U-3419_complete file

__ 1111 -11

I?
?h

1 Ji
I
1 JI C
h`
I
I
?v
I
i
?I
i
I
t? I ? i I ! i I
o © o
V ?
T
r
I
I i I
I
J `1
pi I
j
„I

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resowces
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NCDENR
July 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed extension of SR 1114 (Airport Road) from NC 32 to US 17
Bypass in Chowan County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1114(2), State Project No. 8.203030 1,
TIP U-3419.
Reference your correspondence dated July 6, 1999 in which you requested comments for the proposed
extension of SR 1114 (Airport Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass (TIP U-3419). Preliminary analysis of
the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the
project area. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of
other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are
identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues
for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that
the Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.

1\
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/27/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further 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 stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that _
minimize wetland 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 feet.
1. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 211.0506
(h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/27/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or John-Hennessy @ h2o. enr. state. nc.us.
cc: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files

C:\ncdot\TIP U-3419\comments\U-3419 scoping comments.doc
CONCURRENCE POINT #2
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Proposed extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass
TIP Projects U-3419 -°?--.•..?
State Project 8.2030301 Q
Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2)
8
April 17, 2002
Introduction --Q°~s?cr'
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2002-2008 Draft
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a project to extend NC 94
(Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in Chowan County (see Figure 1). The
Chowan County Thoroughfare Plan can be seen in Figure 2. Studies are underway in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.
Concurrence Point No. 2 of the NEPA/404 Merger Process, selection of alternatives to be
carried forward, will determine which alternatives will be studied in greater detail.
Background Information
TIP Project U-3419 is described in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program as the extension of NC 94 as a two-lane roadway on new location from NC 32
to US 17 Bypass. A feasibility, study was completed in 1996 to further describe the need
for the project, recommend a treatment including costs, and identify potential problem
areas that require consideration in the planning and design phases. Agreement on
Concurrence Point No. 1, purpose and need, was reached in March 2001.
Capacity of Existing Roadway
Current year (2000) daily traffic volumes along NC 32 in downtown Edenton range from
8,800-9,600 vehicles per day (s?e Figure 3). Daily truck traffic is currently 616-672
trucks per day. By the design year (2025), traffic volumes along this section of NC 32
are expected to range between 17,500-18,300 vehicles per day (see Figure 4). Daily
truck traffic is expected to range between 1,225-1,281 trucks per day.
An intersection capacity analysis was performed for downtown Edenton. The
Intersection of NC 32 (Virginia Road) with US 17 Business will operate near, capacity
(level of service D) in the year 2025.
1
Project. Purpose
The purpose of the project is to reduce truck and through traffic and improve safety along
existing NC 32 within downtown Edenton.
Project Need
. Approximately 1,281 trucks a day will pass through downtown Edenton on existing NC
32 imAep design year (2025). Truck traffic passing through downtown Edenton may be
contributijAg to building damage in the Historic District, and certainly has a negative
impact on the walking tours and atmosphere of the district.
Truck accident rates for NC 32 in the study area are higher than the statewide accident
rates for two and four-lane urban NC routes.
Project Schedule/Cost
The project scoping meeting was held on August 25, 1999. A citizen
informational workshop was held in October 2001. Detailed environmental studies will
also begin for the project following concurrence on alternatives to be carried forward.
Right-of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to being in federal fiscal year 2005
and construction is scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 2007.
The most recent cost estimates for the project are as follows:
TIP estimate: Current estimate:
Construction $ 6,500,000 Construction $10,800,000
Right of Way $ 400,000 Right of Way $ 492.000
Total: $ 6,900,000 Total: $11,292;000
2
Project Alternatives
The project alternatives are described below. Theoretical truck route lengths and travel
times were calculated using the NC 32/US 17 interchange and the airport as termini.
Travel times are calculated using the design year (2025) traffic projections. Daily truck
volume projections are provided for the busiest section of NC 32 in the CBD for both the
current (2000) and design years (2025) below.
? ' [Truck Route Survey]
y`
During the last meeting, where Concurrence Point No. 1was achieved, traffic projections
were provided for the Soundside Road Eastern and Old Hertford Road alternatives.
While the projections showed there would be little difference in the amount of trucks
pulled off of NC 32 between the two alternatives, NCDOT revealed that these projections
were prepared under the assumption that Old Hertford Road would be designated as a
truck r t en revealed that it believed that O e oa wou not
qualify for designation under the truck route statute because of the additional travel
length that would be im osed on truc s. NCDOT personne vers were P,
given a choice to use Old ad, they simply would not use Old Hertford Roa a?
because of the lower speed limits, increased number of turns, presence of a high-de nsi}? ?or
residential area, and the longer distance (-1 mile) over the Soundside Road alternatives.
The DWQ and WRC representatives felt that truck drivers would use the Old Hertford
Road alternative just as much as the Soundside Road alternatives. Recognizing the
difference of opinion amongst the merger team, NCDOT decided to perform an on-site
survey of the users of the truck route to determine which routes would be used by truck
drivers if the choice was up to them.
From July 10-12, 2001, personnel from NCDOT surveyed approximately 20 truck drivers
and 10 representatives from area businesses that make and receive truck deliveries.
These representatives were typically a business owner, or dispatcher, who was
responsible for directing deliveries to/from their business.
The purpose of the survey was to find out if users of the truck route would in fact use a
particular alternative(s) over the status quo (NC 32 through downtown Edenton). After
each person was asked if they would use each alternative over the status quo, they were
asked to rank all of the alternatives against each other. Each of the alternatives was
plotted on a separate piece of paper and shown individually for each survey question.
Each question was phrased in a yes/no manner and each person surveyed was allowed to
provide comments on why they chose their answer. At the end of the interview, each
person was shown one aerial with all of the alternatives on it so that they could rank
them. The Old Hertford Road alternative was deliberately shown before the other
alternatives so an objective answer would be given.
The survey and aerials were provided to DWQ and WRC prior to the surveying in order
to make sure they were in agreement that the survey was of proper format. DWQ
approved of the survey in a phone call with NCDOT on July 5, 2001. The survey form
3
can be seen in Appendix A. Information from the survey is provided for each of the
alternatives below that were included in the survey. A summary of the alternatives
ranking is provided at the end of the Alternatives section. - "
1. No-build
The no-build alternative would not meet the purpose of the project because it would not
improve safety or reduce truck traffic through downtown Edenton. Currently;
approximately 672 trucks per day (see Figure 3) travel through Edenton on NC 32. By
the year 2025, this number is expected to increase to 1,281 trucks per day (see Figure 4).
2. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Considering the size and location of Edenton, alternate modes of transportation are not
considered viable alternatives for the project. Expansion of rail service and
implementation of bus service in the project area would not meet the purpose of the
project. The Industrial Park is currently not served by rail. A military base was once
served by rail in the vicinity of the Industrial Park. However, an ice storm wiped out the
railroad bridge over the Albemarle Sound in the 1970s and Norfolk Southern decided it
would be unprofitable to replace the bridge. Chowan County did not disagree with this
decision. Subsequently the railroad tracks between Queen Anne's Creek and the
Albemarle Sound were removed.
In general, "just in time" inventories negatively affected train shipments in Chowan
County. This refers to the ability of trucks to ship items more quickly than rail. In
addition, small shipments are not well served by rail as economies of scale are reached
more easily with large loads. Rail shipments are less flexible than truck shipments in that
due to the lower frequency of rail shipping, product may be required to sit in storage
while waiting for shipment. This rigidity also limits rail shipment of perishable goods.
Considering all of this, it is not surprising that for the types of shipping that occur in
Edenton, rail rates are not competitive with.the trucking rates.
3. Upgrade the existing CBD roadway network (NC 32)
The shortest route for traffic between the US 17/NC 32 interchange and the industrial
area is along NC 32 through the CBD of Edenton. However, there are numerous
structures on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places along this route and
in the town of Edenton, including the Edenton Historic District, making widening or
other improvements difficult. Improvements to the existing roadway network within
downtown Edenton would improve safety and reduce congestion within downtown
Edenton, however, such improvements would not meet the purpose of the project because
they would not reduce truck traffic through downtown Edenton.
,4
n
4. Restrictions on truck traffic on NC 32 through Edenton
Why not just prohibit all trucks from travelling through downtown. Edenton? All trucks
with a local origin or destination can not be prohibited from using NC 32. Through
trucks can be required to use a designated truck route, but the route must conform with
G.S: § 20-116(h) (see Figure 5). The important part of this statute is said truck route
must be of "approximately the same distance between two or more points" as the route
where trucks are prohibited from using. Restrictions on truck traffic can not be made
without designating another route for trucks to use.
5. Upgrade Old Hertford Rd ;
Traffic traveling from the US 17/NC 32 interchange and the airport industrial area could
use NC 94, NC 32, Old Hertford Road, US 17 Business, and US 17. The intersections of
NC 32 and Old Hertford Road, and Old Hertford Road and US 17 Business, would
require upgrading if substantial amounts of truck traffic were expected. There is a
property on the National Register of Historic Places, the Speight House and..Cotton Gin,
in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 32 and Old Hertford Road. The
boundaries of this historic property extend to the right-of-way for NC 32 and Old
Hertford Road. On the south side of the same intersection is another National Register-
listed historic property, Strawberry Hill. The boundaries of this property also extend to
the roadway right-of-way. Any improvements or realignments to the intersection of Old
Hertford Road and NC 32 would affect these two historic properties.
Old Hertford Road passes through a predominantly minority residential area. Residents
along this route have expressed objections to routing trucks along this road. The Town
has maintained that public opposition to this alternative would be so great they would not
endorse it.
Survey Results
Only 19% of those surveyed said they would use the Old Hertford Route over the status
quo - using NC 32 through downtown Edenton. Reasons given for those who said no
were: this route is too long, they want to avoid Edenton altogether, they prefer a bypass
around city traffic, route is out of the way, too many curves, children/school buses,
pedestrian conflicts, too many turns, and feel existing route is quicker. Among the 19% o
of those who said they would use the route, so a said that they would only use this route
if the road was widened and the speed limit was ncreased. It is highly unlikely that the
speed limit will be increased because of the residential nature of the area.
6. Soundside Road Eastern
The extension of Soundside Road would provide a bypass of the Town of Edenton for
vehicles travelling to US 17 from the airport and industrial area. This alternative would
extend northward from the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 along existing Hobbs Lane
(SR 1103). From Hobbs Lane (SR 1103) to US 17 Business, this alternative would be
5
0
constructed on new location. The existing culvert crossing of Queen Anne's Creek
would be bridged. This alternative would tie into US 17 Business just south of US 17
Bypass. ` Vehicles would not have to make any right angle turns or pass through any
signals. Trucks would also not have to pass through the densely developed downtown
area, mixing with local traffic and pedestrians:
Traffic projections indicate that extending Soundside Road would reduce the 2000 and
2025 truck volumes on NC 32 within downtown Edenton to 264 trucks per day (see
Figure 7) and 495 trucks (see Figure 8) respectively.
Survey Results
Approximately 94% of those surveyed said that they would use this route over the status
quo. Among those answering yes, comments included that the route is a "straight shot",
is close to US 17 Bypass, avoids downtown resulting in less accidents, no turns, less
congestion, higher speed. Those responding no said that this route was too long.
7. Soundside Road Western
This alternative is similar to Soundside Road Eastern in that it begins and ends at the
same location. Most of Hobbs Lane (SR 1103) would be utilized, but the route extends to
the west, avoiding much of the wooded .area, but coming close to a residential area. The
travel time and truck volume projections are virtually identical Soundside Road Eastern
Alternative.
Survey Results
The results were identical to those of Soundside. Road Eastern, with 94% of those
surveyed saying they would use this route over the status quo. The reasons were similar
to Soundside Road Eastern.
8. Peanut Dr. #1
This alternative attempts to address the purpose and need of this project along with
another transportation need of Edenton. A small industrial park is currently located along
Peanut Dr.,, a locally maintained st et at the north-east part of Edenton. There is only
one way to enter/exit the industrial park. This is undesirable for many reasons, including
safety and convenience. This alternative would create a new diamond interchange
directly east of the existing Paradise Rd. interchange. It would connect with Peanut Dr.
and extend across the end of Old Hertford Rd. The new intersection of Peanut Dr., US 17
Bus., and Old Hertford Rd. would be reconfigured. The road would continue, on new
location, across the north end of Queen Anne's Creek. The stream crossing would be.
bridged. The road would then continue across farmland, tying in with Hobbs Lane (SR
11.03). The crossing of Queen Anne's Creek at Hobbs Lane (SR 1103) would be bridged.
6
Survey Results
100% of the people surveyed said they would use this route over the status quo.
Comments included that this route connects the two industrial parks, avoids downtown,
provides easy access to US 17, avoids the Old Hertford area, and is convenient.
9. Peanut Dr. #2
This alternative begins the same as Peanut Dr. #1, but extends down Old Hertford Rd. At
the end of Old Hertford Rd., a new intersection will be created with NC 32 immediately
west of the existing intersection, in order to avoid impacts to the historical property on
the east side of the intersection.
Survey Results
Approximately 54% of the people surveyed said they would use this route over the status
quo. Among those who said they would not use this route, comments included the
location in the Old Hertford area increases the likelihood of pedestrian conflicts, thus
making this an unattractive alternative.
10. Peanut Dr. #3
This alternative is the same as Peanut Dr. #2, except that the route cuts east on new
location just past the intersection of Old Hertford Rd. and Paxton Lane. This provides a
slightly more direct route to NC 94 (Soundside Rd.)
Survey Results
Approximately 61% of those people surveyed said they would use this route over the
status quo. Comments were similar to those for Peanut Dr. #2.
11. Paradise Rd. #1 ,

This alternative creates a new diamond interchange at the existing Paradise Rd.
interchange. The route continues on new location across a railroad and US 17 Bus.
Continuing across farmland on the west side of Old Hertford Road, the route then
mergers with Old Hertford Rd. Old Hertford Rd. from the north would be reconfigured
to form a T intersection with the new route. The route then continues down Old Hertford
Rd. and creates a new T intersection with NC 32 to avoid impacting the historic property.
Survey Results
Approximately 82% of those surveyed said they would use this route over the status quo.
Among those who said they would not use this route, comments were the route is too
close to town, too many buses, and pedestrian conflicts.

7
12. Paradise Rd. #2
This alternative starts out similarly to Paradise Rd. #l, but bisects Old Hertford Rd.,
heading almost due east across Queen Anne's Creek. The stream crossing will be
bridged. The route will then cross farmland and then tie-in to Hobbs Lane (SR 1103).
The crossing of Queen Anne's creek at Hobbs Lane will be bridged:
Survey Results
Approximately 86% of those surveyed said they would use this route over the status quo.
Among those that said they would use.this route, comments included that it was a good
choice for both locals and truckers. Among those that said they would not use this route,
comments included that the crossing of Old Hertford Road was undesirable.
13. Paradise Rd. #3
This alternative starts out similarly to Paradise Rd. #1, but cuts across on new location
immediately south of the intersection of Old Hertford Rd. with Paxton Lane. This
provides a slightly more direct route to NC 94 (Soundside Rd.)
Survey Results
Approximately 89% of those surveyed said they would use this route over the status quo.
Among those that said they would not use this route, comments included that travelling in
the Old Hertford Road area was undesirable.
Survey Ranking Summary
Those surveyed were asked to. rank in order from 1-9, all of the truck route alternatives
presented to them. Each alternative's rankings from 1-9 were averaged to determine the
ranking order. Here are the results presented with the average ranking each alternative
received:
Alternative Average Ranking (1-9 scale) '
1. Peanut Dr. 41 2.00' ??w. e G. ?.1't
2. Paradise Rd. #2 2.97
3. Soundside Rd. Western 3.63 1,cs
4. Soundside Rd. Eastern 4.40 w
5. Paradise Rd. 41 4.76
6. Peanut Dr. #3 4.77
7. Paradise Rd. 43 5.15
8. Peanut Dr. #2 6.58
9. Old Hertford Rd. 8.89
8
Public Input
A large amount of public input has been received, especially after NCDOT was
asked to study alternatives that would affect Old Hertford Road. The Old Hertford
Community is comprised of Old Hertford Road, Paxton Lane, Tyler Lane, and part of
Coke Avenue. The community is predominantly black, poor to middle class, and has
been inexistence for 30-50 years. Approximately 60% of the households have children
under the age of eighteen. The speed limit on Old Hertford Road is 35 mph and 25mph
on Paxton Lane.
NCDOT was put in touch with a community leader, through which a
informational session was held with the Old Hertford Community on July 24, 2001.
Approximately 60-70 concerned members of the community attended to learn about the
project. The vast majority of those in attendance expressed their vehement opposition to
any alternative affecting Old Hertford Road. Many residents were amazed that any
alternative involving Old Hertford Road was being considered by NCDOT.
In summary, the residents have safety concerns resulting from increased truck
traffic. There are many children living in the area, and an elderly population. Both
groups frequently use buses that have stops along Old Hertford Road. Aside from the
increased danger resulting from more truck traffic, members of the community are
concerned about permanent effects of any alternative that would physically divide the,
community. A summary of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
A citizen's informational workshop was held on October 23, 2001 in Edenton.
Approximately 50 people attended. A petition signed in opposition to any of the routes
located in/near the Old Hertford Road community with 55 signatures was delivered to
NCDOT. The people generally supported the Soundside Road, Peanut Dr. #1, and
Paradise Rd. #2 alternatives, as these do not affect Old Hertford Road as much as the
other alternatives. A summary of the comments is provided in Appendix B.
The citizens of Old Hertford Community have expressed their concerns with their
Congressman, Walter Jones. A letter written to COE and copied to NCDOT by
Congressman Jones is also included in Appendix B.
'_ 9
RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS WETLANDS WETLANDS STREAM LENGTH NEW TOTAL LENGTH TRUCK SURVEY CONSTRUCTION
RELOCATEES RELOCATEES AFFECTED AFFECTED IMPACTS LOCATION (MILES) AVERAGE COST
(AC.) (AC.) (FT.) (MILES) RANKING
(HYDRIC SOILS) (DCM Wetlands) (1.9)
Sound-side Rd. 1 0 29.8 12.1 0 3.2 3.2 4.40 $10,800,000
Soundside Rd. 1 0 28.3 7.5 0 2.9 2.9 3.63 $ 11,400,000
este
eanut Dr. #1 3 57.4 10.0 0 3.1 3.1 2.00 $24,400,000
$ al f4' 2
r. 2 2 42.7 8.7 0 2.2 6.58 $13,400,000
,8
JAWt and 1,?
Peanut Dr. #3 6 2 47 8.7 0 1.1 4.77 $14,200,000
eyo I4AW 2.4
Paradise Rd. #1 3 0 66.5 1.5 0 1.7 2.2 4.76 $14,400,000
Paradise Rd. #2 0 66.5 1.5 0 3.1 3.1 2.97 $26,200,000
Paradise Rd. '?j 6 0 70.8 1.5 0 2.1 2.4 5.15 $14,900,000
Old Hertford Road 3 1 0 0 0 0.3 1.3 8.89 $2,000,000
??-t?H A N C 0 C K
EDENTON -?-
POP. 5,354
\ SR 1101

l m
1 N
.? STUDY ARE

-
j
0 L-

Lij
_ ..._. J
CH WAN
M:
S
EAMTM MIOFOS®
Y ?? ?.. `/ /'/ • C 'A`\ 1 I % l? MAJOR THOROUGHFARES MEEMOMmom S1iNpSi
\ y;\ Ir \ °°
? ? ! ?r i ? ,;+? ? "" ??: "•'?.. ,I r '% ? 1?,i g?• ,?? `-• '!i r?wDe,raxaixys+uiES .....n
INTERCHANGES
J D-
Al?
n r r?
. 10
o tc °.r ) ?? x 'i' I
? ?. b 3 t ?? o I
%
i ? \ 8
R
. lu r 1 E %? t L?'
i l y d•
?' .'`,_-.ac? :• s.m,. -ti `,•!i, 1 71 .; J?•'' 111 fl./1
.71
c,..,• r rga.?nN '? ^'1 'I/ ?/1 f' ( 1/ J T ?? IIPr•;
I?
L5 L c f nr. ?? \ wt
?f'EDfNiON"::. '' M `~• r?( ^ `'? M 1 'ic..? I•,1 ) AfEdIFJ?SG
c •
EDEIrt01+-__w, .
Cn'
4,1
STATE!NOE PLANING ERAN71 ASE,?11/
x C. DEPT. OF TRM PMATM J* I
KIM REARIG_ O YT, TINS
E D E N T 0 N 0 ?rt'f J i II/.:? ,`'r J 111
;1± 1 I
$DENTOn • 1 : I II /
SAY
J '• I
I lip
_ 3 -
FIGURE I
t J \ a \;\ ?\ \ / ` THOROUGHFARE PLAN
EDENTON
CHOWAN COUNTY
1 • :•. . r/ ?,%? l \' 1 NORTH CAROLINA
.r.
7. PKFARID By THE
D,..
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT,ON
\ u.
a I? ll 104 YW DIVISION DF.XIGNWATSSTATEWINi PLANNWG BRARCX.
,•t C ' Ran. r•. (' J???j)L P?\•' I MCOOIfAATOX wRM .71 IN M '~ C l ?• \ ?` U.S. OE?MTMEXTOFTRANSPORTA/pX
M A R' L E \•\ S O. U. N D FEDERAENWI'AY ADMINISTRATION
-??
lop c;o"
MAY H, iSq
a .. ss®
\ WE: ,w
•uw
\ A L 0 E M A R'

?y
J
SR 1319
(Pa radise Rd.)
0 1100
v N
o SR 1321
200 8500
4400
NC 32 5100
700
9500
-1
00

60
° ?`
r 2T -1 00 US 17 1 10000 4800

300 100
10 55
5OO 50?1 570
8?5 1000 0
US 17 .. 2200 .
?0 % 1200
SR 1200 551500 10800
pM
19
001 1400 7200
?? 3000 3
A21
55 t 8500 6100
,
,
321
?o l.55 500

2000
-
1

X00
800

1000
900
,° 52
US F
y
NC 32
1700
Vi
i
i
Rd
0
1000
0
6000 rg
n
a
.)
(
1250
Ss
f34

'
2500

90a
5800
s

00

900
SR
1105
o ? Al 8u 2 N 1900 „ OLD HERT FORD RD.

6700 2100 a 2500
,
8800
W 2300
° SR 1132 SR 1103
300
N (Coke Ave.)
c
N M W1

v
9600

O

O
4
W
o
SR 1126
SR 1234 0 " (Oakum St.) N
(Albemarle St.) PM
10
55 900 400
2300 2200
(
2400 1400
700 e20 °
8800 1400
W. Church St. 300 T 2500 4500 40rO
F
-
' 300 4300 300 000 6000 600 600 7000 100 100 3500
1000
1001• ?y
•1.1400
NC 32 ?-
,
200y
e100
55 PM 10 NC 32 0 ?,
3700`
200
(Church St.) (4,2)
0
7900
a
fst mated 2000 ADT Volumes
LEGEND
XXX VPD--VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW(%)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(0,0) DUALS, TTST (%)
NOTE: DHV - 0 D
Indicates the direction D
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
US 17 Bus
(W. Queen St.)
4,2
4600 se
DR
0
o w?
W N 4000
y SR 1114
(Airport Rd.)
w
1000
Edenton Airport Rd.
0
4100 100
Ext., from NC 32 to
,° 500 US 17 Bypass with
200 100 existing SR 1105
4000 County: Chowan Division: I
TIP # U-3419 Date: August 90
AWING NOT TO SCALE Work Order# 8.2030301 Fi(9VR E 3
SR 1321
500
NC 32
20700
200
5 300
SR 1200 ss 2200 500
2700 pM 22
10 (??? 14 55 110
US 17 52 3500
12500

SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.)
$ 1800
80 16800
9900 1300
° 300 US 17 ` 1800
100 500 9500
P? 55 60 900
10 (5, ,?
,US 17 3600800 10 1500' " '300
13400 - a2T 10200 I
4900 55 ( 16500
a
3300 1400 1650 1600 1700 3300
NC 32 1700
26000 (Virginia Rd.) CD
$S 25900 - x• 1600 3300 OLD HERTFORD R 1105RTFORD RD.
X44 12000 1560 us 400
r° ?g11B
°
m °
13900 ,3600 ° SR 1132
3800 (Coke Ave.)
n I17500 w ° P v SR 1103
NSL? ,; 500
N ?.. SR 1126 0
18300 0 (Oakum St.) °
SR 1234 a N
(Albemarble St.) PM 1600 T ,600
3600 55110 ??' 1800 4100
1200y l,4 0 0 7700 2800 3000 a
W. Church St. 600 T 4700 7700 700T 600 7500 600< 500 10400 900? '10011600 20? 1y200 6200
1600 E-? ?? E?J? E-,
5700 `? 300
NC 32 M 300 y2300 (Church St.) 30" " 200 55 110 NC 32 174.2)
z 15000 6100
SR 1114
(Airport Rd.)
a ?3
2000
Edenton Airport Rd.
US 17 Bus
(W. Queen St.) 8400 300 o Ext,, from NC 32 to
9800 55 - to 1600
400 X300 US 17 Bypass with
OF
existing SR 1105
County: Chowan Division: I
7000
SR 1,319
(Paradise Rd.)
0 1100
o SR 1321
200 8500 1
5800 T 4000
NC 32 US 17
9500 ^0 608 200 1100 200 30p ; 150
-100 pp
? 100 to 55 500 app 4 700 ;
6 52 300 US 17 40000
10800
SR 1200 551500 1900 8000 2200 P? to 660p 200
1900 s 2 2900 55 li a? 89pp_
AD l?.55 500 2100 800 a8pp 900 W'000 D
to (5,2 1500 NC 32 1000 1T Bps t
US 17 12000, (Virginia Rd.) ?S o ?;
6000
ss PM 12100 900 3700
X321 ro 6200 83pp 1T Bus 200 N
900
5900, ,2100 1900 SR 1105
2200
z 8000 w °
N SR 1132 °
18800 (Coke Ave.)
N
o SR 1126
SR 1234 0 " (Oakum St.) -o
(Albemarle St.) PM 900 T X400 3
2400 55 ( is E? y 1400 2500 1400
700, 00 1400
8400
W. Church 00 300 T T1700 3700 400T 300 3500 500 ' 000 000 400 1000
1000 PM NC 32 (??J
( Church 55 - 1o NC 32
60 (1- 21 10100 1400 2010
(Church St.) 00 (32) 4 PM
°
1100 300 3500
1500` 1200
z 7900
N 4000
c-Estimated 2000 ADT Volumes a v - SR 1114
(Airport Rd.)
US 17 Bus °
4100 m
(W. Queen St.) 55 M 10 \?o
4600 (4.2)
200 100
4000
DRAWING NOT
Edenton Airport Rd.
Ext., from NC 32 to
US 17 Bypass
r OF
County: Chowan Division:1
TIP # U-3419 Date: Au ust'00
Work Order# 8.2030301 FIGURE 7
1000
500
3i
SR 1319
.(Paradise Rd:)
0 1800
N? N
16800
7100
1090 ?
US 1 600 ?,.(- 3000
100 ,300 1800 500 00 1100
PM pp? 3 55 800 10800
to
's
T 36800 Zp0 C'J, 500
00
4900 a3 ?0 1650 12 1600
1400 16800 55 1600 1700;
2600
1700T o a
E' ; 7300
600 3300 N
12100 155 1T gus 400 N N 3
° v SR 1105 c
3400
:1` 3800 ;
0
o (Oakum St.) SR 1132
SR 1234 o w (Coke Ave.)
(Albemarle St.) PM
55f
10 1600T T600 - N
2400-
72.1)
3600 1800
2800
4300
0
120 e 400 5900
W. Church St 600 T
E-' x.2900
y 5900 70? 600 5700 800 500 8400 600 T 1800 9600 2700
`? T1200 6200
`
1600
60 ( i0 300 , ??
y2300 NC 32
h 300 200 to NC 32
---
5f
? 2 y
2300 400
(Churc
St.) )
°
z 15000
a N SR 101014
Estimated 2025 ADT Volumes Ar- - (Airport Rd.)
2
LEGEND \ 00
Edenton Airport Rd.
X)Ol VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) US 17 Bus
)
(W. Queen St 840 o
;x,300 _ EXt.f from N C 32 t0

D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (°/.) PM
. ss ?Z
9800
10 y
1600

ass
B
17
PM PM PEAK PERIOD yp
,
US
(0,0)-. DUALS, TTST(%) 400 00

NOTE. DHV -? D l
County: Chowan Division:

Indicates the direction D
TIP # U•3419 Date: Au ust.0
Reverse flow direction for AM peak Work Order# 8.2030301 FIGURE 8
DRAWING NO TO SCALE
§20-116 MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA §20-116
from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping therefrom,
except that sand may be dropped for the purpose of securing trac-
tion, or water or other substance may be sprinkled on a roadway in
cleaning or maintaining such roadway.
Trucks, trailers or other vehicles when loaded with rock, gravel,
stone or other.similar substances which could blow, leak, sift or
drop shall not be driven or moved on any highway unless the height
of the load against all four walls does not extend above a horizontal
line six inches below their tops when loaded at the loading point, or
if not so loaded, unless the load shall be securely covered by tarpau-
lin or some other suitable covering, or unless it is otherwise con-
structed so as to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting,
leaking, blowing, or otherwise escaping therefrom.
Provided this section shall not be applicable to or in any manner
restrict the transportation of seed cotton, of poultry or livestock or
silage or other feed grain used in the feeding of poultry or livestock.
(h) Whenever there exist two highways of the State highway
system of approximately the same distance between two or more
points, the Department of Transportation may, when in the opinion
of the Department of Transportation, based upon engineering and
traffic investigation, safety will be promoted or the public interest
will be served, designate one of the highways the "truck route
between those points, and to prohibit the use of the other highway
by heavy trucks or other vehicles of a gross vehicle weight or axle
load limit in excess of a designated maximum. In such instances the
highways selected for heavy vehicle traffic shall be designated as
"truck routes" by signs conspicuously posted, and the highways
upon which heavy vehicle traffic is prohibited shall.likewise be
designated by signs conspicuously posted showing the maximum
gross vehicle weight or axle load limits authorized for those high-
ways. The operation of any vehicle whose gross vehicle weight or
axle load exceeds the maximum limits shown on signs over the
posted highway shall constitute a misdemeanor: Provided, that
nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a truck or other motor
vehicle whose gross vehicle weight or axle load exceeds that pre-
scribed for those highways from using them when its destination is
located solely upon that highway, road or street: Provided, further,
that nothing in this subsection shall prohibit passenger vehicles or
other light vehicles from using any highways designated for heavy
truck traffic.
(i) Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 1330, s.` 39.
(j) Self-propelled grain combines of other farm equipment self-
propelled, pulled or otherwise, not exceeding 18 feet in width may
be operated on any highway, except a highway or section of high-
way that is a part of the National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways: Provided that all such combines or equipment which
exceed 10 feet in width may be so operated only under the following
conditions:
(1) Said equipment may only be so operated during daylight
hours; and
(2) Said equipment must display a red flag on front and rear,
said flags shall not be smaller than three feet wide and
four feet long and be attached to a stick, pole, staff, etc.,
not less than four feet long and shall be so attached to said
equipment as to be visible from both directions at all times
1. What are the most important factors in determining which route you use from most
important to least important? (i.e. time to travel, distance, avoidance of stop/go,
turning movements)
Show Existing Truck Route Through Town
2. Is this the route that you currently take to get to the Industrial Park?
**Make sure they understand that they would not be required to use any of these routes,
we want to know if they would use any of them with their own choice. **
Show Hertford Route
3. Would you use this route in place of your current route if improvements were made to
the intersections of Hertford Rd. w/ US 17 Bus., and a connector was built on new
location to NC 32?
• If answer is yes, why?
• If answer is no, why?
Show Soundside Rd. Western Extension Route
4. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed on new
location as shown on the mapping?
• If answer is yes, why? -?
• If answer is no, why?
Show Soundside Rd. Eastern Extension Route
5. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed on new `
location as shown on the mapping?
• If answer is yes, why?
• If answer is no, why?
Show Paradise Rd. #1 Route
6. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed part on
new location and part on Hertford Rd. as shown on the mapping?
• If answer is yes; why?
• If answer is no,. why?
Show Paradise Rd. #2 Route
7. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed on new
location as shown on the mapping?
• If answer is yes, why?
• If answer is no, why?
Show Paradise Rd. #3 Route
8. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed on new
location as shown on the mapping?
9 If answer is yes, why? -
0 If answer is no, why? -
Show Peanut Dr. #1 Route
9. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed part on
new location and part on Peanut Dr. as shown on the mapping?
• If answer is yes, why?
• If answer is no, why?
Show Peanut Dr. 42 Route
10. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed part on
new location, part on Peanut Dr., and part on Hertford Rd. as shown on the mapping?
• If answer is yes, why?
• If answer is no, why?
Show Peanut Dr. #3 Route
11. Would you use this route in place of your current route if it was constructed part on
new location, part on Peanut Dr., and part on Hertford Rd. as shown on the mapping?
• If answer is yes, why?
• If answer is no, why?
Show All Routes
12. From your point-of-view as a truck driver how would you rank these 7 routes in order
of most desirable to least desirable and why?
Edenton Comments
Subject: Edenton Comments
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:01:06 -0400
From: Carlos Gonzalez <cgonzalez@dot. state. nc.us>
00rganization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Douglas Jeremiah <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Doug,
What's up?... I'll be in D.C. for the next two weeks, but will be checking e-mail.
Here are some comments:
* Community residents feel this area (Old Hertford Community) is on wetlands as well. Has this been
studied? "If the issue is wetlands vs. people, where to we (people) come in?" (Empatically)
* Alternate routes should be used, in order to keep truck traffic out of Edenton. Routes 32 - 37 17. "It
is not necessary to disrupt a community that's been here for years."
* Residents overwhelmingly do not want a truck route through their community. The City of Edenton
does not want increased traffic through this area either. 'A joint letter/petition will be presented to
NCDOT.
Qard e major concern is children playing in this area. Additional truck traffic will create a serious safety
for these children.
* "We (Citizens fo Old Hertford Community) feel disenfranchized and uprooted. We should have a
voice in this decision..." "We do not even have sidewalks.
* Ordinances and zoning for the area can be discussed to prevent thru truck traffic: i.e. lower speed
limits, restricting truck traffic, vehicle weight limits.,
* The creek/ditch behind Hertford Rd., near Chwan Veneer Mills, Inc. is contaminated. Is this
considered a wetland and has NCDOT investigated this?
* Resident (concerned, recent HS graduate, interested in community) provided contact name and
number and agreed to work with NCDOT and City of Edenton to prevent the use Hertford Rd. for
additional truck traffic:
Arkeem L. Fleming
169 Old Hertford Rd.
Edenton, NC 27932
[phone]
Please drop me an e-mail if you need additional information. Thanks,
Carlos
1 of 1 08/20/2001 1:56 PM
U-3419, Edenton - Community Comments
Subject: U-3419, Edenton - Community Comments
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:02:55 -0400
From: Mark Reep <[e-mail]:us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Douglas Jeremiah <[e-mail]>
CC: Teresa Hart <[e-mail]>
Doug,
Here are the comments I recorded during last night's community
meeting:
1. Community members oppose a truck route that would follow.
Hertford Road: This would be extrememly disruptive to.families, :
especially those with children. They believe the community
should be valued higher than wetlands and natural resources
2. Several residents were concerned about contaminants from
the Pelican industry affecting the health of residents in the
neighborhood..
3. Some favored improving the current truck route on NC 32
within the business district (90 degree turn) or forcing trucks
to follow NC 37 to avoid the central business district. One
person suggested saving the money from this project to repair
potholes and other maintenance needs on NC 32.
4. A housing development manager commented that 111 households
within the neighborhood include an average of three children per
family. These 300 + children play on the street and nearby
playground. A truck route in this neighborhood would be
dangerous. A resident commented that a child was killed by a car
on this street several years ago.
5. One person indicated that Hertford Road floods as much as
two feet in several places after hard rains:
6: Residents noted that there is not enough room for a wider
road:to be placed within the 50-foot right of way that exists
along Hertford Road, Residents would lose homes and/or yards.
7 Many residents favored the easternmost route that could
connect with the existing US 17 Business interchange. They
believe the eastern route would be faster, less damaging, and
less expensive. It would also keep truck traffic out of town as
-well as neighborhoods:
8 One area farmer .suggested connecting the Peanut Drive \
industrial area to US 17 in addition to the route that is
selected for this project.` This connection would probably.reduce
a substantial amount of.truck.traffic in the neighborhoods.
9. In the past few years since the industrial warehouse and
commercial storage facility were built on Hertford Road,: truck
traffic has substantially increase in the neighborhood. These
storage facilities are used-to store cotton and peanuts and
bottled water:
10. Several people suggested comparing travel times between
routes. The easternmost routes 'could be posted at 55 mph and
would involve few intersections. The Hertford Road routes would
have many intersections and slower travel speeds '(possibly 35
mph) within the neighborhood.
1 of '2 08/20/2001 1:55 PM
4Tydd STA1F?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 2, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
File
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Doug Jeremiah &
Project Development Engineer
July 10, 2001 meeting with Gwen Brown, community
leader in the Old Hertford Community, regarding TIP U-
3419, extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) in Edenton,
Chowan County, State Project 8.2030201, Federal Aid No.
STP-1114(2)
On July 10, 2001, I met with Gwen Brown, community leader in the Old Hertford
Community and Anne-Marie Knighton, town manager of Edenton. The purpose of the
meeting was to solicit feedback for various alternatives we are looking at for U-3419.
Anne-Marie Knighton contacted Gwen Brown to see if she would be interested in
meeting with us to discuss in particular the alternatives involving Old Hertford Rd. Old
Hertford Rd., Paxton Ln., Tyler Ln., and a part of Coke Ave. make up the Old Hertford
Community which is a predominantly black, poor to middle class community, consisting
of single family houses and numerous apartment buildings. The community has been in
existence for 30-50 years. Approximately 60% of the houses have children under
eighteen. The speed limit on Old Hertford Rd. is 35 mph and Paxton Ln. is 25 mph.
The Old Hertford Community is a highly organized community group with
officers, a telephone chain, monthly meetings, an annual newspaper, and other
newsletters distributed throughout the year. Gwen described Old Hertford Community as
where she lives, works, plays, and loves.\Most of the members attend Union Grove
Church on Tyler Ln. Reunions with former members of the community are held. Some
of the items the community has devoted time and interest to recently are an organized
community crime watch, reducing the speed limit on Paxton Ln., street lighting, and
beautification.
Gwen was shocked to learn that we were considering routing trucks through the
Old Hertford Community, citing increased danger to children, and general noise and
general quality of life concerns. She felt.that the community would feel the same way.
She volunteered to organize a special community meeting for us to give a presentation
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
- NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]. _ TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - - - - - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
ate..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 20, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Doug Jeremiah
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: July 24, 2001 meeting the Old Hertford Community,
regarding Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) in
Edenton, Chowan County, State Project 8.2030201, Federal
Aid No. STP-1114(2), TIP U-3419
On July 24, 2001,NCDOT held an informational meeting at the Union Grove
AME Zion Church. Approxmately 60-70 concerned residents attended. Mark Reep of
PDEA, Don Conner- Division One Engineer, Carlos Gonzalez of Community Impacts,
and myself attended.
These residents would be affected by any alternative that uses Old Hertford Rd. in
some way. I gave a 10-15 minute overview of the project, the planning process, and why
we were there that evening - to obtain public input. I was bombarded with irate
questions for about 45 minutes at which time we broke into 3 groups and answered
individual questions.
Specific concerns brought up regarding Old Hertford Rd. were the danger of
hazardous waste spills resulting from increased truck traffic, steel coil rolls transported on
trucks falling off, kids playing in the streets, school buses stopping in the streets, public
transit (must park in streets). One citizen noted that Paxton Ln. has a blind turn onto Old
Hertford Rd. Another mentioned that what wduAd happen if truck drivers got sleepy and
drove down the road? \
Some local farmers urged a reconsideration of our alignments that affect farm
land to avoid fragmentation of their properties. They mentioned new irrigation systems
they just installed.
Comments noted by Mark Reep and Carlos Gonzalez are attached to this memo
(please refer to their emails as their comments are not included in this memo). This
meeting made the local newspaper, (article is included in folder). Anne-Marie Knighton,
Edenton Town Manager, also attended an expressed the Town's position on the road and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1.548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
06/31/2001 08:12
4 _ 4
0
0
?o
T
N
0
it
nna
•T?
Q
Ir
y
n
's
19
W
?e
is
n-
ie
t
D
I
DIVISION 1 EDENTON -+ 1700?339794
AL innna a we nvir s c a
NO.938 D02
UAM .: ,,•?i; •, s.;?:: ?¢ a-.:..; ..?.., i. .,,n,• ? .r,qt;: ? ,u•~.• '• '''' ?IIOPOBI!S?M1NDIfE
d im, dentof t: ?Id Medford Road Comin0410, led; a succm*j campaign lowers speed Ifmif on th . street to 35 mph.
Now, *e ltdparduelit of TlanspaRatlali has Ifsted the load as one of elght altematls for a coeliecrQrroute.`
No- ` Aid * Her tford- Hood
hbors--obj*e'c:tAo . plan
.Road • d as track route Old Hertford Road, she thinks of , lier#foxd 'Road Community agree,
the children who cross it, daily on and have voiced strong opposition
linkMg.-U.S. 17, N.C; 32 the war to the nelghborbaod p1hy. to Vpjrading file road and designat
ground. it `a, {tuck mute. Joining them
By MARISLIMdll 4M While the road. means many dif- have been the Edenton Town Own-
sraA?wrwr ferent things to its may residents, cil and the Chowan County Boats of
most who live along ita path ague Commissioners.
SDENTON For Roosevelt on one thing: The r7--ad is not a 'Nonetheless, the toad is ono' of
VWb.ite, Old Hertford Road serves as truck route, and should iwtbecome eft. alternatives the N.C. Depart-
. a boundary to his land, a. place one in the near future. meet of Transportation is currently
where he-hoped to find a quiet life "I'd be scared to even le6y ehil studying i;A its search for A route to
aft 1"wing the Inuitmy years ago. dren ride their bikes on the mad, if . conned -#A. Highway 17 with N.C.
For Mft Parrish, the road leads there's going to be trucks &VIR Highway 8Z; allooring husks' to
to bls to ft form and livelihood, Mmugh," Parrish said. 'YThere's bypass downtown on the w4Y to the
8or Wtlfiam' Bridges. •. tiie road' enough' traffic -1h that arm' already. airport and industrial park.
croasea a stre m, where residents We certainly don't, need anymore. .Originally. DOT envisioned a
still fish, almost ft m, their. front Fora so-called town streek it's busy road.east of Oki Hertford Road
10ftes..' enough as ts." ;
Abd wben Gw an Brown tbiitks of Mora than 100 residents' dt old See TRUCSen PaP 7A
N 4
M
$12
Federal
after-act
By IMAMEL I
sratl'wnnr
with itie
area high a.
school I=
students ar
Perquirn
eastern H
5125,004 b
Learning
ter gra
awarded hi
N. C. DeD
ment of P1
Instructi
The •-t
schools v
among 3;
the state
sen. for
VMt.
Altho,
both.-h
ach0o
already t
after-bo
computer
and tutor
the grant
allow ed
tors to det
a central
with a n
focused cu
nlnm= says
tar Eure, 1
n o 1 0
coordinato.
the Per(
mans cot
Brown, ? i)
N0rtbeaste
. %!' At Nord
used to rei
wire oom6
Coast Guar
set

s .A11 ?y. 1.4 Esthate show.

eating int So(
e sv?.lrui :1 a U 1 V 1511.AV 1 turn 1 UN l rvv r.»7 r+ •, r ....
NEWS
TRUCK the aid Iertford Road eon- mast amider many taetors
mttty. On a weekday atit. Jeremiah said. >t esantple, FAI
18rt T. B moon, trucks rumble up and Oft a mute that spaces wet
??ifiuatdjram Page IA down. Qoma traveling the lands, the historic downtowb trtt?i?uE
DMi HO ra*kW
same area three or four times and Old Hertford Road would
knovM as "3oundside Road" within s half-hour, she said. not be approved unless tr uk to
*art T. Beardsley, ag, of for the truck route, says Brown, who recently led a drivers also favor it. ?
Wil Bills, died m Eliza Doug J • ]DOT vroiect successtlil Tampap to lower "A lot or tomers jr
Were
3ty Sat development engineer. Hot- the areas speed limit to 85 DOT can dopeoO MM wbate the
meurday, Aug. Zi, ever, two yewrs ago that road mph, said she doesn't uud ' Want, but Its not true any- (tom boy(
ervl
did not theet approval at the stand why DOT a?auld First same ki:
moral scw will be U. S. Corps of more'" Jeremiah said. "Ali said Boyc
at New Apostolic Qwoftbe arw Engineers os other?o gh hej these issues get pitted Boyd
4 Norfolk, Va Wednea the ? ?h her against each. othea-. and you 7p, giros p because it acighboshood cctreall al Flret Utt:
11?aa W txoased Wetlands and Queen "Tanks can bypass the one comes out?on tog Which ?°1
Unable
entL , Is in '6 tk Town of Edenton without tunately. And maybe you
Vem
in response,. DOT created coming through here,° shouldn't molly may which aet'eetnen
eight alternatives for the grown said. "They have no one comes out on top. &very
OUP of fth) ex8 to review. reason to come an QU Two, known as S through hero' one has to finally give at a ms
=1 olwdsi+de we don't have enough room consensus. Each side has to ; to i
Road Rastarn and soundside as it is. We don't have silo " `If they C
Road Western, still cross Walks give in a little,
Everybody -- the kids At this point, Jeremiah mega melt
KAON Aan JA Queen Anne's _Qvek The - have to w&lk -on the saidthere's no way to predict
dothis.
other d Aix baadar or cross old ' -9tt?eeta, Then All of the sad- which of the eight alterlta- First Un
Hertibrd
if3r -- and a tlaisb the . Acad. den they talk about tearing tives reviewing agencies will plan to
ith a bang. While the Corp of Hngi- down the whole tb#ng.° choose. lnformation about merger In
ke to have tirowarks ueers opposes two alterna• llesidents hear losing their truck drivers' preferences creating tl•
?aria said, fives, Edenton opposes the Property If DOT exmnds old .has yet to be compiled, sad bnpst bar
ub of tha Albemarle other six, Town Manager Hertford Road to accommo- DOT Wacltovia,
A-Marb
nne Xnlghtnn said. date will meet with Edenton Boyd S
tratnar Ed Harrell has '
One of the six, which crosses road, barely 1a feetdwide, Months. t emsttrv upcoming
?exhibitfor what he
wu5eum Will not O Hertford Road only at Its would swallow up front yards new )`pate wori't begin until
Simply the ?,e1Sa,n intersection with U.S. 17 ` and several bonier if widened aaor.
° immine of 1 8usiaeae, could prove accept to the required 60 feet. Also, a b'or now
The city, was ? able if is impact on the truck route would run close and her nebors o said only BUD
died blrstate lawmak. nearby neighborhood was to the UeeWlWhood creek, wait. They've sent cDOT a more
*ft in 17ft it was L I is ?? which Blown early a "wet than 100 letters opposing the Canrinuadj.
8lizabetbtowtt the Road land" ae mtP'rtant as any project, and bAva okert to
yen', in spite of dw community is a very well- other. farm subsi,
ape was alread established neighborhood." 'You do riot need those N.C: about theme p g h? The ext tug
by + then North linighran said during an trucks coming through here," fact that the res ve iden breaks- ,
town. It w$sn-t until interview last week. "There's Brown said. ,It's really ping the Town Council and Board ve Yet R u
Elizabeth city am. a, souse of community in to be a mess if they do that." of Commissioners on their tat cut, p r
Mithe city's bane, lot that neighborhood. There's a But DOT's Jeremiah said side counts - a lot, Jeremiah billion in to
says a proclatbation of h?tory there. and we're the agency created "Sot md- said. _ that have av
city, Pasquotank Not going to be steamron. side Road" 16 years ago only "They've given me rrwny, tins m2bo• ,
I would corps, the *1111MI&N to take Tt1eY71 ?? ey'li ? draw marry reasons why they is just the r ,
watlando M a priority." a line on oppose the route," he 'said for the ecol
be c tY's -offiew Old Hertford Road already paper, and that doesn't MM :- later adding that the elected that key spe
sees a lot of traffic, says MY weight," lie said. o$lcials' opposition "will be can still be
ans to Gwen. The state and federal apes conaldered to be very lower levels
seek prods: Brown, president of ON that aPprove hew routes important... want:,
'tnm the.. efty and "Democrat I .
well
NUW the Ito Aep?Bt lag and sere
ink. 8nt he also JPLO will changes: the Pollowhig Knighton said the Justice t4x cuts to
Community Wmits ges: Depsrbnenthas OD days, with spending moi
rves mom, than OW1=0dit,om or. Morris CL'ele subdivision the option of requesting a 3o- cabs are Iat
,N„y whm ptoc_ Pop IA and the Stratford, Hawthorne day extension, to re waY to the bai
would be read. and Radham'reads neighbor- the plan, sAond to ; Budget Com
o have 4 composition the town's hood Will be moved from. the Man .r.., Vvic-
_ &?d net re,.let ' ..,. _ u,._... .
6 Up = -0 C. y V s.. O .'- .-? ..Uy ^C y W •?' J c O ay x CC, O - .- --< - ,., , .? •? y
C"
^
O •::

a CCc tiA o> c y v v
cz >
?' 'O ?'
C. v, v: y O O
dA .•>-?
r 0 y o c F m +? C is t^o E- y
cr. a
cx
?
?? cc 6u' `'te`a
o as C cy C y E. c u y ^ >
a, ?. cc > >> .y as y x r s
C
O N .A ?; a1 > N U
lc
?
= v. O :-• O ^' w: n E cz 'hJ1 "' ti '? ''^n. Q •" .K.+ N ^
'I, e

?
w
o
?„o.
^
o ^•u -
M CU cu (t
V)
aria; ou Uvi y yto s. o
3
z
Q
ocz yyydd
o c> o. ?$°Y?::
aT
^
?
•
?' a
a
bx>?3W?axin?o=oa

3>
U w O
01 ?
m?1?N?N
3n,
>
3 m sue. o? O
w
O o LL n y° C sa o y> y n w 7z is ? C°
°c.? '? s,?
N d ? ? tiu•c;.? c ?
F o ? ,o C,3 a) (1) cz ... ca ? ? ? ? ^
:r ^y o ? ?, ? • [o ? • cu m ? y •? y ? F" 'C o y c
=
p• ^ 3 >, ? ca 3 3 u, ^ c. r.A -? .. ? ? : c? -? •c a... ti c; 3 x ? v . .
o cu p o :5 Q, U) CZ w; o.W fl.? n a qO c 3O v; c o^ a? C C) c
_ ?, v o ?? c?su°v =cUv yu,o -C 0Q) ? (L) C-3 u,
y cu 4.' :J 2 w O C
O S J,
t C C 3 a> a? c Co O, ? c ,C a? ai y v C •? O, : s. O ° •c
C
.U.. a. > tyn a, c Fn . 'CC' O CC ? O
It 3 ::% C ca - C• v) ¢,
L 3 p ur > >~ '" v :.. -. O, CA ••C ^ :C .^. ?' N C
v, y O C7 •?^-J. •y, U ^ O G C•.•' c; C O ,,?„ Y 'm' CU y„ ^
0) r-
E-' `C 'a ca •?-• ,^ p ai Cj N ?'' J R: ?;? ^ is y O O d w O ca ' .w., ^^• i
vi >, G C i p w Y ;? cr'6 c: U c ,,J- c,, •? G, = ;n >
M v C r Cs
c` y ate, ?, u v >.
x° x ca y 'Z, u n i c y c u a ro CO
a CA O - M CA y O D
cu Y ',]. m C vi v, v_ 'O " a) y j '3 'C uU, n
3 <a n c iw cc c 5 `- o c a m
C y y P. 3 o a ca a v E- 3 c p C u
2, ca U ?.x c U
cA c x C y or, r Q_ o .,n a 3 Y r n u c
° aCi p ,aC •? ^ .c ° .. .?^.. °' ?, 'ai- x a• a? OA .n C C
.C ca W
y v y r. zC. e? C ?, C '3 z p ?A N^ O
E: r 3 c> C c) cz a
x° o x s~ a a x° ? y y c>u' y q ca ° o v n °?' ai c o c C.
U G y is n x v y CG y 3 C° ^ o as ' aA
aCi X a? M. °^. 3 ti ur CZ -
o
C o o y is m- a
cin
yoia?s?.?to
to ono4a?oi°^?ti°gons??c o aiy?F??? xony
aoo,°s2.ccs .n.?oc3E'3mcu") w??ti?3d•3?oa??,w

-¦ I o
CV)
C
Z
N
O O'
C C di
@Ltl L .
I 2' d
T
cc
a0 e
C L
O . ca E
Li 40
O
co m
m Z W
H L6 4D c
to
r ON
0
a
a
0

-=
O >, C . '
ca p 5 ,c
3
d ? y y C
E 4 ^
` x y
v: u ?
a'O v.
Cn

o ^
O
CZ: ? y
x;??
$
c
.^
y.
n
c
cz C G
r N a, p

4 =;
0

2
0-
4 y
n
cr) $ r -
C

4. Q. y
C,ti y o v,? ti c? r
p o ?- 3T >
a, ?h
"•' W .C E•. a; O C C
r •? •i C C C, ~. cn O r v F- ^ O % .c°• CS ` v
U C W C N: N 'd y^^,, '^^' (a .C O
c cc
OOC _C
sY y y 27 C C T , C ?O z v. n a E L^' Q -j J
Li! Y O
Y y C> F O G u, c3 C C U ti m •CCS c?Ca v o K Y v
Z'. v`o ca y °?' a• c y o c y? y a _ a n
C ?. C y" E~ o y x° ° O G
LLA J a) y O v, r v
W cc y c° s. r 3. 0 a y°- x c 3 •o
V) cn
?, ?A y Y `?-1" .Y ,O w Gl+ ^ .V a, ,y^., •B cC ?""
O p 'C L.
G: ~O :a U C-'. w d C ;n a; •^ to
m? ?Woti?mOc?o?? o.sy m7oo ^Fmmcu
s x Si s. u a N E O n r .O v s.. ca F ?C «, b o w L. CZ .D CO cs F C :• t
Mere 1 mue iar
nonetheless - part of the NC Ar
Highway system atthe expense Al
s of taxpayer's "coin" and a Hu
community's destruction, for of
47 the benefit of ONE large corpo- Le
ration. What was the "deal".???
The one positive thing that ga
A:
x this particular proposal has G
accomplished was to unite this
"No! Not of
community in saying, S1
inMyFtontYar!"o dforthat,
NCDOT, I thank Y sf
Wanda W. Rossman G
Edenton
b
,jr P
?an r
. ;\ l
d Fro Page -
n ue From A
Co ? ]
began Mrs. Knighton. "We
al route
origin
would hope this
north to the
from Soundsi
by-pass would be imple-
mented. if the routes proposed
selected the
here are actually kill
-
town of Edenton supports
ing the entire project."
As the.meeting progressed
residents and officials were
given the chance to look at
m.
aelai=vewnaps_ofh?: s
dthefourpro-
f` rounding area an
posedtruckroutes.Issuessuch
as wetlands disturbance and
widening some downtown
streets were also addressed
during the meeting.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 13, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM:.' Doug Jeremiah
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) in Edenton, Chowan
County, Federal Aid No. STP-1114(2), State Project
8.2030201, TIP U-3419
On October 23, 2001, NCDOT held a citizen's informational workshop at, the
John A. Holmes high school in the town of Edenton. Doug Jeremiah, Teresa Hart, Bruce
Payne, and Kathy Lassiter, along with several people representing Division 1, including
Division Engineer Don Conner, represented NCDOT. Approximately 50 people
attended.
A petition signed in opposition to any of the routes located in/near the Old
Hertford Rd. community was delivered to me with approximately 55 signatures.
The majority of the people Kathy talked to were opposed to the alternative that
widens Old Hertford Road. (Approximately 8-10 people) Their reasons were (1) the
neighborhood children do not have enough yard now to play in (2) the additional traffic
would be more dangerous (3) there are already too many trucks using this road.
One person who lives approximately 1/2 mile from the Soundside Rd. Western
alternative didn't like this alternative unless DOT was willing to put in some trees to
screen him from ilp road.
Kathy talked?o a couple who live in the triangle area between NC 32 and SR
The lady was concerned that we may improve the intersection and take or be closer to
their property. She told her that we were too much into the early stages of this project to
consider whether we would or would not improve that intersection.
Local property owners/farmers commented that the area NCDOT was referring to
as wetlands (tree area underneath the "Soundside alternates") is relatively dry. They
commented that the only thing needed was to clear the area (mostly pine trees) and
provide drainage similar to the surrounding farms. This would allow the land to be
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - - - 1. SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOTSTATE.NG.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
farmed. The tree area underneath the Peanut Drive ? (red alternative) is swampy and only
cypress trees grow there. This is part of the Queen Anne's Creek tributary.
Property owners familiar with the project stated that the Soundside alternatives
closely represent. the thoroughfare plan that has been presented to them over the years. It
was also noted that the thoroughfare route was the reason for the construction of the
interchange at Business 17/By-Pass 17 and they were unaware that other alternatives
were being considered.
All property owners were in favor of getting the trucks out of the downtown area
of Edenton.
Many property owners questioned the reasons for even considering alternates that
run through the neighborhoods when there is plenty of open area (Soundside Alternates)
that would not directly impact as many homes/businesses.
The owners of Biocom(sp?) (located in the industrial park on Soundside road)
said that they would tell their truck drivers to use the Soundside Alternates if one of them
were built. They also said that the Soundside. Alternates closely matched what they were
shown on the thoroughfare plan. They and their truck drivers would like to get he trucks
out of downtown Edenton; this is especially true due to the increase in capacity they are
experiencing.
See comment sheets for additional written feedback from attendees.
Z00'd 9ZE8'OH XH/X.L 91:80 1040/01
A , ? ? . , ? osvacr on,cE;
WAITER B. JONES 102-C E""WA pK QF
30 O.efw.Cr. wo«,,. Ce *Lu _ Gnev.rna? Ne z,e
(M) 331_,000f
Room 412 - teootaal-,sy
CANNON -? a.,,2 eum?G attgregg
wK oc :os,s of the Ettifeb ?tateg -
..?.o••.
TELeft.owe:'(2021225-3415 - - -
*ouge of rtotntatibeg
MM MMEE ON rwv wcuc SERVICES- jittaton. 304C 20515--3303 1
October 3, 2001
?`?1 ?(t1? 1
Colonel. James W. DeLony Cv? r
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
L',tilu? aZgton, A%%.- 284024$93 .
Dear Colonel DeLony.
I am writing you regarding the proposed "Edenton Bypass" or Soundside Road Extension
project in my district. I have received numerous inquiries from constituents expressing concerns
over the project due to its proximity to residential a=s.
As you ]snow, the proposal calls for the construction of a new road to help improve
access to and from the airport industrial park and reduce truck traffic through Edenton. Fart of
this project requires the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies to review and
comment on the proposals. In fact, several agencies have expressed reserm ions to the
Soundside Road Extension project due to potential wetlands loss.
Due to these reservations, alternatives are currently being reviewed and evaluated by
state and federal agencies. I ,would respectfully urge that all alternatives being reviewed by the
appropriate agencies take into account both wetlands loss and pro o resider arenas.
According to my constituents, one of the alternatives could possib deplete progeify v ues in a
large neighborhood along Old Hertford Road.
Thank you updating me as to the status of this project. Sho yo-- ha any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact my office. \)
e
Walter H. Jones
Member of Congress
[CO [7 [.a`R?'nrJ ?.? 8 LS/8s co 'OfcnKr! salvor U311V1 a?H ?0
v da' STATEv
20
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 15, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Doug Jeremiah
Project DeveloPmelt En ineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US
17 Bypass, Edenton, Chowan County, Federal Aid Project
STP- 114(2), State Project 8.2030301, T.I.P. U-3419
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held in the Century Center on
March 14, 2001. The following people were in attendance:
Doug Jeremiah
Rob Hanson
Matthew King
Don Conner
Bob Capehart
John Hennessy
Bruce Payne
Kathy Lassiter
Jean Manuele
Teresa Hart
Sara Winslow
David Cox
Tom McCartney
Bill Arrington
April Montgomery
Joseph Springer
Cathy Brittingham
Ted Bisterfeld
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
PDEA
PDEA
Division 1 Engineer
Division 1 Construction Engineer
NC Division of Water Quality
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
US Army Corps of Engineers
PDEA
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish & Wildlife Service
NC Division of Coastal Management
State Historic Preservation Office
Statewide Planning Branch
NC Division of Coastal Management
US Environmental Protection Agency
(via conference call)
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
The meeting commenced at 9:00 AM
After an introduction and project description the floor was opened to any
questions and/or comments from the attendees:
Discussion on Purpose and Need
Don Conner explained that past attempts to re-route truck traffic in the downtown
area have failed. A study of the local truck traffic was done and it was found that a
majority of the truck traffic was destined for and coming from the airport/industrial
area southeast of the city.
• Doug Jeremiah reviewed the city'.s past attempts to alter truck traffic by implementing
a designated truck route for thru truck traffic along NC 32 (Broad St.) while removing
the US 17 Business designation from W. Queen St. The effect of this was that thru
truck traffic was merely moved from one historic section (W. Queen St.) to another
(Broad St.) This truck route designation was removed within a month because it did
little to reduce thru truck traffic in Edenton. This truck route designation was carried
out under North Carolina General Statute § 20-116(h). The statute requires that a
designated truck route must be of approximately the same distance between two
common points shared with the alternative [existing] route in place. Edenton can not
currently use this statute to help reduce thru truck traffic because no attractive route
exists for truck route designation that is of approximately the same length as the
current route through town.
• April Montgomery noted that Edenton has recently received a federal grant to study
the expansion of their historic district from its current boundaries.
• John Hennessy wanted to know if the potential loss of customers to local business in
the downtown area has been considered as a result of providing an alternate route
around Edenton. Doug Jeremiah and Don Conner both felt that through their
discussions with the town officials that any loss of business was far outweighed by
the gains associated with removing the thru trucks from the downtown area.
A vote of concurrence was then called and every merger team member present
was in support of the project's stated purpose and need. The signed purpose and need
statement as attached to these minutes.
Discussion of the Alternatives.
Doug introduced the alternatives discussion by noting that the traffic projections
for the Old Hertford Alternative had been completed under the assumption that the route
would be able to be designated and signed as a truck route. Shortly before the
concurrence meeting, it was determined that North Carolina General Statute § 20-116(h)
requires that a designated truck route must be of approximately the same distance
between two common points shared with the alternative [existing] route in place. The
Statewide Planning Branch (who handles the traffic projections) has indicated that if the
Old Hertford Rd. alternative is not signed for trucks, that it will not remove the through
truck traffic from the downtown area., The traffic projections done for the Soundside Rd.
alternatives do not require that these routes be designated as a truck route because of the
perceived directness and convenience of these routes. The Old Hertford Rd. alternative is
longer with more turning movements, and requires through truck traffic to turn back
towards Edenton before reaching their destinations.
• David Cox and John Hennessy made mention that they did not agree with Statewide
Planning's determination that trucks would not use the Old Hertford Rd. Alternative
if it was not designated as a truck route.
• Ted Bisterfeld asked that more information be provided about why upgrading rail
service is not a reasonable and feasible alternative for this project.
Jean Manuele asked that another alternative be presented to the team that begins in
the vicinity of the Paradise Rd. intersection with US 17 Bypass, and ends at NC 32
somewhere to the south and west of Queen Anne's Creek. This alternative will likely
utilize the Old Hertford Rd. area in some way but avoid any crossing of Queen
Anne's Creek.
Both of the Soundside Rd. extension alternatives (Western and Eastern) must cross
tributaries of Queen Anne's Creek. The Division of Marine Fisheries recognizes this
creek as an active spawning ground for aquatic life and impacts must be minimized.
The meeting concluded with the decision made to further investigate Jean
Manuele's request to present a new alternative at the next meeting.
Attachment
cc: Meeting Participants
Ron Sechler
Mike Bell
Bill Gilmore, P.E.
Len Hill, P.E.
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1 Purpose and Need
Project Title: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass,
Chowan County, TIP Project U-3419, State Project 8.2030301, Federal Aid Project STP-
1114(2)
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project:-The purpose of the project is to reduce truck and
through traffic and improve safety along existing NC 32 within downtown Edenton.
Supporting data for the purpose and need for this project is contained in information
provided by NCDOT at the project team meeting held on March 14, 2001
The project team has concurred on this date of March 14, 2001 with the purpose
and need for the proposed project as described above.
AGENCY DATE
, 0 LLar, 14::: - 3 -N-01
AIC k/te C

US F"%JJ M. O1
3//1
Ale12oi 311q/o?
Fvt LU pq---l
NAME
EPA R4 ORC
ID:404-562-9598 MAR 16'01 9:31 No.uul v.uz
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
C,oncuiTence Point No: I. Purpose and Need
rroi t Tim Exlens'iors of NC 91 (Saundside.- toad) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass,
Chowen County, TI''Project U-3. 4.19;. $*e,Project 8.2030301, Foderal Aid hojcot STP-
111.4(2)
pwrpa?e and Need ?f pu tt ; ? elm.t ?aye of the protect i to reduce track aind
through traffic and improve safety t%lonp -$xist.4'NC 42 within downtown V.derrtom..
Supporting data 6t tho purpose and needlbr-this .project is contained in information
provided by NCDOT at the project team'moding-Iwld un Mawb 14, 2001
The project team has coneunwl- on this date cif Match 14, 2001 witb the pu ss
end riw.4 for fhe, proposed project wt dcsaribed•above.
? . AG_ ENCY, I?l?T?

Q
1y > /q
N-r
Pe)

05/14/2041 MON 08:28 FAX [phone] NMFS,BCD, DEAUYUKT,ivU
Fax:[phone] May 5 '01 10.27 P.O$
iVCDOT/P&E BRANCH
section 404/N$PA Interagency Agreement
Coucurrenl a Poit t No. I Purpose and Need
Projgrt Titled Fxtensio-n of NC 94,,(-ScUnditft)Koad) from NC 32 to US 17 bypass,
Chowa.u county, M Froject U 3419; Statel i oject 8.2030301, ,Federal Aid Project SYP-
1114(2)
Purpose and NBea ofPro Ren O""M;.LThe purgose.ofthe projcct is to re4uce truc1: and
through tra;Efic and improve safety.'tiIong exisfixg NC 32 within downtown Edenton.
Supporting data for the purpose atya ?eeti ?toF tiii project is contained in infonnation-
provided by 1NCDOT at the protect-team meetxi.tx h,e1d oink Marc), 14, 20(A.
The project team has aoncw?red.ol thWdate?of March 14, 2001 with the purpose
and need for the proposed project as' desi iifb d-Aoye.
NAME AGENC??t DATE

US sE?%JS ?+F of
/VC DCA 13/akl
L.

N? i9o • 11 JI lo
Fl?w kq- ! d

WJ V V L
NCrDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax=919--733-9794 Mar 29 101 16:02 P.02
Section 404/MHPA Interagency Agreement
Concurren a Point N.o..i.PLMme and Need
Proied T;tle: Extcmion of NC 94 (Spunndsida Road)'from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass,
Chowan County, T1P Project V-3419,, $*,Psq} :&.2030301, Federal Aid Project 5T'P-
Pure and Need of P=gLgd r4ject;.,Tha pt posy t?fthe project is to reduce truck and
through traffic and improve w &;ty ,s1ong eidstI4 Nib 32 within downtown Edenton,
Supporting data for the purpose, and need for this Piaieot is contained in information.
provided by NCDOT at the project tiam,meet g hpld-,on Alarch 14, 2001
T'hi's project team has cuneuno pia;Wis 4te of March 14,,2001 with the purpose
and need for the proposed project as:describcd above.
1F DA
bIA
islC?r?o?, r o
us Eitq s ?4r o?
Da 7-
on 1.
45/1 LI /0

£00/£00'd 0£93#
HSVIA SOKSn . 66£T9L69GF T0:60 .TOOFiLT'Iddy

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
"NDS1401 GROUp
AY ® 'R STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 203
RTA N?QUALITY ?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO O
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
May 1, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Doug Jeremiah
Project Development YhJ meer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to
US 17 Bypass, Edenton, Chowan County, Federal Aid
Project STP- 114(2), State Project 8.2030301, T.I.P. U-
3419
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held in the Century Center on
March 26, 2003. The purpose was to discuss and agree to Concurrence Point No. 2. The
following people were in attendance:
Emily Lawton
Bill Biddlecome
Gary Jordan
Chris Militscher
Ron Sechler
John Hennessy
Travis Wilson
Sarah McBride
Cathy Brittingham
Bill Arrington
Cliff Copeland
Anne-Marie Knighton
Doug Jeremiah
Lindsey Riddick
Charles Cox
Don Conner
Bob Capehart
Bruce Payne
FHWA
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service
(via conference call)
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Historic. Preservation Office
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Division of Coastal Management
Chowan County Manager
Town of Edenton Manager
PDEA
PDEA
PDEA
Division 1 Engineer
Division I
Roadway Design
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

The alternatives carried to the meeting were: Soundside Rd. Eastern, Soundside
Rd. Western, Paradise Rd. #2, and Peanut Dr. #1. For each alternative, the following
three types of access control were presented: partial, full with service roads, and full
without service roads. After an introduction, Doug Jeremiah opened the discussion of the
alternatives.
Discussion of the Alternatives.
Doug Jeremiah mentioned one change from the informational handout would be that the
proposed shoulders for the Soundside Rd. extension are 4 feet wide, instead of 10 feet.
Anne-Marie Knighton has been the Edenton representative for 10 years. She noted that
the thoroughfare plan advocated the Soundside Rd. Eastern alternative. However, Anne-
Marie and Don Conner devised the Peanut Dr. #1 alternative, and feel it provides long-
term economic development opportunities. Cliff Copeland stated that while both
Edenton and Chowan County understand the increased cost of the Peanut Dr. #1
alternative, they see the importance in opening up some good industrial land with
minimal environmental impacts. The service road at the north end of Peanut Dr. already
provides access to an area the town has specifically targeted for expansion. Peanut Dr. #I
would enhance the access.
The comparison table, given to the group in the handout, had a breakdown of construction
and right-of-way costs, impacts to streams and wetlands, estimated relocations, and
shading effects. Chris Militscher asked if any preliminary impacts have been calculated
for terrestrial forest, prime agricultural lands, or noise receptors for any of the
alternatives. Doug Jeremiah replied that noise studies would be requested after
concurrence point no. 2 is reached. Chris Militscher feels that certain information is
missing from the impact table that would allow him to drop alternatives. Chris felt that
he did not have enough information to drop any of the four alternatives because such
information on terrestrial forest, prime agricultural lands, etc. is being provided at other
merger team meetings.
John Hennessy said he felt that due to wetland impacts the Soundside Rd. Eastern and
Western alternatives could be dropped at this point. Gary Jordan said that the Soundside
Rd. Eastern alternative should be dropped because of fragmentation issues.
Doug Jeremiah said that NCDOT would like to carry forward the Soundside Rd. Western
and Peanut Dr. #1 alternatives. NCDOT feels that the Paradise Rd. #2 is expensive and it
does not help the town with their economic development goals along Peanut Dr. Doug
also said NCDOT is proposing full control of access on new location segments with
service roads provided to any landlocked property owners. Chris Militscher said he
would like to carry forward Paradise Rd. #2 because it has the least impact on wetlands.
2

Cathy Brittingham said that NCDCM would be in favor of carrying forward Soundside
Rd. Western because this alternative would avoid all impacts to Queen Anne's Creek and
not require a CAMA permit. Charles Cox responded that there would be a new crossing
of Queen Anne's Creek with this alternative, but that it was a much narrower crossing
than some of the other alternatives. Bill Arrington said that, even with the new crossing,
it would not fall under NCDCM jurisdiction.
Sarah McBride said that she has concerns about the Paradise Rd. #2 alternative because it
is getting close to the Historic District. Travis Wilson said that he would like to see
Paradise Rd. #2 carried forward.
John Hennessy asked about the business relocation on the impacts table for the Peanut
Dr. #1 and Paradise Rd. #2 alternatives. Doug Jeremiah replied that it refers to a water
pumping station, and that he has since been informed that NCDOT can probably avoid
impacting it. This will reduce right-of-way costs by around $1 million.
Doug Jeremiah said that NCDOT. would like to carry forward the full control of access
with service road option for the alternatives being carried forward and drop the partial
control of access and full control of access with no service roads. Chris Militscher
responded that he would like the full control with no service road alternative option
carried forward as a comparison at the next team meeting.
John Hennessy would like some more details on the cost estimates for the next meeting
and more information on the service roads.
Chris Militscher would like acreage amounts included for direct and indirect
(landlocking) impacts to prime agricultural lands.
Doug Jeremiah said that Soundside Rd. Western as presented at the meeting has a bubble
at the northern end because of a request at the last meeting to move it away from the
forested area. Doug asked the team if they had any problem with shifting it back towards
the farmland so as to reduce noise effects to the people on Butternut Lane. John
Hennessy said he does not feel there is a large enough difference in the wetland impacts
to justify the increased noise effects of the western end of the bubble and that NCDOT
could shift the corridor back eastward:
The merger team agreed to carry forward the Soundside Road Western, Paradise Rd. #2,
and Peanut Dr. #l alternatives. Full control of access with service roads and full control
of access without service roads options will be carried forward for all three alternatives.
The Soundside Rd. Eastern alternative was dropped, and the partial control of access
option was dropped for all alternatives.
The signature sheet is attached to these minutes.
cc: Meeting Participants
David Franklin, USACE
Ron Lucas, P.E., FHWA
3
Sara Winslow, Division of Marine Fisheries
Frank Jennings, Division of Coastal Management
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NCHPO
Billy Leggett, Albemarle RPO
Deputy Highway Adminstrator - Preconstruction, NCDOT
Janet D'Ignazio, NCDOT
Rob Hanson, P.E., PDEA
Michael Turchy, PDEA

FRl 13:58 `)72 5 N31 S. Ht U.BEAUP)Ri.
0t?3 17! 'c`1 r-DEA 925272,eh .__+
LPL L-
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward (DSA)
Project Title: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Chowan
Coulnty,. TIP Project U-3419; Seater Project 8.2030301, Federal Aid Project STP-11 14(2)
Alternatives to be carried forward: The environmental document will evaluate &,e proposed
alternatives as described in meeting information provided by NCDOT and agxeed to by tL
project team at its meeting held on March 26, 2003. In addition, the nu-bu:ln auci alrerna?r
:modes of 1T-An3portat,on alternatives will be evaluated in the environment: cocumv:11
Carried Alteraati. --- --'?-Acccss Co-atrn^ --
44f 1F'orwa r e-
I-. ?; Soun_dsidc Road Western
(Ptarple•; fi .Fu11 control wisetv?c? robe -
Soundside Road Westera (Purple) uli control w/ no semci road:
> YeanutDrive No. 1 (Red) ull control wiservicc roar:
Peanut Drive No. I Red
) Full control w/ no scree road-,
i Paradise Road Nu. 2 (Light Blue; Full control w/servicr. ,oaas
j l?aradis?: i2oad too. = (Light Blue) Pull control v% no sc rvicz; roads -- ?-
r

The project tear,, t:as concurred with tLe detaileci sttldv dlte1'nd1JvL L?atSl ::: 7IWa"i7
arscribeci gbove All the aiternauvrs selected, except the no-build alternative a,-,d alts _:.:t: _
modes of traasponation, irieet ';nc purpose and need of the proposed prt>! eL iL
NAM

AGENCI L-1W- L
NTCD07

FHW'A
? ?l
J l
?r£
USA T
-------
r
_
17 ' -
USFW
- -
USED.

NMFS --- -
DW C

WRC

ETO
DMF
DCM --

v
l-2003 MON 09:1I H1N DCM-DMF E. CITY FHX NO. 252 264 23
Ititc:r:tgency Mereer Agreement
r:; ,F?r:l; Y.•ar_,: ?:?, .} 'N-J 't:?43ai1i?3 Study Alternatives Carried Forward {DSA)
? • ' . ?'i;J? - ?:' a c i ;' s ( ,-:,ind ide Road) ltom NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Chowan
A°r%?Ject 8.2030301, federal Aid Project r )
S'IP-11 142
lte% tuvirunmental document will evaluate the proposed
i:i rr",: i.LfoIn ation pr0%ided byNC]DQT and agreed to by the
?t:?: jti;.t t,-: i'Ct :.t is t? 1::1:1 r,s. ?,?a cl'? 262003. In ,ddition, the .. no-build and alternate
will t?e cvaloated in the environmental document.
I
P. 02;'02
r4J. H-1U trv-a r
i ; :. ,. t, ;; __ ............ ._ ..... .. L.Access Control
rt . I ?
control w/service roads
s

' ) !++,l.i i . t,. t. •... ,; ,-;; ^rr, (haple)
a _
I full eontrol w/ no service road
...
...--- ...... .... ._
F ull control w/service roads
'
Pull control w/ no service rooks
l'=+ t-+ ! 1? % % (Ught l ae) Full control w/service roads
_ . Bluc) _ Lfuil control w/ no service roads ;
?1•' s t.,.;:ci .. car the d etailed study alternatives Carried forward a
;

s,
s=:k?atia r:: .
ccpt the no-build alternative ;
and alte Mate
and acid of the, proposed prc?aect.
:t .? ?is t4 eV UAT>
WIDOT

f-
3

3 126 1,3

U r

1 .: _.,
? L . I i y
{
..
..

A
August 21, 2001
EDENTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27932
AUG 2 4 2001
Dl r. OF %ATER OUALffy
DIf?ECTOKS OI?i=;CE
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Secretary Ti ppett:
V"
Enclosed is a resolution unanimously passed by the Chowan County
Board of Commissioners opposing the proposed upgrade of Old Hertford
Road as a truck route. Old Hertford Road is an established community
which would suffer should truck traffi.c be routed there.
jf?' -0, co-?'
CHOWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Lyndo Tippett
Secretary
NC Dept of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
We request that this alternative be reconsidered.
Sincerely,
b
Nancy B. Morgan
County Clerk}" ?` k999?:E
a G C.ST?Jt pHy?
m
enc.

Mk
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in July 1993 the Town of Edenton formally updated its
Transportation Thoroughfare Plan; and,
WHEREAS, that plan called for the construction of a new road, an
eastern connector that would allow traffic to access the east portion
of the planning area from US17 Bypass and connect to Soundside Road;
and,
WHEREAS, the Town and the County have diligently worked with
officials, gaining NCDOT TIP approval and funding; and,
WHEREAS, the extension of Soundside Road is referred to as TIP Project
# U-3419 and is slated for construction in the year 2006; and,
WHEREAS, part of the review process calls for State and Federal
permitting agencies to review and comment on the proposed project;
and,
WHEREAS, several of the reviewing agencies have expressed objections
to the proposed extension of Soundside Road; and,
WHEREAS, NCDOT must look at alternatives in order to minimize the
impact or loss of wetlands; and,
WHEREAS, one alternative proposed by the US Army Corps of Engineers
calls for an upgrade of Old Hertford Road; and,
WHEREAS, the Chowan County Board of Commissioners adamantly opposes
such an alternative based on the following reasons:-
1. Old Hertford Road is a well established residential
community.
2. Old Hertford Road is home to many senior. citizens.
3. Old Hertford Road is home to many children.
4. An upgrade of Old Hertford Road would dramatically and
negatively impact the residential rural tranquil nature of this
neighborhood.
5. Increased truck traffic would adversely affect the
neighborhood with loud noise, air pollution and increased traffic.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chowan County Board of
Commissioners does hereby oppose the Old Hertford Road alternative as
part of the Soundside Road Extension Project and asks NCDOT to
forward its objections to the reviewing agencies; and,
FURTHER, that the Chowan County Board of Commissioners does hereby
declare that Old Hertford Road is.a vital and vibrant neighborhood
that needs to be preserved and protected and that the Board of
Commissioners will do all that it can to halt further consideration
of the upgrade of Old Hertford Road as a truck route; and,
.y
FURTHER, that-the Board of Commissioners does acknowledge the
importance of preserving and minimizing degradation of wetlands and
that it does support the concept of creation of wetlands and wetland
mitigation banks and pledges to work with the permitting agencies to
find qualified wetland mitigation sites that can be used to help the
Soundside Road extension project; and,
FURTHER, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Chowan County's
State and Federal legislative delegation and NCDOT officials.
Adopted today, August 6, 2001.
Nancy B. Morgan, County Clerk
Town of Zdcoton
NORTH CAROLINA
INCORPORATED 1722
August 21, 2001
Lyndo Tippett
Secretary
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Secretary Tippett:
Enclosed please find a copy of
th Town de ' Trans
wou or the u grade of
please feel free to call.
Council at their A e
proposed r d Hertford c
variomatives t NCDOT propos
ref ed as NCDOT TIP Project U-341
Sincerely,
Anne-Marie Knighton
Town Manager
AMK/tw
CC: See Attached List
QUG 2'4
2001
DIV. OF W`ATER
DIR=CTOR?S OFFICLIrY
Iat was unanimously adopted by the Edenton Town
he resolution expresses the Council's opposition to
ar most concerned about the Corps of Engineers
nsion of Soundside Road (NC94). The project is
own is supportive of the road project as outlined in
hfare Plan. We adamantly object to altemative that
If you have questions or need additional information,
rya

{y

?sA?k f-
F
f ? ? ? fe g
Printed on Recycled Paper
P.O. Box 300, Edenton, N.C. 27932 - [phone]
[phone] - FAX
V.1-110wfl Of Zdenton
NORTH CAROLINA
INCORPORATED 1722
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION OF
ALTERNATIVE UPGRADE OF OLD HERTFORD ROAD
WHEREAS, in July 1993 the Town of Edenton formally updated its
Transportation Thoroughfare Plan; and
WHEREAS, that plan called for the construction of a new road, an eastern
connector that would allow traffic to access the east portion, of the plariming area from
US 17 Bypass and connect to Soundside Road/Base Road; and
WHEREAS, the Town and County have diligently worked with NCDOT officials,
gaining TIP approval and funding; and
WHEREAS, the extension of Soundside Road/Base Road is referred to TIP
Project # U-3419 and is slated for construction in the year 2006; and
WHEREAS, part of the review process calls for State and Federal permitting
agencies to review and comment on the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, several of the reviewing agencies have expressed objections to the
proposed extension of Soundside Road/Base Road; and
WHEREAS, NCDOT must look at alternatives in order to minimize the impact or
loss of wetlands; and
WHEREAS, one alternative proposed by the US Army Corps of Engineers calls
for an upgrade of Old Hertford Road; and
WHEREAS, the Edenton Town Council adamantly opposes this alternative based
on the following reasons:
1. Old Hertford Road is a well established residential community.
2. Old Hertford Road is home to many senior citizens.
3. Old Hertford Road is home to many children.
4. An upgrading of Old Hertford Road would dramatically and negatively
impact the residential rural tranquil nature of this neighborhood.
5. Increased truck traffic would adversely affect the neighborhood with loud
noise, air pollution and increased traffic.
Printed on Recvcled Paper
P.O. Box 300, Edenton, N.C. 27932 - [phone]
[phone] - FAX
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edenton Town Council
does hereby oppose the Old Hertford Road Alternative as part of the Base Road
Extension project and asks NCDOT to forward its objections to the reviewing
agencies; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Edenton Town Council does
hereby declare that Old Hertford Road is a vital and vibrant neighborhood that
needs to be preserved and protected and that the Council will do all that it can to
halt further consideration of the upgrade of Old Hertford Road; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council does acknowledge
the importance of preserving and minimizing degradation of wetlands and that it
does support the concept of creation of wetlands and wetland mitigation banks
and pledges to work with the permitting agencies to find qualified wetland'
mitigation sites that can be used to help the Soundside Road extension project;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to
our State and Federal legislative delegation and NCDOT officials.
Adopted this 41 day of August, 2001.
rry Par ayor Pro-rem
( ?hj kw4v AKnighton, Town Mager
Attachment
CC:
G. Wayne Wright, Chief
USACE, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Greg Thorpe, Acting Director
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Donna Moffitt, Director
NCDENR - Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Preston Pate, Director
NCDENR - Division of Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dr. Jeffrey Crow
NCDCR - Division of Archives and History
4610 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4610
Garland Perdue
US Fish & Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Heinz Muller, Chief
EPA - Region 4 OEA
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
Frank McBride
Wildlife Resources commission
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Nicholas Graf, Division Administrator
FHWA - NC Division
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
Re:'?tJ--319 Menton Citizen Informational Workshop
U-3419 Edenton Citizen Informational Workshop
r.-29-Oct 2001 10:51:23 -0400 -
From: Douglas Jerere a e.nc.us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
CC: Mike Bell <[e-mail]>,
David Cox <COXDR@MAII..WII.DLIFE.STATE.NC.US>,
Teresa Hart <[e-mail]>
John, thanks for your response. Believe me, I bear the blame for the late notice
on this one and I do not expect David or you to change your schedule with such
tardy notice. I appreciate your willingness to attend future workshops and I
will be sure to give you timely notification in the future. There are certain
projects where it will be beneficial to have resource agency representation at
the workshops due to the nature of those projects. At the same time, we
certainly do not expect you to be able to attend every workshop we have.
Doug
John Hennessy wrote:
> Due to the extremely late notice, I will be unable to attend. In the future,
> I would appreciate some advanced notice, and will be happy to attend.
> Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
> Thanks,
> John H.
> Douglas Jeremiah wrote:
> > Mike,
> > Here is a press release for the Edenton workshop next Tuesday,
> > from 4-7pm. The location is provided in the word document. Let
> > me know if you need directions or if it doesn't come through.
> > (This is the workshop you said you could attend when we met in
> > September).
> > David and John, I know this is late notice, but I thought I would
> > invite you both to attend the workshop as well. The majority of
> > people in attendance will be angry because of the alternative
> > that you both have proposed through the Old Hertford Road
> > community in order to avoid wetlands. it would help us greatly
> > to have as many people from the resource agencies present as
> > possible, to help answer these people vs. wetlands questions that
> > come up. We are expecting a large turnout of citizens.
> > Doug Jeremiah
> > Project Development Engineer
> > [phone] x207
> > fax - [phone]
> > mailing address:
> > NC Department of Transportation
> > Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
> > 1548 Mail Service Center
> > Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
1 of 2 10/22/0111:25 A11
Re: tl-3*4191denton Citizen Informational Workshop
> > physical address:
> > 1 S. Wilmington St.
> > Raleigh, NC 27601
> > Room 452
---------------
> > Name: CIW-notice.doc
> > CIW-notice.doc Type: Winword File (application/msword)
> > Encoding: base64
> > Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Doug Jeremiah
Project Development Engineer
[phone] x207
fax - [phone]
mailing address:
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
physical address:
1 S. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Room 452
2 of 2 10/22/01 11:25 AN
Re: U-3419 Edenton Citizen Informational Workshop
Subject: : U-3419 Edenton Citizen Informational Workshop
Date Oct 200109:57:35 -0400
From:
To: Douglas Jeremiah <[e-mail]>
CC: Mike Bell <[e-mail]>,
David Cox <COXDR@MAII..WILDLIFE.STATE.NC.US>,
Teresa Hart <thart @dot.state.nc.us>
Due to the extremely late notice, I will be unable to attend. In the future,
I would appreciate some advanced notice, and will be happy to attend.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Thanks,
John H.
Douglas Jeremiah wrote:
> Mike,
> Here is a press release for the Edenton workshop next Tuesday,
> from 4-7pm. The location is provided in the word document. Let
> me know if you need directions or if it doesn't come through.
> (This is the workshop you said you could attend when we met in
> September).
> David and John, I know this is late notice, but I thought I would
> invite you both to attend the workshop as well. The majority of
> people in attendance will be angry because of the alternative
> that you both have proposed through the Old Hertford Road
> community in order to avoid wetlands. it would help us greatly
> to have as many people from the resource agencies present as
> possible, to help answer these people vs. wetlands questions that
> come up. We are expecting a large turnout of citizens.
> Doug Jeremiah
> Project Development Engineer
> [phone] x207
> fax - [phone]
> mailing address:
> NC Department of Transportation
> Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
> 1548 Mail Service Center
> Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
> physical address:
> 1 S. Wilmington St.
> Raleigh, NC 27601
> Room 452
----------------
--------------------------------------------------------
> Name: CIW-notice.doc
> CIW-notice.doc Type: Winword File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 10/22/019:57 AN
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward (DSA)
Project Title: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Chowan
County, TIP Project U-3419, State Project 8.2030301, Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2)
Alternatives to be carried forward: The environmental document will evaluate the proposed
alternatives as described in meeting information provided by NCDOT and agreed to by the
project team at its meeting held on March 26, 2003. In addition, the no-build and alternate
modes of transportation alternatives will be evaluated in the environmental document.
Carried
Forward Alternative Access
Control Comments
Soundside Road Eastern (Yellow) Partial
Soundside Road Eastern (Yellow) Full
Soundside Road Western (Purple) Partial
Soundside Road Western (Purple) Full
Peanut Drive No. 1 (Red) Partial
Peanut Drive No. 1 (Red) Full
Paradise Road No. 2 (Light Blue) Partial
Paradise Road No. 2 (Light Blue) Full
The project team has concurred with the detailed study alternatives carried forward as
described above. All the alternatives selected, except the no-build alternative and alternate
modes of transportation, meet the purpose and need of the proposed project.
NAME AGENCY DATE
NCDOT
FHWA
USACE
USFWS
USEPA
NMFS
DWQ
WRC
HPO
DMF
DCM
,.moo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA *e2-)
DEPARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION OS/
MICHAEL F. EASLEY ?i LYAVIPE ?
GOVERNOR SECRE R ?ry?o///y
• /jq?p* 7 ?o ?/"
March 11, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: U-3419 Merger Team
FROM: Doug Jeremiah ,>6r
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: March 26 Concurrence Meeting, Extension of NC 94
(Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Edenton,
Chowan County, Federal Aid Project STP- 1114(2), State
Project 8.2030301, T.I.P. U-3419
A concurrence meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 26, at 10:30am
to be held in the Board Room in the Transportation Building, 1 S. Wilmington St.,
Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting is to complete approval for Concurrence Point
No. 2, Detailed Study Alternatives carried forward (DSA), which will determine what
alternatives will be studied in greater detail.
The information packet is enclosed. Please review this material prior to the
meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] x207 or
[e-mail]. Please RSVP if you will not be attending.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
U-3419 Merger Team Meeting
March 26, 2003
CONCURRENCE POINT #2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
CARRIED FORWARD (DSA)
Proposed Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17
TIP Project U-3419q?I o
State Project 8.2030301 gJ?C9 ??D &/
Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2) Q(/'9`/ ?3
March 26, 2003 ?sFC
Purpose of Today's Meeting
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Draft
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a project to extend NC 94
(Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in Chowan County (see Figure 1). The
purpose of this meeting is to complete approval for Concurrence Point No. 2, Detailed
Study Alternatives carried forward (DSA), which will determine what alternatives will be
studied in greater detail.
Project Description
TIP Project U-3419 is described in the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program as the extension of NC 94 as a two-lane roadway on new location from NC 32
to US 17 Bypass. The proposed project is approximately 2.9-3.2 miles in length
(depending on the alternative) and will provide a 2-lane, 24-foot roadway with 10-foot
paved shoulders through a majority of the project (complete typical section information is
provided in the description of alternatives section of this document). The proposed right
of way is 100 feet.
Project Schedule/Cost
Right-of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to being in federal fiscal year 2006
and construction is scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 2007.
The most recent cost estimates for the project are as follows:
TIP Estimate: Current Estimate:
Construction $ 6,500,000 $10,100,000 - 25,000,000
Right of Way $ 400,000 $ 950,000 5,425,000
Total: $ 6,900,000 $11,050,000 - 30,425,000
1
U-3419 Merger Team Meeting
March 26, 2003
Capacity of Existing Roadway (No-build)
Current year (2000) daily traffic volumes along NC 32 in downtown Edenton range from
8,800-9,600 vehicles per day (see Figure 2). Daily truck traffic is currently 616-672
trucks per day. By the design year (2025), traffic volumes along this section of NC 32
are expected to range between 17,500-18,300 vehicles per day (see Figure 3). Daily
truck traffic is expected to range between 1,225-1,281 trucks per day.
Concurrence Point No. I Project Purpose .& Need
(Approved March 2001)
Approximately 1,281 trucks a day will pass through downtown Edenton on existing
NC 32 in the design year (2025). Truck traffic passing through downtown Edenton may
be contributing to building damage in the Historic District, and certainly has a negative
impact on the walking tours and atmosphere of the district.
Truck accident rates for NC 32 in the. study area are higher than the statewide accident
rates for two and four-lane urban NC routes.
The purpose of the project is to reduce truck and through traffic and improve safety along
existing NC 32 within downtown Edenton.
Concurrence Point No. 2 (Detailed Study Alternatives)
April 17, 2002 Merger Team Meeting
At this meeting, the team decided to drop a number of alternatives that were located in
the town or vicinity of the Old Hertford Community. The alternatives eliminated were:
Upgrade Old Hertford Road, Peanut Dr. 42, Peanut Dr. #3, Paradise Rd. #1, Paradise Rd.
#3, Upgrade the existing CBD roadway network (NC 32), and Restrictions on truck
traffic on NC 32 through Edenton. These alternatives were dropped either because they
would not meet the purpose and need of the project, or their impacts on the local
community were too severe. The no-build and- alternate modes of transportation were
also dropped from consideration, but will be included in the Environmental Assessment.
The team agreed to carry forward. the following four alternatives: Soundside Road
Eastern, Soundside Road Western, Paradise Road #2, and Peanut Dr. #1. Concurrence
was not reached at this meeting because. some agencies present wanted to determine the
type of access control the alternatives would have.
2 -
? U-3419 Merger Team Meeting
March 26, 2003
Description of Alternatives
The study corridors for the remaining alternatives are generally 300-feet wide (3-times
the expected right-of-way width) (see figure 6).
A truck route survey was conducted during the summer of 2001 and results presented and
discussed at the last meeting. Results from the survey (for alternatives carried. forward)
are included at the end of the description of each alternative. The survey results
essentially indicate that any of these alternatives will serve as an attractive truck route.
Issues Common to all Four Alternatives
All four alternatives would begin at and extend northward from the intersection of NC 32
and NC 94 along or parallel to existing Hobbs Lane, depending on the access control
chosen.. The proposed typical section would be 2-lane, 24-foot roadway, and 10-foot
paved shoulders for the entire length of the alternative, unless, indicated otherwise in the
description of the alternative.
Traffic Projections
Traffic projections are expected to be similar for all four alternatives as they relate to
traffic pulled from downtown Edenton onto the new roadway. With the proposed truck
route in place, current year (2000) daily traffic volumes along NC 32 in downtown
Edenton range from 8,000-8,800 vehicles per day (see Figure 4). Daily truck traffic is
projected to be reduced to 240-264 trucks per day. By the design year (2025), traffic
volumes along this section of NC 32 are expected to be reduced to 15,700-16,500
vehicles per day (see Figure 5). Daily truck traffic is expected to be reduced to 471-495
trucks per day.
Access Control:
Up to this point both full and partial access control have been considered. If full control
of access is utilized, one large farm parcel would likely be landlocked. The parcel is
located north of the existing culvert crossing of Queen Anne's Creek by Hobbs Lane.
Access to this farm parcel can be provided by building the proposed roadway on new
location parallel to Hobbs Lane (SR 1103) and utilizing Hobbs Lane as a service road
(see figure 6). If this option is pursued, NC ,94 south of NC 32 would need to be
realigned to the west (see figure 6). A new bridge of Queen Anne's Creek would be
required on the new roadway, but Hobbs Lane could be left to serve as a service road.
Another option being evaluated is that a service road could also be located to the east and
connect to SR 1102 (see figure 6).
The full control of access without service roads option would locate the new roadway on
Hobbs Lane. In addition to landlocking the farm, this would require 1-3 residential
relocations at the NC 32/Hobbs Lane intersection. The existing culvert crossing of
Queen Anne's Creek would also be bridged with the full control of access with no service
road option.
U-3419 Merger Team Meeting
March 26, 2003
1. Soundside Road Eastern (Yellow)
At the end of Hobbs Lane (SR 1103), this alternative would then travel through a large
wooded tract and end at the existing interchange of US 17 Bus. and US 17 Bypass (see
figure 6).
Access Control:
Several additional farm parcels east of Butternut Lane would be landlocked with a full-
control of access option, and a service road is proposed to provide access if this option is
chosen (see figure 6).
Survey Results:
Approximately 94% of those surveyed said that they would use this route over the status
quo. Among those answering yes, comments included that the route is a "straight shot",
is close to US 17 Bypass, avoids downtown resulting in less accidents, no turns, less
congestion, higher speed. Those responding "no" said that this route was too long.
2. Soundside Road Western (Purple)
This alternative is similar to Soundside Road Eastern in that it begins and ends at the
same location. This alternative moves west of the end of Hobbs Lane and the large
wooded tract and crosses Butternut Lane before ending at the existing interchange of
US 17 Bus. and US 17 Bypass. The study corridor is wider near Butternut Lane because
of a conflict between wetlands impacted and homes affected by noise from the new
roadway. Two new crossings (bridging) of Queen Anne's Creek would be necessary near
Hobbs Lane. Less wetlands are impacted with this alternative, but it does impact more
farmland than the Soundside Road Eastern alternative.
Access Control:
Several additional farm parcels east of Butternut Lane would be landlocked with a full-
control of access option, and a service road is proposed to provide access if this option is
chosen (see figure 6).
Survey Results:
The results were identical to those of Soundside Road Eastern, with 94% of those
surveyed saying they would use this route over the status quo. The reasons were similar
to Soundside Road Eastern.
Misc:
The entire wooded area south of Butternut Lane should be considered wetland, even
though the delineation line.shows a boundary (see figure 6).
4
M U-3419 Merger Team Meeting
March 26, 2003
3. Peanut Dr. #1 (Red)
This alternative attempts to address the purpose and need of this project along with
another transportation need of Edenton. A small industrial park is currently located along
Peanut'Dr. There is only one way to enter/exit the industrial park, and this is at the
intersection with US 17 Bus. The park doesn't have direct access to US 17 Bypass. This
is undesirable for many reasons, including safety and convenience.
This alternative moves west of the end of Hobbs Lane and, the large wooded tract. Two
new crossings (bridging) of Queen Anne's Creek would be necessary near Hobbs Lane.
A third crossing (bridge) of Queen Anne's Creek would be necessary before reaching the
intersection of US 17 Bus. The roadway would then cross US 17 Bus. and connect with
existing Peanut Dr. This intersection with US 17 Bus-would become signalized and turn
lanes required along the new roadway and along US 17 Bus. The current intersection of
Old Hertford Road and US 17 Bus. would be relocated away from the new intersection.
The new roadway (Peanut Dr.) would be shifted to the north-east approaching the new
intersection with US 17 Bus in order to minimize impacts to a peanut processing plant. .
The new,roadway would then follow (and widen) existing Peanut Dr. and connect with a
new half diamond/cloverleaf interchange directly east of the existing Paradise Rd.
interchange. The proposed typical section for the portion of this roadway from the new
interchange to the intersection with US 17 Bus would be 3-lane, 36-foot roadway, and 2-
foot paved shoulders with curb and gutter. Curb and gutter is required to minimize
impacts to the existing businesses along Peanut Dr. This new interchange may require
relocation of a water pumping station, and two residential houses north of US 17 Bypass.
The old interchange ramps will be removed, but the existing overpass will remain. It is
estimated that a motel will be the only business impacted near the industrial park.
Access Control:
Access w uId t be controlled in the industrial park under any scenario. Access control
(partial o full would begin at NC 32 and end at the US 17 Bus. intersection. A service
road wo 1 eed to be constructed near the railroad tracks, because the interchange would
remove the existing road that accesses the newer parcels of the park to the north and east.
Survey Results:
100% of the people surveyed said they would use this route over the status' quo:
Comments included that this route connects the two industrial.parks, avoids downtown,
provides. easy access to US 17, avoids the Old Hertford area, and is convenient.
dft
U-3419 Merger Team Meeting
March 26, 2003
4. Paradise Rd. #2 (Light Blue)
This alternative, moves west of the end of Hobbs Lane and the large wooded tract. Two
new crossings (bridging) of Queen Anne's Creek would be necessary near Hobbs Lane.
A third crossing (bridge) of Queen Anne's Creek would be necessary before reaching the
intersection of Old Hertford Road. The alternative then.bisects farmland, crosses Old
Hertford Rd., bisects farmland, crosses US 17 Bus. (signalized intersection, and turn
lanes would be required on both roadways), and crosses a.railroad (grade-separated
interchange). This alternative would then create a new half diamond/cloverleaf
interchange directly east of the existing Paradise Rd. interchange. This new interchange
may require the relocation of a water pumping station, and two residential houses north
of US 17 Bypass. The old interchange ramps will be removed, but the existing overpass
will remain.
Access Control:
Full control of access could be used in this alternative with the exception of the
intersections at US 17 Bus. and Old Hertford Road.
Survey Results:
Approximately 86% of those surveyed said they would use this route over the status quo.
Among those that said they would use this route, comments included that it was a good
choice for both locals and truckers. Among those that said they would not use this route,
comments included that the crossing of Old Hertford Road' was undesirable.
Misc:
The wetland delineation at the westernmost crossing of Queen Anne's Creek, was carried
out at a previous alignment location. The delineation lines may be transposed northward
along the wood line for the current alignment (see figure 6).
6
U-3419 Merger Team Meeting
March 26, 2003
"Soundside Rd. Eastern
(vdr
v
r

-
'S side Rd. Eastern

al control of access)"

RESIDENTIAL

RELOCATEES

0-3

BUSINESS

RELOCATEES

0
?A-
J
WETLANDS
AFFECTED
(AC.)
(Delineated)
,10,0
L n11vL
d
SHADING
IMPACTS
(AC.)

p
?vmr.uL
STREAM

IMPACTS
(FT.)

p
Nulva
LENG
TH
(MILES)

.2

K
TRUC SURVEY
AVERAGE
RANKING
1(high)-9 (low)

4.40

IGHT-OF-WAY
COST

1,500,000

ONSTRUCTION
COST

10,100,000
Soundside Rd. Eastern (full
control of access - service roads) 0-3 0 10.0 0 0 3.2
4.40
$950,000
$10,100,000
Soundside Rd. Eastern (full

control ofaccess -no service
roads) 1-3

0

10.0

0

0

3.2

4.40

$2,100,000 $10,100,000
Soundside Rd. Western (partial

control of access)

Soundside Rd
Western (full 0-3 0 3.0 0.6 0
2.9
3.63
$1,675,000 $10,600,000
. 0-4 0 3
0 0
6
0
control of access - service roads) . . 2.9 3.63 $1,350,000 $10,600,000
Soundside Rd. Western
r

(full control of access - no'
service roads) 1-4 0. 3.0 0.6 0
2.9
3.63
$2,375,000 $10,600,000
eanut Dr
#1 (
artial cont
l
f
.
p
ro
o 2-5 0 9 0
8
0
access) . 3.1 2.00 94,450,000 $24,000,000
Peanut Dr
#1 (full control of
. 2.5 * 0
9 8
0 Z sov a oJ
access - service roads)
Peanut Dr. #1 (full control of
3-5 .
0
9 .
0
8 0

0 3.1 2.00 $4;150,000 $24,000,000
h, goo pCIO
access - no service roads) . . 3.1 2.00 $5,175,000 $24,000,000
aradise Rd
#2 (
artial cont
l d"
.
p
ro 2-5 *
0
2
10 O a J
o
of access) ' 0 3.1 2.97 $4,550,000 $25 ,000,000
Paradise Rd. #2 (full control of 2-5
*
0.2
1
0
0 , ovo epd
access -service roads)
.
3.1
2.97
$4,275;000
$25,000,000
Paradise Rd. #2 (full control of 3-5 * 0
2 1
0 p
access - no service roads)
*Note- refers to pumping station
north of planned i
nterchange at US 1 .
7 Bvnass . 3.1 2.97 $4,550,000 $25,000,000
' Poo g°

H N
ANCOCK
\
. /
.
EDENTON
POP. 5.354

z v5
..
, SR 1101
i
Z -•

STtjDY ARE'

_ "Z' /

J.- i
%
i Y

SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.)
"
° 1100

SR 1321 , 3 8500 1
44
200
5100
700
NC 32
9500 0 60" 200 US 17 11 00 30D 4800
`
00
100
10 PM 55
1o lzl 00 1 57
805 1000
300 10800
SR 120 551500
720 US 17 2200 PM do O5
n21
t ' 1200
6100
1900 PM
3
21 100 3000
0 55 850
1000
500
,
NO 1
AG 2000
1 gg0
800 0
900
5
US NC 32
1700.
inia Rd
)
12600 (Vir 1000 "
°
6000 .
g
56
aM 12500
1

800 -j
us

00

900

?
SR 1105

OLD HERTFORD RD.
341
?0 11 g 1900

6700 2100 ° 2500

" z 8800
W 2300
°
SR 1132 SR 1103
300
N (Coke Ave.)
N 411 9600
L o SR 1126
SR 1234 0 ° (Oakum St.) j 3
(Albemarle St.) ss t -PM - ?0
:)
12 900
(? 400
1400
2300 2200
a .
240 700 200 °
880 1400

W. Church St. 300 2500 450 400T
CJ 300 4300 300 2000
?j 6000 600 11600 100 T
y 7000 E' 100 3500
1000
100 y NC 32
200
41400
?1DO rM NC 32
56
? y
) -10

N

3700

200
(Church St.) t
2
Z
u 7900

" A;

400
" SR 1114
Estllrtated 2000 ADT Volumes 2-1 (Airport Rd.)
W
LEGEND 1000 Edenton Airport Rd.
p0( VPD-YEHICLESPERDAY US 17 Bus 410 X1 = Ext., from NC 32 to
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)

D DIRECTIONAL FLOW(%)
(W. Queen SL) PM
55 4
i 10 00

00

7 Bypass W1 ith
US 1
,
400 .
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
TTST(%) '
0
0
DUALS 200. 100 OF
existing SR 1105
(
,
)
, Division: l
County: Chowan
NOTE. DHV 400
Date: August 100
TIP fl U-3419
Indicates the direction D
Work Order# 8.2030301 FIGURE 2
Reverse flow direction for AM peak DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
Co\
SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.)
S 18Da
SR 1321 = 16800
N
500 8600
NC 32 Q
20700 .a
100
0'
'?0 US 17 9900 1800 1300
500
800
?? p?? 95 ?
f
r 9
80 9T00
300
50 10 l ?1
US 17
0
800
1500 1300
SR 1200 500 13400
2200 360 10
?? 0200
1
t°
2700 ee

ts31
AD 110 4900
0 55 16600
toss 3300
NC 32 p
1400. 165 1600 1700 3300
US 17 3500
26000
Rd
)
i
i 1700

12500 .
Virg
n
a
aM 25900
X1600
3300 SR 1105
OLD HERTFORD RD.
(4-4) ro 12000 156 Ug Al Bus 400
V a
13900
3600
°
SR 1132
N
n
17500 3800
S (Coke Ave.)
N SR 1103
+;
„ i 50 0
N
N;`C° j
II
SR 1126
o
a
18300 0 (Oakum St.)

SR 1234 r
'o
N
v
(AlbemarbleSL) Pn1
10 1600 T
(? 600
1800

4100
3600
?
12004
4400
3000
T700 2800
W. Church SL 600 T
E
? 4700 7700 70OT
E
J 600 7500 600 500 10400 900 710011600 200 200 6200
1600 (?
300 y NC 32
42300 E
3004
e200 55
44 10 NC 32 E ,
0 5706 ?
300
(Church St.) 1
= 15000 ^o a
N 6100
1114
Estimated 2025 ADT Volumes
•; ;, °
(Airrp port Rd.)
r N s
LEGEND \ 20,00
OC t Rd.
Edenton Alrp
XXX VPD-VEHICLES PERDAY
DNV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME ('/.) US 17 Bus

(4V
Queen SL)
PM
8400 S
300
t4 Ext., from NC 32 to

?
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (°A)
PM PMPEAK
PERIOD .
10
5e
9800 a.2
1600
j US 17 Bypass with
.
,
' o 4
U
(D,0) DUALS, TTST(
/.) 4
0 30 existing SR 1105
NOTE: DNV -? D County: Chowan Division: t

Inidicates the direction D 7000
TIP # U-3419 Date: Au ust
'everse flow direction for AM peak Work Order# 8.2030301 1 FIGURE 3
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
t,
SR 1319

_.. b. (Paradise Rd.)
g 1100.
N
Z SR 1321
V 3 8500 1
200 5800 T 4000
NC 31
4
9500
200 US 17
1100
200 300
?.y1500
4
1 vM 55 600 X

?
50 ? 4000
0 6400 700
300
y00 US 17 to 52 y 400 300
SR 1200 10800
551500
1 8000 2200 v1? to 66?
q3
8gp0 200
1900 eM
??? ? 2900 55
0 ? ???
A 000
to (
500
55 02100
y g0
800 8 s 900 J
to t
US 17 150
12000 NC 32
(Virginia Rd.) 100 Og 118
6000 ss ny 12100
200
3
30 -
00 900 x;3700 .
:
(3,2) 10 6
8 1
SOS 2
N'p N
,

5900
2100
1900 900
a SR 1105
2200
N
A
8000

w
?

v
3
°

o'
N SR 1132
? ?! 8800 (Coke Ave.)
m o SR 1126
` (Oakum St.)
SR 1234
o
(Albemarle St.)
10
55-4 j
PM
- 900 T
EJ 400
1400
2400 2.
I) 2500 1400.
(
y 200 1400 'o
700 8400
W. Church St. 300 1+1700
`?
3700 400 300
j 3500 500 T
E' 200000 400 1000 5600 1100 300 3500
1000
so 10100 J1 y1400 NC 32
Ch
h St 200
1
-10 NC 32
100 56 4 PM
1500 y
'C200
i (
.)
urc t
= 7900
a n
40
1114
SR
;Estimated 2000 ADT Volumes (Airport Rd.)
LEGEND p ,oai N?TM Edenton Airport R.
)00C VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY o US 17 Bus 4100 a : Ext. from NC 32 to
0 r
OHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (/) 10
(W. Queen St.) PM D DIRECTIONAL FLOtN(%) 4600 es-10 500 U.S 17 Bypass
PM PM PEAK PERI00 200 100 ' of
(010). DUALS, 'TTST(%) - County: Chowan Divisional
NOTE: OHV -i? D 4000
TIP # U-3419 Date: Au ust'00
Indicates the direction D
Reverse flow direction forAM peak Work Order# 8.2030301 FIGURE 4
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
b SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.)
g 1800
SR 1321 N; 16800 N
500 7100
f--4
?
NC 32 Q600 L 3000
20700 100 300 US 1 1800 1090 500 11001
200 PM 55 ?
( app w l 800 400
500 y US 17 3600 800 E 500
SR 1200 5e2200 2500 14400 PM ?0 122 1600
2700 4900 16`0 D;
10 l3? '? 55 110
I'3400 64? 5s 1600 W 1700 o t
NC 32 j . 1400 1 2600 - M'
t m
310 1700T o p m) 7300
25200 (Virginia Rd.)
12500 ss PM 24400 3300
1600 w
f3?j ro 1122100 1550 S 11 gus 400
-4 'j
1230 3400 ° V SR 1105
3800 g o
a 15700 u v
116500 SR 1126
(Oakum St.) SR 1132
'o
E (Coke Ave.) p v
SR 1234
1600T ?00 2400-
(Albemarle St) ss ?lx?i 10 1800
3600 E??J ,,?? 2800
1200J? J 400 4300 g
5900
600 T 2900 5?0 100?T 600 5700 800 500 8400 600 ?1800 9600 2700 200 6200
W. Church St. 4F
1600 E-? ? NC 32 30E- ss Pf-M -- 10 NC 32 2300 400
PM
eo t io 300 52300 (Church St) 200 I3,21
Z 15000
° 6100
N s? SR 1114
Estimated 2025 ADT Volumes a V (Airport Rd.)
? m9
LEGEND 2DO a "?" Edenton Airport Rd.
X10( VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY US 17 Bus 840 yD Ext., from NC 32 to
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (Y.J (W• Queen St.) PM
D' - DIRECTIONAL FLOW (Y) 9800 es-+o 1600 US 17 Bypass
PM PM PEAK PERIOD -? 0)
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(%) 400 00r or
County: Chowan Oivision:l
NOTE: DHV -? D 7000
TIP # U-3419 Date: Au ust'Ot
Indicates the direction D 5 '
Reverse flow direction lorAM peak Work Order# 8.2030301 FIGURE
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
1 '
fl-

e'' SUtE
.Q?o_*
WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
APR 2 3 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 21, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO:
Merger Team Participants
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
FROM: Beth Smyre tt.?1cr?
Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to
US 17 Bypass, Edenton, Chowan County, Federal Aid
Project STP-1114(2), State Project 8.2030301, WBS
34939.1.1, TIP Project U-3419
Merger Team Update
This memorandum is to update the U-3419 Merger Team on the progress of the
subject project, since it has been over a year since the last team meeting. The merger team
last met on March 26, 2003; during this meeting, the team agreed to carry forward three
design alternatives: Soundside Road Western, Paradise Road #2, and Peanut Drive #1.
Full control of access with service roads and full control of access without service roads
options were carried forward for all three alternatives.
NCDOT is in the process of preparing preliminary designs for each of the
alternatives. It is anticipated that these designs will be completed in Fall 2004. The
remaining environmental studies should be completed by November. If everything is
completed on schedule, the next merger team meeting, to discuss Concurrence Point 2A,
should be held in January 2005. The date of the Environmental Assessment has been
delayed until April 2005. The current construction schedule states that right-of-way
acquisition is to begin in October 2007 and for the project to be let to construction in
April 2009.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please feel free to contact me at
[phone] x. 333.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH VVILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548

U-3419 Merger Team Update
April 21, 2004
U-3419 Merger Team
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Bill Biddlecome, USACE
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Ron Sechler, NMFS
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Sara Winslow, DMF
Cc: Anne-Marie Knighton, Town of Edenton
Billy Leggett, Albemarle RPO
Don Conner, P.E., Division 1 Engineer
Tony Houser, P.E., Roadway Design
Bruce Payne, P.E., Roadway Design
Lindsey Riddick, PDEA-ONE
Michael Turchy, PDEA-ONE
Rob Hanson, P.E., PDEA
Charles Cox, P.E., PDEA

,,. SwF o
? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORT
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
July 6, 1999
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. To",, Y1.Tejj]L. ,5Sy
DWQ - DENR

William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the extension of SR 1114 (Airport
Road), NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, State Project 8.2030301, Federal
Aid Project STP-1114(2), Chowan County, T.I.P. U-3419
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for August 24, 1099 at 2:00 PM in the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to -that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
auestions about the meeting or the sconing sheets, please call Jeff Ingham. Project Development
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 254.
WDG/plr
Attachment

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: June 28, 1999
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
TIP # U-3419 _ Programming
-x- Planning
PROJECT # 8.2030301 _ Design
F. A. PROJECT # STP-1114(2)
DIVISION: 1 COUNTY: Chowan
ROUTE: SR 1114 (Airport Road Extension), NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, 2 lane
facility on new location
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: New facility
LENGTH: 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To improve north-south traffic flow in eastern Edenton and
divert truck traffic away from downtown Edenton.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR ELEMENTS OF WORK: The proposed
project will include the construction of a 2-lane facility on new location.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA completion - October 2001
FONSI completion - July 2002
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO -X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 1
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Proposed: 2-lane, 24-foot pavement including 2-feet full depth paved shoulder,
8-foot total shoulder width
TRAFFIC (ADT): Projected traffic if the road were in place
Current (1998): 2400 vpd
Design Year (2025): 3900
2 %TTST 4 % DUAL 10 % DHV
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO x 3R
DESIGN SPEED: 60 mph
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) $7,000,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation, utilities and
acquisition) (TIP Right of Way Estimate) $ 492,000
Force Account Items $
Preliminary Engineering $
Total Cost $7,492,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction $6,207,000
Right of Way $ 492,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE $6,699,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Cost of Improvements:
x Pavement: $
x Surface $1,372,870
Base $
Milling and Recycling $
Turnouts $
Shoulders
Paved $
Earthen $
x Earthwork $ 948,040
Subsurface Items $
x Subgrade and Stabilization $ 216,225
x Drainage (List any special items) $ 435,000
Sub-Drainage $
Structures Width x Length
Bridge Replacement $
New Bridge $
Widen Bridge $
Remove Bridge $
New Culvert $
Culvert Extension $
Retaining Walls $
Noise Walls $
Other Misc. Structures $
Concrete Curb and Gutter $
Concrete Sidewalk $
Wetland Mitigation $ 200,000
Fencing: WW and or CL $
x Erosion Control $ 193,500
Landscaping $
Lighting $
x Traffic Control $ 65,000
Signing:
New $
Upgraded $
Traffic Signals
x New $ 45,000
Revised $

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REOUIRED(Xl COMMENTS COST
RR Signals:
New $
Revised $
With or Without Arms $
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement $
Roadside Safety Enhancement $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Utility Construction
Water $
Sewer $
x Pavement Markings
Paint $
x Thermo. & Markers $ 30,000
Delineators $
x Other Clearing, grubbing, mobilization, misc. $2,582,500
Contract Cost Subtotal $6,088,135
Engineering and Contingencies $ 911,865
Preliminary Engineering Costs $7,000,000
Force Account $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: $7,000,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH:
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
YES NO x
x New Right of Way Needed: Width 100' $ 492,000
Easements: Type Width $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal (TIP) $ 492,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $7,492,000
Prepared by: Jeff Ingham Date 6124199
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development _
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
??
•
''•y' 1316
•' ----' - -
` ?y
09 Hancock !
?•
i o??
, i a
)E ENTON
-? 2
' : POP. 5,353 17
; ? 1 01

•
Bus END PROJECT
` 17
110,

.}•.,

----- ! 1117

BEGIN PROJECT `
BUS
17
'
i
1116
'----- f>e _ 1102
37
?- i
32
Reedy Point ;
;
Edenton Municipal
Airport
;
1114
C t,A-,;5 t lj'> v)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
e DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
".....•'` PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
SR 1114 (AIRPORT ROAD EXTENSION) FROM NC 32
TO US 17 BYPASS ON NEW LOCATION
CHOWAN COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3419
r
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
e... FAT[ n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
November 24, 1998
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Ingram
Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch
FROM: Wayne C. Davis, Ph.D., and PE (Q2D'_
Unit Head
Traffic Forecasts Unit B
SUBJECT: Proposed SR 1114 (Edenton Airport Extension, from NC 32
to US 17 Bypass Chowan County, TIP Project U-3419
Work Order # 8.2030301
Please find attached copy of the estimated 1998/2025 ADT's for the aforementioned
project. The design hourly volumes, truck percentages, and directional distributions are
included for the project.
TIP Project U-3419 is the proposed SR 1114 (Edenton Airport Extension) on new
location. The town of Edenton is located at the southeastern edge of Chowan County,
135 miles from Raleigh, 70 miles from Norfolk, and 135 miles from Richmond. Major
routes access to Edenton is by way of US 17, NC 32, NC37, and I-64, which is
approximately 55 miles southwest of Edenton.
The land use is an important factor when considering traffic generation. The Central
Business District of Edenton is concentrated on Broad Street between Water Street and
Church Street. It is anticipated that some limited commercial. development will continue
to occur in a North-South direction along Broad Street. Commercial development is
along sections of NC 32 thorough US 17 Bus near Coke Avenue and Old Hertford Road.
(Note: Some continue commercial growth is expected along these routes). Industry in
Edenton is located primarily in the areas along the railroad line. Other small industries
are scattered throughout the corporate city limits. Residential land uses are near the
Edenton Bay, the airport and along the railroad lines. Indications are that residential
development consisting of medium density housing will occur to the northwest of
Edenton and along Coke Ave.
G)

Meetings with Edenton city representatives were conducted. Plans for future annexation
to the northwest of Edenton city limits are being proposed. Other pertinent information
was obtained from the US Department of Commerce such city mapping, zoning mapping,
schools and parks locations and future development sites. Employment data was taken
from Employment Securities Commission. Population projections were taken from the
North Carolina State Data Center and. U.S. Census. The information was formatted and
entered into the modeling software and future trips were generated. The model was then
run with and without the airport extension in place. Volumes along the airport extension
would be approximately 2,400 vpd and 3,900 vpd for the future year 2025.
The Traffic Survey Unit of North Department of Transportation gathered traffic data.
Historical ADT's from the NCDOT County Maps for the surrounding. SR routes were
gathered from 1985 to 1995 and used in the analysis to forecast the future traffic. A field
investigation was taken to observe the actual travel conditions, present roadway
geometrics, and existing land use around the project location. The Thoroughfare Plan for
Edenton was also viewed along with 1993 Feasibility Study Forecast. All above
information was considered in the forecast.
If you desire a travel forecast for any interim year. You may interpolate between the
current year and year 2025 using a straight-line analysis. If you have any question, feel
free to contact Tonja Y. Butts or me at 733-4705.
WCD/tyb
Attachments
cc: Tom Newnam, PE
Joe Springer
Don Morton, PE
Gary Faulkner
L.C. Smith

SR 1321
500
NC 32 Q?
4100
0
11
t
200
500 (300
SR 1200 55220 y 15900
2700 pM
to 1321 0M--W 55 700E
10 52
US
8600
Estimated 2025 ADT Volumes
LEGEND
)OO( VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW('/)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(%)
NOTE: DHV -? D
Inidicates the direction D
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.)
S 11600
110 - -

°
300 12700
US 17 1400

ss 30V ?j 1340 13000
0 5500
5.
to t?21
US 17 500 1513130 90

107 500 pM w aUs
(211 V$17.

2900 400
1570 55
1200
800 D;
0;
19 0 NC 32

i
i
18200
Vi
Rd 150 0400
3900
xMI.
(
rg
n
a
.)
m
ss
nM 16400
I3

A
s

400
11600 i
N
8 ro 10500 A
1713u j ;
790
4100
A 1200
w 3100
°
? 1
r
1 12800 SR 1126 N
o (Oakum St.) SR 1132
SR 1234 0 " (Coke Ave.)
(Aibemarble St.) PM
55
10
?
? 110pT
EJ T600
y 2000
3600
I
2
> 2600
1
0
90o A00
2400
W. Church
St. 400 T
E' Cj200 5700 'O?OLT 5500 600 400
(),1
00
1400
300 ,,??
x'1800
NC 32 - e
30" " 200 NC 32
55
Ph
M ?o
(Chu
rch St.)
(
3
0900
n
U
U
N
V
m
w9
1400
US 17 Bus
(W. Queen St.) PM
ss ? 5800

?0 °
X300

1
7200 60
400 00
550
t
N
;5
1300T 500
?EJ 2600
3300')' e400
5800
SR 1114
(Airport Rd.)
Edenton Airport Rd.
i; Ext., from NC 32 to
& US 17 Bypass
r OF
County: Chowan Division:1
TIP # U•3419 Date: Nov.'98
Work Order# 8.2030301
lococoz*9 #JaPJO AjoM
96,'noN :ale0 Uvc-n # dtl
l:uolsln10 ueMo40:,4uno0 I do
ssedAS L1 Sn
01 Z£ ON LUOJI }X3
pa :podaiy uojuep3
Ntuox ?
('Pa yodi!V)
vtttHS
ootl£
00 t?T I T OOOZ
OOoZ
OOE?, 009
0
?N
ap
N
:0
1:W
OOgZ;,--
1Q
O0E9 009VL G09
CC?? OWL
009
AT -?OOZgt
#ead IgVjoj uolloailp Mod asianad
0 u09304P eta salealplul
a 4 AHO 310N
oat ooz
Oo£

?
ootq
O--Ft 99
wa ( 7s useno 'M)
00
o 09£
sn8 Lt sn
OO B
f=
av 3
m
W ?
009L :
Z£ ON D1 t 55 OOt? OOZ
? (i ZE ?N O) OOt,
V , TOM
y
E ,
B y ?00q
O ,
OOOq 00£Ey
tpO ,
-
?
oOZq
y y 009
'1
ojn
'
O q OOgZ
00£ 4O
S 4
M
001 00Z T 001
E
C
0 t OOZt
,? ,?
EE
o0gy y 006 oL (ra) Ss OOZZ
Wd ('Is algjewaglV)
Oozt
(•anya)jo0) a

;
q£zt as
Z£tt NS ('is wnHeO) n
Mt us 0M6 a

e
0091 a

V
00£9 i
OOgZ T 0069

009
I,
ooz
sn9 01309 0095
St I? Ol
l?'cl
W
V d SS
$ 006 ('PbeluiBil --1'009 t
00C I
001

pOg ?` 00?

00'?
.
Z£ ON
OO6t?
55
s?
W1
ti «zd
ns oozZ

q9 000t
;
o
ooZa oo9g °q a sn
0?

i
oz ss
cl sn o 5
OOL 18
('Pd aslPeJed)
Wt as
Ndisi1'S7Vn0 Wo)
00?d3d HV3d Wd Wd
Nd mo-d 7VN01103d10 O
NO awn-10A A7dnOH N01S30 AHO
AVO Mad S3701H3A-OdA X)0!
QN3J37
sownM 141E 8666 Pa)ew1)s3
Ooz9
sn
o?
?OOq 55
lt£1
OOgt5 Wd OOLI
0096 OOZL aS
o0Q oo£
00 -
o` 0099
?? a ZE ON
0M
M
IM NS

C°, -14 ie+ru 6417£•n # dll Head livjo{ uogoegP Mop asway
4 :uolslnla ueMOyO :14unoO OOgg 0 uogoazlp ow salealP1ul j
a "4----- Ma ?310N
SSedlI816 Sfl
rie? 310 ooE 0017 (i)lsu's7ena Wo)
6094 rz oazL 00183dHV3d wd wd
o} Zg ON IUpJJ '}X3 00? 0& Wd 99 ( .lS uaan0 •M) (%)M07d 1VN01lO3810 a
-pH }JOdJib uo}uap3 c 099 sngLI Sn (%)3Wn70AA7ynOHNVIS90 Ma
wxo? AVa yid S.9701H3A-adA )00(
00171
ON3J37
('Pa liodntl) a M
0
174ttUS
v
0099 sawnloAlpb SZOZ paaew)as3
a
0060 z
OOz OOZ9 " of Wd ss OOZ (7S 4wn4O)
,?? Z£ ON E , W3 ,C0?0£ Z£ ON 0081T T p0£
00017 OOI? y Ooz 0016 009£ y y 0oo 00179 0017 y004 0099 OO Ib p `ejOq DS 4=40 •M
° oOEE
00V T 006 009E
Bt 0092 EE '?
I?'z)
,? o?
a N OOE17 009 y t t Wd ? ss (,IS olgiewa4lV)
('any a?loO) ° ° 17EZt aS
$ ZEtt US CIS wnje0) - m
9Zt t aS as
OOLEo
EO 00aS 0092 ° a ^ OO
OOtb 6Zl Z "
OOZE v "
$ T 0089
a (? 01
009 LT 004 013 ?aEy 09 1tF?
t? 0069 t w" ss
$ ?009t ('Pa elul6ilN O0M 0099
0092 0091 OOgyti 00441 Z£ ON OOLZ Sn
OO6Z? OOL SS?Jo` gl o?
r S? U'tl li
Sn9 o` wd 00017 009 LOl 0092 o0ZZ5S wd OOLZ
0092 t4 Sn 00651 ooztaS
009
g ooE'-,2
00 ?oE Via ooz
00171 °
oottt
?? OOLZt
Ob9Z 00£Lt 005 a Z£ ON
f=
a" lZ£l aS °
0091
CPH aslPeJed)
61St aS
A
r
to£o£oz'8 #UaPJO )IjoM
86.'AoN :a;ea 6575 # dll
t :uolslnla ueMo4O :?}unoO
io
SSfrdrt8 l? $n ? r d
01 Z£ ON Lu04 `IX3
pU }aodaid uo}uap3
wnon
('P21liodiIV) o
4ttlus
004E
?N
a cOOL Caoz£
0062 001 <- y VOt+
•
0
f?
aN
o0Z
£Ott us

006£
OOl o0Z

OOE
<I o< <'z ass OOt4
wd (7S uaanO M)
O
0 008£
sn8 Lt Sn
009
a M m
n

009L ?
U
z
ot WC) ss
Z£ ON W a OOt

?
OOZ

('IS Z£ ON 4??n40)

E J
oo4lT TOOL
OM
EE,,
00AI
004
0094 OOC(
004
0094 EE..
y ,-?
e 009
I
ojn
'
OOOE 0oc S4
43
M
OOE6 00V 'p OOL
y
0 t OOZt ??,,
6?
1,4
006 Irzl ss OOZZ
M
jewe
e
)
OOEZ 0o glV
19
('any aNoO) 4£ZL aS
Z£ttHS ('lSwnmeo) = m
9zttus 0016
? ?a
v
o. " j
0069 z
o
0091
v n
w
004Z? ?OOS9
$
SO 0-1-1
g of
008 T OOZ
r- i sn
OOV L 0009
OOStt
(/ ss

006
0
PMelul6illA) --09tt
004t ? 006 p08? OOL It ON Y

O6t?
O
s5
S(% t?z)
9 Lti
Wa oozz k-' ?
49 OOEt
so
o? 004
00s`?' l?-s1 at a Sn
00£8 ??Z ss o
009 Lt Sn OOZ e
009L
OZ4t 0019
l?L a ri
OOL 5
('PH ss'Pe'ed)
&.d
W
dead ply joj uo)Joalp mog osJanaa
0 uopoallp ayl saieolplul
0 4 AHO -310N
(%d 1511 'swna (0'0)
O0ld3d)lV3dWd Rd
Ndmo7d7VN011O3}JIO 0
(%d ann70A AwOH NOIS30 AHO
AVC1 d3d S37OIH3A-OdA XXX
ON3937
satun(oA lab 8M Pa}ewlls3
OoZs
S?
X004 ss
lt'El o?
004tSSA- 0 OOLI
:0016 OOZt NS
OML 00£
GOOt-
0099
Z£ ON
tz£t NS

.s

QG
F
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee ;,/From: ?
John Hennessy Z?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
March 11, 2003
Subject: Comments on the extension of NC 94 (Southside Road) from NC 32 to. US 17 Bypass in Edenton,
Chowan County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-114(2), State Project No. 8.2030301, TIP Project
No. U-3419, DENR Project Number 03-E-0146.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 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 preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the
aforementioned document:
A) This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. The NCDWQ is a participating
team member in that process. We will work with the Merger Team in the analysis and selection of a Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
B) The project as proposed as the potential to have impacts to Queen Anne Creek and associated tributaries
and wetlands. Queen Anne Creek is classified by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
as Class C NSW waters. In addition, the project has the potential to impact an unnamed tributary to
Edenton Bay classified (by the EMC) as Class C NSW waters.
C) After the selection of the preferred alternative 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 extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)}.
D) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 11 5A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, 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 should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 211.0506 (h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
E) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
7
4
INATfiR
QG
fir.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
F) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
G) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
H) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
)) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
J) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
likely require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 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 the 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.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Bill Biddlecombe, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
c:\ncdot\TIP U-3419\comments\U-3419 comments.doc
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
3
A
1'ATF °
is 5TA
ve +
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 6, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D3 2
Environmental Management Director, P kA
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass,
Edenton, Chowan County, Federal Aid Project STP-114(2), State Project
8.2030301, T.I.P. U-3419
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed
improvements to TIP U-3419. The project is included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2006 and
construction in fiscal year 2007.
The project proposes to provide a route around the east side of Edenton for through traffic (most
notably trucks) to avoid travelling through the central business district (see Figure 1). The four
alternatives under consideration generally connect US 17 Bypass north of Edenton to Soundside Road
(NC 94) east of the town. The alternatives currently proposed for study include new location alternatives,
and alternatives utilizing a combination of new location and existing roads (see Figure 2). The proposed
roadway cross-section consists of two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders. A more detailed
description of the alternatives is attached.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals
which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally
funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by January 17, 2002 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Doug Jeremiah, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 207. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachments
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
R
Alternatives Description
• Soundside Road Eastern - this new location route (approx. 3.0 miles long) begins at
the existing intersection of Soundside Road (NC 94) and NC 32 and extend along
Hobbs Lane (SR 1103). The route then traverses northward through a wooded area
and along farmland, where it connects to US 17 Bypass.
• Soundside Road Western - this new location route (approx. 2.7 miles long) is similar
to Soundside Road Eastern, except sections are located farther to the west.
• Peanut Drive #1 - this combination new location / widen existing route (approx. 3.0
miles long) begins at the existing intersection of Soundside Road (NC 94) and NC 32,
and extends along Hobbs Lane (SR 1103). The route then proceeds north before it
turns west and connects with the existing interection of Old Hertford Road and US 17
Business. This intersection would be improved to provide a common intersection of
Soundside Road, Old Hertford Road, and Peanut Drive. The route then follows
Peanut Drive and ends with a new interchange at US 17 Bypass.
Paradise Road #2 - this new location route (approx. 3.1 miles long) begins at the
existing intersection of Soundside Road (NC 94) and NC 32, and extends along
Hobbs Lane (SR 1103). The route then heads west, crossing Old Hertford Road north
of Paxton Lane, ending with a new interchange near the existing interchange of
Paradise Road and US 17 Bypass.

I
f Y ?
H AN
COCK
i
EDENTDN ??.-_.?
POP. 5.354
Z V.%1 y \
?- STUDY AREA
;J• 1X,
? f i 1 t r._y -
,__.. ., _.L. - - .- _

SR 1101
Z
f
N
lie
SR. 1102
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
® TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
TIP PROJECT U-3419
CHOWAN COUNTY
FIGURE I
N
0
s

i 46 Ak
4Ty ,,.swty?
N y-?
N

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
June 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Doug Jeremiah roq
Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US
17 Bypass, Edenton, Chowan County, Federal Aid Project
STP- 114(2), State Project 8.2030301, T.I.P. U-3419
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held in the Century Center on
April 17, 2002. The following people were in attendance:
Doug Jeremiah
Lindsey Riddick
Rob Hanson
Don Conner
John Hennessy
Beth Barnes
Bruce Payne
Kathy Lassiter
Mike Bell
David Cox
Howard Hall
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Chris Millitscher
Cathy Brittingham
Jim Phillips
Ron Sechler
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
PDEA
PDEA
Division 1 Engineer
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
NCDWQ
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish & Wildlife Service'
State Historic Preservation Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
NC Division of Coastal Management
FHWA
National Marine Fisheries Service
(via conference call)
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
A
After an introduction and project description, Doug Jeremiah gave a description of
the ticker Ivey and each project alternative presented in the informational handout.
Discussion of the Alternatives.
• Doug Jeremiah said that some material from the last concurrence meeting was
inadvertently left in the information handouts for this meeting. References to
information on travel times from a few alternatives discussed at the last meeting were
left in this handout, but should have been deleted.
Howard Hall asked why the Peanut Drive #1 alternative cost $10 million more than
the other Peanut Drive alternatives. Doug Jeremiah replied that the extra costs are
primarily attributable to bridging costs and longer sections of new location than the
other alternatives. Mike Bell added that the bridged areas would be National Marine
Fisheries designated areas and CAMA areas. Mike Bell was pleased that NCDOT has
already looked at bridging the stream crossings and these costs were included in the
estimates.
John Hennessy said that while bridging is preferable over areas of wetlands, it still
causes shading impacts. He said this quantity should be presented as an impact. John
also added that mitigation is not required for these impacts, but this quantity is needed
information. Doug Jeremiah responded that impacts to wetlands in areas where
NCDOT is proposing bridges are included in the wetland impacts. These impacts
will be separated out from conventional impacts at the next team meeting.
Mike Bell asked if the proposed bridging was just for the streams. Doug Jeremiah
responded that NCDOT is committed to bridging wetlands of high quality. Lindsey
Riddick said that if the wetlands are adjacent to Queen Anne's Creek they are likely
high quality. Doug Jeremiah said that delineations are needed to confirm this. Doug
added that the current estimates assume the entire wetland areas are high quality and
are to be bridged.
Howard Hall asked if the proposed intersection of Paradise Road #2 and Old Hertford
Road would be at-grade with a signal. Doug Jeremiah replied that this was the
current assumption. Howard asked if a grade-separated crossing could be considered
so that the Old Hertford Community is not bisected. Doug Jeremiah replied that the
large majority of the community is located south of the proposed intersection.
• John Hennessy asked where exactly the Old Hertford residential area is located and
what is located at the intersection with Peanut Drive. Don Connor replied that the
residential area is well south of the intersection with Peanut Drive. The area of Old
Hertford Road with Peanut Drive is industrial in nature.
• Howard Hall asked why there is little to no difference in wetland impacts as denoted
by hydric soils between the Soundside Road Eastern and Soundside Road Western
alternatives. Doug Jeremiah responded that the hydric soils information is taken from
GIS files and that he did not alter it even though areas that are now farmland were
2
1.
I
once possibly wetland. Doug said that a more accurate representation can be seen
from the DCM wetland information. Mike Bell feels that a more accurate
representation will be provided if farmland is removed from the hydric soils
information.
• Mike Bell said that he physically viewed most of the alternatives. During the
informational workshop, he went out to the Old Hertford Road community. He said
that his mind was changed about selecting an alternative in this area when he went out
there. He noticed housing developments on both sides of the road. Mike counted 100
children crossing the road while he was out there. Mike feels that we should drop any
further consideration of those alternatives impacting Old Hertford Road because of
the children. Mike cited poor community planning and that we, or the wetlands, will
end up paying for it. Mike said that the children do not have any playgrounds to play
in so they end up using the street.
• Mike Bell said that he is in favor of eliminating the Soundside Road Eastern
alternative because of wetland impacts even though it is the Thoroughfare Plan
alternative.
• Mike Bell said he likes the Soundside Road Western alternative but the alignment
should be as straight as possible as to avoid impacts to wetlands. John Hennessy felt
that it needs to be straightened out by shifting the upper stretch more to the west in
order to move it away from the wooded areas. Doug Jeremiah said that it was drawn
this way to avoid houses on Butternut Lane. Rob Hanson suggested that the study
corridor for this alternative be widened until the wetland delineation is completed.
John replied that this would be fine.
• John Hennessy felt that the Paradise Road #2 alternative needs to be moved further to
the north. Doug Jeremiah said that several farmers had expressed concern with the
impacts our new location alternative might have on their farmland. Doug said the
alignment of the Soundside Road Eastern alternative was drawn over a property line
as to minimize impacts between the two farmers. Doug said that the Paradise Road
#2 alternative was originally located farther to the north but that it bisected a farm
field so it was shifted to its current location. Mike Bell felt that the farmer affected by
the Paradise Road #2 alternative will have to lose his land in order to minimize
impacts to the Old Hertford community. Mike also said that the farmers may have to
lose tracts of land or the trucks can remain in downtown Edenton.
• Mike Bell also is in favor of looking at the Paradise Road #2 and Peanut Drive #1
alternatives, while noting that they cross Queen Anne's Creek, an anadromous fish
spawning area.
• Renee Gledhill-Earley asked what the proposed typical section is for this project.
Doug Jeremiah responded that it is a two-lane with shoulder section. David Cox
asked if a multi-lane right-of-way was being acquired. Bruce Payne replied that
multi-lane right-of-way is not being planned for at this time. Rob Hanson added that
3
.1
with 7500 vehicles per day projected in the design year, two-lanes will provide more
than enough capacity for this demand. Don Connor confirmed this.
Ron Sechler asked how many bridges are currently proposed for the Paradise Road #2
and Soundside Road Western alternatives. Doug Jeremiah responded that there are 3
proposed bridges for the Paradise Road #2 alternative and 2 proposed bridges for the
Soundside Road Western alternative. Ron asked why such a large difference exists
between the costs of the Soundside Road Western and Paradise Road #2 alternatives
since they both contain bridges. Doug Jeremiah replied that Paradise Road #2 is
much more expensive because a new interchange is required and the total bridge
lengths are much longer than those in the Soundside Road Western alternative.
• Howard Hall asked about the proposed control of access for the Soundside Road
Eastern alternative. Doug Jeremiah replied that at least partial control of access
would be studied. John Hennessy and Mike Bell both felt that full control of access is
necessary for all of the alternatives.
John Hennessy said that if the concern about children playing in the street on Old
Hertford Road is causing us to impact wetlands, then full control of access on the
alternatives is required to ensure this doesn't happen again. Mike Bell added that if
the concern is about a truck route, that full control of access is necessary to eliminate
the need to build another road in 10 years.
Rob Hanson replied that the more access control the better, but that impacts from
landlocking property owners need to be determined from the property line and
preliminary design information. Rob said that access may need to be provided to
certain property owners. Mike Bell added that cost estimates for buying out
everyone's access would have to be added to the alternative costs.
• Mike Bell said that all alternatives being carried forward would have to be full control
of access because he wants to prevent driveways and strip malls along a truck route.
Mike added that full control of access alternatives should be carried forward because
he will not approve partial access control alternatives. John Hennessy added that
access-control discussion is to be included as part of the alternatives discussion. John
felt if full control of access is not used for the new location alternatives, then the
criteria used to eliminate the Old Hertford Road alternative is not valid. Rob Hanson
said that Old Hertford Road was dropped because of the impacts to that community.
John Hennessy said that if full control of access is not used for the new location
alternatives, then residential areas will develop along the new road and kids will be
playing in this street.
Rob Hanson said that all NCDOT can commit to at this point is to get as much access
control as possible. Rob says we need to look at impacts to property owners before a
final decision can be made. John Hennessy said the access-control determinations
need to be made at concurrence point #2 because he brought it up at another project's
LEDPA meeting, and he was told it had to be brought up prior to that point. Rob
Hanson said that he agreed that LEDPA is too late in the process to decide on this.
4

of access would meet the purpose and need of the project. Renee said she felt that it
could meet it. Renee said that partial control of access is better than no control.
• Mike Bell said that we should re-look at the purpose & need if full control of access is
not used. Renee said she did not see a problem with NCDOT studying both options.
She said full control of access would meet it, and partial-control of access may meet
it.
Doug Jeremiah asked if the team would be okay with dropping those alternatives that
would severely impact the Old Hertford Road Community (Upgrade Old Hertford
Road, Peanut Drive #2, Peanut Drive #3, Paradise Road #1, and Paradise Road #3).
Renee Gledhill-Earley asked why weren't we dropping the Soundside Road Eastern
alternative. Doug replied that NCDOT committed to the community that we would
look at alternatives that minimized impacts to farmland, and he believed Soundside
Road Eastern does that when compared to the other alternatives not being dropped.
Mike Bell reiterated his dislike of the Soundside Road Eastern alternative. Doug
Jeremiah pointed out that Soundside Road Western has two stream crossings where
Eastern has only one. Mike Bell responded that in light of the proposed bridging of
those two crossings and the information available to the team at this time, that
Soundside Road Western in his opinion, is the least environmentally damaging.
Chris Millitscher said he wanted to drop the alternatives that would severely impact
the Old Hertford Community (mentioned by Doug above). The team verbally agreed
to drop these alternatives from further consideration.
NCDOT will bring four alternatives (Peanut Drive #1, Paradise Road #2, Soundside Road
Western, and Soundside Road Eastern), each with access control information (partial &
full control) to the next concurrence meeting. NCDOT will widen the study corridors of
certain sections of the four remaining alternatives as requested by the team, delineate
wetlands in the area of the alternatives, and obtain more property line/driveway
access/access control costs information for the next meeting.
cc: Meeting Participants
Sara Winslow, Division of Marine Fisheries
Bill Arrington, Division of Coastal Management
Frank Jennings, Division of Coastal Management
Len Hill, P.E., NCDOT
Janet D'Ignazio, NCDOT
Anne-Marie Knighton, Town of Edenton
Ron Lucas, P.E., FHWA
6
•I
David Cox suggested carrying forward both partial-control and full-control of access
option for each of the alternatives. When Mike Bell asked why, David replied that if
a landowner with 1,000 acres on one side of the road is landlocked by full control of
access that NCDOT may have to provide a service road to him or buy out his access.
David doesn't think that NCDOT has enough information at this point to make this
decision. Rob Hanson suggested, as David Cox did, carrying forward both partial and
full-control of access for each of the alternatives.
• Howard Hall felt that a distinction could be made between where the alternatives are
on existing location and new location. He feels that the access control on Hobbs Lane
should not be changed, but he is concerned about the new location stretch on
Soundside Road Eastern.
• Cathy Brittingham said she doesn't feel we would meet the purpose & need of the
project if full control of access isn't used. Cathy noted that at the last meeting
NCDOT said they were trying to provide an attractive route for truckers around
downtown Edenton. Cathy said that if full control of access is not used, this new
route may not be attractive anymore.
Doug Jeremiah felt that the team should have the proper data in front of it to make the
access control decision and that it sounded like Mike Bell is ready to make the
decision without the data. Mike Bell responded that it was not his decision, but rather
the "team's" decision. Mike then added that he would not allow partial control of
access for this truck route. Mike said if NCDOT brings back a no-control or partial-
control of access alternative, then the purpose and need would have to be looked at
again.
• Rob Hanson felt that providing access to perhaps one property owner would probably
not prevent the purpose and need of the project from being met. John Hennessy
interjected that one access point for a large tract could turn into a large residential
subdivision.
• David Cox raised his concern that by landlocking property owners, impacts to streams
and wetlands could be increased by building service roads to access these properties.
Mike Bell responded that if a service road created significant impacts to aquatic areas,
then it could be dropped at the next team meeting. David felt that both partial control
and full control options for each alternative should be carried forward so we have that
information available to make the decision.
Howard Hall asked if a distinction was being made on access control for those
sections of the alternatives on existing versus new location. Mike Bell responded that
no, he is not, for this amount of truck traffic.
• Renee Gledhill-Earley suggested that we look at the three alternatives (Peanut Drive
#1, Paradise Road #2, and Soundside Road Western) in two different ways (partial-
control and full-control of access). Mike Bell asked her if she felt that partial-control
+?
401
.A
United States Department of the Interior ?--? IF Z
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 6 ,,(lng
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 337;6 ??, j t?tlrjt r
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.37261A7R r}r;;
December 3, 2002
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed extension of NC 94 (Soundside
Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in Chowan County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3419).
Currently, four alternatives are being considered for providing a route around the east side of
Edenton. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service has been participating in the Merger Process and has provided comments on this
project during meetings for concurrence points 1 and 2. At this time, the Service does not have a
preferred alternative. The Service will defer on this issue until additional information on each
alternative is provided and until the appropriate time in the Merger Process. However, the
Service does have major concerns with the Soundside Road Eastern alternative. It appears that
this route would have much greater impacts to wetlands and forest habitat. A relatively large
tract of mostly unbroken forest would also be fragmented. The indirect effects of forest
fragmentation on wildlife can often far exceed the direct impacts of forest clearing within the
project footprint. For many forest interior wildlife species, fragmented forest has much less
habitat value than does larger, unbroken forest tracts.
Another concern is the unresolved issue of fully controlled access versus partially controlled
access alternatives, which was brought up at the April 17, 2002 Concurrence Meeting. The
Service supports fully controlled access for the selected alternative to minimize future
cumulative and indirect impacts from secondary development. The Service may have additional
concerns for other alternatives as additional information is provided.
For road improvement projects such as the proposed extension of NC 94, the Service
recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
J
,, .
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
6. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
7. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
There is only one federally protected species in Chowan County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database does not indicate any
known occurrences of this species near the project vicinity, and it is unlikely that this project
would effect this species. The Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus (= Plecotus)
s
rafinesquii), a federal species of concern, has been documented near the project area along Queen
Anne Creek. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened. We mention this species to give you advance notification and to
request your assistance in protecting it if any are found in the vicinity of your project. The
Service may provide additional recommendations for avoidance and minimization of impacts to
this species at a later time.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the US; and,
a
If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
X
?arland B. ardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
&4ohn Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

------- ------
57

--- --- ------ - ------