The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190230_Information Letter_20090326_w STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'T'MENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE GOVERNOR I AGENDA EUGENE A. CONTI; JR SECRETARY Eastern Concurrence Meeting Thursday, March 26, 2009 Board Room, Transportation Building Raleigh, North Carolina 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Matthew Potter, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch TIP No. R-2582/R-2584, Widening of US 158 from the I-95/NC-46 Interchange west of Garysburg to the Murfreesboro Bypass, Northampton County, Division 1 NOTE: Possibility of meeting continuing -100 PM to 5:00 PM Team Members: Bill Biddlecome, USACE David Wainwright, DWQ Matthew. Potter, PDEA Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO Chris Militscher, EPA Sara Winslow, DMF Gary Jordan, FWS Ann Whitley, Peanut Belt RPO (non- Ron Sechler, NMF signatory) Travis Wilson, WRC NCDOT Technical Support Staff and -Other Agency Staff: Jeffry Jennings, Division 1 Jason Moore, Roadway Design Gary Lovering, Roadway Design Bryan Key, Roadway Design Jerry Snead, Hydraulics John Frye, Structure Design Wayne Jenkins, Northampton County John Merritt, NEU Steve Gurganus, HEU Charles Cox, PDEA Rob Hanson, PDEA * The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 3. MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 TELEPHONE: 919-733-3141 FAX: 919-733-9794 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.GOV LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC Concurrence Point 3 NEPA/ 404 Merger Team Meeting TIP Project Nos. R-2582/R-2584 WBS No. 34472 US 158 from the I-95'/ NC 46 Interchange west of Garysburg To the Murfreesboro Bypass Widen to multi-lanes Northampton County March 26, 2009 Transportation Building Board Room Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team on the alternatives that have Been studied in detail and determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable. Alternative (LEDPA)/ Preferred Alternative. Formal concurrence for Concurrence Point 3 will be requested for TIP Project Nos. R-2582 / R-2584. Agenda for Meeting: • Project Description and Status • Discussion of LEDPA/ Preferred Alternatives • Comments and Questions Planning Engineer: Matthew Potter (919) 733-7844 extension 227 mwpotter@ncdot.gov R-2582/R_2584 (LEDPA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to improve a 32-mile section of US 158 in Northampton County as part of TIP Project R-258218-2584. This project will widen US 158 to a four lane median-divided facility from the 1-95 / NC 46 Interchange west of Garysburg to the Murfreesboro Bypass (see Figure 1). The exact length of the project will vary depending on the final alternatives selected. According to the 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2012, and construction is scheduled for a post-year letting. The current estimated total cost in the STIP is approximately $170,562,000, which includes $18,925,000 for right of way and $150,200,000 for construction. PURPOSE AND NEED The Purpose and Need Statement, as approved by the NEPA/404 Merger Team on February 9, 2000, is stated as follows: • Improve traffic flow and level of service (LOS) on this section of US 158; • Improve safety along US 158; and • Improve access to existing and future industry. DE ALTERNA ED FORWA Concurrence Point 2 (CP2) was signed on March 10, 2005, and a supplemental CP2 meeting was held on August 18, 2005. At these two meetings, the "Widen on Existing" alternatives through Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway were eliminated. The team decided to wait until environmental studies were complete before dropping any further alternatives. BRIDGING DECISIONS Concurrence Point 2A (CP2A) was signed on June 19, 2007. All recommendations on High Quality Wetland Crossings and Major Hydraulic Crossings are provided below in Table 1. Table 1<: Segment Wetland/ Steam Al I WA 031 WA 061 SA 02 D1 WA 161 WA 17/ WA 351 SA 07 D1 WA 231 WA 19/ SA 08 D1 WA 251 WA 261 SA 10 D1 WA 341 WA 331 SA 16 WA 401 WA 381 WA D1 391 SA 22 F2 WA 461 WA 471 SA 25 sed Bridges/Drainage Structures Existing Structure Triple 9-ft x 9-ft RCBC Double 84-in CMP Single 24-in RCP 45-ft bridge Double 120-in CSPA Single 60-in CMP Single 54-in CMP Proposed Structure Retain and extend as needed 340-ft bridge Double 8-ft x 5-ft RCBC 95-ft bridge Triple 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC Double 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC Double 6-ft x 5-ft RCBC 1 2 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Table 1: Proposed Rridues/Drninaoe Strnrtnrec Wnnt 1 Segment F Wetland/ Steam System Existing Structure Proposed Structure G1 WA 63/ SA 48 Not applicable Single 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC GI WA 70/ WA 72/ WA 73/ SA 511 SA 52 Not applicable Double 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC or 975-ft bridge Fl/F3/F4 WA 93/ WA 92/ SA 90 Triple 77-in x 52-in CSPA Triple 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC B3 WB 06/ SB 03 Not applicable Single 6-ft x 5-ft RCBC B1/B3 WB 09/ SB 05 Triple 8-ft x 6-11 RCBC Retain and extend as needed 134 WB 10/ SB 08 Not applicable Double 9-ft x 6-ft RCBC B4 SB 09 Not applicable Single 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC C l WB 17/ WB 18/ SB 11 Triple 8-ft x 9-ft RCBC Retain and extend as needed E2 WB 20/ WB 21/ SB 15 120-ft bridge Add parallel 120-ft bridge to the south E3 WB 25/ WB 27 Not applicable 1295-ft bridge ' El WB 29/ WB 30/ WB 31 Not applicable 1225-ft bridge El WB 32/ WB 36/ SB 20 Not applicable Double 10-ft x 7-ft RCBC El WB 41/ SB 22/ SB 23 Not applicable Triple 10-ft x 8-ft RCBC E4 SB 24 Not applicable Single 8-ft x 7-ft RCBC E2 UT to Gumberry Swam 2 @ 46-in x 31-in CSPA Single 8-ft x 5-ft RCBC G3 WB 74/ SB 41 Not applicable Single 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC E4 WB 47/2WB 48/ SB Not applicable Single 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC E4 WB 54/ WB 55 Triple 8-ft x 6-ft RCBC 140-ft bridge and replace culvert with new bridge of similar length F8 WB 60/ WB 61/ SB 30 Not applicable Triple 8-ft x 6-ft RCBC G3 WB 71/ SB 32 Not applicable Double 9-ft x 7-ft RCBC at eastern Single 9-ft x 7-ft RCBC at western G3 WB 73/ SB 34 Not applicable Single 7-ft x 9-ft RCBC G4 WB 75/ SB 36 Not applicable Single 8-ft x 6-ft RCBC G7 WB 76/ SB 35 Single 10-ft x 6-ft RCBC Retain and extend as needed G4 WB 77/ WA 78/ WA 79/ SB 63 Not applicable Single 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC * CMP - Corrugated Metal Pipe * CSPA - Corrugated Steel Pipe Arch * RCBC - Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert * RCP - Reinforced Concrete Pipe 3 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) CONCURRENCE POINT 3 SELECTION OF LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA/ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) In developing alternatives, the project was divided into four sections corresponding with the four main populated segments along the project: Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old Tavern, and Conway. There are 29 total segments along the project that can be combined to form the 17 alternatives currently under consideration. Preliminary impacts and segment breakouts for alternatives are provided below in Tables 2A(Garysburg), 2B(Jackson), 2C(Faison's Old Tavern), and 2D(Conway). GARYSBURG ALTERNATIVES The current Garysburg alternatives all begin at the junction of NC 46 and I-95. This is the project's western terminus, and involves re-designating US 158 onto existing NC 46 at its intersection with I-95, one exit north of the existing US 158 exit. Figure 1 shows the study corridors for each of the Garysburg alternatives. Garvsburg Public Hearing Update. A Public Hearing was held on September 22, 2008 at the Garysburg Town Hall. Approximately 80 citizens attended the Hearing. The overwhelming majority of comments received were apposed to the Garysburg Northern Bypass due to its anticipated impact on the Garysburg community. Of those who noted a preference, Southern Bypass 1 was slightly favored over Southern Bypass 2. Garysburg Northern Bypass (Segments Al, B1): This bypass begins at the NC 46/ I-95 intersection and extends along existing NC 46 until its intersection with US 301 north of town. The bypass proceeds on new location around Garysburg until it rejoins US 158 east of town. A grade separation is proposed over US 301, and an interchange is proposed at the reconnection of the bypass with existing US 158 east of town. This alternative involves two railroad crossings. Pros: • Lowest wetland and stream impacts • Least expensive Cons: • Highest impact on Garysburg community (37 relocations) • Divides the Garysburg community • Adverse impact on minority/ low income community R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 (Segments Al, B2, B3): This bypass begins at the NC 46/ 1-95 interchange and extends along existing NC 46 until just west of Garysburg. The bypass then proceeds on new location south of Garysburg, until it rejoins US 158 east of town (at the same location as the proposed Northern Bypass). An interchange is proposed at US 301 _ An intersection is proposed at the reconnection of the bypass with existing US 158 east of town. This alternative also involves two railroad crossings. Pros: • Low impact on Garysburg community (13 relocations) • No adverse impacts on minority/ low income community • Least expensive of the two southern bypass alternatives • Lower stream impacts than Southern Bypass 2 Cons: • More expensive than Northern Bypass i • Highest wetland impacts (1 I acre) Garysbur2 Southern Bypass 2 (Segments Al, B2, B4): This bypass follows the same path as Southern Bypass 1 alternative, but extends farther south after it crosses existing US 158/US 301 south of town. This alternative reconnects with US 158 east of town at the intersection of US 158 and Old Jackson Bypass Road (SR 1311). An interchange is proposed at US 301. An intersection is proposed at the reconnection with existing US 158 east of town. This alternative also involves two railroad crossings. Pros- 0 Low impact on Garysburg community (13 relocations) • No adverse impacts on minority/ low income community • Would provide the best connection to the Old Jackson Bypass alternative Cons: • Most expensive alternative • Highest stream impacts (3405 feet) R-2582IR-2584 (LEDPA) u- n .. p--- -f C. yy.h,.ra Ahorn ntives Resources and Impacts 1 AUIC Gt1. V V1L - Garysburg rg Garysburg Impacted Resource Northern rn 7 Southern Bypass 1 Bypass Bypass 2 Segment s Included Al BI Al B2 B3 Al B2 B4 ength 5.0 5.4 5.5 terchan es 1 2 2 ailroad Crossings 2 2 2 Schools I 0 0 ecreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0 hurches 1 1 1 emeteries 0 0 0 I a'orUtility Crossin s 1 1 istoric Properties (Eligible or listed on the ational Register) 5 5 4 chaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown ederall Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 0 CS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below Threshold Below Threshold Below Threshold esidential Relocations 32 11 11 usiness Relocations 5 2 2 oise Receptors Impacted 28 8 7 etland Impacts (acres) 5 11 10 Stream Impacts (feet) 1520 2041 3405 ater Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0 ildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 0 inority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse & is ro ortionate Impacts) Yes No No azardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0 nderground Storage Tank Sites 4 3 3 onstruction Cost $48,500,000 $53,100,000 $57,500,000 ght of Wa Cost $10,648,250 $13,548,750 $13,713,250 iti ation $736,820 $1,277,263 $1,616,515 tilities Cost $1,188,686 $1,015,868 $953,060 otal Cost $61,073,756 $68,941,881 $73,782,825 Note 1: Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is NCDOT RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on detailed studies of alternatives the NCDOT recommends that Garysburg Northern Bypass be dropped as a viable alternative for the project, due to the adverse and disproportionate impact it would have on the low income minority residential community of Garysburg. The NCDOT recommends that the preferred southern bypass be chosen based on its alignment with the preferred alternative for the Jackson bypass. Garysburg Southern Bypass 2 should correlate to the Old Jackson Bypass and Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 should correlate to all other Jackson bypass alternatives. R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) JACKSON ALTERNATIVES The Jackson section of the project extends from east of Garysburg (at the intersection of US 158 and Old Jackson Bypass Road) to east of Jackson; the eastern end of this section corresponds to the split between projects R-2582 and R-2584. Figure 1 shows the study corridors for the Jackson alternatives. Jackson Public Hearing Update: A Public Hearing was held on September 25, 2008 at the Jackson Cultural Wellness Center. Approximately 95 citizens attended the Hearing. Of those who noted a preference, the Extended Northern Jackson Bypass was slightly favored over the Old Jackson Bypass. Little to no support was shown for the Northern Jackson Bypass and Southern Jackson Bypass. Old Jackson Bypass (Segment Dl): This alternative widens the existing Old Jackson Bypass Road (SR 1311) for use as a bypass. Two sections of the existing road would be straightened, thus creating some new location sections. No j interchanges are included in this alternative. Pros: • Least expensive alternative • Relatively low impact on surrounding community (6 relocations) I Cons: • High natural environment impacts (40 acre, wetlands) (1620 feet, streams) • Primarily partial control of access (more driveways) • Undesirable design for a freeway section (curves) • Too far away to benefit the Town of Jackson • Adverse impact on a historic property (Bellevue) Extended Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments C1, El): This alternative follows US 158 on existing location, then proceeds on new location north of Jackson and reconnects with US 158 east of Mt. Cannel Road (SR 1333). The bypass would intersect NC 305 just south of Pleasant Grove Road (SR 1314). An interchange is proposed at NC 305 while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. Pros: • Second least expensive alternative • Low impact on surrounding community (5 relocations) • Lowest stream impacts (856 feet) • Preferred by the Jackson community Cons: • Second highest wetland impacts (36 acre) • Adverse impact on a historic property (Henry Stephenson House) R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments C1, E2, E3): This alternative follows existing US 158 until just west of Jackson and extends north of town on new location. The bypass reconnects with US 158 east of Mt. Carmel Road (SR 1333). An interchange is proposed at NC 305 while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. Pros: • Lowest wetland impacts (9 acre) Cons: • Most expensive alternative • Second highest impact on surrounding community (1 l relocations) • Highest number of adverse impacts on Historic properties (including Jackson Historic District) • Too close to Historic Downtown Jackson (citizen comments) Southern Jackson Bypass (Segments C1, E2, E4): This alternative follows existing US 158 until just west of Jackson and extends south of town on new location. The bypass reconnects with US 158 east of NC 305 Mt. Carmel Road (SR 1333). An interchange is proposed at NC 305 while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. Pros: • Close to Jackson without impacting historic downtown Cons: • Second most expensive alternative • Highest impact on surrounding community (25 relocations) • High natural environment impacts (30 acre, wetlands) (2107 feet, streams) • Jackson community is opposed to this alternative (citizen comments) R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Table 2B: Comparison of Jackson Alternatives Resources and Impacts Impacted Resource Old Jackson Bypass Extended Northern Jackson Bypass Northern Jackson Bypass Southern Jackson Bypass Segments Included Dl Cl El Cl E2 E3 Cl E2 E4 Length 8.8 11.9 13.1 10.5 Interchanges 0 0 1 0 Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 1 0 1 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 1 1 Churches 1 1 0 0 Cemeteries 0 1 0 0 Major Utility Crossings 1 1 1 1 Historic Properties (Eligible or listed on the National Register) 4 4 10 10 Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 0 0 CS-Potential Farmland Conversion Moderate Concern Below Threshold Below Threshold Below Threshold Residential Relocations 6 5 11 25 Business Relocations 0 0 0 0 Noise Receptors Impacted 11 0 52 4 Wetland Impacts (acres) 40 36 9 30 Stream Impacts (feet) 1620 856 1768 2107 ater Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 0 0 inority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse Disproportionate Impacts) No No No No Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 Underground Storage Tank Sites 0 2 2 2 Construction Cost $40,200,000 $53,900,000 $71,300,000 $68,000,000 Right of Way Cost $3,900,500 $4,213,500 $6,383,500 $9,444,000 Mitigation $2,229,424 $1,991,255 $953,245 $1,021,065 Utilities Cost $1,144,221 $919,947 $2,025,238 $1,452,850 Irl'otal Cost $47,474,145 $66,305,192 $83,092,725 $81,523,902 Note 1: Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is selected. NCDOT RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on detailed studies of alternatives the NCDOT recommends that Old Jackson Bypass and Southern Jackson Bypass be dropped as viable alternatives for the project. Old Jackson Bypass is the least expensive alternative; however, it still has a high impact on the natural environment and is the least desirable alternative for a freeway section due to the horizontal alignment and partial control of access. The alignment is also too far away from Jackson to provide an economic or developmental benefit to the town of Jackson. 9 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Southern Jackson Bypass has a high cost and a large impact on both the Jackson community and the natural environment. The majority of recent development has occurred to the north of Jackson and a southern bypass would do little to encourage future development of this area. The NCDOT recommends that Extended Northern Jackson Bypass be carried forward as the preferred alternative due to its lower cost and lower impact on the Town of Jackson. The Extended Northern Jackson Bypass would also prevent adverse impacts to historic downtown Jackson. FAISON'S OLD TAVERN ALTERNATIVES The Faison's Old Tavern alternatives extend from east of Jackson through just west of the town of Conway. Figure 1 shows the study corridors for the Faison's Old Tavern alternatives. Faison's Old Tavern/ Conway Public Hearing Update: A Public Hearing was held on September 30, 2008 at Conway Middle School. Approximately 123 citizens attended the Hearing. A majority of the comments were apposed to widening on existing US 158 through Faison's Old Tavern, mainly due to the high impact it would have on the surrounding community. No preference was shown for the Northern Bypass or the Southern- Bypass. Property owners impacted by the Northern Bypass were in support of the Southern Bypass and vice versa. Widen on Existing I (Segments F2 FS F7) and 2 (Segments F4, F7): These alternatives widen US 158 on its existing location from east of Jackson to just west of Conway. No interchanges are proposed with this alternative. The connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. The alternatives differ where they tie to Jackson alternatives. Pros: • Least expensive alternatives • Lowest impacts to natural environment Cons: • Highest impact on surrounding community (38-40 relocations) • Primarily partial control of access (more driveways) • Potential adverse impacts to minority/ low income community • Apposed by the community (citizen comments) Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypasses 1 (Segments FZ F6 F9) and 2 (Segments F2, F6, F10): These alternatives proceed on new location from just east of Old Jackson Bypass Road to west of Conway. An interchange is proposed at Galatia Road (SR 1344) while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. Pros: • Low impact on surrounding community (3-4 relocations) • Provides best freeway facility (full control of access) 10 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Cons: • High natural environment impacts (21-23 acre, wetlands) (2769-3004 feet, streams) • Most expensive alternative Faison's Old Tavern Southern Bypasses 1 (Segments Fl F8) and 2 (Segments F3 F8)• These alternatives extend on new location from west of the Old Jackson Bypass Road intersection to west of Conway. An interchange is proposed at NCHS East Road (SR 1505) while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. Pros: • Least expensive Bypass alternatives • Relatively low impact on surrounding community (5-6 relocations) • Relatively low natural environment impacts (9-10 acre, wetlands) (491-546 feet, streams) Cons: • Highest concern for farmland conversion threshold • Requires a section of partial control of access (additional driveways) NCDOT RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on comments received at the public hearing and the anticipated impact to the Faison's Old Tavern community, the NCDOT recommends that all Widen on Existing alternatives be dropped as viable alternatives for the project. Based on the complexity of the connections between the remaining Faison's Old Tavern alternatives and the Conway Bypass alternatives the NCDOT recommends that these two sections be viewed in terms of total impacts. An impact summary table of the combined alternatives for Faison's Old Tavern and Conway, can be found in Appendix A. R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) _c o..:..,...?.. "IA rr ?mr Alternatives Resources and Impacts lame Ll.: Cum, lin vA r, ruaow . o ..... _--. ----------- Faison's Faison's Faison's Faison's Faison's Faison's Impacted Resources Widen on Widen on Northern Northern Southern Southern Existin 1 Existin 2 B ass 1 Bypass 2 Bypass I Bypass 2 Se ents Included F2 F5 F7 F4 F7 F2 F6 F9 F2 F6 F10 Fl F8 F3 F8 ength 8.0 7.5 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.7 terchanges 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 ailroad Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 1 1 ecreational Areas and 0 0 0 0 0 0 arks hurches 0 0 0 0 0 0 emeteries 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a' or Utility Crossings 0 0 0 istoric Properties 0 0 1 (Eligible or listed on the 1 1 1 ational Register) chaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ederally Listed Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 ithin Corridors CS-Potential Farmland Below Below Below Moderate Higher Higher onversion Threshold Threshold Threshold Concern Concern Concern esidential Relocations 36 39 2 2 5 5 usiness Relocations 2 2 2 1 1 0 oise Rec tors Im acted 2 2 11 11 0 0 etland Impacts (acres) 4 1 23 21 10 9 Stream Impacts (feet) 396 0 3004 2769 491 546 ater Supply Watershed 0 0 0 0 0 0 rotected Areas ildlife Refuges and 0 0 0 0 0 0 ame Lands inority/ Low Income opulations (Adverse & Potential Potential No No No No is ro ortionate Im acts azardous Material/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 andfill Sites nderground Storage 12 11 1 1 2 1 ank Sites onstruction Cost $33,400,000 $31,200,000 $51,200,00 0 $49,100,000 $43,300,000 $44,400,00 ghtofWa Cost $12,684,000 $13,688,000 $6,343,500 $5,985,500 $6,069,500 $5,790,000 itigation $225,511 $17,690 $1,426,798 $1,311,016 $434,440 $407,320 tilities Cost $1,290,430 $1,155,899 $423,593 $395,593 $318,493 $267,539 941 $47 599 061 589 $46 393 89 $59 11$56,792, 109 01,122,433 $50,864,85 otal Cost , 2 , , , , Note 1: Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is 12 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) CONWAY ALTERNATIVES The Conway alternatives extend from west of town (just east of Zion Church) through to the east end of the project. Included in each of these alternatives is a segment of US 158 at the end of the project that will be widened on its existing location. Figure 1 shows the study corridors for the Conway alternatives. Conwav Public Hearing Uudate: A Public Hearing was held on September 30, 2008 at Conway Middle School. Approximately 123 citizens attended the Hearing. Of the comments received Southern Bypass 2 was slightly favored over Northern Bypass 2. Northern Bypass 1 and Southern Bypass I had little to no support. Northern Conway Bypasses 1 (Segments G2, G6, G7, HI) and 2 (Segments G1, G6, G7, Hl): These alternatives begin on new location east of Zion Church Road (SR 1500) and reconnect with existing US 158 east of Gilmer Ricks Road (SR 1543). An interchange is proposed at NC 35 north of town while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. These alternatives involve one railroad crossing. They only differ where they tie to Faison's Old Tavern alternatives. Pros: • Lowest natural environment impacts (14 acre, wetlands) and (2023-2279 feet, streams) • Lowest impact on surrounding community (16-20 relocations) • Northern Bypass 2 is second least expensive alternative • Northern Bypass 2 combined with Northern Bypass of Faison's Old Tavern provides best freeway facility Cons: • Northern Bypass I is the most expensive alternative • Adverse impact on a historic property (JR. Martin Farm & Francis Parker House) • Northern Bypass 1 also has an Adverse impact on Historic (St. John AME Church) Southern Conway Bypass 1 (Segments G3, G5, G7, Hl): This alternative begins on new location east of Zion Church Road (SR 1500) and, after passing i south of town, curves north to cross over the existing facility before reconnecting with US 158 east of i Gilmer Ricks Road (SR 1543). An interchange is proposed at NC 35 and a grade separation is proposed over one section of existing US 158. The end connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. There is one railroad crossing associated with this alternative. Pros: • Least expensive alternative Cons: • Second highest wetland impacts (35 acre) • Not supported by the community (citizen comments) • Adverse impact on a historic property (JR. Martin Farm & Francis Parker House) • Poor freeway horizontal alignment 13 R-2582/R-2584 (LEIDPA) Southern Conway Bypass 2 (Segments G3, G4, H1): This bypass follows most of the same alignment as the other southern bypass alternative; however, it proceeds east to reconnect with existing US 158 at Ashley's Grove Road (SR 1536). An interchange is proposed at NC 35 while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. There is also one railroad crossing associated with this alternative. Pros: • Slightly favored by the community • Relatively low impact on surrounding community (16 relocations) • Lowest adverse impacts to historic properties Cons: • Second most expensive alternative • Highest impact on natural environment (42 acre, wetlands) (2840 feet, streams) • Requires a section of partial control of access between Conway and Faison's Old Tavern alternatives • Adverse impact on a historic property (Francis Parker House) NCDOT RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on comments received at the public hearing and the impacts to natural and human environment the NCDOT recommends that Conway Southern Bypass 1 be dropped as a viable alternative for the project. NCDOT recommends that all other Conway alternative be looked at in term of total impacts, when combined with Faison's Old Tavern alternatives. An impact summary table of the combined alternatives for Faison's Old Tavern and Conway can be found in Appendix A. 14 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Table 21): Comparison of Conway Alternatives Resources and Impacts Impacted Resource IF Conway Northern Bypass 1 Conway Northern Bypass 2 Conway Southern Bypass 1 Conway Southern Bypass 2 Segments Included G2 G6 G7 H1 Gl G6 G7 HI G3 G5 G7 H1 G3 G4 Hl Length 7.8 7.8 8.8 8.0 Interchanges I I 1 1 Railroad Crossings 1 1 1 1 Schools 1 1 0 0 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0 0 Churches 1 0 0 0 Cemeteries 0 1 0 0 Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0 Historic Properties (Eligible or listed on the National Register) 5 6 5 5 Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 0 0 Farmland Conversion Higher Concern Higher Concern Higher Concern Higher Concern Residential Relocations 19 15 22 15 usiness Relocations 1 1 0 1 Noise Receptors Impacted 2 2 0 0 Wetland Impacts (acres) 14 14 35 42 Stream Impacts (feet) 2279 2023 2072 2840 Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0 .0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 .0 0 Minority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse & Disproportionate Impacts) No No No No Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 Underground Storage Tank Sites 1 0 0 0 Construction Cost $72,600,000 $64,000,000 $60,600,000 $66,200,000 Right of Way Cost $8,832,500 $8,570,500 $8,916,500 $7,177,500 Mitigation $960,007 $900,912 $1,398,238 $1,769,379 tilities Cost $1,477,696 $1,383,772 $1,296,080 $638,257 ,[Total Cost $84,119,083 $74,855,184 $72,210,818 $75,785,136 Note 1: Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is selected. 15 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) FAISON'S OLD TAVERN AND CONWAY COMBINED NCDOT RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on detailed studies of alternatives the NCDOT recommends that all combinations that include a southern bypass around Conway be dropped from consideration, due to the high wetland impacts associated with these alternatives. The NCDOT also recommends that any northern bypass of Faison's Old Tavern should remain to the north of current US 158 until reaching the eastern side of Conway. This alternative would provide the best alignment for a freeway section and would allow for uninterrupted full control of access. All alternatives that include the combination of segments F9 and G2 should be dropped from further consideration. The remaining alternatives would be to utilize a northern bypass of Faison's Old Tavern and a northern bypass of Conway or the combination of a southern bypass of Faison's Old Tavern and a northern bypass of Conway. Of these two combinations the NCDOT recommends that Faison's Northern Bypass 2 and Conway Northern Bypass 2 be carried forward as the preferred alternatives. This combination would provide the best freeway facility by allowing full control of access and would have the lowest impact on the surrounding community. 16 Segments TO?'s Other Old Jackson Bypass D1 $ ')w Primarily Partial Access Control Extend Northern Bypass C1, E1 $ ')w Northern Bypass C1, E2, E3 $ >w Southern Bypass C1, E2, E4 $ iw ier Access Control Access Control ier Mt of Transportation It Estimate -2584 A 1, 2009 Minority/Low Income (Adverse) Farmland Conversion (Below Threshold LIST'S Other Potential Higher Concern 13, Low Part Partial Access Control Potential Higher Concern 12, Low Part Partial Access Control Potential Higher Concern 12, Low Part Partial Access Control Potential Higher Concern 12, Low Part Partial Access Control Potential Higher Concern 11, Low Part Partial Access Control i Potential Higher Concern 11, Low Part Partial Access Control No Higher Concern 2, Low No Higher Concern 1, Low No Higher Concern 1, Low No Higher Concern 1, Low Full Control of Access No Higher Concern 3, Low No Higher Concern 2, Low No Higher Concern 2, Low i No Higher Concern 2, Low No Higher Concern 1, Low No Higher Concern 1, Low li f ?j B l' B u+44 1W.U. 11 YIRG IN 14k 8 X. '?y?. M cB i Gp ® m.o xm F ?' I F !M I ? \St1 ?I Rmns s OD n,wu e r LISA' : g y.x Pp01 Bwn. 7 N 0 R T H A In P "BEGIN PROJECT4 END PROJECT r n? mw ? , - ru ssss° +V? 1 xh BRN Stl L" ° w"nooe? (JOJins rv,z?7° 7 ? ??`,C e1.2d6j At. L I F : A X s°,;,y ? _ Bd,e4x`?y ,,N? m r itu .?ca•..:: {15J _ ILA R-2582/R-2584 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen US 158 from the 1-95/NC 46 Interchange nest of Cansburg to the Murfreesboro Bypass in Northampton Counh' This facility will he widened to four lanes with a 46-foot median Proposed alternatives utilize the existing facility as well as new location. 2 A-25'0 d0Rf'if'1IPM, I CUUJI f I Iq PURPOSE AND NEED: As approved by the NEPA7404 Merger Team on February 9.2000: -Improve traffic flow and level of service on this section of us 158 -Improve safety along US 158 -Improve access to existing and future industry Discussion of Alternatives I I c-crnV f 2 Garysburg Alternatives I?os: Cons: ?,? cam.-?qs1 No f4 4v -62 r 3 High Stream Impacts Recu >i It offlandaftima Drop Northern Bypass • Chose Southern Bypass That Best Aligns With The Preferred Jackson Alternative Jackson Alternatives I/r O l??e f /'? &4- S3 - 1O0 L4 ny /rTPS,I/t 4 0 e o e, o r ea _, f t Least , ( . ' ,,,a -E xpensive - Bible 5 t ?3 Community - ' }(6 Relocation Emended Nowftwon Jackson Bypass Pvozo ?E?QC@GdCP.`I°G?gI GiIOOP?C?PW,d?OGi1-(°??c?34, ?v. TM Ipa I - ? H510 P peM1y X? M ? Ar j? ?Secono H gftesl. ?t ' Wetla EI Prcls v 'C "• ? Y ?T ? r ? y-J ?4y 1f? ? ' t ""? a ??} eslW tlentl S Low v „ zr Impacts .; - C.h®vikP?®?oo.dJ?JC?C?s3®oo'.€??p???- ? ' Mos( ? ? AUretseamp t ( Expensive ? ? ? to 2.Hist f Alle?naWe? ? c}f"t ,? PeM1 =--- y s t ' Too close T2 i S?-? ?•Ps - iss?Qs 6 Pros: To Jacks it Impact L Southern Jackson Bypa?i Cons. Old JacFeon p a. F y A Lxfox Bypass __? ?ry4 n-Drop SOUthern?ry ?_ _-?? Jackson Bypassy 4N 7 • Carry Forward Extended Northern Jackson Bypass As Preferred Altemame Faison's Old Tavern Alternatives modcaw (DUD Mmfla?QBwg7 G?PO?a R '? ?leasl FipensWe-_ J f \ - - ?YO.T IS n ?/ s1 ? 9 ? z J"':L I Pacl lP ? ? _? +Wetl tl & St w.? ?t i Madan on F-mazaawg) Qgm- SS ^PolentulAWerse PaNaI Contml Of. 1 Impact to htmonty/ Access No to LOW IOCOme 1 Dmimays CommuAn ?, t ? High impact on 1 `,-' t Communty Community e Y (3H-00 Relocations) / Opposition 9 Southern B pass Cons: .??Lz!? ? r Requires Secoo ?' l/ 6<- H9eami daFoF e F e s 1 come sion f 1 ?'`' r 4 MERE 10 Esm agneNdla ma ift 4npo • Evaluate Conway Alternatives and look at Remaining Combinations 12 'End Piped Conway Alternatives , ?n -Yep(ZPn-bcd<Al s'- 5 B siF ays 1 ; Belot ely LOw (F II Co I of of ACC¢49J Impact t Wetlands > antl sires s 4 rz :? ? a ?`??.LOweft lmpacit Gomm m t'1 y MOUt aaDPUn [BrPMOB 2 COMO ' ®!POVene lmpad on' `-Historic Praperry I I s 1 71 r -lip 12 Y -..I W q pPO?o High Welland Community ovwsmon Poor Honzontal Alignment Southern Bypass 2 Prose Impact on a 13 [ aDcaum mandme'DOHN 4gttIWY 1 f????ar??w??14o®w? Q(???ogo Look al Remaining COTdwWnS 14 • ++v o No. nnn 'n 'n 1 H s xlYPxl , SB B SaxS 3 3 irWa!n E.P i!_ 1? Nf 6)xOa if Widen on Existing is - ' ?•® - m rzrs.rx, Gi Dropped Through.. F i ' Old T a 3}£ 1 l l Gx a son s avern, Combinations LB are 12R ] 3 wn rix.gix i•ix . Eliminated 2Pn x P ? ? ( ?)Y1?? 1?1E1'B•l. ??•? SBa tirnP?a•Ia r3rB.r9. G P • r} G)Bnl .t y - - 2 sOF S e 5 mne ryBa I• 61W { lt Conway$oBthem 1 r5 sBu lo w a p m rxrs.nx, Bypass 1 is Dropped, 9} x .?. P a GI ¢ x ?: Combinatian, 8 and 12 '.- a G} rx' are Eliminated • 31A ) 11 5 f3G1 ?-4?ri •s 3361 } 1] S ? GlW xl ifi911$9 R 4 13T 1° .?. qi.?..? . Gz6s Gi +If Od Jackson bypass is Sea 1 Is Dropped Combinations 161B x . s s..x... xrw=•Ea r,e. 14-18 are Eliminated 16 • Nil T-1. s om e tb. B,y.?x v w•a 1 °•sb.43 f"esideves qr Leaving the Remaining x.M^^ • ..1 Combinations P " ' ? CHI TSna,Y t a IIfP.19, x 1 B ,m,.nP u 9 ,. m .,1 P ca w I s IE.1:9S6 A rb 60u A .••}• x•mxnM p , 1 VIWA1 E ps) II x,n,•..e ,?, Ixv1a+6 v vm rs 5e`....x . x1 13 5 olc i s peXMI n 5} 33T .. ... 15 ?= 6P f? nx4 1 'r ... .. .., .., .. _.. F•I aCemryCOmP m I •!k'MlliieL 3 _ yl .c _ , •`J `et • mx, h C !!SRI aRS • Drop 49 Due to o Hig High 3 ?• Wet Impa<fs W a ? l e? . and Cosl and :ne.e r.. .w... B Mu tl se?inenx a•E'° I X •?n ??•IB R13. 1351 sRl g x•?a,?e pa•I? wne a.E G3G1 I ii'?USr)Y¢6 ID 4Yas• sB•e I f0 •„BT ?.SB x G InYx?1 Il9] S 11 w 6}CS x ?ZY1316 E 3Im 13 Stm.Temny?,e, I _ _ _ t3 s 43W „ IA?)$9 II 4 3131 Is ?Ir^i Y . 1e w 15 1.1d... Old I.,.. sre I+o. ..1 ?? p tt7 Due tHigti Cost an Dr m x ] tlvee Impacts t0 Historic Pro erties d ,1 0 j p . .. 6 ? ` . ... B S?Fw.B a I- G541NI dd. g NYM? _ 14 1r. Gr [d G}II lr)rlA? Z .191 } 11 r6w. h.,ra M m.n6 w.r t Gi6 ]xl . r ES.r5r6 x ]f ])]0 ] 1z S..rox.6„..r.? swxx.B ..f ocz lxr - ... IB s .: enw nFa. lw rasms6B s ]]v 14 w;.rA?err••13? ? s 6 Is '11.SBrx11T Ffl.on f 010 T.v.m d Camvry Com MnfE atBm. llrff W 1 ax:f?lb ' SLMG } xxn...aB ?.I M4.frY IB f ! - ' .wOwnB .. --- x 1 11]FFd? 6 vdt.x [.xm? if t 6 B...xS 1f.eY-C`• S ? a.i N±aya} X: ;r a Drop 913 Du e to Hi gh B mw. Wetland and St ream Im pacts . 14 x "n BYO.. t IIr NIIIt 3 9 11 .aue Onw.u X, nF.me s.l I wa lnl I IxIll 6 5 ' v ])10 l R a 0 iLnx.B rn•-- - GB 1x1• •- ..__._. 1] S..mw.Bnw.r• 5rnnwnO w.t n w . f t.5y)•59 R 6}, dill I a. 14 6x?9YBe 11 ,,111doll 12 16 `B r i] nb<n. om Tm.rn d comnv comm. nn.rnnn. Bw. 11 - "I IT F' s re Choose Between Combination - - '10 dttll an x.?An . B 9 B¢ I 14 ? xn B.O^}• 61 G6Gi M1 f rJt,xtl?9f .)+} } II n C`!SGI NI 1 13I.r516 )]N t} '.^.1LM1BB 3Lle.. 1] ynAn m B y l."BL9lj!O14> p and 405 16 •u^>•1P>P 16 I Nf. P•YC.I.n t Wuex F. iln. ?! fEf f 4 t )NJ•n E.inn??IP? ? ... •GI .... ._ ._ 'J'?'x? s 5 "- I NCDOT Recommend `•'- Combination #10 _ 8 ti.?n • •+ __ __ _ q 1+EL 'deft ? SZf?t _ ? .. ? ? afsfl my+?. q9] 11 z•n^.. nix' E' ? Y15is 1gE ]+ ]))o IJ r•'1i, 11 +a '? "°^? `_ Drop Combinatior *11 3ue to'High°' , •+ ... qP. . !. Relocations. Adverse Impacts to Historic is q ?' i Properties antl Cost qq , ,_ , FINAL ALTERNATIVE TO CARRY FORWARD ac.nveaECT. ' ENO PRWECT; ?>fUfAI fIrU7 ?3?LVUl 4,v 17 ? '? O - 1I 6?CN e CN S s NC 4 0 l ? 95 2 ?C y 5301 e r) ? SOE ON NC 35 I r ? ?`sr9 D o m h n c i m O tr (A G) m w Q m C Z D D D O N n m m D CD D 3 m m ' m . n rn U. ? N N m n t A:i ' R !n• r•. 1' J . F•i 1 . f ~ .. ? ? ?.i ^ty o s 41