' _ �F 'Pli'ti' �. � y � T' , I i J '� � y _ ::`a , � I � � ��' �` . � � ' :6�ji� x �'__�.- � .�'�i.. ;. .. � `. �j L �m . ��.�. � . . � i 5'i"� f! � . $ � 4 . � ��, 3 "�� ;"r �`.. 4 c. ['.�. `so°m�� ,�+ � s., �(��'�{�,'y�,. j :. 4 � 1 � 'i�4� 2 p� � ^3�' P .� 1yiY'�� . �`1 � � � .., _ Y,"�t� ��_ . f..._�. . � s ...... N r " v{ ." _ . v ai . • � Y 4., r e • . � c '1�,��, . �.�� , t �{ i j'�y� i Y'� ..�0 y . . �j �r� '.:4 hy�'��Yi-y �S �'. fA .�..�. � .�pd/1 �-'��xS a l _ �. .Q . . I F'f � � "3+ � �'� t .+.i� . . . . .. � •.i. � � �. � - � � � i � .o � Si� � � � . �9 H-�'� ,.� _� . .. . . . � q � �� :,. � � �� i�`i �GTr� ��k �� .c i � . . - ? '�"Ipr'i wwit^ ` , . _ ;� y--' �\ � R�tJ/..�.3.- v _ - -Lc , ' �:'� � '+ ti . '° F v+� �� c �`.:4� , � - '"'� .� a . .� r ' � s —� „� > � .�y ., . l : 1 �� - �a rst$: . t �p:, ��'C��`c.: " .: � � a ''y'� � . � '` r y'da. � p . J �-` � . . . � . 7yr �'i�,',��,@�+Ly��"�Y � O '$yz � , ..��„�nm� ,� -- .- ; w.i1F.��"i7'�r�'y'u': �4� Y� , � � ��:.td' �� r7 I �..}�. . 1�s 4.tr� �-, L+'u.,u• 5 �^.�� s �� ai ; o ; �: ` , . ' �'� f c[S �' � 1? �- � N � � . . � y i�a _ S ,yn'�ia'M � 'r '.�. �� f ��;y.,�i- .�.� �� .� 9R'" f��9 SK J`, l•�` -_ , IZ a P. /` / 'ti ,ti� r .� � ,�y 'x�•� :` �C � � �� . r� h}. ,�.cs.b�.� � : � ./ j :.c� a'�^�' `� a+ ✓ � ) � . �'� 's� � �W. or S � �. �p �� <�-"S� ,.��, �� - .,�'�� t,.,! '9r,��k� 4�:.r3�� . .'.y'a"°<:. �. '41. x'rv tri�� • - '�i.� - � �dn�:, . b+ �.l�t � . '.t(�� . .T. F �kuy,.x F ro �;"�') i y � . . � � ��.�F� / � � . N �y 1 , . � M. ''ygi7' > � . ` a. "' . ., �� .�i`%ii. c5' g , :' 4 � �; yo "� . n�i �' "n . ^►, � � � ' � � �v��r �' �' . I�'.{" � �� iF ''�''� 'l�:.� � � :g, �� .al� .:Z.iy-.�a : .�_ ' ., v nl a1 N� d .q��,O'� '�.�1��. ��(.J,'�. � � '.O. � � � '��r_ �. ' g _ -5� O�CYd � ��V�,( � � � 1 - ` � .. l N � ''�C`.:�� . ' � �o Y�'� � _ V 4" - _ - � � .. �',� '�: a J�- ' .� �w.: � -'�~� ,. � N ! � � ' . qpi � .�� u _ . �� 6�_/j � ��.� a F -/ s� vy, u� � � S�. - '; � „LY }yy `�v,. � . _: , ._ O �� p •s�.'��'. �N.Tc� "� �.w:; ;. z,1. �t i . . '..r. G � �`�Il��. f � �i �J.1 �i �� +1 � � fy �� ;`�� '.�� .�� 5 " � " 6�� .� � � S .. . -�� {�: < .l .��t�1. � . � t�i , C �, y n �,. ," � s ;,' ` - - _ 'R : ';� � ' �r .��-_ �,�-. i � � r� . i; . �, � - 'L '. t 7 ;� 'il ' ' -,.�°� �T3pJ �,..� . ' /�`Orv�"C..:1:'.., f � m � a Q W STREAM AND WETLAND MAP __ NC 32 CONNECTOR FROM � T m p� �' � o US 64 TO THE INTERSECTION o(rJ � � W A� o _ OF NC 32 AND NC 94 �, N w= m � WA5HINGTON COUNTY n� $ N � /J TIP PROJECT R-3620 m � D �/ 1 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TR.4NSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ,,,� , i Y �TC32/�4 ! � LEGEND ### tl OT VEHICL�S P�R DAY(VPD) in 100s 1- L�SS TIiAN 50 VPD X A70V�MENT PROHIBITCD � ONG-WAY P40VCM�NT DAV pM � D (u, q DI�V D�SIGN HOURLY VOL.U111� (%) =1(30 K30 = 30'TH H7G1��ST Ii0[IRLY VOLUM� PM PM PCAKP�RIOD D DIRGCTIONAL SPLIT (%) =� INDICATTS D1R�CTION OF D REV�RS� TLOW TOR AM P�AK • (d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) �_ �_ _�; ' _ � � � �� ` p'. '' '�: .�: '•, � S64 LOCATYON: � ` ; �� - F I G U R E 4A ��a��i' �'�': � NC32 �onnector froa�a iJ��4 t� the i�atersectaoaa of iV�32 a$nd IUC94 I COZTIVTY: Wa �a�. : 1 T'IP # �t-362� I31�TE: Octobe�, 20�? ��►.�# �$��. �.1 I ' ^ ; ; . � � (� ,� � . �TC32 �_ ',- � �� 35 � , � } " f , Q` �� . /` 5 , r� i ��11�� . SR� 13P6 '' �'� � 6 v� . � o . , , 1- ,�1- �� 3�.� �1- _ � . . ._ 3 �� '-.. . � 146 1'� 140 ) 1- 1_ � �.' 3 •��, . 1- , ; � �-T T�' 1- - 1-�- 1- „ ; � v �� . "� s��.i�� i� � ,� - � � (Cu�-de-sac) ' T � LEG�CND \ ##N # Or VCI]1CLrS P�R DAY(VPD) in 100s- , 1- L�SS TI�AN 50 VPD X MOV�M�NT PROHIBITCD ; ^ � � ON�-V1'Al' MOVCMCNT � � . . � n�iv �M � n , .} (d,�) " . -� DIIV D�SIGN IiOURLY VOLUMC (%) = It30 y K30 = 30'TH IiIGIi�ST HOURLY VOLUM� � PM PM PCAK P�RIOD � D ' DIRGCI'lONAL SPLIT (%) ,� . --y INDICAT�S DIItECT10N OT D '- RLV�RS� TLOW FOR AM P�AK ' ' a (d,i) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) ' '� 3'7 • 1tTC32/94 , 9� . b 4�h . �` ��1303 32 , 11 � �f . �� - � 4�, 71 �� .� �"' ` ��% l 3 to rM � ss iT�64 c 5, e � � N� u11d � ��1� �� 1�, . � i ; ;. i 1 � i -� � . - . ; " . . ; 51�1304. _ � 5 0.. - . , v �� 1�C94 � " to `pM_ /� C3,g� 55 C` � y �� 10 rM� SS p� l➢V �� (6�14) 19C�4 � 9 � �� ; o ., , f4 v�� -. . , .. . � ' . 30. -� � 140 � ��.� �1- ' . �T 21 .��1 � � � 3 -. , � 21 1'76 . � io - _ . US64 � � ��1i�i � , , 20 � . LOC�TIOIiT: � '�� F I G U R E 4 B ��a��' C�: � ' I�C3Z Coaanector f'rorin YJ�(4 to tlae ia�atexsectiom of 11TC32 aa�cY NC�4 � � ��: ��5�lll�'F.g��lIl � � �IIil. : 1 I - -- - Y)A�Ei - October,--2Q�07- TIP # R-362� � �1��# 34�5��.1. g ' � . i `� �I4 'R� j 5 �: � E �,� •� .�� 'I,:� - NC32 i� �i � 2� S14�1139 r b 4�� N ^ � N ��jy O� A ' i 1 1 0� . . �1�1136 '� 1- � �25 � . ... .. S � �� _ _ ��. �c'i- ( _' 5 � . , iT �� 1- � � J.�a - � - 5� T��- . 1� .1; v �� - _ SIa1139 1- ' (Cul-cle-sac) � � LEGEND � ,, ttil# # OT VG1i1CL�S P�R DAY(VPD) in 100s 1- LCSS THAN 50 VPD a MOV�M�]VT PROHIBITED � ONC-VVAY MOVCMGNT , � nnv rN � n , cd, �> � DIIV D�SIGN IiOURLY VOLUAIC (%) = K30 ' ' 1C30 = 30`TI�1 IiIGIiLST HOURI:.Y VOLUME ' PM PM PCAK P�RIOD D DIR�CTI.ONAL SPL1T (%) r � -� INDICATGS DTR�CTION OT D RCVCRS� TLOW TOR AM P�A1( (d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) � - 6� ' S� \� LA. �l NC32/94 �$� b 4��.. 13 � p. � 13 � . ��:�� !�1 � . . � ` BT�64 SR1303 - � b0 C� `1 ,o �ti � � �2 . � � �� .p-� 55 . cs.s� �'��1�t1V� 1 � � �� 2007 �ST�I�ATED .t�D'T � 100 � S ��aa�o�+ . � � a � v^ �� . o . • � 10� �'!y _ - (3,3�55 �- 10(fiM�55C �Ci�(� 1 � 1� � �� :� � 13 �- �G 1 . � - o. . 18 U��. .. :_ . J � �o � 'c_-� . � � �.� ��_ . 1 � � . � 4 � 5 - _ z �,L, � � � �. 1� �-�'_. 64 . . 1.�' 5 _ US64 � ��i i��. �� LOC�aT'IOIv: . � �vc32 �na �c�� F I G U RE 4C ��a��i' �i�: NC32 C�nnector ffa�oa�aa tITS(a4 to the - iratersectaon oi IVC32 arnci TVC94 �.'��: ��5�111R�0]:E II)��1. : 1 i�ATE: October, _200? � �i� # �-�� i �r�s# ��s��.1. i , � IVC32 19 2 � 3 3R1139 e/ ry � _ � � 0l3 2 3 � SR1136 "� 1 � 50 52 15 -�15 11�� -1_ 11 15 162 � �O i- is 11 �� 15 11� T�1- 1-�- 1- SR1139 1_ ��3 (Cul-de-sac) g L�GEND aaa x or �-eiiici.es rEa nnv��rn> �� ioos 1- LLSS 7liAN 50 \'PD X MOVCMP;NTPRON161TEU �� ONGN'Al' A70�'LM6NT rrn DIIV --� D Id,i) miv ursicniwuaLvvoLume�r>=i�o K30 = 30'TH HIGHGST HOURLI' VOLUMC P�7 PM PEAK PCRIOD D DIRGCIlONA1,51'LIT(%) -f. INDICATPS DIRLCTION Oi D R6VHRSC GLON' �OR AM PG.41( (d,q DUAIS, TT-ST'S i % ) 170 E[? �� e�' �� l� �`. � US64 NC32/94 98 r �r� 14T �6r✓ 1�`� 41 �o ".-M-� :s �s,e� �it�ii12lt1V@ 1 ��L1iY11°�°l�i �@�k� NC94 2035 ES'TIIVI�'I'ED ADT IN 100'� �a rM _ / �,`� ss SR1304 5 s - ta '° "" i " NC94 36 1� �- �ai<� 28 � .G z 9 34 �� 17� 15 �6 3 2��' 'G-1- iT 6 9� 6 11 3 � 6 1 10 SR1141 Zp 176 US64 LOCATION: NC32 and PiC94 FIGURE 4D PROJECT: �C32 Connector from US64 to the intersection of NC32 and ATC94 I COUI�TY: VJashiggton DIV. : 1 � TIF # R-3620 DATE: October, 2007 W�S# 34548.1.1 ( �l ('_� ;� , t� REGIONAL MAP �� N ��; NC 32 CONNECTOR FROM �! � � _" '� US 64 TO THE INTERSECTION �il c = � � z �f�'/ / OF NC 32 AND NC 94 � o �� ✓ WASHINGTON COUNTY c�o o z TIP PROJECT R-3620 NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT "�TM '+ OF TRANSPORTATION � DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANAIYSISBRANCH ��,a,�,,,e�a0• �; � � � � � �. :�. COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL, STATE, � LOCAL AGENCI�S UNI7'LD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL YROT�CT7pN AGliNCl' ,,,•E� s �,.Fs RGG lON 4 � � � Sam Nunn Atlanta Pcdcral Cen�cr � � � . 61 rorsyth Strcet, S.W. :' �^� more��V � . . . ALIaMa, Georgia 30303 - 8)(0 F,a ;:^,• 0 2 a�19 Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager ATTN: Richard Brewer Project Development and Environmental Analysis North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 SUB7: NC32 Connector, Scoping Sheets TI}' Projec� No. R-3620 Dear Mr. Gilmore: This letter.is in response to the scoping documen[s, submitted on luly 20, 2001, for the NC32 Connector in Washing[on County, North Carolina. According to the documents, the project is intended to connect NC32 [o the new U.S. 64 Bypass. The U.S. Environmenta] Protection Agency (EPA), Region a, Wetlands Section has reviewed the scoping sheets and it appears lhat the proposed rou[e may cross at least two streamswhich are direct tributaries to Albemarle Sound. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seivices' National Wedands Inventory (NWI) maps, the wedands associated with these streams are forested. EPA recommends that the scope oE work include bridging the streams and as much of [he fores[ed wetlands as practicable along the roate. All stream crossings should be as perpendicular as possible. Thank you for [he opportunity to commen[ on this project. If you have any yuestions or comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at (706) 355-8780. Sincerely, C� T . Cla [on'I�Miller Y Acting Chief Wetlands Regula[ory Section cc: D`VQ/NCDENR, Raleigh USF1�S, Raleigh NCWRC, Ralcigh r� � or�o4 o � f• � �i � la a t�4�[S O� �� 1Vlr. BiII Gilmore, I�4anager Project Development and Environmental Analysis North Carolina Department of Transporta[ion 1548 Mail Service Center Ralei�h, North Carolfna 27699-1548 Dear Mr. Gilmore, LIhUITED STk,iES DEP�.�TfiHEi�Y eF COfiflME�� Bbfl��ional O�e�esic end @aCesro�pheri� �,dmini€tra¢iae� Nt18b idt �onseivaL10E1lE�;SS OI110E U Beaufort Facility 101 Pivers Islaiid Road Beaufort, North Carolina 25� 16-9722 April 30, 2002 ��,� � i €�� P�dY � �Uui oivis�rnv oF Hrctnrcnvs This responds to your Pebruary 19, 2002, request for input conceming the proposed NC 32 Connector (iZ-3620) in Washington County, North Carolina. The ne�v 3.3-miles-long, 2-lane connector on new location would extend from the US 64 Bypass to the intersection ofUS 64 and NC 32 in Washin�ton County, North Carolina. TheNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the information provided in you letter. However, due to our current manpower level, we are unable to provide comments at this time. It should be noted that our position is neither supportive of, or in opposition to, the subject project. lf you have questions or need additional input, please contact me at the letterhead address or at (919) 728-5090. Sincerely, ��C'� Runald S. Sechler Fishery Biologist � Prinred on Reeyded Paper North Carolina Michael F. Easley, Govemor August 24, 200] �'�� r �ICDENIt Department of Environment and Natural Division of Coastal Management Donna D. Moffitt, Director William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch N.C. Department of Transponation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27by9-i�48 yr `�_ ' �' t,F � �r �•a:: C} rV-��r : � � L,,, �iEf�, n:� sn�}i G. Ross Jr., Secretary �'ti';r:=L'n! CF _ � !:�r;p;rs .: ^ � � . ,. ; c u .'.. .. RE: Review of scoping sheets for NC 32 Connector, from NC 32/US 64 intersection to US 64 Bypass interchange, Washington County, State Project 8.2140201, Federal Aid Project STP- OOOS(252), TlP Project R-3620. Deaz Mr. Gilmore: The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has reviewed the scoping sheets for the above referenced projecL We offer the following comments that should be considered in prepuation of an environmental document. 1. A determination of consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program will be required for this project. The current proposal is in draft form, however, therefore a consis[ency response is inappropriate at this time. A consistency determination should be included in the final environmental document. 2. The proposed road crosscs an unnamed tributary to the Albemarle Sound and the headwaters of the Chapel Swamp. Review of the project location map indicates that the project as cunently proposed will not occur within any Areas of Environmental Concem as defined by the NC Coas[a] Area Management Act (CAMA). Therefore, based on the currendy available information, it appears as though the proposed project will not require a�CAMA pennit. If the project location a�d/or boundanes change, determination of CAMA pe�mit reyuirements will need to be re-considered. The Washington County land use plan was reviewed for policies that might apply to the proposed project Please note the following policy if nutigation is required for this projecr. p. VIII-7 (j). "Washington County does not support and objects to the mitigation of property frorn counry to counry due to the already declining tax base. Iviitigation allows property to be exchanged to provide for required wetlands as required by the State." 4. DCI�4's GIS-based wetland inventory and mapping program provides wetland data that can be used to improve wedand avoidance, minimization, altematives analysis, impact assessment and mitigation site searches. DCM's GIS-based wetland maps and data may be 1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638 Phone: 919-733-2293 \ FAX: 919-733-14951 Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us An Equal Oppodunity \ Allirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 10% Posl Consumer Paper included by DOT within the environmental document for this projec[. Thc GIS-based wedand maps and data are available through Bill Miller of DO"I"s Geographic Information Systems Unit located at the Century Center on Birch Ridge Road in Raleigh. DCM's GIS- based wetland in��entory and mapping program indudes four wetland inventory and assessment tools for the coastal area: Ra [.7 c. Wetland type dat�. This data can be used early in the transportation process to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and specific wetlai�d types, to estimate project impacts and to estimate mitigation needs. Wetland Functional Sienificance data (NGCREWS). This data can be used to refine the road alignment to avoid the most ecologically significant wetlands that contnbute most to their watershed's health. Poten[ial wetland restoration and enhancement site data. This data can be used to locaie nlitiga[ion sites. 77�e data i� cunerdly being updared, and wiil be avuiiable i�� the near future. d. Restoration and Enhancement Functional Assessment data (R-FAP). This data can be used to evaluate a potential mitigation site's ability to compensate for unavoidable wedand impacts. This daia is not yet available. We hope that you find these comments helpful and that they will be addressed during planning and preparation of the environmental document for this project. During future interagency projec[ coordination and review, DCM may have additional comments on the project, and may place conditions on the consis[ency determination to minimize any impacts [o coasta] resources. The information provided in this letter shall not preclude DCNI from requesting additional information throughout the in[eragency project coordination and review process, and following normal consistency review procedures. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (919) 733-2293 x 238, or via e-mail at Cathy.Brittingham@ncmail.net. Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coasta] Management Program. Sincerely, ��_ ,� �, l,� :�) ._� i..r�7;:,� y'/�.i.��,_�.,��,,,�c�:�v- C�thy isnttingnam i� Transportation Project Coordinator Cc: Richard Brewer, DOT Mike Bell, USACE Terry Moore, DCM Caroline Bellis, DCM Bill Arrington, DCM State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director MEMORANDUM: i� ��r � �� NCDENIt NORTH GROLINA OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT <ND NPTURAL RESOUFCES :,! �,, o ;i�, �; r_�. TO: Richard Brewer, NCDOT, Project Development Engineer � � Y rv4^ ._ _ ii�E�:--C<< , FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Northern District Manager SUBJECT: Scoping Sheets NC 32 Connector to Us 64 Bypass — Washington County, State Project 8.2140201, Federal Aid Project STB-0005 (25Z), TIP Project R-3620 DATE: July 26, 2001 Based on the scoping information supplied relative to the NC 32 connector, it is difficult to determine the associated impacts. Being familiar with the area there should be no waterway crossings. Will there be wetland impacts? I have another meeting scheduled for August 23 that requires my attendance. I would appreciate a copy of the information that is distributed at the meeting and comments made by the other agencies. P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone 252-726-7021 FAX 252-726-0254 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/70% pos[-consumer paper North Carolina Department of Administration Michael F. Easley, Govemor Mr. William Gilmore N.C. Dept. of Transportation Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Dear Mr. Gilmore: Re: Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary May 1, 2002 SCH Pile # 02-E-4220-0431; Scoping Proposed NC 32 Connector from US Lltersection of US 64 and NC 32 in Washington County; TIP #R-3620 �� n . ��. , . ,. - � cx,j,.�.A, � N1t.:,t.;/p:'.;�:f� _ a .i.'1 ''v�..'��, ,� . .^ ,.,�,, ' ,.�; �: `` �it.?i.2._,''..:' �. 64' Byp'ass to the The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovemmental Peview Process. Attached to this letter are conunents made by.agencies reviewing this document. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 807-2425. Ariachments cc: Region R Sincerely, �.�" _ �,T" � /"_ Ms. Chrys Baggett � Environmental Poficy Act Coordinator 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Czrolina 27603-8003 Telephone 919-807-2425 An Equa� Oppotluniry / Affrtnanvc AUion Emyloyer ��r �C�� North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. Easley, Governor r��ce:�_..ui��,� TO: Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse FROM: Melba MCGee� PLoject Review Coordinator RE DATE William G. Ross Jr., Secretary 00-0931 US Bypass to the Intersection of US 69 and NC 32, Washington County April 2, 2002 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review. More specific comments will be provided during the-environmental review process. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation of the environmental document, additional in£ormation is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective divisions. Attachments R�� R � z�2 N.C. STqrE�tEARIN�H�Us� 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Phone: 919-733-49841 FAX: 91 9-71 5-3060 1 Internet: www.enr.stale.nc.uslENR An Equal Opportunily 1 AKrmalive Aclion Employer - 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper i;l.wr,l,�,-�..� �rn..��- _.,.._ __ ___ __. __-_ Gharles R Pullaoad, E�ecutiva Di�ctor MEMORANDLTM COTTllilISSlOri � TO: Melba McGee - Office of Legislative and Iuteigov�cnmenta! Afiairs, DENR FROM: David Cox, Highway Projtct C�o tor Habitat Conservation Progremq`-�/�/ ' 1 (�� DATL: March 18, 2002 � SUBT�CT: Rcquest Cor informadon $om the N. C. Departmeut of Transport.�tiou (NCDOT) regarding fi�h and wildlifo eoncems for the proposed NC 32 ConneCWr, from US6�}+p eee to the intaisection of US 64 and NC 32, Washington County, North Caroliae. TIP No. R-3620, SCH Project No. 02-L-0431. This memorandum reaponde t0 a Cequect &om Mi'. W111iam D. Gilmore of the NCDOT fvr our concems regaz�impacts on fish and wildlife resourees resulting froin the subjcct project. Biologists on e ataff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Cotmnission (NCWRC) h:�ve reviewed the proposod improvements. Our comments are providcJ in accordance with ccnain provisions of the Nadonal Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2}(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordinadon Aet (d8 5tal. 401, as amended; 1(i U.S.C:. 661-667d). Wc are wncemeel uver the potential diract end indirect effects that this project could havc on the wildlifc underpasses proposed on the US 64 Bypass. NCDOT �uid NCWRC have partnered to instaU lhree wildlife underpasses along US 64 (relocation) to provide big game such as black boar, whitatail deer, and the federalty listed red wolf wi[h a safc means to cross the new roadway. The lxation of tius new connector could potentially block unportant wildlife ttavel corridots, furthet �abnnenting Uie habitat that exisls belween cxisting US 64 and the now US 64. Thia connector coulS hcso spur uew development i[z this ama, ultimately rendering the remaining habitat unsuitablc for sccrctive animals such as wolves and beara. NCDOT should evaluatc the potential in,pacts of this connector may have oa exialing wildlife habitat and the future dueats that additioual dcvclopmcnt poses to wildlife mov0ments in the area. NCDOT shuuld ulso consider mcasures lhal could be used to roduco these impacts. In addition to oicr spociGe ooncerns regarding ffiis pro ect, to help facilicatc doCutncnt prcpaeation �d thC xeView p1'OCBb6, Our ganeral m�ormationnl needs are outlinecl below: M.tilinp, A�Idrtss: Divisiun of In1aaQ PN�st1S� • 1721 Ma�l $ernce Censer • Ralcigh, NC 27 699-1 72 7 Yelephone: (919) 773-3633 eXc.281 • Fax: (919) 715-7643 Merno March 18, 2002 1. Description of fishery and wildGfc resources within thc project arca, including a listing of fedorally or ttate designated threatened, endaiigercd, or special concem epeqiea. Potmtial borrow areas to be used f�r project construction should be Ineluded in the inventories. A listing of designate�l plant species can be daveloped through cansultation with: azid, The Natural Horitaga Pmgrem N. C. Dlvi9ion af Perks and Recreation 161 S Niaii $�vlCe CCAtCr Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615 (919) 733•7793 NCDA Plant Conservation Program P. 0. Bax 27647 Raleigh; N. C. 27611 (919)733-3620 2. Description of any sheame or wetlands affeoted by the project. Thc need for channelizin$ or �elocating portione of etream9 cro8sed and lhe extent of' such activ�uea. 3. Cuver type maps showing wetland acreagea impacted by �he project- W etland acnagea ehould inClude all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as.a tesult of ditching, other drainage, or fillu�g for projecl construction. Wetlend identificarian may be accomplished tluough coordination with the U.. 5. Army Corpe of Enginoers (COE). If the COF. is not consultcd, the p�son dolineating wedands should be identificd and critena listed. 4. Cover lype mnps showing acsoagas of upland wildlife hahitat impucted Uy thc proposed project. Potential borrow attes ehould be inCludcd. 5. The extent to which the projoet will msult in loss, degradotion, or &agmentation of wildlife habitat (wQtlauds or uplat�ds)• 6. Mitigation for avoiding, mi[umizing or compensating for direct aud indirec� degradation in habitat quelity as well as quentitatiye losscs. 7. A cumulalive impact asaessment secUon which analyzes the enviromnenta] effects of highway construcilon and queniifies the eoniribution of this individual project W environmental degradation. 8. ,a discussion of the probable impacts on natwal resaurqes WhiCh will result from secondary devslopmdnt facilitated by tha improved road access. 9. If construction of lhis faciliry is to be coordingt�d with other state, municipnl, or private developmont projocts, a doaeription of these projecfs sliould bc included in the cnvironworttal documont, and all projeei sponsors should be idcntiGcd. Thank you foi the oppomuvty to prOvide input in ihe early planning stages for diis projcct. If we c:ui further assist your ofFce, please contact me at (919) 528-9886. cc: USFWS, Raleigh y"�"-; , ,ri - � �' -�:onh Carolin� Departmcnt of Cm-ironment and N�tunl Resourccs Midiacl F. E:islcy, Ga�'crnor \t`illi�m G. Ross Jc, Sccrct�rv NSEi�40RANDUM T0: FROM: SUBJECT SERVICE 1� �.� North Cvolina D��isiun of Furesi Rcsouree, Stanford \1. Adan�s, Uircctor 2411 Old US 70 West Clavton. NC 27�20 March 5. 2002 Melba NlcGee, Office of Legislative Affairs � Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources � Scoping for the NC 32 Connector, from US 64 Bypass to the Intersection of US 64 and NC 32. PROJECT #: 02-0431 and TIP # R-3620 The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document and offer the following comtnents that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands. Woodlands may be impacted by the project. To evaluate the scope and significance of the impacts to foi'est resources, a list of the acres of forestland, by timber type, removed or take� out of forest production as a result of the project should be provided. Age of the stands, height, diameters, and stocking levels would be helpful. EffoRs should be made to alio corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the following order of priority: • Managed, high site index woodland • Productive forested woodlands • Managed, lower site index woodlands • Unique forest ecosystems • Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands • Unmanaged, cutover woodlands • Urban woodlands 2. To evaluate the permanent loss of potentia] productivity, a listing of the forest's site quality . index based on the soil series should be provided. This information is found in the Soil Survey for Washington County or can be calculated by on-site measurement. 3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchaniable timber removed during construction. Emphasis should be on se]]ing all wood products. However, if the wood products cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off ihe matenal or tum it into mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the nsk of escaped fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and to�vns. 161G Mail Service Cemer, Rale�gh, North Carollna 27G99-1601 . Phnne' 919 - 7:�1-21A2 \ FAX' 919 - 7 ii-01 :R \ Inttrnei' www d(r ciate nc nz Typically disposal of wood products is leh up to the contrac[or. We feel this policy results in needless waste of a valuable natural re�soiirce, and that specific contract provision requinng clearing contractors to utilize timber products should be applied. 4. If woodland buining is needed, Ihe contractor must eomply with the laws and regulations of open burning as covered under G.S. ll 3-60.21 [tuough G.S. 113-60.31. Washington County is a high hazard counry, and G.S. 113-60.23, requiring a special buming pem�it issued by the lloca] County Ranger, would apply. � 5. Tl�e provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside the rigl�t-of-way. Trees, particularly tl�e root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy equipment. Efforts should be to avoid slcinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill, exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances. 6. The impact upon any existing greemvays in the proposed project area should be addressed. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the document and look forward to future correspondence. We encourage effo�Ts that avoid or minimize impacts to forest resouices during the final plamiing of this project. cc: Mike Thompson State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director March 27, 2002 NIEMORANDUM To: Melba McGee • • ;; , ;� �. ` � . From: John E. Hennes�� , Subjecc Scoping comments on proposed NC 32 Connector from US 64 Bypass to the Intersection of US 64 and NC 32 in Washington Couoty, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0OOS(252), State Project No. 82140201. TIP R-3620, DENR No. 02E-0431 Aeference your correspondence dated February 19, 2002 in which you requested comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional wedands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to tributaries of the Albemarle Sound (Class SB waters, DWQ index No. 30) located in the Pasquotank Ri�er Basin is possible. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other sireams andlor jurisdictional wedands in the area. In the event [hat any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of �Vater Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues Cor the proposed projece � A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wedands and streams with corresponding mapping. B. DOT will need to investigare to determine if a State Stormwater Permit (issued by the DWQ) is reyuired for this project. Initial review of the project indicates that it will lihely be required. C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mi�igation is required, it is preferable to present a concepwal (if not fina]ized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes Ihat this may not always be practical, it should be noted that (or projects requiring mitigation, appropriale mitigation plans will be required priorto issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High Quality Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during Ihe project implementation. However, should futther analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, thc DWQ requests thut DOT strictly adhere ro North Carolina regulations entitled "Desfon Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 046 .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains �o streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water). HQW (High Qualiry Water), SA (Shelifish Water) or "I7 (Trout Water) classifications. 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Telephone 919-733-5083 FAX 919-715-6048 An Equal Opportuniry Atfirmalive Action Employer 50 % recycled/ 10 % post-consumer paper �Ar. William U. Gilmore memo 03/D102 Page 2 E. When prac[ical, the DWQ requests that bridges bc replaced on the existing location with road cbsure. If n detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ 7equirements for General 401 Certit7catio� 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewaterino) must be followed. . F. Review of the project reveals ihat no High Quality VJaters or �Vater Supply Waters will be imp:�cted by �he project. Howe��er, shouid furlher analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a sveam classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number ot wtch basins instal led should be determined by the design of the bridge, so tha[ runoff would enter said basin(s) rathcr th�n flowing direcUy into the stream. G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, ro the maximum extent practicable. H. Wedand and 5tream impacis should be avoided (including sediment and erosion convol strucwres/measures) to the maximum extent practicaL If this is not possible, altematives that minimize wedand impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear (eet. I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in weNands. It is likely that compensarory mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow. J. DWQ prefers replacement o( bridges with bridges. However, if the new strucmre is io be a culvert, it should be countersunk ro allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. K. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in Ihe documem. Geotechnical work is approved under General 40l Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permii No. 6 for Survey Activities. L. ]n accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules � ISA NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), miugation will be required for impacts of greater than 1501inear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, ihe mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with Ihe NCDW Q Wedands Rules � 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)�, lhe Wedand Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. M. Sediment and erosion convol measures should not be placed Pn wetlands. N. The 401 Water Quality Certificaiion application will need to speeifically address the proposed methods for srormwater manaeement. More specifically, srormwater should noi be permitted to discharge direcUy into the creek. lnsread, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properiy designed srormwater detention facility/apparaWs. O. ��hile the use of National WeUand Im�entory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite weUand delineations prior to permit approval. Mr. William D. Gilmore memo 0327/02 Page 3 Thank you fur requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a d01 Nater Quality Cer[ification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that watcr quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or rcquire additional informa�ion, please contactJohn Hennessy at(919) 733-5694. cc: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers Tom McCartney, USFWS David Cox. NCWRC Personal Files Central Files C:lncdot\T[P 3G20�commenaVi3G20 scoping commems.Uoc ��'� State of North Carolina . �e��e��9 o�r�e: w�l"11 � - NCDENRDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesa�o�e�N;,mee�� d�3/ p � �Q� ,_. - .. . . . ._ . . ue Date . . .. __ ...� - :.._ ._. . -. . .. .. ._..._.. •. . � . _ .. .,...-. . _. . ._.. _ .. ... : . . .. -' INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW = PROJECT COMMEM'S ' ""' , _ , . , : .:,: . . _ _ _ , After review of this pmject rt has been detertnined that the DENR permic(s1 and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtamed�in order for this projea to complywith North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permirs should be addressed to the Regionai OKce indicated on the reverse of this form. � All appiications,infortnation and guidelines relative to these plans and permia are availabie from the same Reqional Office. -� � PERMfTS .. . _.... SPECIALpPPLICATIONPROCEDURSorREQUIREMEMS �. � NormalProcessLme � , ' (SmcutoryTimetimip � - Permittoconsttuct&opeatewastevratertreatment 'Appliotion90daysbelorebeginconnruRionorawardofconmuction � hciluies,sewerrystematensions&sewersystems conmcts.On-siteinzpenion.Pon-appli�ationcechnialcon(erenreusual, 30days notdischarginginrosratesudattwa[e2 - , (90days) Q NPDES-perm¢rotlischargeintosurfattwacerand/or Appli�tion180daysbeforebeginaniviry.Omsheinspectionpreappliotion permtt to oveate and ronscruct waste�vaten c�ilities mnference usual.Additionally, obtain pertnit to consttuct wastewater neatment 90- 120 days di�chargingintostaresurfacewarerz taciliry-gantedafierNPDES.Replytime,30daysafrerreceiptoFplansorissue (N/q)� . of NPDES permrt-whi<hever is later. � waterUsePerm4 Preapplimtiontechniolmn(erenceusuallynecessary � � 30 days � .. . . . . .. . ... ... . . . . (N/A) � Well Con.amction Perm¢ . � � � � ComO�ete appli�tion must be rereived and permrt issued prior to the ' �" ' , installation o! a well. ' - � . � days (7 5 days) Dredge and FIIPermi[ � ❑ - -Appiiption copy mun be served on ea<h adjacent ripanan properry ownec - On-siteinspec[ion.Preappliptiomm�(erenceusual.FillingmayrequireEasement SSdays roFllfmmN.CDepanmentofAtlminiary�ionandiede2lDredqeandFllPermit (�days� � Permii to [onivua & opeate Air Poilirtion Abatemem ' . (atilitiesand/orEm¢sionSourcuasperiSANCA[ N�A . (��.0100,2p.0300,]H.O600) � ' 60days � Anyopen6umingazsotia[edwithsubje[2proposal � mun be in mmplianm with 15 h NCAC 2D.1900 � . . � Demoiition or renovations of rtmctures concaining ' asbescos marenal must be in compliance wrth . - . � 15 A NCAC 3D.7 7 70 (a) (1) which requires noti�mtion N/A 60 days antl removal prior ro demolition. Contaa Asbestos (90 days) Control Group 91 �733-0820. � Campiez Sourc= Permh reouired under 15 A NCAC � � 2D.OB00 � �Te Sedimentztion Pollution Connol An of 1973 mun be pmoedy addiessed for any land dismrbing aaiviry. qn erosion a sedimen2tion con[wl plan will 6e required if one or more aaes to be dinurbed Plan filed with pmper Regional Off�ce (land Oualiry Section) at lean 30 10 days . days 6efore beginning acn�ie�. A(e<of 540 (or che frn acre or any part of an acre. � _ (30 days) �� The Sedimenation Pollv[fon Conrroi AR o( 1973 murt be addrused wi[h r<spea m the referenceE LDcai Ordinance. 30 days . Mining Perm�t � � . Ornsrte mspernon uzual. Surety bond 61ed wrth DENR Bond amount varies with typemineantlnumberolaaesofaHeaetlland.Anyareminedareaterchan._..__. ��a.�; .._ ._.___ ._.......__ _..__ ....................___ . _.__ _ .....__ .—___._.. . ._ _ .. . _ "__ .. - � one acre musc te permined The appmpnate bontl must be re[eived before (60 day3) the Oerm4 an be issued. � NorthCamiinaBumingperm¢ OrnsiteinspectionbyN.CDivisionofForeztResourcesi(perm¢exceeds4day5 ' 7 day . (N/A) � Speclal Ground Ciearance Buming PertniF22 munties On-5rte inspeaion by N.C�ivision of Forest Resour�ps required'i( more than irve inmamlN.G.wrthorganicsoilz. acresofgrounddearingaaivhiesareinvolved.lnsvectionsshouldberequested �day � at lean ren days before aaual burn is planneQ' �N�A� � Oil Refining Fa<ilrties - � ' N/A 90-120days IN/�) � DamSafetyPerm4 Ifperm¢required,appli�tion60daysbeforebeginconstruction.Appliant must hire N.0 Qualified engineer to: preoare plaru, inspea constmaion, certify � construc[ion is a[cording to DENR aOP�oved plans. May also require permic under mosquho mnrmi pwgam, and a 404 p=rmic from [orps ol Engineers. 30 days AnirtspettionofsiteisnecessaryroverifyHamrdCiassification.Aminimum (60days) fee of 5200.OD must a[mmpanythe applioifon. An additional pmtessing (ee bazed on a percencage or Me total projec[ <ost will he �equired upon mmoletion. � � � � PERMfTS SPECIAL APPLICATION PFOCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Nonnal ProcessTme � -�� - � � �� ` (SraMoryTimeUmrt) � Pertni[codrille�ploatoryoilorgazwell� Flesuretybondof55,000withDENRrunningtoSmteofN.GcondRionalthatany ' �D�a . wellopenedbydrilloperztorshall,uponahandonmen4bepluggedacmrding n � �� to�ENRrulesandregulations . . (N�A) � GeophysiCalFxplo2[ionPertnrt AOP��onfledwithDENRatleastl0dayspriortoissueofpermRAppiication 10tlays � � byletter.NostantlardappliCationform. �N/A) � StateLakeSCnnstruaionPermit � . � Appliationfecsbasedonsiruc[uresizeis[harged.MurtinUudedescriptions 75-20days . � � 8dawingsofsttuawe&proofo(ownerzhipofriparianproperty. � (N/A) � 401 Water Oua�ity Certification N�A 55 days � f730 days) � CAMA Permrc for MAIOR developmmt 5250.00 fee mun acmmpanyappiication � 60 days � � (730days) � CAMAVermitforMlNORdevelopment SSO.ODfeemu5taccompanyappliotion 22day5 � � (25 dayz) � Seveal geodetic monumenss are locaietl in or nearthe projea area. If any monument needs to be moved or Ees�myed, please notify: � � , � N.CGeodetic5urvey.Box2�68)Paleigh,N.C17611 , � Abandonmenro(anywelts.ifrequiredmuRbeinacrordanttwithTtlel5ASu6chaprer2G0100. � NotificacionoftheproperregionaloRceisrequenedif'orphan'undergwundnoagecanks(U5T5)aredismvcredtluringanyezavzcionopeacion. Compliance wii� 75A NGC 2H 10001Coastal Srormwa�er Rules) is required. . 45 days (N/A) �' O[hercommenu(a[tachaddicionalpagesasne<essary,beingcertainrociremmmentauthoriry) . . , . ....'I_'I—_'_'__..._'__'—__—"_' . __'_"_'_"_'_____'__'—_'---'—_'_'_ . __"__"__—_—' "_I REGIONAL OFFICES Questio�s r2garding these permits should be addressed :o the Reyional O`�ice marked below ❑ Asheville Regional Office 59 Woodfin Place � � Asheville, N.C.26801� (828)251-6208 ❑ Mooresville Regional O�ce 919 North Main Street Mooresville, N.C.28715 (704)663-1699 ❑ wlmington Regional O�ce 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, N.C.28405 • (970)395-3900 ❑ Fayetteville Regional O�ce ❑ Raleigh Regional O�ce ❑ Winston-Salem Regional O�ce 225 Green Stree4 Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street Fayetteville,N.C28301 Raleigh,N.C.27611 Winston-Salem,N.C.27107 (910)4B6-1541 � � (919)571-4700 (336)777-4600 ❑ Washington Regional O�ce 943 Washington Square Mall Washington, N.C.27889 . (252)946-6481 '°";�''`• '�"�.. �'� . �e ��€ �� North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook, Administrator Division oC Archives and Hisrory Jeflrey J. Crow, Director �� , � .� ,'j%.,'_.'.,' :..'i� h9ichael F. Easle'y, Governor Lisbeth C. Evnns, Secretary DecembeL 28, 2001 i��I�DIORANDUAI 7p: \�:�illis�m D. Gilmoie, �[anager Pmject Deceloproent and Lneironmentnl Analpsis Bcanch NCDOT, Division of Highu'ays rxo�1 SUBJECT: �� Z David Brook � `>, ��ti'.: ��. 1' R�„_ `._ - . �-'�;��,.; �-� Re��iew of Scoping Sheets for NC 32 Connector, from NG 32/US 64 intersecrion to llS 64 intecchange, Federal-Aid Pxojec� S1�P-000S(252), TIP No. R-3G20, State Project 82140201, Washington County, rR 02-7257 We ecgret that a mcmber of our staff was unablc to attend thc scoping meeting for the above pro�ect on August 23, 2001. Based on the icifocmanon pro�'ided, �ve recomtnend an aichitectural sun�e}' of the u�dertaking's aren of potendal� efEect. I3ecause of die locauon and topogcaphy oE the projec[ acea, it is unlil:ely that an}' acchaeological sires �rlvch may be eligible for lisung in the Nauonal Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed constxucuon. We, therefoce, xecommend that no ardixeological invesugacion be conducted in coonecuon with this projec[. The above comments are made pursuant to Section lOG of the Nat�onal Historic Presen�ation Act and the �ldvison� Council on His[oric Pre;en-�tion's Reyulaubns Eor Compliance wid� Secuon 10G codified at 3G CP2 Part 800. Thank }'ou for your cooperauon and consideration. If you have yuesUons concer�ti�g the abuve com�rien[, contact Renee Gledhill-Eadey, em-uonmental re�ie�v coocdinaroc, at 919/733-47G3. In sll fun�re communicanon concerning this project, please cite the above refercnced tracl:ing» umber. ll13:kgc cc Macy Pope I'ucr, NCDOT -pdministration � �. Resroration Survci & Plnnning Locaiion 507 N. Blount Si, R�Izigh, NC S IS N. Blount Si, Ralcigh , NC ]IS N. 6lount St, Raleigh, NC \lailing AdAress qF17 Mail Sen�ice Center, Ralcigh 27699-461 i 4G 17 Mail Serviee Canrer, Raleigh 27699-46 U 461 6 Mail Scrvice Cenier, R;+leigh 27699-461 S TelephonelFa� (919) 733-�76J •733-8653 �910� 73}_6547.,715-3801 �� i p) �s��a�6) .� i 5-asoi North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourccs State His[oric Presen�ation Office David L. S. [3iook. Adininislralor M1lichael F. E�sley, Governor Lisbelh C Evans. Secretaiy Jclli'ey L Gow, Depuly $eneiary OIIicC ol ArChivCS anA HiSiOn' Diav G, 2002. 1�9 El��t OlU1 N D UNS TO: �k%illia�n D. Gilmore, hianager Project Development and Envuonmental rinal� sis Branch Division of Highway�s Departmcnt of "Icansportauon FROI�1: David Ilrook � �1uK.\� Dioision �( Hisloncal Resourca DaviJ J. Olson, Director �r':;`y �' � r�L; ��... , ,. "'> /� `�. ; � . ;, ;� �il, r �; � F ; M;; I S'O � t11V4;fLp( `k � :':): �',� ;;. . '�n`.S" hLr,",�r�1^: - �i .1.!.� .y _ a��-. � ` ' Y.� :'f � iS�;l;c;�.`��•..� ,� ��'�� i �Y_ ... _ "� SliBJECT: NC 32 Connector, from L!S 64 Bypass to the Intersecrion of US G4 and NC 32, R-3620, Tedecal Project STP-0OOS(252), Stnte Pcojeet 8.2140201, Washington County, GR 02-7257 Thank you fo� }'oue lettec of February 19, 2002, conceming the above project. Ihere are nu known acchaeological sites �vidwt d�e project acea. I3ascd on our knowled�e oE the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of Historic Places�vill be affected b}' the project. \X�e, therefore, recommend that no arehaeological investig�rion be conducted in connection wich this pcoject. �Y/e have conducted a seacch of o��r ma�s and files and locared the followin� structure of histocical or architectu�al im�ort�nce within the �eneral aiea o( this projecr. • Rohoboch Church (N12) • Pritchard Faim (DOE) ��/e recommend that a Depactmenc of Transportauon archirectural histocian idennfy and evaluate an}' stcucmres over fifry years of age within the project area, a��d rePort rhe findings to us. There are no known archaeological sires �vithin the Projec[ area. IIased on our la�owledge of the area, it is uuGkely chat a�y archaeological resourees tl�at ma}' be eligible Foc condusion in die Nauonal Regisrer of Hisroric Places will be affecred by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeologica] invangauon be conducted in connecuon with this projcce. The above comments ace made pursuant ro Secuon 106 of Nauonal Histo�ic Preservation:�ct and Advisory Council on Histocic Prese� auon's Regulanons foc Compliance with Secuon 10G codified at 3G CFR Part 800. Thanlc vou for tour coo�era[ion and considerauon. If }•ou have quesUons concerning the above comment, contact Rrnee Gledhill-Gadev, enviromnental reviea- coocdinator, at 919/733-47G3. In all future communicauon concerning diis �roject, �lease cite the above referenced tcackin� number. ce Iv[ary Pope Fure, NCllOT Lo<alion i\JminisUa�ion 507 N. 61ouN SI, Raleigh, NC Revoralion jISN.BIoum$LRaleigh.N(' $urvey & Planning 5 Li N. Blounl SL Raleigh, NC �hiling AJdress dfil7 Mail Scrvice Ccnier. Raleigh 27699�JG17 461 } p>>il Scivice Cemer, Haleigh P699-J6 U 461$ hl �i l Sei c ice CcNef. Rnlcigh 27699.9618 TelephondFas (ui9) 733-i761 •73J-Sti53 (919) 7D-65<7 •715-a801 (719) 731-�76J •715�4801 Michael P. Caxlcy, Govemnr i.is6cch C Hvans, tiecrecary Jef&cy�. Cmw, Dcpury ticcremry September 22, 2006 �4EMORANDUM North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Prescrvation OFfice P<rcr �. S�nAbccA. AJminmramr TO: Matthew T. Wilkerson NCDOT — Human Envuonment Unit SEQ 2:..'�' Oiticc of Ardtives anJ Hismry Divieion o( Histonnl Rcsourcc< llavid Hmok, llireclnr FROM: Peter Sandbeck �y P� —iN(�C�— SUBJECT: Proposed NC 32 Connectoc, from US (4 to the Intexsection of NC 32 and NC 94, TIP No. R- 3620, Washington County., ER 02-7257 Tltank you For you� lettec of September. t, 2006. We have reviewed the new information associared with the above project and offer che following comments. The locadon and topography of the newly pxoposed Alternative G is adjacent ro and very similar in scope u�ith the previously proposed project area. Given this similarity, it is unlikely that any archaeological sites, which ma}' be eligible for inclusion in the Nadonal Registex of Historic Places, will be affected Uy thc proposed undertaking. We, therefore, concuc with your request and recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connecdon with this pcojecc, as it presend}' e�cists. The above comments ace made pursuant to Secnon ]OG oEthe National Histonc Preservarion Act and the Advisory Council on Histotic Preservarion's Regulations foi Compliance with Secdon ]OG cociiGed at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your coopecarion and considerauon. If you have quesdons concerning the a6ove comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Eadey, envuonmental review coorclinator, at 919-733-47G3. In all h�ture communicarion concerning this pcoject, please cite the above-reFerenced tracking number. cc: 12on Lucas, FHwA Scott Gentry, PDEA Paul Mohlec, NCDOT HEU Lo�.uo� Malll�� Add��cs Telepnonv/Fa. ADMINISTRATION Sn]N.I1lnuntS�ma,ItalcighNG 9GI)Mail$cni<cCm¢aR�IdghNG2]fi99-afil] (9i9)]D.n"IGl/1}�.µG51 eHSTORASION SISN.OIoumSucc�.IlalclghNC aGi7Abllticrv¢vC<m<r.ltalciKhNC27699.a617 (719)]T'.(,Sa)/]IS-aA01 $UR\'E1' & PLANNING 515 N. Obamtivro�. Italoitih. NC aGl i M16il tim��cc Cm�u. iWciph NC 2]G')9-nGl] (919)�D-LSiS;]iS.aAl11 �.�� v,, �° -- �� s � � �� •m,;.;� � North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office """ - . Pcm� B.SandLcck.AArtJnistr+m� blichad F. Easlry, Go�•unor Lishnh C. H"ans, ticcrcory f efircy). Crow, Ucpury Sec�aary ]anuary 4, 2007 A-fEn40RANDUM TO: Gregory Thoipe, Ph.D., Direcror Project Development and �nvironmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways O(fice u(Amhives and Hisrory Division o( His�ooical Rcsou�¢s David [lmok, Director FROM: Peter Sandbeck �p �y,�i�V �-�-uL� ��t-t�— U SUBJECT: Historic 1'lschitectural Resources Survey Repor[, NC 32 Connector From US 64 to che Intersecdo� of NC 32 a�d NC 94, R-3G20, Washi�gto�� County, ER 02-7257 Tha�k y�ou for your letter of November 14, 2006, transmicting the surve}' report by Sarah Woodward David, For che above project. • For purposes of compliance wit6 Section 10G of che National Hiscoric Preservauon Acc, we concur that the following property is listed in the National Regiscer of Historic Places: e Rehoboth Methodist Church, south side of NC 94,-0.4 mile wesc of SR 1317. For purposes of compliance with Section ] OG of the National Hisroric Preservauon Act, we concur that the following properues wece previously determined eligible and remain etigible for Gsung in che Nadonal Register of Hiscoric Places: • Farm, south side of NC 94, 03 mile east of jtmction with SR 1136. e Pcicchard Farm, south side of NC 94, approximately 0.4 enile east of NC 32. e �X�ashingcon County Pris�n Camp, norch side of NC 94 approx'vna�ely 2 miles east of)ones Whice Road. For purposes of compliance with Section ]OG of the Nacional Hisroric Preseivauon Act, �ve concur that che following properues are e(Igible for lisung in the Nauonal Register oE Historic Places under the critena cited: Lon�ion. Mai6nq Addrev 7'd<phone/Pi. AOMINISTRATION 50]N.01o�m5uccr.ItalclghNC <41IhInillcniccCcn¢�,(taldghNC2'IG99�aG1"I (�19)'1J3�9]4�i�11-BGSJ RESTORATION $ISN.AIoum5�mc�.NalrighNC 941�MvilSem<eCcmaqRilclghNC2'lG99-4G❑ (919��3}.(,5d]/]Ii�0801 $URVF.Y 6 PUNNING 515 N. Blwm Sueu, Raleigh, NC a61'I f.Uil Servia Crnme, Rolclgh NC 2]G99�d61] (919)])7�GSa5/�IS-<801 MEMBER COUNTIES: BEAUFORT, DARE, HYDE MARTIN, TYRRELL, WASHINGTON February 14, 2005 y .:� <: �out%aern �4lbe�a�xr°le Associc�tion Organi:,ed 1935 The Honorable Lyndo Tippett Secretary North�Carolina Deparlment of Transportation 150 ] Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1 5 01 � Dear Mr. Secretacy: �- �J'% ,_ , r, +_niu;;r' : . On belialf of tl�e Executive Committee of thc Southern Albemarle Association, please allow me to share with you a resoluEion recently approved Uy the Association at its Janu2ry 2005 meeting. The resofutio� expresses support for tlie Altemative 1 connector as the route of choice between ncw Hwy 64 and NC 32 in Washington County. The Association believes this route will provide the best possible traffic flow with the highest amount of safery. I am also enclosing a recent letter expressing concem over [he deteriorating conditiais of ;�? `��,c+�— the two-lane sections of US 264, especially from Stumpy Pt. to the Hyde County line. '- � �,;.�-�" TL.�rI, ,.,.� 41. oll.. n P tn ohora tl�a 4 ci�npiat�nn'e r�cpl�rtinn anri rnrr?gnpn�vn[�.P tuit�i . j..,. �.. ., � .. .^.o ^�., .a . . . . yoti. We are grateful for your continuing efforts to improve the roads, wateiways, and aiiports in our member cotmties. Sincerely, Y�� BOB PEELE President- 2005 MEMBER COUNTIES: BEAUFOR7, DARE, HVDE MARTIN, TYRRELL, WASHINGTON �2esolution of Support WHEREAS, the Southern Albemarle Association is an organizaUon of six counties located in northeastern North Carolina; and, WHEREAS, this organization was established in 1y35 ior the purpose oC making our area a safe place in which to �vork and ]ive through promoung better roads, brid�es, waterwaVs, and aviation facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Southern Albemarle Association has as its membership the cou�ties of Beaufort. Dare, Martin. Hyde, Tvrrell, and Washin�ton: and. WHEREAS, when one of the member counties identifies a transportation related need, the entire or�aniza6on rallies to sunPort that need; and, WFIEREAS, both the North Carolina Departinent of Transportation and the Southem Albemarle Association recognize the need for a roadway connector between the new US 64 Bypass to NC 32 in Washington County that is both saSe and easilv accessible: and. WHEREAS, the NoRh Caroluia llepartment ot Transportation has oifered five different alternatives for the highway connector between the new Highway 64 Bypass and NC 32 in Washington Countv: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Executive C;ommittee ol the Southem Albemazle Association that the Associatioa supports Alternative 1 as the route of choice between new Hwp 64 aad NC 32 ia Washington County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy oi this resolution be forwai'ded to members of the North Carolina Legislature and Department .of Transporta6on Leaders who serve the residents of the six counties which comprise this Association. This resolution is formally adopted on this 13�" day of January, 2005. ��1� : , �� .�.. �1 Atte st: �/`/ March 13, 2006 CHOV�/,4N COUNTY, tJORTH CAROLINA EDENTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27932 Anthony Roper NC Department of Transportation 113 Airport Drive Edenton, NC 27932 Dear Anthony: �� $�� MAR 1 �; 2006 �B�iSO�N � �FF6�� Chowan County Board of Commissioners reviewed the options for the proposed NC 32 connector from the US 64 bypass to the intersection ofNC 32 and US 64. As delineated on the map that you provided Anne-Marie and myself at a recent meeting to discuss the various options, the Chowan County Board of Commissioners strongly endorse option I, i.e. upgrading SR 139 with a new construction link to NC 32. We feel this option should be pursued since it provides a more direct connection to NC 32 for both east and west traffic and eliminates any drive way cuts, thus improving safety of the highway. We also understand that Washington County prefers this option as well. Please keep us informed and as we discussed at our meeting, we will be glad to attend the merger meeting with the various permitting agencies. Please advise if we can provide any additional letters of support such as the developers for the Sandy Point subdivision. Again we appreciate everything your efforts on behalf of Chowan County. Sincerely; � � L Luther C. Copelan County Manager cc: BoardofConunissio��ers Amie-Marie Knighton, Edenton Town Manager David Peoples, W lsliington County Manager Stan White, DOT Representative cbb 'I'OWN OF COLUMBIA 103 MAIN STREET, PO BO� 361 COLUMSIA, NC 2792� 252-79G-2781 RE: US-32 Connecior Speedy action ro complete an upgraded US-32 Connector from the new multi-lane US-64 to the Albemarle Sound Bridge is o(utmost in[erest by the Town Of Colwnbia and is encouraged. Considerations/inlerests follow: 1. The newly widened US-64 from Colmnbia to the US-32 area will spced u�avel to points west aad is en�husiastically welcomed. 2 A new or significantly upgraded US-32 from thc new US-64 to the Albemarle Sound Bridge is needed for ge�erai travel, emergency service vchicles, movement of agricultural products, and commercial vaffic. 3. 80 % of the ambulance runs from Columbia and Tyrrell County are to Edenton, north of the Albemarle Som�d. An improved and safe US-32 is imperative to liCe and sa(ety. 4. Similarly, a large percentage of the Columbia/Tyrrell County residents have medical providers (doctors, dentists, optometrists, etc.) in the Edenton area and travel US-32 frequentiy for those _ appoin[ments/services. Most of these persons are senior ci[izens who need the advantages of a modern improved highwaq. . . _ �. The great majority of agricul[ural products (grain, potatoes, e[c.) that are trud<ed out of the Columbia/Tyn-ell County area are to the Virginia 4lampton Roads ports and railway terminals. Thus US-32 should be improved for trucker transport and safety of the traveling public. 6. A lil<e amount of �rain and agricuimral products from Hyde County farms move through Colwnbia and onto US-32, Ihen north to Viiginia destinations. 7. Seafood in large quantities from Columbia, Tyrrell County and Hyde�Counp� proccssors m points north is trucked west and north onto US-32. 8. Columbia and Tyrtell Counry residents typically travel [o Edenton and Elizabeth City for shopping, social and civic activities, Regional governmental organizations are typicalty located north oC tl�e Albemarle Scund. 9. Most residents iinmediately nonh of the Albemarle Sound use the US-32, then US-64 route through Columbia as they travel to and from the Outer F3anks. l'his recreational Vavel is expected to incrcase. 10. As Columbia/Tynell Counq� continues to develop and promotc ecatourism and cuhurxl atuactions, traffic from northern points will use the new/upgraded US-32 in inereasing nwnhers 1[ is important �o have modern, safe hiohways that are easy to access and travel so that vacationers and recreational travelers will feel comfo�lable and safe. 10. The access onto/off any new US-32 connector should be lucated as close to the direct line of the new and improved road as possible. This will maximize the advantages uf the newly widened US-64 highway. i: : �'` �" ;' ; MERGER C01�1CURRENCE �ORMS i Secrion 4o4/N�PA Merger Project Tcam Agreement Project Name/Description: New Route, Proposed US 64 (R-2548) to US 64 at NC 32; Washington County; Federal-rlid project STP-000S(z52); State Project No. 8.2i4o�oi; TIP Project R-362o Concurrence Point No. i. Purpose and Need. Purpose and Need Statement to be included in the Environmental Assessment (EA): Concurrence Point No. 1. Project Studv Area. As depicted on preliminarv drafts circulated to all team members at t�day's meetin� the Project Studv Area is agreed troon. A map of the studv area is attached The Project Merger Team Members, signed below, have agreed with Concurrence Point No. i, on this date of Julv 23, 200�. FHWAT/.G�(��—Li'` � NCDOT />F� � �'`—�"--._ USFWS CN �.�Zv" 7%13 wc3EP�� ~ � �-- �/ /' c=.� . NCWRC �--`�`"— � ' NMF��sf�� /� , Merger Project Taam Meeting Agreement Concurrence Point No. 2: Project Name/Description: TIP Project No.: Federal Aid Project: WBS Element: Altematives Carried Fonvazd Proposed NC 32 Coimector from US 64 to the Jntersection of NC 32 and NC 94, Washington County R-3620 STP-OOOS(252) 3A548.1.1 The following altematives are to be carried fonvnrd for detailed survey: ♦ Altemativc 1 ♦ Alternative 2 ♦ Alternative 5 ♦ Alternative b— East of Alteraative 1 nnd UT to AlbemArle Sound Alternatives 3 and 4, presanted at the Concurrence Point 2 meeting on tlus date, have heen dropped from further srudy. The Marger Project Team has agreed with Concurrence Point2 on this date, Mazch 16, 2006. USACE _'��` NCDOT FHWA --1G�r-�'' -- USFWS NCWRCe�--�� i� NCDCM NCDWQ NMF SHPO . A/ � ' �J %►' �II l�l � EPA NCDMF Merger Project Team 1VIeeting Agrcement Concurrence Point No. 2: Project Name/Description: TIP Project No.: Federal Aid Project: WBS Element: Altematives Carried Fonvard Proposed NC 32 Connector from US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94, Washington County R-3620 STP-OOOS(252) 34548.1.1 The following altematives are to be canied forward for detailed survey: ♦ Altcrnative 1 ♦ Alternative 2 ♦ Alternative 5 ♦ Alternative 6— East of Alternative 1 aud UT to Albemarle Sound Altematives 3 and 4, presented at the Concurrence Point 2 meeting on this date, have been dropped from further study. The Merger Project Team has agreed with Concunence Point 2 on this date, March 16, 2006. Fd3WA I�C�I�Qy NCDWQ NMF SHPO NCDOT USFWS NCDCM EPA NCDMF ��1�':21�`G,"„i"�"'t% Section 404/NEPA Interagency Abreement Concurrence Point No. 2A: Bridging and Alignment Revie�� Proiect Title: Proposed NC 32 Connector, from US 64 Bypass to NC 32/ NC 94, Washington County, R-3620. The project team concurs that no bridges are recommended for this project and concurs with NCDOT's recommendations of culverts and pipes. The project team concurs that Alternatives 1 and 2 will be carried forward and Alternatives 5 and 6 are dropped from further consideration. NAME �� -,s� .� - - / AGENCY NCDOT FHWA USACE USEPA USFWS NMFS NCDWQ NCDCM � /��/ u I NCWRC NCDMF NCSHPO DATE 1�-13-08 1�-13-oe �� 1�3/ ao� �� I��do f I �I��aoog ;0 ia>ea�za�+e-, 'i�:�E - -�r. n�_�T Fxu > 5i��z=6a3�s 0 ' 0 , O 5eceion 404/I�I�PA iuteragency .�.greement � Concurrenee �oin4 fdo. 2A: Bridging and a,�yger�ent Fteview� i0 riu. �Es ooz �. O i i Proiect'�'ifle: Proposcd NC 32 Connector, fiom US 64 Bypass to NC 32! I�C 94, Q Wa511u��t�n CounN, R-3620. � � The project team concurs thae no bridges are recumn�znded for this ro ect aiid O ;; P 1 0 �: concurs w�th NCDOT's tccommendations of culverts and pipes. Q i i The project team, concurs U�at Altematives 1 and 2 will bc carried forward and 0 '; ; Altemauves 5 and 6 are dropprd from furtlter consideracipn. 0 � 0 '� --...— NAME � I � I� ` O � G��`� u �� 'W� �i+-c � . ; � � �� . , Q� ' — --- � � o I — � li ,, � 'i � � Q ' ' - - - _. -� o III — O , ; � ,s„`_" ,i i O � ; _. O O �'I � � I � ' �; � ;i � ii � li o ;; o� m � ' � � m ,� � ' � aGENCY NCDOT FHWA USACE USEPA USFWS NMFS NCDwQ NCUCM Ncvrnr.. NCDMF NCSHPO DATE ��-o� 1�-�3-0� z 1(% i�al�i, lijl3J:��8 / Z_ 9—D 'S Federa! Aid #STP-OOOS(252) TIP tIR-3620 Counry: V1'ashington CONCT_TRRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMGNT OF EFFECTS Project Description: Proposed NC 32 Conneclor from US 64 to Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 On 11/14/2008, representatives of the '� North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Q� Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) � North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) ❑ Other Reviewed the subject project and agreed ❑ There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. � There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. [� There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the project's area of potentia] effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse. � There is an effect on the National.Register-eligible property/propeRies located within the project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse. Signed: � Representative, HPO State Historic Preservation Officer Date ��1 or other Federal Agency Date Date II-I�-OS' Date 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Q � O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 � � � � � � � � Federol il id #STP-OOOS(252) TIP #R-3620 Cot�nty: Washington Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effec[. Indicate if property is National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE). _ 1�1b��rl� Y� II (DE� � Al�ern�i-iveS 1,�5,(.0 - no c,��e�% -- ti C�. Pr �sor� C tDE� :. �o+ aF�e ct� b� A115 I,2,(� - P�; t-charc� -►=a.rrn � �� : nol� � �e c�-�cl b�'+ A-11s . I;2, (� - � 11� `� . Cti2� � no � a�Fp c�ecl b� �l1 so i, 5, C� -Farrn CD� � r,v�� aG�ec�'-� by A-I+s. i�5 � —I-T-c�p_k-iE�s Nt��c� COE�� A1+,2-no��ec�-�, no+ c��eci�er�by ►,5,(0 Properties within [he area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE) and describe the effect. - Albernc�.rl�Gnll (�� o PcI�P.fI'1Gt,�l�e-Z.- i'1D ad-i,-ers� e_r��{- -!Na � iOr� v CAm L�� A��exnai� v� �- nu ci�,�.i,��,�t��e eF�c- - Pr �t r�arm CD� °, ��r�.o,j-ive5- no a�ue��,e.��G��{- -.�hobo�h Cr� u�� C�v 2) � l�1-t e3vtiali �� 2- �o arall ��e��-s� e��e c� i� -I-`.e� (�rol� or� �mPasures ern�l��{et2 h.is�vZ�L r��.kz.r �e_ ti�sfialle.� G�te_ r coi��iz.uchqn �� te.�t��orC�r�� c.� erec.l-� a.1o� �cisl� Rc:�i,U d�.��o e r�sh�s .ho; cA.r 1�C� �. q�-1. Z�� a_�� e�Fe.c�- c� w�c�er� �a�uarc� hvuse ^•�� w i oP� Cit,t,up.4f , r� hz, v5� i�cu:'�-e oF i rvl � cts ir 1-tiv�_s ,.easdn(s) why the ettect �s not aaverse (if appuca6le). �"' "' 3 S<=H7 '�'�� -AI1�ern le. (�r�ll :��p �ovi,� re uir�C 3 onl -te,n�p�,�ra��i� c�nsh��hvn �aseme4 �uorlc_ �n c��'ch - no c�i�Pc��ts Y?� Shuc�.�re� or P�,��.i � or ccCess �,��I t� o. Pr�� wr�� c�wc�.� �rorn pr�Sor� ,Svrn� �tch wor u..t- r1� �rrl�a�ts Fev�u�s c�r s-hucFc,��.eS - P�r �t��V�cu�� Fsa rrv�s. wi d..e.+� (t�.�� o�m -Fcu'm, som� c�+c.l�� #- no i�m ci-1� �fi �� St�t�ucl-wLeS or r��lun.Z ju.,2dsCa(� -. 04 of'h urGh � wrc � c,�0.�� f-ror� c.D�ufc,h Sn;�v�� (�.1t �D�j u� �'1D �vY1�CxC:� 1Z� '��'tuC:`"u�t'L Or -}-��,Q,�<� � SVlruh� Initia]ed: NCDOT�� FHWA�� HPO�K1.,2� FHWA intends to use SHPO's concurrence as a basis of a"de minimis" finding (or the following �� properties, pursuant to Section 4(f): �a"15o1'1 -�►"' ��a APPEl�TDIX D RELOCATION/DISPLACMENT POLICIES NCDOT's Relocation/Displacement Policics NCDOT's policy reearding relocations im-olves providing assistance to those affected bv transportation impro�e�nents per the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Rea] Properties P.cquisition Policies Act. All alternatives under evaluation will result in the displacement of l�omes and/or businesses. Some residents in the DCI Study Area appear to.be lo��-income. If so, and if they are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Progam established by the Federal Unifomi Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646) may be used. The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Prog_ram to help minimize the effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs. It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to consWction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Boazd of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the incomenience of relocation: • Relocation Assistance • Relocation Moving Payments • Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement The Relocation Assistance Progam provides experienced NCDOT staff 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 Progam provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement ��-ill 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 aeeordance 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 133-15). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in ��hich to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assibmed to each highway project for this purpose. The relocation officer «�ill determine the needs of displaced families; indi��iduals, busi�esses, ��on-profit organizations, and fatm operations for relocation advisory seivices �vithout regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national oiigin. The NCDOT will scl�edule its �vork to allo�v ample time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of rcplacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are gi��en at least a 90-day �vritten notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offcred in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and coinmercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement propcm� will be within financial means of the familics and individuals dispinced. and N�ill be reasonably accessible to their places of emplo}�nent. Tt�e relocation ufficer ��ill also assist o�vners of displaced businesses, non-profit or�anizations, and fann operations in searching for and moving to replacement property. All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced �vill 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). Tl�e relocation officer will also supply infomlation conceming other state or federal pro�ams 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 ]ocation. Tlie Moving Expense Payme�tts Pro�'am is desip�ed 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 Progam 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 payme��t for any increased iuterest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to o��mer-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 payinent, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dN�elling. The down payment is based upon what the state detennines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250. It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No relocation pa�anent received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Liternal Revenue Code of 1954 or for tl�e purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eli�ibility of a��y person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law. Last ResoR Housing is a progam used wl�en comparable replacement housine is not available, or when it is tmavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the pro�'am is to allow broad latimdes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, ssfe, and sa��itary replacement housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary.