The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190230_Information Letter_20101004CONCURRENCE MEETING INFORMATION PACKET FOR YOUR REVIEW I PRIOR TO MEETING ON Tuesday October 19., 2010 PROJECT ENGINEER Matthew Potter TIP #R-2582/2584 Please bring this packet to the meeting. 01@010,619[o OCT - 4 2010 am-UTMO A M mWmsmmWai WAM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A.CONTI. JR GOVERNOR SECRETARY AGENDA Eastern Concurrence Meeting Tuesday, October 19, 2010 Board Room, Transportation Building Raleigh, North Carolina 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM, Matthew Potter, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch TIP No. R-2582/R-2584, Widening of US 158 from 1-95/NC-46 Interchange west of Garysburg to the Murfreesboro Bypass, Northampton. County, Division 1 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- I. Ron Sechler, NMF signatory) Travis Wilson, WRC NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff: Jerry Jennings, Division 1 Steve Gurganus, HEU Community Jason Moore, Roadway Design Studies Bryan Key, Roadway Design Matt Wilkerson, HEU Archaeology Jerry Snead, Hydraulics Shane Petersen, HEU Archaeology John Frye, Structure Design Vanessa Patrick, HEU Historic Chris Rivenbark, NEU Architecture John Merritt, NEU Charles Cox, PDEA Rob Hanson, PDEA * The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 3 and CP 4A MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-733-3141 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-733-9794 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWWNCDOT.GOV RALEIGH NC RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 Concurrence Point 3 (Continued) Concurrence Point 4A NEPA1404 Merger Team Meeting TIP Project Nos. R-2582/R-2584 i WBS No. 34472 ` US 158 from the I-95 / NC 46 Interchange west of Garysburg E To the Murfreesboro Bypass Northampton County ' October 19, 2010 Transportation Building Board Room Purpose of Meeting: Tile purpose of this meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team on the alternatives that have bE en?studied in detail and' determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/ Preferred Alternative for one remaining segment of the project. In addition, avoidance and minimization efforts will be discussed. Formal concurrence for Concurrence Point 3 and 4A will be rei;Iuested for TIP Project Nos. R-2582 / R-2584 at the conclusion of this meeting. Agenda for Meeting: r • Project Description and Status i • Discussion of LEDPAI Preferred Alternatives • Discussion of Avoidance and Minimization • Comments and Questions ?I l Project 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-2582/R-2584. This project will widen US 158 to a four lane median-divided facility from the I-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 2011-2020 Draft State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), right-of- way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2014, and construction in fiscal year 2016. The current estimated total cost in the STIP is approximately $242,925,000, which includes $18,925,000 for right of way and $224,000,000 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. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD 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: Proposed Bridges/Drainage Structures Segment Wetland/ Steam Existing Structure Proposed Structure system Al WA 03/ WA 06/ SA 02 Triple 941 x 9-ft RCBC Retain and extend as needed DI WA 16/ WA 17/ WA Double 84-in CMP 340-ft bridge 35/ SA 07 D1 WA 23/ WA 19/ SA 08 Single 24-in RCP Double 8-ft x 5-ft RCBC Dl WA 25/ WA 26/ SA 10 45-ft bridge 95-ft bridge D1 WA 34/ WA 33/ SA 16 Double 120-in CSPA Trple 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC DI WA 40/ WA 38/ WA Single 60-in CMP Double 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC 39/ SA 22 F2 WA 46/ WA 47/ SA 25 Single 54-in CMP Double 6-ft x 5-ft RCBC R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Table 1: PronoSed Bridges/Drainage Structures (Cont.) Segment Wetland/ Steam Existing Structure Proposed Structure system GI WA 63/ SA 48 Not applicable Single 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC GI WA 70/ WA 72/ WA Not applicable Double 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC or 975-ft 73/ SA 51/ SA 52 bridge F1/F3/F4 WA 93/ WA 92/ SA 90 Triple 77-in x 52-in Triple 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC CSPA 133 WB 06/ SB 03 Not applicable Single 6-ft x 5-ft RCBC B1/133 WB 09/ SB 05 Triple 8-ft x 6-ft RCBC Retain and extend as needed B4 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 Cl 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 2 @ 46-in x 31-in CSPA Single 8-ft x 5-ft RCBC Swamp G3 WB 74/ SB 41 Not applicable Single 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC E4 )WB 47/W B 48/ SB Not applicable Single 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC 6A2 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 Retain and extend as needed RCBC G4 WB 77/ WA 78/ WA Not applicable Single 7-ft x 6-ft RCBC 79/ SB 63 * 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) Concurrence Point 3 (CP3) meeting was held on March 26, 2009. The purpose of the meeting was to gain concurrence on Point 3 by choosing the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). In developing alternatives, the project was divided into four sections corresponding with the four main populated segments along the project: Garysburg, Jackson, Faison'E Old Tavern, and Conway. Concurrence was reached on a preferred alternative for three of the four communities: Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 (Segments Al, B2, 133), Faisons Old Tavern Northern Bypass 2 (Segments F2, F6, F10), and Conway Northern Bypass 2 (Segments GI, G6, G7, 1-11). Anticipated impacts associated with these preferred alternatives are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Previously Selected Preferred Alternatives Anticipated Impact Impacted Resource Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 Faison's Northern Bypass 2 Conway Northern Bypass 2 Total Impacts Segments Included Al 132 133 F2 F61710 GI G6 G7 Hl Al B2 133 F2 F6 17I0 G1 G6 G7 H1 Length 5.4 8.3 7.8 21.5 Interchanges 2 1 1 4 Railroad Crossings 2 0 1 3 Schools 0 0 1 1 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0 0 Churches 1 0 0 1 Cemeteries 0 0 1 1 Major Utility Crossings 1 0 0 1 Historic Properties (Adverse Effect) 1 0 2 3 Archaeological Sites (t) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 0 0 CS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below Threshold Moderate Concern Higher Concern Residential Relocations 11 2 15 28 Business Relocations 2 1 1 4 Noise Receptors Impacted 8 11 2 21 Welland Impacts (acres) 11 21 14 46 Stream Impacts (feet) 2041 2769 2023 6833 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 3 1 0 4 Construction Cost $53,100,000 $49,100,000 $64,000,000 $166,200,000 Right of Way Cost $13,548,750 $5,985,500 $8,570,500 $28,104,750 Mitigation $1,277,263 $1,311,016 $900,912 $3,489,191 Utilities Cost $1,015,868 $395,593 $1,383,772 $2,795,233 otal Cost $68,941,881 $56,792,109 $74,855,184 $200,589,174 Note 1: Archeoloeical sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is selected. R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Concurrence could not be reached on a preferred alternative for the Jackson community; however, the Old Jackson Bypass and Southern Jackson Bypass Alternatives were dropped from further consideration. The Merger team requested that NCDOT look at possible revisions to the Northern Jackson Bypass and the Extended Northern Jackson Bypass, to reduce anticipated impacts. CONCURRENCE POINT 3 CONTINUED (JACKSON BYPASS) I The two remaining alternatives, Extended Northern Jackson Bypass and Northern Jackson Bypass have been modified to reduce their impact on the surrounding environment. The Extended Northern Jackson Bypass alignment was shifted slightly to the south at its intersection with existing US 158 to avoid wetland impacts. The Northern Jackson Bypass alignment was shifted to the north at its intersection with NC 305 just north of the Jackson Historic District. Extended Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments Cl, 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. Carmel 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 cIonnections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections. Pros: Least expensive alternative • Low impact on surrounding community (7 relocations) •I Lower stream impacts (856 feet) • I Preferred by the Jackson community I Cons: • I Higher wetland impacts (23 acre) 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: • Lower wetland impacts (10 acre) C Ins: • I Most expensive alternative • Higher impact on surrounding community (10 relocations) Bisects County facilities from downtown Jackson An additional Public Hearing was held on July 19, 2010 at the Jackson Cultural Wellness Center. imately 114 citizens attended the Hearing. Approximately 150 written comments were received ng the Hearing. A majority of comments received were opposed to the Northern Jackson Bypass R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) and favored the Extended Northern Jackson Bypass. Other comments received were mainly about other sections of the project and noted concerns about access to farmland that is impacted by sections of roadway on new location. The Town of Jackson also sent correspondence in favor of a bypass located north of the "County Complex". The Town of Jackson feels that the Northern Jackson Bypass will create a sense of separation between the town and the county complex, and therefore will have an adverse impact on the cohesiveness of the greater Jackson community. A copy of the correspondence can be found in Appendix A. Anticipated impacts associated with the two remaining Jackson Bypass alternatives are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3A: Updated Comparison of Jackson Anticipated Impacts Impacted Resource Extended Northern Jackson Bypass Northern Jackson Bypass Segments Included CI El CI E2 E3 Length 11.9 13.1 Interchanges 1 I Railroad Crossings 0 0 Schools 1 0 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 1 Churches 1 0 Cemeteries 1 0 Major Utility Crossings 1 1 Historic Properties (Adverse Effect) I 1 Archaeological Sites (1) Unknown Unknown Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 CS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below Threshold Below Threshold Residential Relocations 6 10 ' Business Relocations 1 0 Wetland Impacts (acres) 23.5 10.4 Stream Impacts (feet) 856 1768 Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 Minority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse & Disproportionate Impacts) No No Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 Underground Storage Tank Sites 2 2 Construction Cost $59,180,490 $74,701,257 g to Way Cost $5,165,500 $6,225,000 Mitigation $1,423,655 $990,837 Utilities Cost $919,947 $1,054,723 Total Cost $66,689,592 $82,971,817 Note l: Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is selected. R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Table 3B: Combined Impacts with Previously Selected Preferred Alternatives Impacted Resource Preferred Alternatives & Extended Northern Jackson Bypass Preferred Alternatives & Northern Jackson Bypass Segments Included Al B2 B3 Cl El F2 F6 F10 G1 G6 G7 H1 Al B2 B3 C1 E2 E3 F2 F6 F10 G1 G6 G7 H1 Length 33.4 34.6 terchanges 5 5 Railroad Crossings 3 3 Schools 2 1 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 1 Churches 2 1 Cemeteries 2 1 Major Utility Crossings 2 2 Historic Properties (Adverse Effect) 4 4 chaeolo ical Sites Unknown Unknown Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 CS-Potential Farmland Conversion Residential Relocations 34 38 Business Relocations 5 4 Wetland Impacts (acres) 69.5 56.4 Stream Impacts (feet) 7689 8601 Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 Minority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse & Disproportionate Impacts) No No Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 Underground Storage Tank Sites 6 6 onstruction Cost $225,380,490 $240,901,257 Fight of Way Cost $33,270,250 $34,329,750 Mitigation - $4,912,846 $4,480,028 tilities Cost $3,715,180 $3.849,956 Total Cost $267,278,766 $283,560,991 Note]: Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended altemative is selected. NCDOT RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on comments received at the Jackson Bypass Corridor Hearing, and detailed studies of alternatives the NCDOT recommends that the Extended Northern Jackson Bypass be carried forward as the pfefeIred alternative. The Extended Northern Jackson Bypass continues to have the lowest cost, stream impacts, community irrlpacts, and would reduce travel time by approximately 1.2 minutes. While the Extended Northern Jackson Bypass continues to have the highest wetland impacts, changes in the alignment have reduced wetland impacts by approximately 12.5 acres. Comments from the Jackson Bypass Corridor Hearing also show overwhelming support of the Extended Northern Jackson Bypass. R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) CONCURRENCE POINT 4A AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION NCDOT has implemented the following Avoidance and Minimization efforts: • Garysburg Northern Bypass was dropped from consideration to avoid adverse & disproportionate impacts to the minority/ low income Garysburg Community. • Old Jackson Bypass was dropped from consideration due to high wetland and relocation impacts. • Southern Jackson Bypass was dropped from consideration due to its impact on historic properties and the Jackson community. • Widen on Existing through Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old Tavern, and Conway were dropped from consideration due to anticipated community/ relocation impacts to each of the surrounding communities. • Conway Southern Bypass 1 and 2 were dropped from consideration due to high wetland impacts. • 3:1 slope stakes will be used throughout the project to minimize impacts. • Extended Northern Jackson Bypass corridor and alignment shifted south to avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46. • Northern Jackson Bypass corridor and alignment shifted north to minimize impacts to the Jackson Historic District. Table 4: Avoidance & Minimization Measures (Wetland & Stream Sites) Wetland/ Wetland Stream Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization Identification (Acres) (Feet) Widening on north side of NC 46 to Al SA 01 129 reduce impacts to Historic Oak Grove Baptist Church Widening on north side of NC 46 to WA 01 0.4 reduce impacts to Historic Oak Grove Baptist Church WA 03 0.1 None SA 02 192 None WA 04 0.1 None Widening to the south side of NC 46 WA 09 0.2 avoids impacts to WA 08 B2 SA 04 156 None WA 07 2.1 None SB 02 261 Maintained 90° crossing Half-Cloverleaf interchange build on south side of US 158/ US 301 to WB 02 0.1 minimize impacts to WB 02 and WB 03 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) i Wetland/ Wetland Stream Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization Identification (Acres) (Feet) Half-Cloverleaf interchange build on B3 WB 02 23 south side of US 158/ US 301 to minimize impacts to WB 02 and WB 03 Half-Cloverleaf interchange build on WB 03 1 south side of US 158/ US 301 to minimize impacts to WB 02 and WB 03 SB 01 1075 None WB 04 3.3 None WB 06 1.1 New alignment avoids impacts to SB 03 SB 05 228 Widening on south side of US 158 to minimize impacts to SB 07 WB 08 0 7 Widening on south side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WB 08 and SB 07 Cl WB 14 0 Widening on south side to avoid impacts to WB 14 WB 11 1.1 Widening on north side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WB 11 Widening on south side of US 158 to WB 12 0 minimize impacts to WB 12 and WB 13 Widening on south side of US 158 to WB 13 0.1 minimize impacts to WB 12 and WB 13 WB 17 0.1 Widening on south side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WB 17 WB 18 2.2 None SB 11 222 None E2 WA 20 0.2 Widening on south side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WA 20 WA 21 0.8 None WB 95 0.9 None Impacts are due to longer radius of WB 92 1.4 curve to limit impacts to Historic Mowfield Property WB 19 0.1 None SB 15 196 Additional bridge on south side of US 158 to minimize impacts WB 21 0.1 None WB 20 0.1 Widening on south side of US 158 to avoid impacts to WB 20 and P 7 SB 16 1149 None R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Wetland/ Wetland Stream Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization Identification (Acres) (Feet) Widening on South side of US 158 to El WA 20 0.5 minimize impacts to WA 20 WA 21 0.8 None Corridor and Alignment shifted south WA 22 0 to avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46 Corridor and Alignment shifted south WB 95 0.9 to avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46 Corridor and Alignment shifted south WB 92 0.1 to avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46 Corridor and Alignment shifted south WA 85 0 to avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46 Corridor and alignment shifted south to WB 44 0 avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46 Corridor and alignment shifted south to WB 45 0 avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46 Corridor and alignment shifted south to WB 46 0 avoid WA 22, WA 85, WB 44, WB 45, and WB 46 WB 96 0.2 None Alignment crosses at narrowest point of WB 41 3.8 WB 41 to minimize impacts SB 23 268 Crossing is approximately 90° to minimize impacts Alignment crosses SB 21 at approximately 90° and minimizes WB 39 0.1 impacts to WB 40, WB 39, WB 33-34, WB 38, and WB 37 Alignment crosses SB 21 at approximately 90° and minimizes WB 40 0.4 impacts to WB 40, WB 39, WB 33-34, WB 38, and WB 37 SB 21 273 Crossing is approximately 90° to minimize impacts Alignment crosses SB 21 at approximately 90° and minimizes WB 38 2 3 impacts to WB 40, WB 39, WB 33-34, WB 38, and WB 37 Alignment crosses SB 21 at approximately 90° and minimizes WB 37 3.5 impacts to WB 40, WB 39, WB 33-34, WB 38, and WB 37 10 R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Wetland/ Wetland Stream Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization Identification (Acres) (Feet) I El SB 20 93 Alignment is south of SB 20 to (Cont.) minimize impacts WB 32-36 6.1 None WB 29-31 0 A 1225-ft bridge will be used to minimize impacts WB 94 0.3 None WA 94 1 Alignment crosses the south side of WA 94 to minimize impacts Impacts are due to shift in corridor aiid- E3 3 WB 23 1.7 alignment to reduce impact to Jackson Historic District Impact avoided by shift in corridor and SB 19 0 alignment to reduce impacts to Jackson Historic District WB 25-27 0 A 1295-ft bridge will be used to minimize impacts WB 94 0.3 Shift to south to minimize impacts WA 94 1.1 None WA 92 0.2 None F2 WA 92 1.8 None WA 93 0.8 Widening on north side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WA 93 SA 90 221 None SA 25 175 None WA 46 0.5 None WA 47 0.2 Widening on north side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WA 47 F6 WA 42 1.4 None SA 29 238 None WA 43 0.3 New alignment is to the south to minimize impacts WA 53 1.4 Crossing is approximately 90° and at narrowest point SA 30 236 Crossing is approximately 90° to minimize impacts WA 54 6.7 None SA 35 222 None WA 55 0.6 None SA 36 345 Half-Cloverleaf Interchange on east side of SR 1344 to reduce impacts R-2582/R-2584 (LEDPA) Wetland/ Wetland Stream Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization Identification (Acres) (Feet) F6 Half-Cloverleaf Interchange on east (Cont.) SA 37 238 side of SR 1344 to reduce impacts WA 56 0.3 None New alignment crosses southern F10 WA 57 2 portion to minimize impacts New alignment crosses southern WA 58 0.7 portion to minimize impacts New alignment crosses southern SA 39 217 portion to minimize impacts WA 59 4.6 None New alignment crosses southern SA 42 32 portion to minimize impacts Crossing is approximately 90° to SA 41 272 minimize impacts SA 43 242 None SA 44 500 None SA 45 290 None SA 46 283 None WA 60 0.1 None Crossing is approximately 90° and at Gl WA 61-62 0.5 narrowest point WA 63 0.9 Crossing located at narrowest point New alignment crosses northern WA 65 0.2 portion to minimize impacts New alignment is to the south to WA 67 0.1 minimize impacts WA 68 2.9 None WA 70-72-73 5.4 Crossing shifted to the south SA 52 279 None SA 50 330 None SA 53 308 None 12 R-25821R-2584 (LEDPA) i Wetland/ Wetland Stream Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization Identification (Acres) (Feet) G6 WA 75-76 0.8 New alignment crossing is a proximately 90° to minimize impacts SA 54 321 New alignment crossing is approximately 90° to minimize impacts WA 77 (1-24) 1.3 New alignment crosses southern i onion to mininu ze impact WA 77 (25-56) 1 New alignment crosses southern portion to minimize impact SA 58 281 None SA 56 51 None SA 57 43 New alignment crosses southern portion to minimize impact SA 60 42 None SA 61 113 None G7 SB 35 181 None WB 75 0.1 None WB 76 0.1 Widening on southern side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WB 76 WB 83 0.1 Widening on southern side of US 158 to minimize impacts to WB 83 SB 64 74 Widening on southern side of US 158 to minimize impacts WB 82 0.1 None Widening on southern side of US 158 H1 WB 84 0.1 to minimize impacts to WB 84 and Historic Francis Parker House WB 85 0 None 13 6?7CN ? 06 CN NC 4 - i 1 C? S i z J 0? S3" ? C l SOE ON NC 35 t " C? Us g r D o 7 m G r U Ch y C7 m o cr m z D n D cn m <D D CD m 3 3 ' (D lD (D D m 7 n < CD m it u A _l, p{ ? ?,? r u L - w N n a? a ° o '" m N f a r= a? '.7 O ? O Tj N d ? 3 r 7FX 7AI, L 1' ? r y .. y4r' _TLik?*' `tiff K T 1 lr '` lam'. -...-Amp -?•? °?' ? .? ?.. ? ti a7 ?`,!"? ice" S L 4j; .vo y 7J ? c. M- 1 1 1 A t ` l ` 1 + SIR. l W yl ?rN11?:".,Me?Td t aw P-A CD G CD m - I (!1 t,t c ?z C-i_:g:. m-0 v0< - ?p 0M- zzZ„c O 7) m n TI - V 50 N-{;„ O -i w rn omo>= my m> al Z z?zz0 w (l)u Z Z mv?-'z O 03 -< n0 zm=o0 0 LTIOz ;uOOCD 'O ar,=az 'n O --I D CD pn OCZC z0v C:) Sk CC -i in ?mNZV O -i ;u CTl Ln ? t ?m ul DOnoo > m co in "'? = co p m 19 1-1 F -? ? A cn cn x -.l Al - g o F x ° c p° m m c y p- C 3 3 r -77 14. It- O ?J m r r D t f! ? m m a o v m N O 0 y? -n 1? A m Q.- ?z c--I _* m-vooz Z,'0--n 0 ;o 5 :5 0 Fn ;o I-- - ?i mGI ocrn,zZ? M D M Ul Z? z ?? cn? zz mo-n v? co nO zm=Do Np Ou. ?O Dm cn Z ? Q cn n r* r- D ) O C, Z Dv?po Q.0 ? G) rn cn DZ?Z? M ? D rna -1 ; ca -i Ul? >0000 Cnz ? a (A -1 2 Coo m rrri 7 D Z r for 4 4?4 X.-* err f t ? y* M ,f f l• .?•:?r,•:•.. Amt- co r- c J-1 +t ?I? 1 • ?!.' All 1119 s W ? 5 a ? -1- -- n m a o A C m O y C n N 2 m a -? o r a w m m u-, Z m 4. Z, qk ` Ab 9 4 0 4 Y -1ti 71 1 . wit??. w,? - r?•S' * r'yµf t ZIN t } ? sr. ? a '? ?,r'??tea '?,?• 'i: r. . t ', anz Sri? JD c v cn o m c c Q m a a a w m O C2 ? ? ? 3 '? a ? 0 f1l cL q u o I D -- -Uuu a? r r I r? S P? -' ?w-•=iG ? ? I s Lo m v m -4 0 rn ? -0D z C'?= -o ?m? m c = m 7 M D M rp 2 ca 0 o o n CTz O ?n ?- ? Z C ?c mcn Z -1 in QJ Mtir I -1 di 1 +? r , r: ^?,?, ? it ? - d. `sy y?• ...?*" S - k?-- f V """' ? ? .'d ? '-????ff?? its •fi" •'??.'? M1' ? ,Sy.= -fir rl.' u - ti i t I Z40 O O x m I- T- D s cc C: C III « ,. ? ?? ? 1 G ? A _ rL Q?? y u? m? o. o n• N m ryc? o m o v m 14 Vn m m cc c C ?? F feo- I Vol c?z <o -?z r = ? Tl co Am= '. . O .r 141, L= M G1 M Z o D O tnD W-4?0G) m -n0 ?cn z 17 QI a? r O = D afi` N) ?c?ZC m -- - ?O WCI-1 ? ?MCA T m , 2 D L ?T N --I m r r D _~ 1 '!r•". ice,.-? A i •-`;-\_?'.- .ice .?..? \'yrr-'?!l 'i4l ? ?' S ? ''( ;t r'<'I ;? ?t•.,,' -tiY ?,` Y3_\^ Yom., s:.+\ ; .w`:y..f?s^+ ham. T\e'...?ti.? 'Am "? •' ? .h '? ? ?\y '? < 'vt?.?... 4'? '4. mew. 7- ?- . -11 k4.. 1? jor r iF• ? `y,?? ? 'z.-",? -ice ? 7?? y t c d •`r ?ti.ls?is ? i ?V z rn z 00.E - x ? brt'r' "ti rR 'No IV -n C) :YA CD ?IkJf :??.!, R 0 1 -v z C -? S m -c o O z y: -v0 ?()m z;o c - " LA -? 0 = I ~,` : 2 m C7 tom OmOD ° mD mD?Z z?z? =zr fU}7?1i0 /Z1Z mo?az i to p ?. 0 D m c~i, Z ;o C :n r- ? ?n 0? Z C z-0 I' 1 p .0 9DZrri ?C W"? N >m? u .. -4 ;o al en t r4? ? ?t Qw ,ra 'RS' -}. '? y}•K1Y?-1? .9d^ 1-.v .r .:+i - •? j '?' rir? rG co TJ ? = A v cn m - J ? ? ? 1? m y c?i u?i ufDi .a o II. O a 3 `?' y y n m m o o ?oCD m r 3 ?r?- ?- ? •'' raj ? R-z PCb V` 4 - '+ x y r r raF5?1f•C f:F?.`a}I -T'.5T .f Sri. ??1L-y _ 1'^ lV CD 1 ,n m `` ? o ? m raj ( ;o mz -i 2 mvppz mp ;o(?I11 z?C-n0 CD Om ?'n_v <O6, 7 ? m pmOD= mD m>Q z?zz0 C? (nZ Z mpm-0? -0 00 •? 0 G) zm=00 Np 0 ln41- Q --' N D T3 Z C z?aZmm Sp 0 W 17 Cn > M ,p z m z D ;'' • :? :. .a.` sk 1 Ile ?l ;'. hw-- ;e ` `k +i+sN Y J O y?5 ` • .•h 'IV Al Fes' t ?r 1 1 Q \? :?1i. -; J m i ic cn --l . w m m o > ?9: cn;U ZZ mvn?> c oo?0 zM=oo o I!' - -i r cNnQ ? Co ? rr=DZ O C Z C z??oe o t? Roo W --1 Cl) >m-< zm c f. Z -n - 711" nZ I? ? 9 m Aski v 1 [ •41 s ±` •, ' f ti .jai 4?•?lt,??ki 1 ? .Tn.l?Ar 1 (L -•lt t ?'y r Ica w m m o ? A o cn m cn = r k ?! -? r kA CL f y a G m 3 m ^ O ? :? Y Ala ro rrl Cl. 3!t? C rt Cl) ?a, m •° ?'. 'rte F4. m -n ;u ° c O oo m 1v ? O ? 0 M 2: zITI ?? -n c ?X n ?n v ' p <o??? O o ?= M M 7 G) m m o -M oa= _ zz D =o W U) z z W n 0? mm„OO O O ?ZZ Q7 V/ O ,D._?ODZ D ?o 0c C i,O?? r ?zm O Z N G) m rn C) c) e-, ur n r Ifs :..:Jg?r N te, N-mR •.w ' ryl.? ? 2+ty ` rte. -..,- s:r p O :+ -,_ 84'41• -1 o ,,??, r r m `_, D .,` ?? ;; , . ' ?- L.U F F, 4 i k7 t x! ;MIR ?1 ?a - ??? to -1[?..u '?_,j •a.`? ?.'.n •/ .r r ,. p •° . yr. Y ;r h.. jpl O 0 c t ; _n O A *T" < r rri F. m T u, --i c C, m Z ;o -n . '°T 0_1 ?m <ov,?? -i mD m>-- ?K, cn Izz p OO N cnz MQIC) :n- 00 OC.- xi z m O < u m N-i "0 ? r R f + h1,'s 1 ? L? n t ,e• ?. 1i`y y ate' ??• u. A 1v ? X. `r ?e . ` ti.,? y k;+i?7? fit. ? '' ?•?. `. k` x7 ? ZC?;• VIA. ??? .fit ? •+c tiC'" _r I'L t f 4?ff•+ ? a ? . M 4 H4 Ir t ?t.r ?° t: .. `- aka a •l' ' E •f ? \ I m,?; .s'?,.-?/..:.ri:f3.i. Y++'^? ? ^ ` 7?"?^*u.? yam, ! r ` ?• ? T ?yA? yr• f.? ! w'h _A ?.. T#.: I/ - 4J •M Y- ''' '?„' yr' at i ??. _•`?. _ vY w1l!! 11 w M" wt') r ve Y x s l ?1 .kw . k-F. `may T??yjY ? K .Ct4 ? R r_ ?1L R . ?.,? ti L ? 4 F t Ax- x ' y R' C tf C ? ? w ¢;IAe `[v CD (D +i. bY? C dl ?i z?-moo ;uorrri m;<Qz -n rn • C <oFn -4? 177 0M0> s ?= rnG)??Z z0zz? O m A m D . -+ Z 0 N'pZ:Z moC)fl> t? Np ofA.0.o v i cn Z W r = '77 O -Di D co O C Z: C z?n00 ?p co m _I N Dm.<zm ?Z -G?RI j {z?' D rc? J. ? DoC'1no C?,n- >_ :--F, AM 1 Q ./ / 01 u, Ski uF ; r? a x ?o a U) m r m W m S-`na 4 , „ T T1 I 7c z c - m -0vOz n? O -r O Tx O m _ X1-1-0 z;D;?+o GOF, --I ;u LT m com m G) pmOD= c? o C)? Cn Z (A > Z Z Z ZZ? my-,-0? O W -? 0 t7 Ocn? zm=Oo G)V- DM cn Z - n , r'O=-D+D co N n o0 0 C Z C W -i m Z g Dm?2 f? w -0 a ?1 t?y L? J . -W,-- i a& f 4,t, W-t). 46 .r??, IyY"r ?L T, JX ?+'•..,?' ? •?rf rl?'` _ .? , *' '?' ,.? z"d +'fir t?' -Ar J .a.. ' -, ,? ,? _'+•- t :.» rte, , '? +` i' ?:as'?"?h'` `. ,. ?j < Nk- CL y? d m m C, o _ e 1 ti +J. 2 3 12 - ?' ? a xn w ??yY t?+ K J? ti <.' tiro ? ? +4./r- i??.. ? ` 1? }' -T .w ? f.?• `,'' ? ?'. W 171 y IS`'", n -+1": %• _ ? ^?va, aL .? ? a_ '_ ?'`''? u -n 0 p -I rp Iil O;a C_ m0D= D r'•? o 2 171 G7 m Znzz? c -„ nK cn Z Z D ` s rte - r m -n ;tc p O(n ?- U) > CA z -I M to Ln -+ z -, M Cl) r 1 r D .q Y ?? ?{ f N .00 vSr. ? y. • r _ V`? r 0 O n '? '? C • . .. ? r ? D J ? v rn r? ? N 7 - i74 m n n? y ??° o d i!At 3 3 3 n a i.•" ,. m CL ? m o law 0 rn c 1 Z z m-0 0Oz ZM--70 n -n -5 !5 0 r E: "0 (j) ;u ;Z z m o Sn ;a i ?? ? tip co -< ) O OfA.p? zm=Op Dm55r ' : crz ?0 m -n ro=DiD TJ Z G) m ' !<- ZC/) D -4 ti --i crl -I U7 D O C7 ao X cn cn n Y-:' cn 2 (A 2 D 0o p m ? _ .; tir4tC" .l , wTr_ ;f • ? k6 1 vs (. - am ?i C i yy1?? c Al its r?it w ? r. S r S a j 'v V1 !n N t9a 2 y Q a m N c ,ri Q c - N N 3 3 3 .G vii y o ' m o o a a ? ? o m V .n ? kx" N41, m 0o m ?cn,_1 TZ C-i'_ mmooz ?0 ;u Oim z;a c„0 O S;u 'n -n C7 50 .21 C, M p m `mODx '? CD - rn> M> 71 z Z0ZZ t mo-n 0;0 W (7 z<=0O c~i7ZZ M rrxD2 OD n O C Z C z-0*Ov sw0 oo -? cn >mNZmm Z -< m -.% ? z D n'- DOnm cn m D -4 cn = m n m F* 400- v.? fi I r M • ?* s' a 41C \\??/ s y ? r Jk' F. -i M70 ' f i T I Appendix A o zt of Jach-SLY 1 P. O. Box 614 it ar12SIITt, 27845 (252) 534-3811 August 30, 2010 Mr. Matthew Potter, Project Planning Engineer Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Re: Proposed widening of U. S. 158 near Jackson, TIP Project Nos. R-2582/'P,-2584 Northampton County Dear Mr. Potter: This correspondence is a follow-up to our numerous conversations with respect to the proposed widening of U. S. 158 and the two new Jackson bypass alternatives. As you are aware we have been through this exercise on two previous occasions with NCDOT only, to see the project disappear and then resurface again with different alternatives. I think it is safe to say that we would all like to see the bypass project simply disappear but understanding the inevitability of the project eventually coming to fruition feel like it is important to once again offer our input. Understandably, the tow'n's Board of Commissioners, town residents and downtown business owners are concerned about a bypass in general as it is almost certain to have an adverse impact on the town. That said, in an effort to do our due diligence regarding this issue we have tried to talk to the various constituencies both in and Out of town that would be impacted the most. In working through this process ,ve have considered numerous factors including safety, the integrity and cohesiveness of the community, residential displacement, and the overall impact on the business community, Our Board of Commissioners has discussed this issue on several occasions and the consensus is that Jackson would best be served if the new highway was located north of the "county complex" on NC Highway 305. From our perspective the most compelling reason for this would be preserving the integrity and cohesiveness Of the community. Jackson has long served as the county seat for Northampton County. Our biggest business is goverrunent and the many people it employs. This has long been our identity. Over time, numerous county Government offices and agencies have relocated and/or expanded into the vicinity of the "county complex" including DSS, Public Works, the 911 Emergency Operations Center, and the new county Cultural and Wellness Center. In addition to the aforementioned, this area also has a new medical facility, EMT Services, a Dental Office, and a Rest Home and Retirement Center. Although not in the towns corporate limits we consider this area to be a part of.lackson. Although we understand there Nvould be an overpass over NC Highway 305 «-c believe a bypass may result in creating a sense of "separation" from the town and county complex and therefore have an adverse impact on the cohesiveness of the greater Jackson community. In closing, we would like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for the "user friendly" manner with which you conducted the Jackson bypass design public meeting. Please don't hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance with respect to this matter. Sincerely, William Gossip Mayor