HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190230_Environmental Impact Statement_20110718Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
MEMORANDUM
SVn
ACDCNR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Director Secretary
July 18, 2011
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality, Central Office
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement related to the proposed
widening of US 158 from existing 1-95 and NC 46 interchange located west of Garysburg
to the Murfeesboro Bypass, Northampton County, TIP R-2582 and R-2584.
State Clearinghouse Project No. 11-0316.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated March 2011. The NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. NCDWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:.
Project Specific Comments:
I. This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. The 303(d) analysis, Section 3.5.3.2 Water Quality, is based on the 303(d) list released in 2006.
The analysis should be updated using the more recently approved 2010 303(d) list. While there
does not appear to be any changes to individual listings, the 2010 303(d) list lists all waters in the
state as impaired due to fish consumption advisories related to mercury.
3. The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that jurisdictional determinations made in May 2005 have,
or will, expire soon. The NCDWQ suggests that re -verification of jurisdictional features be
performed prior to submitting a 401 Water Quality Certification application.
4. The NCDWQ requests a copy of the referenced Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Assessment, dated August 25, 2008.
General Comments:
5. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should
continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919-807-63011 FAX: 919-807-6494
Internet: http:lportal.ncdenrorgtweb/wq
•
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally
• • 6.• NCDOT is respectfully reminded that•all impacts, including but npt limited to; bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need
to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction
impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application.
7. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may 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 submittai of a formai application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from NCDWQ.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization
of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an
acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where
appropriate.
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at (919) 807-6405.
cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only)
Garcy Ward, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
•
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 11-0316 County: Halifax and Northampton Date Received: 06/21/2011
Due Date: 7/26/2011
Project Description: Final Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed widening of US 158 from
Weldon to the Murfreesboro Bypass TIP Nos. R-2582 and R-2584
I his Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office
Regional Office Area
In -House Review
Asheville
✓ Air
— Soil & Water
Marine Fisheries '
—
Water Resources
_
Fayetteville
✓ Water
— Coastal Management
✓ Environmental Health
—
Mooresville
_ Aquifer Protection
Wildlife
—
✓ Wildlife - DOT — Solid Waste Mgmt
_
V Raleigh
✓ Land Quality Engineer
,/ Forest Resources — Radiation Protection
Washington
Land Resources Other
—
Wilmington
✓ Parks & Recreation
—
—
Winston-Salem
-
Water Quality
-
✓ Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
—
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Date:
1-le-li
In -House Reviewer/Agency:
%/i v1 ( if/(ir-}id- -0A,c/not,
/
Response (check all applicable)
No objection
to project as proposed.
information to complete review
please contact:
Coordinator at McIba.McGee(
Comment
j ,
iC�1 �'✓'�:`} ((rl
JUNili
,ZZ2011
WEUcSVR WATER i)untt.
WEBANO.R' pTnucn.,..__
—
Insufficient
�No
V Other (specify or attach comments)r
—
If you have any questions,
Melba McGee, Environmental
SC- aIkeI �.r
ncdenr.gov
US 158
From the I-95 / NC 46 Interchange West of Garysburg
To the Murfreesboro Bypass
Northampton County
WBS No. 34472.11
T.I.P. Project No. R-2582 & 1t-2584
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENI'
In Compliance with the North Carolina
State Environmental Policy Act
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
.3 3? ??
D e .A 2
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
US 158
From the I-95 / NC 46 Interchange West of Garysburg
To the Murfreesboro Bypass
Northampton County
WBS No. 34472.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. R-2582 & R-2584
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE F1NAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
March, 2011
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
/e/
D
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Eastern Project Development Engineer
?ti & ?'- /?
Dte (?-
Cliarles R. Cox, P.E.
Proj ect Engineer
A"a? ?O?;oF'ESSio
-31-,
Date Matthew W. Potter, P.E. ? a SEA.2N
ProJect Planning Engineer
? ? 035693
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 158
From the I-95 / NC 46 Interchange West of Garysburg
To the MurFreesboro Bypass
Northampton County
WBS No. 34472.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. R-2582 & R-2584
Roadway Desipn:
• Roadway Design Unit will coordinate with the NCDOT Rail Division in order to preserve
space for a future connector track west of Garysburg.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch:
• Detailed archeological surveys are currently underway. The survey's findings will be
reported to the State Historic Preservation Office. Any required data recovery will be
coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office and documented in the State Record
of Decision (ROD) for this project.
• A Memorandum of Agreement between the Historic Preservation Office, US Army Corps
of Engineers, and other consulting parties will be completed to address adverse effects to
historic resources.
• Given the high rate of minority and low income populations in several of the communities
along the project alternatives, enhanced outreach measures at the time of the public
hearing(s) will be utilized.
Roadway Design/ Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch:
• A roadside picnic area, which overlooks a former millpond (that served Boone's Mill), is
accessed by a dead-end section of roadway that parallels US 158. The picnic area is within
the existing US 158 right of way. Impacts to the site will be minimized as much as
possible.
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
March, 2011 Page 1 of 1
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. ....................ix
5.1. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .................... .................... ix
5.2. CONTACTS ...................................................................................................... .................... ix
5.3. PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................... .................... ix
5.3.1. Description of Proposed Action .................................................................... .................... ix
5.3.2. Purpose of Proposed Action .......................................................................... ..................... x
5.4. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ .....................x
5.5. PREFERRED AL
xi
5.6. SUNIMARY OF IMPACTS .................................................................................................. xii
S.7. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER FEDERAI, AND STATE AGENCIES ........................ xii
5.8. COORDINATION ...............................................................................................................xiii
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
1.1 INTRODUC TI ON .................................... .................................................................... .......... 1
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................. .......... 1
1.3 PROJECT NEED (NEED FOR ACTION) .................................................................... .......... 2
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROJECT ............................................................................................. .......... 2
1.5 SYSTEMLINKAGE .................................................................................................... ..........3
1.5.1 Existing Road Network ............................................................................................ .......... 3
1.5.2 Modal Interrelationships .......................................................................................... .......... 4
1.6 PLANNING AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION DOCUNIENTS ............................... .......... 5
1.6.1 State Planning Documents ....................................................................................... .......... 5
1.6.2 Land Use Plans and Zoning ..................................................................................... .......... 5
1.6.3 Economic Development Plan ................................................................................... .......... 7
1.6.4 2011-2020 Draft NCDOT State Transpartation Improvement Program (STIP) ......... ..........7
1.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY ............................................... .......... 8
1.7.1 Length ..................................................................................................................... ..........8
1.7.2 Typical Section ........................................................................................................ ..........8
1.7.3 Right-of-Way Widths .............................................................................................. .......... 8
1.7.4 Access Control ........................................................................................................ ..........8
1.7.5 Speed Limit ............................................................................................................. .......... 9
1.7.6 Railroads ................................................................................................................. ..........9
1.7.7 Intersection and Type of Control .............................................................................. ..........9
1.7.8 Bridge/Drainage Structures ...................................................................................... ..........9
1.7.9 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................... ........ 10
1.8 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ......................................................................... ........ 10
1.8.1 Traffic Analysis ....................................................................................................... ........ 10
1.8.2 Existing No-Build Traffic Conditions ...................................................................... ........ 10
1.8.3 2030 No-Build Traffic Projections ........................................................................... ........ 10
1.8.4 Year 2030 No-Build Capacity Analysis ................................................................... ........ 10
1.8.4.1 Year 2030 No-Build Intersection Capacity Analysis ......................................... ........ 11
1.8.4.2 Year 2030 No-Build Arterial Analysis .............................................................. ........ 11
19 CRASH DATA AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................ ........ 11
1.9.1 US 158 Crash Analysis ............................................................................................ ........ 12
1.9.2 NC 46 Crash Analysis ............................................................................................. ........ 12
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..................................................................................................... 15
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... ........... 15
2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) ALTERNATIVE ............ ........... 16
2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... ........... 16
2.4 CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................... ........... 16
2.4.1 Logical Termini .................................................................................................... ........... 16
2.4.2 DesignCriteria ..................................................................................................... ...........17
2.4.2.1 Corridor Requirements .................................................................................. ........... 17
2.4.2.2 Design Speed ................................................................................................ ........... 17
2.4.2.3 Typical Section ............................................................................................. ........... 17
2.4.2.4 Access Control .............................................................................................. ........... 17
2.4.2.5 Right-of-Way ................................................................................................ ...........18
2.4.2.6 Directional Crossovers with Median U-Turns ................................................ ........... 18
2.4.2.7 Railroad Crossings ........................................................................................ ........... 18
2.4.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives ................................................................. ........... 18
2.4.3.1 Weldon ......................................................................................................... ...........18
2.4.3.2 Garysburg ..................................................................................................... ...........18
2.4.3.3 Jackson ......................................................................................................... ...........19
2.4.3.4 Faison's Old Tavern ...................................................................................... ........... 20
2.4.3.5 Conway ......................................................................................................... ...........20
2.4.4 Preliminary Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study ....................................... ........... 21
2.45 Corridors Carried Forward for Detailed Study ....................................................... ........... 22
2.4.6 Comparison of Detailed Study Alternatives .......................................................... ........... 23
2.5 TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSES ....................................................................... ........... 27
2.5.1 Year 2030 Build Traffic Projections ..................................................................... ........... 27
2.5.2 Year 2030 Build Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... ........... 27
2.5.2.1 RoadwaySections ......................................................................................... ...........27
2.5.2.2 Intersection Analysis ..................................................................................... ...........28
2.5.2.3 Interchange Analysis ..................................................................................... ...........30
2.6 TRAFFIC SAFETY ................................................................................................... ........... 30
2.7 PROJECT COSTS ..................................................................................................... ...........30
2.8 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................. ........... 32
2.8.1 Preferred Alternative Selection Process ................................................................. ........... 32
2.8.2 Selection of LEDPA and Preferred Alternative ..................................................... ........... 33
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTS
37
3.1 HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. .............................. 37
3.1.1 Population Characteristics ................................................................. .............................. 37
3.1.1.1 Ethnicity .................................................................................... .............................. 38
3.1.1.2 Age ............................................................................................ ..............................38
3.1.2 Economic Characteristics .................................................................. .............................. 39
3.1.2.1 Income ....................................................................................... .............................. 39
3.1.2.2 Employment Status .................................................................... .............................. 40
3.1.2.3 Economic Base ........................................................................... .............................. 40
3.1.2.4 Housing Costs ............................................................................ .............................. 40
3.1.2.5 Business Activities and Employment Centers ............................. .............................. 40
3.1.3 Community Facilities and Services .................................................... .............................. 41
3.1.3.1 Schools ...................................................................................... .............................. 41
3.1.3.2 Parks .......................................................................................... ..............................41
3.1.3.3 Churches .................................................................................... .............................. 42
ii
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.3.4 Transit .......................................................................................... ............................42
3.1.3.5 Emergency Services ..................................................................... ............................ 42
3.1.3.6 Public Housing ............................................................................. ............................ 43
3.1.4 Community Cohesion .......................................................................... ............................ 43
3.1.4.1 Neighborhoods ............................................................................. ............................43
3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ............................. ............................ 44
3.2.1 Land Use Plans .................................................................................... ............................ 44
3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use ........................................................................ ............................ 44
3.2.1.2 Zoning Characteristics .................................................................. ............................ 45
3.2.1.3 Future Land Use ........................................................................... ............................ 46
3.2.2 TransportationPlans ............................................................................ ............................47
3.2.2.1 Highway Plans ............................................................................. ............................ 47
3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONNIENT CHARACTERISTICS ............................. ............................ 48
3.3.1 Noise Characteristics ........................................................................... ............................ 48
3.3.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................... ............................48
3.3.3 Farmlands ............................................................................................ ............................48
3.3.4 Utilities ............................................................................................... ............................ 49
3.3.5 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ ............................49
3.3.6 Floodplains/Floodways ........................................................................ ............................54
3.3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................................................................... ............................ 54
3.3.8 State/National Forests .......................................................................... ............................ 54
3.3.9 Gamelands and Wildlife Refuges ......................................................... ............................ 54
3.4 CiJLTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... ............................ 55
3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources .......................................................... ............................ 55
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources .................................................................... ............................ 56
3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONNIENT CHARACTERISTICS .............................. ............................ 57
3.5.1 Soils/Topography/Geology .................................................................. ............................57
3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ......................................................... ............................ 62
3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities and
62
3.5.2.1.1 Vegetative Communities ............................................................ .......................... 62
3.5.2.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife .................................................................... ..........................65
3.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife ................................................. .......................... 67
3.5.2.2.1 Aquatic Fauna ........................................................................... .......................... 69
3.5.2.3 Summary ........................................................................................ ..........................70
3.5.3 Water Resources .................................................................................... .......................... 71
3.5.3.1 Watershed Characteristics .............................................................. .......................... 71
3.5.3.2 Water Quality ................................................................................. .......................... 72
3.5.3.3 Surface Waters ............................................................................... ..........................73
3.5.3.3.1 Streams ..................................................................................... .......................... 73
3.5.3.3.2 Ponds ........................................................................................ .......................... 75
3.5.4 JurisdictionalIssues ............................................................................... ..........................76
3.5.4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................ .......................... 76
3.5.4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands .................................................................. .......................... 76
3.5.4.2.1 Isolated Wetlands ...................................................................... .......................... 77
3.5.4.2.2 Manmade Linear Wetlands ........................................................ .......................... 78
3.5.4.3 Jurisdictional Streams ..................................................................... .......................... 79
3.5.4.4 BiologicalData .............................................................................. ..........................79
3.5.4.5 Protected Species ........................................................................... .......................... 80
3.5.4.5.1 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species ........................... .......................... 80
3.5.4.6 Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................... .......................... 80
3.5.4.7 NPDES Discharges ........................................................................ .......................... 81
iii
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.4.8 No-point Source Discharges ..................................................................................... 81
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
83
4.1 DIRECT IMPACTS ................................................................................... ........................... 83
4.1.1 Human Environment ............................................................................ ........................... 83
4.1.1.1 Community ................................................................................... ...........................83
4.1.1.2 Relocations ................................................................................... ........................... 83
4.1.1.3 Community Facilities & Services .................................................. ........................... 85
4.1.1.3.1 Schools ..................................................................................... ...........................85
4.1.1.3.2 Churches .................................................................................. ........................... 85
4.1.1.3.3 Parks & Recreational Facilities ................................................. ........................... 86
4.1.1.3.4 Police, Fire & Emergency Services ........................................... ........................... 86
4.1.1.4 Environxnental Justice ................................................................... ........................... 86
4.1.1.5 Economic ...................................................................................... ...........................87
4.1.2 Land Use and Transportation Planning ................................................. ........................... 87
4.1.2.1 Land Use Plans and Compatibility ................................................. ........................... 87
4.1.2.2 Transportation Plans ...................................................................... ........................... 87
4.1.3 Physical Environxnent ........................................................................... ........................... 88
4.1.3.1 Noise ............................................................................................ ...........................88
4.1.3.2 Air Quality .................................................................................... ........................... 90
4.1.3.3 Farmland ....................................................................................... ...........................90
4.1.3.3.1 Farxnland Access ...................................................................... ........................... 91
4.1.3.4 Visual ........................................................................................... ...........................91
4.1.3.5 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................... ........................... 92
4.1.3.6 Floodplain/Floodway .................................................................... ........................... 92
4.1.3.7 ProtectedLand .............................................................................. ...........................93
4.1.3.7.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................. ........................... 93
4.1.3.7.2 State/National Forests ............................................................... ........................... 93
4.1.3.7.3 Gamelands and Wildlife Refuges .............................................. ........................... 93
4.1.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... ........................... 93
4.1.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources ................................................... ........................... 93
4.1.4.2 Archaeological Resources ............................................................. ........................... 94
4.1.5 Natural Environment ............................................................................ ........................... 94
4.1.5.1 Biotic Community and Wildlife ..................................................... ........................... 94
4.1.5.1.1 Terrestrial Community and Wildlife ......................................... ........................... 94
4.1.5.1.2 Aquatic Community and Wildlife ............................................. ........................... 95
4.1.5.2 Water Resources ........................................................................... ........................... 96
4.1.5.2.1 Surface Waters/Jurisdictional Issues ......................................... ........................... 96
4.1.5.2.1.1 Streams ............................................................................. ........................... 96
4.1.5.2.1.2 Ponds ................................................................................ ........................... 97
4.1.5.2.1.3 Wetlands ........................................................................... ........................... 97
4.1.5.2.2 Bridging ................................................................................... .........................102
4.1.5.2.3 Permit Issues ............................................................................ ......................... 102
4.1.5.2.3.1 Permit Requirements ......................................................... ......................... 102
4.1.5.2.3.2 Mitigation .......................................................................... .........................103
4.1.5.2.4 Buffer Areas ............................................................................. ......................... 106
4.1.5.2.5 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species .......................... ......................... 106
4.1.5.2.6 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................... ......................... 107
4.1.6 Construction ......................................................................................... .........................107
4.1.6.1 Air Quality .................................................................................... ......................... 108
4.1.6.2 Water Quality ................................................................................ ......................... 108
iv
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.6.3 Noise ........................................................................................................ .............109
4.1.6.4 Biotic Communities ................................................................................... ............. 110
4.1.6.5 Construction Waste ................................................................................... ............. 111
4.1.6.6 Traffic Maintenance & Detour Accessibility .............................................. ............. 111
4.1.7 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources ................................... ............. 112
4.1.8 Relationship Between Shart-term Impacts and Long-term Productivity ............. ............. 112
4.2 INDIRECT AND CiJMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................ ............. 113
4.2.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... ............. 114
4.2.2 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects ......................................................... ............. 114
4.2.3 Findings ........................................................................................................... ............. 114
4.2.4 Summary of Environmental Consequences ....................................................... ............. 115
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE
STATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT ................................. 117
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
119
6.1 AGENCY COORDINATION .............................................................................. ............... 119
6.1.1 Merger Process Team ..................................................................................... ............... 120
6.1.2 Agency Comments on State Draft Environxnental Ixnpact Statement ............... ............... 123
6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................. ............... 136
6.2.1 Citizen Informational Workshops ................................................................... ............... 136
6.2.2 Corridor Public Hearings ................................................................................ ............... 137
6.2.3 Design Public Hearing .................................................................................... ............... 138
LIST OF
139
v
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLES
TABLE S-1: SLJNIIvIARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................... xii
TABLE 1-1: CLJRRENT PROJECT COST ESTIIvIATE ........................................................................ ...2
TaBLE 1-2: OTxER US 158 & TIP PROJECTS (2011-2020 DxaFT STIP) ...................................... ...8
TABLE 1-3: BRIDGE/DRAINAGE STRUCTCJRES ............................................................................ ...9
TABLE 1-4: NO-BLJILD INTERSECTION CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES (LOS E OR F) ............................ .11
TABLE 1-5: ARTERIAL ANALYSIS FOR NO-BLJILD ALTERNATIVE ................................................ .11
TaBLE 1-6: CxaSH RaTES AL,ONG US 158 ................................................................................. .12
TaBLE 1-7: CxaSH RaTES AL,ONG NC 46 .................................................................................. .13
TABLE 2-1: CORRIDORS CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED STCTDY .......................................... .22
TABLE 2-2: COMPARISON OF GARYSBURG ALTERNATIVES RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ................. .23
TABLE 2-3: COMPARISON OF JACKSON ALTERNATIVES RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ...................... .24
TABLE 2-4: COMPARISON OF FAISON'S OLD TAVERN ALTERNATIVES RESOURCES AND IMPACTS .25
TABLE 2-5: COMPARISON OF CONWAY ALTERNATIVES RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ...................... .26
TABLE 2-6: ARTERIAL ANALYSIS FOR BLJILD ALTERNATIVES (2030) .......................................... .27
TABLE 2-7: INTERSECTION CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES (LOS E OR F) GARYSBURG (2030) ............. .28
TABLE 2-8: INTERSECTION CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES (LOS E OR F) JACKSON (2030) ................... .29
TABLE 2-9: INTERSECTION CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES (LOS E OR F) CONWAY (2030) .................. .29
TABLE 2-10 : INTERCHANGE ANALYSIS (2030) ........................................................................... .30
TABLE 2-11 : ESTIIvIATED PROJECT COST BY ALTERNATIVE ........................................................ .31
TABLE 3-1: POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000 ......................................................................... .37
TaBLE 3-2: ETIEUCITY aNn RaCE 2000 ..................................................................................... .38
TABLE 3-3: INCOME LEVELS AND POVERTY STATUS FOR 1989 ................................................... .39
TABLE 3-4: SCHOOLS IN PROJECT CORRIDOR ............................................................................. .41
TABLE 3-5: CHiJRCHES IN PROJECT CORRIDOR ........................................................................... .42
TABLE 3-6: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES ................................ .50
TABLE 3-6: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVII20NMENTAL IMPACT SITES (CONT'D) ................. .51
TABLE 3-6: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES (CONT'D) ................. .52
TABLE 3-6: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES (CONT'D) ................. .53
TABLE 3-6: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES (CONT'D) ................. .54
TABLE 3-7: HISTORIC ARCHITECTCTRAL RESOURCES - ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES .............................. .55
TABLE 3-7: HISTORIC ARCHITECTCTRAL RESOURCES - ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES (CONT'D) .............. .56
TABLE 3-8: SOIL SERIES WITHIN THE PROJECT STCTDY AREA ...................................................... .58
TABLE 3-8: SOIL SERIES WITHIN THE PROJECT STCTDY AREA (CONT'D) ....................................... .59
TABLE 3-8: SOIL SERIES WITHIN THE PROJECT STCTDY AREA (CONT'D) ....................................... .60
TABLE 3-8: SOIL SERIES WITHIN THE PROJECT STCTDY AREA (CONT'D) ....................................... .61
TABLE 3-9: VEGETATIVE COMMLJNITIES WITHIN THE PRO7ECT STCTDY AREA .............................. .71
TABLE 3-10 : LIST OF PONDS WITHIN THE PRO7ECT STUDY AREA ................................................ .76
TABLE 3-11 : USFW S WETLAND TYPES FOLJND WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ................... .77
TABLE 3-12 : SLJNIIvIARY OF WETLAND QUALITY WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ................... .77
TABLE 3-13 : ISOLATED WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ...................................... .78
TABLE 3-14 : THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES KNOWN FOR NORTHAMPTON COUNTY ... .80
TaBLE 3-15 : NPDES DISCxaRGERS WITxrN SusBASrN 03-02-08 NORTxaNmTON COUNTY........ . 81
TABLE 4-1: CHiJRCHES IN PROJECT CORRIDOR ........................................................................... .85
TABLE 4-2: PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ...................................................................... .88
vi
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE 4-3: FARMLAND CONVERSION IIvIPACTS (FOR PREFERRID ALTERNATIVES) ............. .........91
TABLE 4-4: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES ........................ .........92
TABLE 4-5: HISTORIC ARCHITECTCTRAL RESOURCES (FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES) ...... .........93
TABLE 4-6: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR LEDPA ................................................ .........97
TABLE 4-6: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR LEDPA (CONT'D) ................................ .........98
TABLE 4-6: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR LEDPA (CONT'D) ................................ .........99
TABLE 4-6: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR LEDPA (CONT'D) ................................ ....... 100
TABLE 4-6: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR LEDPA (CONT'D) ................................ ....... 101
TABLE 4-7: PROPOSID BRIDGES/DRAINAGE STRUCTLJRES .................................................. ....... 102
TABLE 4-8: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................... ....... 110
TABLE 4-9: SLJNIIvIARY OF IMPACTS FOR LEDPA/PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...................... ....... 115
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FIGURES
FIGiJRE 1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FIGURE lA-1D PROJECT VICINITY MAPS (BREAKDOWN OF EACH COIVIMUNITY)
FIGiJRE 2a-2t ALTERNATIVE MAPS
FIGURE 3 DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER DETAIL (SUPERSTREET)
FIGiJRE 4 TYPICAL SECTION
FIGURE 5 TRAFFIC FORECAST 2005 / 2030
APPENDIX B COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES CONCURRENCE FORMS
APPENDIX D RELOCATION REPORTS
APPENDIX E DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS
APPENDIX F NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM SIGNATURE SHEETS
APPENDIX G NRCS FARMLAND FORMS
vii
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
viii
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
US 158
From the I-95 / NC 46 Interchange West of Garysburg
To the Murfreesboro Bypass
Northampton County
WBS No. 34472.1.1
T.I.P. Project Nos. R-2582 & R-2584
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5.1. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Administrative Action State Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Draft (X) Final
5.2. CONTACTS
The following individual may be contacted for additional information concerning this State Final
Environmental Impact Statement:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1 5 48
Telephone: (919) 707-6000
5.3. PROPOSED ACTION
S.3.1. Description of Proposed Action
The NCDOT proposes to widen US 158 in Northampton County from the I-95/NC 46 Interchange to
the Murfreesboro Bypass (see Figure 1). The proposed action involves a combination of widening, new
location segments, and other improvements to existing US 158. Based on the need to avoid disruption
to the area towns along existing US 158, there will be bypasses and/ or other alternative routings
around Weldon, Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old Tavern, and Conway. The widening will convert
the highway from its current configuration as a two-lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided facility.
The proposed facility will have 12-foot lanes, paved shoulders, and a 46-foot grass median. Widening
portions will have partial control of access, while new location segments will have full control of
access. The total length of the project is approximately 34.6 miles.
These projects are included in the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) and the Draft 2011-2020 STIP. R-2582 and R-2584 are being addressed in one environmental
planning document to more appropriately address logical termini. The total cost in the Draft 2011-
2020 STIP is $249,498,000, which includes $18,925,000 for right of way and $224,000,000 for
construction. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in State Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and
ix
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
construction in FY 2016; however, R-2582A is the only section currently funded for construction, all
other sections are in an "unfunded" status.
S.3.2. Purpose of Proposed Action
The purpose ofthe proposed action is to:
• Improve traffic flow and Level of Service (LOS) on this section ofUS 158
• Improve safety along this section of US 158
• Improve access to existing and future industry
5.4. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives considered for this project were established as a result of many preliminary studies
and eatensive public input. For planning purposes, the study alternatives were first designed as 500 to
1000 foot corridors which allowed flexibility during design for the avoidance of important manmade
and natural features.
Construdion Alternatives
The construction Alternative would consist of improvement of US 158 through a combination of
widening and new location segments. In developing alternatives, the project was divided to
correspond with the four main populated segments of the project: Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old
Tavern, and Conway. The project was divided into segments for planning and construction purposes.
Some portions of the project included only one alternative, while in other areas there were several
alternative routings. In order to effectively analyze these alternatives and ultimately provide
information necessary for the selection of the Preferred Alternative, the segments were consolidated
into 17 alternatives created from 29 segments (Al-H1). Figure 1A-11) (Appendix A) shows the
location and relationship ofthese alternatives and segments.
Part of the construction Alternative was the consideration of three widening options for the portions of
the project where widening is to be used: widening to the north ofthe existing roadway, widening to
the south of the existing roadway, and a combination of northern and southern widening sections to
minimize natural and/or social impacts (Best Fit widening). Best Fit widening was determined to be
the only viable option available for the widening segments.
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build alternative was the baseline against which the other alternatives would be measured. It
assumed that in the year 2030, the existing transportation system would evolve as currently planned,
but without improvement of existing US 158. The No-Build alternative was eventually eliminated
from consideration due to its inability to meet the purpose and need ofthis project.
x
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated
Widening of existing US 158 through Weldon, Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway were not considered
viable due to excessive impacts to the Historic District of each town, and were eliminated from
consideration.
The Mass Transit and Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives were also eliminated
from further consideration due to their inability to solve the traffic problems identified in the study
area.
5.5. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative for each ofthe four main segments is as follows (see Figure 1):
• Garysburg Southern Bypass 1(Segments Al, B2, 133)
• Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments Cl, E2, E3)
• Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypass 2(Segments F2, F6, F10)
• Conway Northern Bypass 2(Segments Gl, G6, G7, H1)
This alternative was determined to be the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA) by the Section 404/NEPA Merger Process Team.
THIS SECTION OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
xi
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
5.6. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The following is a summary of impacts for the Preferred Alternative. Anticipated impacts of all 17
detailed study alternatives can be found in Appendix E.
Table S-1: Summary of Impacts for the Preferred Alternative
Im acted Resource Preferred Alternative
Segxnents Included A1 B2 B3 Cl E2 E3 F2 F6 F10
Gl G6 G7 Hl
Length (miles) 34.6
Interchanges (proposed) 5
Railroad Crossings (grade separated) 3
Schools 1
Recreational Areas and Parks 1
Churches 1
Cemeteries 1
Major Utility Crossings 2
Historic Properties (Adverse Effect/No Adverse) 4/4
Archaeological Sites ' Unknown
Federall Listed S ecies 0
NRCS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below Threshold
Residential Relocations 38
Business Relocations 4
Noise Receptors Ixnpacted 73
Wetland Impacts (acres) 56.8
Stream Impacts (feet) 9142
Water Su 1 Watershed Protected Areas 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0
Minority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse &
Disproportionate Impacts)
No
Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0
Underground Storage Tank Sites 6
Construction Cost $240,901,257
Right of Way Cost $34,329,750
Mitigation $4,480,028
Utilities Cost $3,849,956
Total Cost $283,560,991
Note 1: Archaeological surveys are currently underway.
5.7. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
An Individual Permit will be required based on the cumulative loss of stream channel and wetlands
being greater than the current thresholds of a Nationwide Permit. An Individual 401 Water quality
Certification will be necessary for impacts before an Individual 404 Permit can be obtained. The
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands.
Therefore, an Isolated Wetland Permit will be required from North Carolina Department of Water
Quality (NCDWQ). NCDOT will coordinate with the USACE and NCDWQ after the completion of
the final design to obtain the necessary permits required by Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
xii
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
5.8. COORDINATION
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this State
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
asterisk (*).
*United States Army Corps of Engineers (LJSACE)
*United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
*United States Fish and Wildlife Service (LJSFWS)
*National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
*North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (DCR)
*North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
*North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC)
*North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
*North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
*North Carolina Division of Environmental Health
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
Upper Coastal Plains Council of Governments
*Town of Garysburg
Town of Conway
*Town of Jackson
*Town of Weldon
Halifax County Commissioner
Northampton County Commissioner
*Northampton County Schools
xiii
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
11 INTRODUCTION
This State Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) was prepared in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the North Carolina (State) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This
SFEIS is an informational document for use by the general public as well as the decision makers.
This document represents a disclosure of relevant social and environmental information
concerning the recommended proposed action as well as all viable alternatives.
Chapter 1 of this report identifies the purpose and need for this project. Chapter 2 documents the
selection of all transportation alternatives considered, the alternatives considered for closer
review, and the Preferred Alternative selection. Chapter 3 details the current or existing social,
economic and environmental conditions within the study area. Chapter 4 describes the human
and natural environmental effects of the alternatives chosen for detail study, and specifically, the
impacts ofthe Preferred Alternative. This section also outlines potential mitigation measures for
any anticipated impacts. Chapter 5 lists the cooperating agencies on this study as well as the
distribution list. Chapter 6 details the coordination and public involvement associated with this
SFEIS.
The purpose and need discussion establishes the nature of surface transportation related problems
and issues for the study area. This discussion led to the development of transportation
improvement alternatives and the means by which they were evaluated, which in turn helped the
decision-makers decide on the Preferred Alternative that meets the purpose and need within the
US 158 study area.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The NCDOT proposes to widen US 158 in Northampton County from the I-95/NC 46
Interchange to the Murfreesboro Bypass (see Figure 1). The proposed improvements utilize both
the existing facility and some segments located along new location. The widening will convert
the highway from its current configuration as a two-lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided
facility.
The proposed facility will have 12-foot lanes, paved shoulders, and a 46-foot grass median. The
total length ofthe project is approximately 34.6 miles.
Projects R-2582 and R-2584 are included in the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), and the 2011-2020 Draft STIP. R-2582 and R-2584 are being
addressed in one environmental planning document to more appropriately address logical
termini. The total cost in the 2011-2020 Draft STIP is $249,498,000, which includes
$18,925,000 for right of way and $224,000,000 for construction. The current project cost
estimate is listed in Table 1-1. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in State Fiscal
Year (FY) 2014 and construction in FY 2016; however, R-2582A is the only section currently
funded for construction, all other sections are in an "unfunded" status.
1
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 1-1: Current Project Cost Estimate
TIP Number Project Section Right of Way Cost Construction Cost
A $13,550,000 $53,100,000
R-2582 B $6,230,000 $71,300,000
A $5,990,000 $49,100,000
R-2584 B $6,080,000 $55,300,000
C $2,500,000 $ 8,700,000
$34,350,000 $237,500,000
Total Cost - $271,850,000
1.3 PROJECT NEED (NEED FOR ACTION)
An improved US 158 facility would serve several functions:
• Traffic Flow- It would provide an efficient link as an East-West route in northeastern
North Carolina US 158 is a major intrastate highway traversing from west of Winston-
Salem to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. US 158 is the principal east-west route
connecting both I-85 and I-95 to the northern coast of North Carolina. Consequently, it
would play an important role in local and state transportation mobility.
Safety- An improved US 158 facility could permit separation of through and local traffic in
the vicinity of the study area municipalities, to the benefit of both groups of users. The
resulting anticipated reduction in traffic accidents would reduce medical and property
damage costs.
• Access- An improved US 158 highway would sustain and possibly promote social and
economic development in the project area
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROJECT
It is the basic purpose of this project to provide a safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and
economical transportation facility that responds to the needs ofthe people who live in and travel
through the US 158 study area During the initial stages ofthis study, the following goals and
objectives were established for the purpose of achieving a reasonable transportation solution to
the existing problems on US 158, based on public, state, and local agency involvement:
2
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Improve traffic flow and level of service (LOS) on this section of US 158.
In a"no-build" scenario, the projected traffic along several segments of US 158 would
exceed capacity, thus creating deficient levels of service along those segments. With the
proposed improvements, traffic flow would be improved to an efficient level of service A
(LOS A). Travel conditions would remain at LOS A through the design year.
• Fulfill US 158's role as a Strategic Highway Corridor, Intrastate Route and meet
Federal Highway Administration's Strategic Plan objectives.
Widening this facility to four lanes will meet the objectives of these designations,
designed to improve safety, decrease travel time, and foster economic prosperity through
the quick and efficient movement of people and goods.
• Improve safety along this section of US 158.
Reduce collision frequency and severity as feasible within realistic parameters for
improvements.
• Improve access to existing and future industry.
Create a transportation system that enhances the economic base of Northampton County
and surrounding counties served by the US 158 corridor.
1.5 SYSTEM LINKAGE
1.5.1 Existing Road Network
Interstates and US Routes. The project's western terminus is bounded by Interstate 95 (I-95).
On a national scale, I-95 serves as a conveyance for north-south traffic for the entire eastern
seaboard ofthe United States.
Three US Routes traverse Northampton County. US 301, which travels through Garysburg,
closely parallels Interstate 95 throughout North Carolina and provides northbound and
southbound traffic service through the study area. US 258, which travels north-south along the
eastern part of Northampton County, connects Jacksonville, North Carolina to Fort Monroe,
Virginia US 258 junctions with US 158 just east ofthe projects eastern terminus.
US Route 158. US 158 is a major intrastate highway traversing from west of Winston-Salem to
the Outer Banks of North Carolina. US 158 is the principal east-west route from I-85 and I-95 to
the coast in the northern part of North Carolina. It is currently a two-lane road for much of the
route, and passes through numerous small towns.
For most of the project length, the highway has a speed limit of 55 mph. The speed limit is
lower as US 158 passes through the towns of Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway. Various
developed areas lining the highway also limit the permissible areas that vehicles can safely pass.
Because of numerous slow moving vehicles, farm machinery, the sections of US 158 passing
3
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
through towns, and the limited opportunities to pass, average operating speeds are generally
lower than 55 mph.
Other NC Routes and Secondary Roads. Other NC highway routes in or near the study area
include:
NC 46 - This facility is a north-south state highway in eastern North Carolina, it is entirely in
Northampton County. The route primarily connects the communities on the north side of
Roanoke Rapids Lake and Lake Gaston, as well as the north side of the Roanoke River in the
county.
NC 305 - This highway travels from NC 186 north of the study area to US 13, north of Windsor.
Within the study area, NC 305 traverses the town of Jackson, where it junctions with US 158.
The facility is oriented in an approximate north-south direction.
NC 35 - This route is a north-south highway with a southern terminus near the Tri-County
Airport in western Hertford County, and a northern terminus at the Virginia state line in
Northampton County. Within the study area, NC 35 traverses the town of Conway, where it
junctions with US 158.
There are numerous secondary routes, both paved and unpaved, in the study area, many of which
junction with US 158. These secondary facilities generally provide localized land access for area
residents and do not typically carry high volumes oftraffic.
1.5.2 ModalInterrelationships
Rail Services - There are three railroad crossings within this project area (see Figures 2a-2t).
The CSX A-line runs from Weldon, NC to Emporia, VA and is a route being considered as part
of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) from Washington DC through Raleigh to
Charlotte, NC. The second crossing is the CSX SA-line that runs from Weldon, NC to
Portsmouth, VA. The third railroad in the project area is in Conway. The North Carolina &
Virginia Railroad (NCVA) is a short line railroad which was once a part of the CSX SAB-line
that ran from Boykins, VA through Conway to Lewiston, NC.
Airports - There is one main airport within the project vicinity, the Tri-County Airport,
approximately 13 miles south of Conway on NC 561. The proposed project could bring about
increased usage ofthis facility through encouragement of industrial and commercial growth near
Conway.
Transit - The Chowan Public Transportation Authority (CPTA) provides subscription and
demand-responsive transportation in Northampton, Halifax, Bertie, and Hertford counties.
Hours of operation are 6 am. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Riders can schedule
transportation a day in advance to any location within this four-county area Some fees are either
subsidized or paid through county social service departments. CPTA also provides 14 drivers to
transport children to Head Start programs. In Northampton County, these programs are located
in Woodland and Seaboard. The operations center is located in Rich Square in southern
Northampton County.
4
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
1.6 PLANNING AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS
1.6.1 State Planning Documents
Strategic Highway Corridor Plan. The Strategic Highway Corridors (SHC) initiative is an effort
to preserve and maximize the mobility and connectivity on a core set of highway corridors, while
promoting environmental stewardship through maximizing the use of existing facilities to the
eatent possible, and fostering economic prosperity through the quick and efficient movement of
people and goods. The initiative offers NCDOT and its stakeholders an opportunity to consider a
long-term vision when making land use decisions and design and operational decisions on the
highway system. The subject section on US 158 is a portion of Corridor 37 identified in this
initiative. The Strategic Highway Corridor Plan Vision for this section of US 158 is an
expressway for widening on existing and a freeway for new location bypasses.
Intrastate Corridor Plan. The US 158 project is a part of the State's Intrastate System. The
Intrastate System was established to provide high-speed, safe travel service throughout the state.
It connects major population centers both inside and outside the State and provides safe,
convenient, through-travel for motorists. The Intrastate System supports statewide growth and
development objectives and connects to major highways of adjoining states.
National Highway Ss??. US 158 is on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
National Highway System (NHS). In 1998, the FHWA published a National Strategic Plan,
which sought to preserve and enhance the infrastructure of Federal-aid highways with emphasis
on the NHS. Objectives of the plan include: reducing delay by 20 percent in 10 years, reducing
the number of highway related fatalities and serious injuries by 20 percent in 10 years, enhancing
community and social benefits of highway transportation, increasing public satisfaction with
highway systems and highway projects as a beneficial part oftheir community, and reducing on-
road mobile source emissions by 20 percent in 10 years.
1.6.2 Land Use Plans and Zoning
Land use plans do not exist for most of the study area, however, all jurisdictions have adopted or
are preparing zoning ordinances. In addition, thoroughfare plans have been adopted for the
entire study area Plans are summarized by jurisdiction in the following sections.
Northampton County - Northampton County enforces a zoning ordinance outside municipal
planning jurisdictions. According to the county's planning director, the zoning ordinance serves
as the county's land use plan. Most of the US 158 corridor, as well as proposed corridors, is
zoned Agricultural Residential. According to the county's zoning ordinance, "this district is
established to promote a compatible miature of agricultural, forestry, conservation, and very
low-density residential uses where few public services will be available. Protection of the
environment, preservation of prime farm land, and the continuation of rural lifestyles are goals
this district seeks to attain." Residential uses in this district are intended to be those incidental to
farming operations. The zoning map also designates a highway industrial district on the north
side of US 158 just west of Garysburg with a small highway business area on the south side. The
crossroads at Faison's Old Tavern is zoned highway business as well.
5
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Northampton County Thoroughfare Plan was developed concurrently with the Garysburg
Thoroughfare Plan and adopted by the Northampton County Board of Commissioners and the
NCDOT in 1995. The primary concern of the Board of Commissioners was the US 158 corridor,
as it is the primary east-west route through the county. It was also noted that several other
facilities needed study, including a connector between US 158 and I-95 and bypasses of Faison's
Old Tavern, Jackson, and Conway, in order to relieve congestion and truck traffic.
The plan recommends improving US 158 to a four-lane divided highway on mostly new location
throughout the county. Due to development along existing US 158, widening the road would be
very disruptive and expensive, according to the plan. The plan endorses the realignment of
US 158 south of Garysburg as proposed in the Garysburg Thoroughfare Plan. The improved
roadway east of Garysburg is described in the plan as follows: "It should then run near or on
SR 1311 (on new or existing locations) and rejoin existing US 158 where SR 1311 terminates.
The corridor will then bypass Faison's Old Tavern and Conway to the south. An interchange is
recommended for the proposed US 158/NC 35 intersection. Proposed US 158 will connect to the
Murfreesboro Bypass near Hertford County." According to the county's Economic
Development Director, the Northampton County Board of Commissioners supports a full grade-
separated interchange at all intersections of NC and/or US highways.
Gar s?rg - Garysburg's zoning ordinance essentially serves as the land use plan for the town.
In order to provide for orderly and consistent development as well as restrict some types of
undesirable development, the town's zoning regulations are also applied in an area eatending one
mile outside the corporate limits. The zoning ordinance allows primarily residential and
agricultural uses along the existing US 158 and NC 46 corridors with a commercial
concentration at the NC 46/US 301 intersection.
The Garysburg Town Council and the NCDOT adopted the Garysburg Thoroughfare Plan in
1994 as an update to a 1984 plan. Primary concerns addressed by the plan include the traffic on
US 158, US 301, NC 46, and NC 186. Economic development issues were also a concern.
The plan recommends widening US 158 to a four-lane divided section and relocating the
roadway to run south of Garysburg from Jackson By pass Road (SR 1311) to the Roanoke River.
In explaining the proposed improvements to US 158 the plan states, "Two options were
considered for improvements of US 158: widening the existing US 158 or locating a four-lane
section on new location. Due to the development along the existing US 158, the widening ofthe
existing section would be very disruptive and expensive, so this option was eliminated. It is
recommended that the four-lane controlled access facility be moved south of Garysburg on new
location. It should connect at US 301 just south of Washington Avenue (SR 1651) in Halifax
County, cross the Roanoke River at a new location east of the existing US 158 bridge, and run
south of Garysburg. The proposed US 158 should connect to the existing US 158 just south of
Jackson Bypass Road (SR 1311)/US 158 intersection with an interchange. The general effect of
the proposed US 158 corridor would be to free existing US 158 for local traffia The proposed
US 158 would increase speed and safety for through traffic."
6
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
The plan also recommends eatending NC 46, which connects Garysburg to I-95, east to a
proposed realignment of US 301. Existing NC 46 ends at US 301, trucks and other traffic must
turn south on US 301 to reach US 158. The thoroughfare plan recommends that NC 46 be
eatended to alleviate congestion and accidents at this intersection. It was also suggested that
NC 46 be widened to a standard 24-foot pavement section to improve safety and capacity, in
accordance with the Roanoke Rapids-Weldon-Gaston plan.
Jackson - Jackson's zoning map indicates that properties fronting on US 158 are zoned for either
residential or commercial uses. The Jackson zoning office indicated that there is no land use
plan for the town of Jackson. The town is included in the Northampton County Thoroughfare
Plan.
Conwav - The town of Conway is currently considering the adoption of a zoning ordinance. The
proposed ordinance indicates primarily residential and commercial zoning districts along
US 158. There is no current land use plan for the town. The Northampton County Thoroughfare
Plan includes Conway.
1.6.3 Economic Development Plan
An Economic Development Plan was developed for the town of Garysburg in 1996. The plan
recognizes the substandard housing conditions and limited economic activity in the town and is
intended to serve as an information resource and guide for future development efforts. In
developing the plan, a community needs survey identified housing repairs, storm drainage
problems, and streets and sidewalks as major needs. The survey also revealed a need for
additional retail and commercial businesses in Garysburg. To address this issue, the Economic
Development Plan recommends a retaiUcommercial development strategy with a priority on
strengthening existing businesses. The strategy also identifies businesses to be recruited,
incentives for recruiting new businesses, and funding resources for community and economic
development. The plan notes that sufficient undeveloped properties are available to
accommodate the growth and development of the town. A preliminary analysis of undeveloped
properties indicates that there are 251 sites of less than one acre for residential development, ten
sites of 1 to 10 acres for commercial development, two sites of 10 to 50 acres for commercial or
industrial use, and one site of more than 50 acres suitable for residential or industrial use. There
are also a number of large tracts of land in the town's planning jurisdiction outside the corporate
limits that are suitable for industrial or residential subdivision development. Industrial areas are
designated alongthe NC 46 corridor and southwest ofthe US 158/US 301 intersection.
1.6.4 2011-2020 Draft NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation maintains and biannually updates a document
known as the STIP. A Draft STIP is also developed one year prior to each STIP. The STIP
contains funding information and schedules for various transportation divisions including:
highways, aviation, enhancements, public transportation, rail, bicycle and pedestrians, and the
Governor's Highway Safety Program. The subject US 158 project is designated as STIP
Number R-2582 and R-2584 in this document. As described in 1.5.1, this is a portion of a larger
Intrastate Corridor designed to connect Winston-Salem to the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
7
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 1-2 shows other local US 158 Intrastate projects and other NCDOT STIP projects which
are of importance to the US 158 project or are in or near the R-2582 and R-2584 study area.
Table 1-2: Other US 158 & TIP Projects (2011-2020 Draft STIP)
US 158
Highway/ Right of Way/ Length
STIP # County Comments Intrastate
project Name Let Schedule (nii,)
Project?
Post Year/ East of Littleton to
R-2581 Halifax US 158-NC 903 16 Yes
Post Year I-95
R-2507A&B Hertford/Gates US 158- 2011 16 Winton to US 158 I,es
US 158 Bypass (Design Build) Bypass in Tarheel
Post Year/ US 13 to NC 32 in
R-2578 Gates US 158
Post Year 15
Sunbury Yes
NC 32 in Sunbury
R-2579 Gates/Pasquotank US 158 2015/Post Year 16 to US 17 at Yes
Morgan's Corner
In Progress/ Elizabeth City to
R-2414
Camden
US 158-NC 34 5 y?
2011 Belcross
NC 34 in Belcross
R-2574 Camden/Currituck US 158 2020/Post Year 11 I,es
to NC 168.
R-2583 Hertford US 158 2011 8 Murfreesboro I,?
(Design Build) Bypass to US 13
I-4913 Northampton I-95 In Progress 6 Pavement No
Rehabilitation
* Post Year denotes the project is not currently funded
1.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY
1.7.1 Len h
Existing US 158 from I-95 in Halifax County to the Murfreesboro Bypass in Northampton
County is approximately 32.1 miles in length.
1.7.2 Typical Section
US 158 is currently a two-lane highway, having between 24 feet and 28 feet of pavement along
most of the route in Northampton County. US 158 is a three-lane section through the Town of
Conway.
1.7.3 Right-of-Way Widths
Right-of-Way widths for the majority of the existing US 158 ranges from 50 feet to 110 feet.
The right of way is narrower within town limits and is usually 100 feet in rural areas.
1.7.4 Access Control
8
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Existing US 158 and NC 46 have no control of access through the project corridor, with the
exception of the I-95/NC 46 interchange, which has full control of access.
1.7.5 Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the rural sections of the highway is 55 mph. Within the smaller
towns (Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway), the speed limit reduces to as low as 20 mph.
1.7.6 Railroads
There are three railroad crossings within this project area (see Figures 2a-2t). The CSX A-line
runs from Weldon, NC to Emporia, VA and is a route being considered as part of the Southeast
High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) from Washington DC through Raleigh to Charlotte, NC.
The second crossing is the CSX SA-line that runs from Weldon, NC to Portsmouth, VA. The
third railroad in the project area is in Conway. The North Carolina & Virginia Railroad (NCVA)
is a short line railroad which was once a part of the CSX SAB-line that ran from Boykins, VA
through Conway to Lewiston, NC.
1.7.7 Intersection and TXpe of Control
Most intersections along US 158 are managed by traffic signs. The following intersections on
this section of US 158 and NC 46 are signalized:
US 158 and NC 305 in Jackson
US 158 and NC 35 in Conway
1.7.8 Bridge/Drainage Structures
The existing inventory of bridges and culverts is listed in Table 1-3.
Table 1-3: Bridge/Drainage Structures
Structure Segment Location Size
Culvert #31 A1 NC 46, just over a mile east of I-95 Triple 9-ft x 9-ft RCBC
Culvert #5 133 US 158, a mile east of US 301 Triple 8-ft x 6-ft RCBC
Culvert #8 Cl US 158, 0.2 miles east of US 301 Triple 8-ft x 6-ft RCBC
Non-Inventory
Structure E2 US 158, 0.6 miles west of SR 1137 Double 50-in x 31-in CSPA
Bridge #112 E2 US 158, 0.1 miles east of SR 1137 150-ft
Non-Inventory
Structure G7 US 158, 0.1 miles east of SR 1358 10-ft x 6-ft RCBC
* RCBC - Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
* CSPA - Corrugated Steel Pipe Arch
9
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
1.7.9 Existing Land Use
The greatest degree of roadside development along the NC 46 and US 158 corridor is generally
found within the municipalities. Municipal roadside development is mainly commercial or
mixed commerciaUresidential, while the rural portions of the US 158 facility are predominately
residential and agricultural land uses.
1.8 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
1.8.1 Traffic Analysis
Traffic Data Source. Traffic data for 2005 and forecast 2030 conditions were generated by the
NCDOT. The data were evaluated for all major roadways within the study area and the region as
a whole. Projected traffic volumes are based on population and employment forecasts, known
traffic volumes and patterns, and planning assumptions regarding planned transportation
improvements, land use, and operational deficiencies. It is these existing and projected volumes
that will be used to evaluate existing and future conditions as well as identify deficiencies.
1.8.2 Existine No-Build Traffic Conditions
Average Annually Daily Traffic (AADT). Figure 5 shows existing and projected AADT datafor
US 158 in the study area. Year 2005 traffic volumes ranged from 2,300 vehicles per day (vpd),
near Faison's Old Tavern to 10,000 vpd near Garysburg.
1.8.3 2030 No-Build Traffic Projections
Figure 5 shows existing and projected AADT data for US 158 in the study area. Project Year
2030 traffic volumes for No-Build conditions are estimated to range from 4,200 vpd near
Faison's Old Tavern to 17,400 vpd near Garysburg.
1.8.4 Year 2030 No-Build Capacity Analysis
Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of traffic congestion on roadway
segments or intersections. Level of service assigns a letter ranking from "A", representing the
free flow of traffic, to "F", representing breakdown in the system. This ranking system also
generally takes into consideration various physical roadway characteristics such as lane width,
roadway topography, roadside obstructions, and other geometric factors. LOS forecasts include
all known transportation improvements within the 20-year planning horizon.
Policy set by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfFicials
(AASHTO) recommends that rural arterials be designed to LOS C, and urban arterials be
designed to LOS D. Where possible, NCDOT strives to design highways to operate at a
minimum LOS C in peak periods.
Capacity. Rural two-lane roads similar to existing rural portions of US 158 are designed to
handle traffic volumes of 12,000 to 16,000 vpd. Four-lane divided highways under "ideal
conditions" can accommodate 35,000 to 50,000 vpd.
10
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
1.8.4.1 Year 2030 No-Build Intersection Capacity Analysis
A capacity analysis was performed for the no-build alternative. The following major
intersections have LOS E or F in the design year, and the method used to improve the failing
LOS is also indicated in Table 1-4.
Table 1-4: No-Build Intersection Capacity Deficiencies (LOS E or F)
Intersection 2030 No-Build
I-95/NC 46 E(2E) LOS F
I-95/NC 46 W(2W) LOS F
NC 46/US 301 (4) LOS F
US 158/NC 305 (70) LOS E
Note 1: Intersection numbers in parentheses refers to the numbering system in the Capacity Analysis.
Note 2: "US 158 Bypass" denotes the proposed new location sections verses "US 158" which denotes
widening along existing US 158.
1.8.4.2 Year 2030 No-Build Arterial Analysis
The arterial analysis studies were completed and determined the LOS ofthe segment as a whole.
Arterial LOS for the design year 2030 No-Build alternative is shown below in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5: Arterial Analysis for No-Build Alternative
Alternative 2030 No-Build Worst Segment
Along Existing US 158
Jackson LOS F
Faison's Old Tavern LOS E
Conway LOS E
19 CRASH DATA AND ANALYSIS
An overarching concern of transportation planning is to ensure that highway facilities are safe.
While motor vehicle travel provides an unprecedented degree of mobility, motor vehicle crashes
are the nation's leading cause of death for every age between 3 and 33 years of age (National
Center for Statistics & Analysis, Traffic Safety Facts 2005). Nationally, traffic fatalities account
for more than 95 percent of transportation related fatalities. In 2005, 39,189 people were killed
in the estimated 6.2 million police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes, 2.7 million people were
injured, and 4.3 million crashes involved property damage only (Traffic SafetyFacts 2005).
Collisions occur due to human error (driving while impaired, speeding, inattention), vehicle
malfunction (break failure, worn tires) and environmental factors (bad weather, topography).
Environmental factors also include roadway design. Highways can be made safer by providing
11
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
adequate horizontal and vertical curvature, adding left-turn lanes, widening travel lanes and
shoulders, signalizing intersections, and other measures.
1.9.1 US 158 Crash Analysis
Crash data analysis was performed along US 158 from US 301 in Halifax County to SR 1364 in
Northampton County. The 2002 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for this section was
estimated at 4,400 vehicles per day, which equates to a total vehicle exposure of 144.35 million
vehicle miles (MVM) traveled.
A total of 134 crashes were reported on this 30-mile section for the three-year period of
February 1, 2008 to January 31, 2011. For crash rate purposes, this location can be classified as
a 2-lane undivided rural US Route. Table 1-6 shows the comparison of the crash rates for the
analyzed section ofUS 158 versus the 2006-2008 statewide crash rates and the calculated critical
rate with a 95% level of confidence for a comparable route type and configuration.
Table 1-6: Crash Rates Along US 158
Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM Statewide Ratei Critical Rate2
Total 134 106.00 155.26 216.86
Fatal 3 2.37 1.95 12.37
Non-FatalInjury 41 32.43 58.91 98.38
Night 65 51.42 51.17 88.22
Wet 28 22.15 26.34 54.04
'2006-2008 statewide crash rate for 2-Lane Undivided Rural US Route in North Carolina
2 Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
Current crash rates exceed the statewide crash rates in the fatal and night categories and do not
exceed the critical crash rates in any categories.
When the planning for this project began, US 158 had experienced a fatal accident rate twice the
average for roads in North Carolina of similar type. The rate has since gone down and the
overall collision rate for US 158 in Northampton County was 98.27 collisions/per million vehicle
miles (colU100mvm) from April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2007. This is lower than the statewide
average of 193.9 colU100mvm for rural U. S. routes. During this time period, there were no fatal
crashes along this corridor. From July 1996 to July 1999, the fatal accident rate was 5.22 fatal
colU100mvm, which was twice the statewide average for similar US routes.
1.9.2 NC 46 Crash Analysis
Crash data analysis was performed along NC 46 from I-95 to the western city limits of
Garysburg in Northampton County. The 2001 AADT for this section was 6,300 vehicles per
day, which equates to atotal vehicle exposure rate of 19.73 MVM traveled.
A total of 22 crashes were reported on this 2.86-mile section for the three-year period of
February 1, 2008 through January 31, 2011. For crash rate purposes, this location can be
12
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
classified as a 2-lane undivided rural NC Route. The following table shows the comparison of
the crash rates for the analyzed section of NC 46 versus the 2006-2008 statewide crash rates and
the calculated critical rate with a 95% level of confidence for a comparable route type and
configuration.
Table 1-7: Crash Rates Along NC 46
Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM Statewide Ratei Critical Rate2
Total 14 78.36 173.02 227.00
Fatal 0 0 2.15 10.65
Non-FatalInjury 8 44.78 64.81 98.94
Night 5 27.98 61.01 94.20
Wet 4 22.39 27.32 50.46
'2006-2008 statewide crash rate for 2-Lane Undivided Rural US Route in North Carolina
2 Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
None of the crash rate categories for the analyzed section of NC 46 exceeded the statewide or
critical crash rates.
THIS SECTION OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
13
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
14
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) describes the alternatives
considered for the US 158 project. The range of alternatives includes the No Build,
Transportation System Management (TSM), Multi-Modal, and Construction alternatives.
During the course of this project, numerous highway alternatives were considered to solve the
transportation problems associated with US 158. Such alternatives have included various
upgrades of existing US 158, and segments of new location highway. Due to the anticipated
level of social and environmental impacts associated with several of these previous alternatives,
they were eliminated. The purpose of this current US 158 study is to find the best alternative to
solve the transportation problems while being responsive to the human and natural
environmental impacts within the study area. This concept may encompass parts of previously-
examined alternatives as well as new ones. For the purposes of this study, most study segments
are 1,000-foot or 400-foot corridors. Actual right-of-way impacts within these corridors, based
on preliminary design, were evaluated as appropriate for decision-making in alternative
selection.
During the various stages of alternatives development, numerous alternatives were considered
and evaluated through a multitier process. Mapping showing study area constraints such as land
use, floodplains, potential wetlands, stream crossings, community facilities, and known
archaeological and historic sites was compiled for use in developing corridors to avoid these
features as much as possible without compromising the traffic service benefits of the project or
unreasonably increasing cost. Based on the avoidance of impacts and public comment, the initial
corridors were modified, added to or deleted to create the best possible alternatives. The detailed
study alternatives were then analyzed to determine:
•The social, economic, cultural, and natural environmental impacts of each
•The estimated cost of each
•The traffic service provided
•The public opinion for each
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The "No-Build" alternative assumes that in the year 2030, the existing transportation system
would evolve as currently planned, but without major improvement to the portion ofthe US 158
highway within the study area. With the exception of routine maintenance, no other changes are
assumed to take place to the existing US 158 roadway by the year 2030. The No-Build
alternative will be the baseline against which all other alternatives will be considered.
This alternative was evaluated in the EIS process, and was utilized as the base line against all
other detailed study alternatives. The "No-Build" alternative would avoid all adverse impacts, in
that no wetlands, streams, historic properties, or other cultural and natural resources would be
directly impacted. However, this alternative did not meet the purpose and need of this project
and was thus eliminated from consideration.
15
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) ALTERNATIVE
Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available
capacity of the facility within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and
without reconstructing the facility. Items such as the addition of turn lanes, striping, signing,
signalization, and minor realignments are examples of TSM physical improvements. Traffic law
enforcement, speed restrictions, control, and signal timing changes are examples of TSM
operational improvements. These types of improvements were considered, and some elements,
such as access control measures, will be incorporated into the recommendations. However, TSM
improvements alone would not meet the purpose and need of the project. Therefore, the TSM
alternatives were not considered a reasonable and feasible alternative and were eliminated from
further consideration.
2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
There is no existing mass transit in Northampton County due to lack of demand, low-density
development, and low population density. The study area is primarily rural, with the exception
of downtown areas in the communities of Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway. In addition, US 158
carries a large portion of through traffic with relatively high truck percentages, which is not
conducive to local mass transit. Based on these factors, the Mass Transit Alternative was
eliminated from consideration because it would not effectively address the purpose and need of
the project.
2.4 CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
2.4.1 Logical Termini
To ensure a meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to future
transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in an
Environmental Impact Statement shall:
• Connect Logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental
matters on a broad scope
• Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a
reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the
area are made
• Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable
transportation improvements
The logical location for the western terminus ofthe US 158 project was determined by the
following factors:
• Tying into Interstate 95 will provide Northampton County access to a major
north-south route
• Re-designating NC 46 as US 158 alleviates the need for a new crossing of the
Roanoke River
16
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
The logical eastern terminus location was determined by tying into previous improvements made
to the US 158 Murfreesboro Bypass.
2.4.2 Design Criteria
2.4.2.1 Corridor Requirements
Conformity was maintained with the US 158 "Intrastate Corridor" concept. This concept is
designed to provide high-speed and safe travel throughout the state by improving facilities to
multilane roads and linkage with major highways, and dictates that the subject section of US 158
be a multilane facility. It also provides for a greater degree of access control. This project will
limit access wherever practicable.
The Strategic Highway Corridor policies further refines access control issues on the project.
The Strategic Highway Corridor vision for this section of US 158 is an expressway for widening
sections and a freeway for new location sections.
2.4.2.2 Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 70 mph throughout the project. The posted speed is anticipated to
be 60 mph or less.
2.4.2.3 Typical Section
The proposed cross section includes four 12-foot lanes, two in each direction, separated by a 46-
foot grass median. Figure 4 shows detail of the proposed typical section. The median-divided
typical section is consistent with the existing Murfreesboro Bypass at the eastern end of the
project.
2.4.2.4 Access Control
Full control of access is proposed for all new location sections. Partial control of access is
proposed for all widening sections to allow for existing driveway connection. Definitions are
listed below:
Full Control Access - Connections to a facility provided only via ramps at interchanges.
All cross-streets are grade-separated. No private driveway connections allowed. A control to
access fence is placed along the entire length of the facility and at a minimum of 1000 feet
beyond the ramp intersections on the Y lines (minor facility) at interchanges (if possible).
Partial Control of Access - Connections to a facility provided via ramps at interchanges, at-
grade intersections, and private driveways. Private driveway connections are normally defined
as a maximum of one connection per parcel. One connection is defined as one ingress and one
egress point. The use of shared or consolidated connections is highly encouraged. Connections
may be restricted or prohibited if alternate access is available through other adjacent public
facilities. A control of access fence is placed along the entire length of the facility, except at
17
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
intersections and driveways, and at a minimum of 1000 feet beyond the ramp terminals on the
minor facility at interchanges (if possible).
2.4.2.5 Right-of-Way
The proposed right-of-way width along the corridor is 250 feet.
2.4.2.6 Directional Crossovers with Median U-Turns
A"superstreeY' type design will be utilized, which includes directional crossovers with median
U-turns at at-grade intersections. Crossing road traffic approaching US 158 would have to make
a right turn at such an intersection. Those crossing road vehicles desiring to turn left onto
US 158 or continue along the crossing road would then make a left U-turn through a median
opening on US 158 and would go straight through the intersection or turn right at the crossing
road, respectively. US 158 traffic would still be able to go straight, left or right at the
intersection. This Superstreet configuration would be applicable to all sections of the proposed
project. Figure 3 provides a diagram of a typical Superstreet intersection.
2.4.2.7 Railroad Crossings
NCDOT proposes grade-separated crossings at all railroads. See Figure 2b, 2q, and 2r for
railroad crossing sites.
2.4.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives
The project originally began in Weldon east of the existing US 158 one-way pair. The section
that ties to I-95/NC 46, the current western terminus, was added later. In developing
alternatives, the project was divided to correspond with the four main populated communities of
the project: Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old Tavern, and Conway. Both widening and new
location alternatives were developed. Detailed environmental studies were completed for 17
alternatives, created from 29 segments (Al-H1). Figures lA-1D shows these alternatives and
segments.
2.4.3.1 Weldon
Weldon Widen on Existing: This alternative begins east of Weldon and west of the Roanoke
River on US 158. This alternative would widen the existing section US 158 between Weldon
and Garysburg. This was the original project western terminus.
2.4.3.2 Gar. s?g
The current Garysburg alternatives all begin at the junction of NC 46 and I-95. This created a
new 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 lA shows the study
corridors for each ofthe Garysburg alternatives.
18
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Gar s??g Northern Bypass (Segtnents Al. 131): This bypass begins at the NC 46/ I-95
intersection and eatends along existing NC 46 within Garysburg 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.
Gar s??g Southern Bypass 1(Segtnents Al. B2. 133): This bypass begins at the NC 46/ I-95
intersection and eatends 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.
Gar s??g Southern Bypass 2(Segtnents Al. B2. 134): This bypass follows the same path as
Southern Bypass 1 alternative, but eatends farther south after it crosses existing US 158/iJS 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.
2.4.3.3 Jackson
The Jackson section of the project eatends 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 1B shows the study corridors for the
Jackson alternatives.
Jackson Widen on Existing: This alternative involves widening of the existing roadway from
east of Garysburg to west of Jackson.
Old Jackson Bypass (Segment D1): This alternative widens the existing Old Jackson Bypass
Road (SR 1311). Two sections of the existing road would be straightened, thus creating some
new location sections. No interchanges are included in this alternative.
Eatended Northern Jackson Bypass (Segtnents Cl. E1): 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 connections with
existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections.
Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments Cl. E2. E3): This alternative follows existing US 158 until
just west of Jackson and eatends 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.
19
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Southern Jackson Bypass (Segments Cl. E2. E4): This alternative follows existing US 158 until
just west of Jackson and eatends 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.
2.4.3.4 Faison's Old Tavern
The Faison's Old Tavern alternatives eatend from east of Jackson through just west of the town
of Conway. Figure 1C shows the study corridors for the Faison's Old Tavern alternatives.
Widen on Existing 1(Segments F2, F5, 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.
Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypasses 1(Segtnents F2. F6. F9) and 2(Segtnents 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.
Faison's Old Tavern Southern Bypasses 1(Segments F1. F8) and 2(Segments F3. F8): These
alternatives eatend 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.
2.4.3.5 Conway
The Conway alternatives eatend from west oftown (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 1D shows the study corridors for the
Conway alternatives.
Conway Widen on Existing: This alternative would widen along existing US 158 from west of
Conway to the Murfreesboro Bypass, east of Conway.
Northern Conway Bypasses 1(Segtnents G2. G6. G7. 111) and 2(Segments Gl. G6. G7. ffi):
This alternative begins on new location east ofZion Church Road (SR 1500) and reconnects 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. This
alternative involves one railroad crossing.
Southern Conway Bypass 1(Segtnents G3. G5. G7. ffi): This alternative begins on new location
east of Zion Church Road (SR 1500) and, after passing south of town, curves north to cross over
the existing facility before reconnecting with US 158 east of 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.
20
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Southern Conway Bypass 2(Segtnents G3. G4. ffi): 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.
2.4.4 Preliminary Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Weldon Widen on ExistiW This alternative begins east of Weldon and west of the Roanoke
River on US 158. It was dropped from consideration by the merger team in August 2005 due to
the impacts to the Weldon Historic District and the new crossing required over the Roanoke
River.
Jackson Widen on Existing: This alternative involves only widening the existing roadway. It
was dropped from consideration by the merger team in March 2005 due to anticipated impacts
on the Jackson Historic District.
Conway Widen on Existing; This alternative was dropped from further consideration by the
merger team in March 2005 due to impacts to the Conway Historic District.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
21
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
2.4.5 Corridors Carried Forward for Detailed Studv
Table 2-1 lists the corridors and segments for each alternative carried forward for detailed study.
Table 2-1: Corridors Carried Forward for Detailed Study
Community Alternative Description Alternative Segments
Garysburg
Garysburg Northern Bypass A1, B1
Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 Al, B2, B3
Garvsburg Southern Bypass 2 A1, B2, B4
Jackson
Old Jackson Bypass D1
Extended Northern Jackson Bypass C1, E1
Northern Jackson Bypass C1, E2, E3
Soutlier7i Jackson B_ypass C1, E2, E4
Faison's Old Tavern
Faison's Widen on EYisting 1 F2, F5, F7
Faison's Widen on Existing 2 F4, F7
Faison's Northern Bypass 1 F2, F6, F9
Faison's Northern Bypass 2 F2, F6, F10
Faison's Southern Bypass 1 F1, F8
Faison's Southern Bypass 2 F3, F8
Conway
Conway Northern Bypass 1 G2, G6, G7, H1
Conway Northern Bypass 2 G1, G6, G7, H1
Conway Southern Bypass 1 G3, G5, G7, H1
Conway Southern Bypass 2 G3, G4, H1
22
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.4.6 Comparison of Detailed Study Alternatives
The alternatives were compared based on human and natural environmental impacts, and cost.
The comparison is shown in Tables 2-2 thru 2-5.
Table 2-2: Comparison of Garysburg Alternatives Resources and Impacts
Impacted Resource Garysburg
Northern
Bypass Garysburg
Southern
Bypass 1 Garysburg
Southern
Bypass 2
Segxnents Included A1 B1 A1 B2 B3 A1 B2 B4
Length 5.0 5.4 5.5
Interchanges 1 2 2
Railroad Crossin s(Brid es) 2 2 2
Schools 1 0 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0
Churches 1 1 1
Cemeteries 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 1 1 1
Historic Properties Eligible or listed on the
National Register (Adverse EffecU No Adverse
Effect)
(1/0)
(1/0)
(1/0)
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federall Listed S ecies within Corridors 0 0 0
NRCS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below Threshold Below Threshold Below Threshold
Residential Relocations 32 11 11
Business Relocations 5 2 2
Noise Receptors Impacted 28 8 7
Wetland Im acts (acres) 5 11 10
Stream Impacts (feet) 1520 2041 3405
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 0
Minority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse &
Dis ro ortionate Im acts)
Yes
No
No
Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0
Underground Storage Tank Sites 4 3 3
Construction Cost $48,500,000 $53,100,000 $57,500,000
Right of Way Cost $10,648,250 $13,548,750 $13,713,250
Mitigation $736,820 $1,277,263 $1,616,515
Utilities Cost $1,188,686 $1,015,868 $953,060
Total Cost $61,073,756 $68,941,881 $73,782,825
Note 1: Archeological surveys are currently in progress.
23
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-3: Comparison of Jackson Alternatives Resources and Impacts
Impacted Resource
Old Jackson
Bypass Extended
Northern
Jackson
Bypass Northern
Jackson
Bypass Southern
Jackson
Bypass
Segxnents Included D1 Cl El Cl E2 E3 Cl E2 E4
Length 8.8 11.9 13.1 10.5
Interchanges 0 1 1 0
Railroad Crossin s(Brid es) 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 (Adverse EffecUNo
Adverse Effect)
(1/0)
(1/2)
(1/4)
(1/2)
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 0 0
NRCS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold
Residential Relocations 6 6 10 25
Business Relocations 0 1 0 0
Noise Rec tors Im acted 11 0 52 4
Wetland Impacts (acres) 40 23.5 10.4 30
Stream Impacts (feet) 1620 856 1768 2107
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 0 0
Minority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse
& Dispropartionate Impacts) No No No No
Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0
Underground Storage Tank Sites 0 2 2 2
ConstructionCost $40,200,000 $59,180,490 $74,701,257 $68,000,000
Right of Way Cost $3,900,500 $5,165,500 $6,225,000 $9,444,000
Miti ation $2,229,424 $1,423,655 $990,837 $1,021,065
Utilities Cost $1,144,221 $919,947 $1,054,723 $1,452,850
TotalCost $47,474,145 $66,689,592 $82,971,817 $81,523,902
Note 1: Archeological surveys are currently in progress.
24
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-4: Comparison of Faison's Old Tavern Alternatives Resources and Impacts
Impacted Resources Faison's
Widen on
Existing 1 Faison's
Widen on
Existing 2 Faison's
Northern
Bypass 1 Faison's
Northern
Bypass 2 Faison's
Southern
Bypass 1 Faison's
Southern
Bypass 2
Se ents Included 172175177 F4 F7 F2 F6 F9 F2 F6 F10 F1 F8 F3 F8
Len h 8.0 7.5 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.7
Interchanges 0 0 1 1 1 1
Railroad Crossings (Bridges) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 0 0 0 1 1
Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cemeteries 5 5 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Historic Properties Eligible or
listed on the National Register
(Adverse EffecUNo Adverse
Effect)
(0/0)
(0/0)
(0/0)
(0/0)
(0/0)
(0/0)
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federally Listed Species
within Corridors 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRCS-Potential Farmland
Conversion Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold
Residential Relocations 36 39 2 2 5 5
Business Relocations 2 2 2 1 1 0
Noise Rec tors Ixn acted 2 2 11 11 0 0
Wetland Impacts (acres) 4 1 23 21 10 9
Stream Impacts (feet) 396 0 3004 2769 491 546
Water Supply Watershed
Protected Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game
Lands 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minority/ Low Income
Populations (Adverse &
Disproportionate Impacts)
Potential
Potential
No
No
No
No
Hazardous Material / Landfill
Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0
Underground Storage Tank
Sites 12 11 1 1 2 1
Construction Cost $33,400,000 $31,200,000 $51,200,000 $49,100,000 $43,300,000 $44,400,000
Right of Way Cost $12,684,000 $13,688,000 $6,343,500 $5,985,500 $6,069,500 $5,790,000
Mitigation $225,511 $17,690 $1,426,798 $1,311,016 $434,440 $407,320
Utilities Cost $1,290,430 $1,155,899 $423,593 $395,593 $318,493 $267,539
Total Cost $47,599,941 $46,061,589 $59,393,891 $56,792,109 $51,122,433 $50,864,859
Note 1: Archeological surveys are currently in progress.
25
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-5: Comparison of Conway Alternatives Resources and Impacts
Impacted Resource Conway
Northern
Bypass 1 Conway
Northern
Bypass 2 Conway
Southern
Bypass 1 Conway
Southern
Bypass 2
Se ents Included G2 G6 G7 Hl Gl G6 G7 Hl G3 GS G7 Hl G3 G4 Hl
Length 7.8 7.8 8.8 8.0
Interchanges 1 1 1 1
Railroad Crossings (Bridges) 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
MajorUtilit Crossin 0 0 0 0
Historic Properties Eligible or listed
on the National Register (Adverse
EffecUNo Adverse Effect)
(3/0)
(2/0)
(2/0)
(1/0)
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federally Listed Species within
Corridors 0 0 0 0
NRCS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold
Residential Relocations 19 15 22 15
Business Relocations 1 1 0 1
Noise Receptors Impacted 2 2 0 0
Wetland Im acts (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 Ixnpacts) 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
Ri htofWa Cost $8,832,500 $8,570,500 $8,916,500 $7,177,500
Mitigation $960,007 $900,912 $1,398,238 $1,769,379
Utilities Cost $1,477,696 $1,383,772 $1,296,080 $638,257
TotalCost $84,119,083 $74,855,184 $72,210,818 $75,785,136
Note 1: Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended altemative is selected.
26
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.5 TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSES
2.5.1 Year 2030 Build Traffic Projections
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). Figure 5 shows existing and projected AADT data for
US 158 and NC 46, in the study area. Project Year 2030 traffic volumes for Build conditions are
estimated to range from 5,600 vpd near Jackson to 15,800 vpd near Garysburg.
2.5.2 Year 2030 Build Capacity Analysis
2.5.2.1 Roadway Sections
The arterial analysis studies were completed and determined the LOS ofthe segment as a whole.
When compared to the no-build alternative, the 2030 construction alternatives all improve the
level of service along the segment as shown in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6: Arterial Analysis for Build Alternatives (2030)
Alternative 2030 No-Build
Worst Segment
LOS Along
Existing US 158 2030 Build
Segment LOS
Along New US 158
Garysburg Northern Bypass Not Available A
Garysburg Southern Bypasses Not Available A
Old Jackson Bypass F A
Jackson Extended Northern Bypass F A
Jackson Northern Bypass F A
Jackson Southern Bypass F A
Faison's Old Tavern Widen Existing E A
Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypasses E A
Faison's Old Tavern Southern Bypasses E A
Conway Northern Bypass E A
Conway Southern Bypass E A
27
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.5.2.2 Intersection Analysis
Capacity analysis was performed for northern bypass and southern bypass alternatives in the
Garysburg area The following major intersections have LOS F in the design year, and the
method used to improve the failing LOS is also indicated in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7: Intersection Capacity Deficiencies (LOS E or F) Garysburg (2030)
Intersection Northern Southern proposed Improvement
Bypass Bypass
Signalize intersection, widen bridge over I-95
I-95/ NC 46 E(2E) F F from 2 to 5 lanes, add separate left turn lanes
on NC 46
Signalize intersection, widen bridge over I-95
I-95/NC 46 W(2W) F F from 2 to 5 lanes, add separate left turn lanes
on NC 46
NC 46/US 301 (4) F F Grade separate, no access
US 158 Byp/US 158 (104) F - Trumpet interchange
US 158 Byp/NC 46 (105) - F At grade intersection, superstreet design
US 158 Byp/US 301 (106) - F Half clover interchange
US 158 Byp/US 158 (107) - F At grade intersection, superstreet design
Note 1: Intersection numbers in parentheses refers to the numbering system in the Capacity Analysis.
Note 2: "US 158 Bypass" denotes the proposed new location sections verses "US 158" which denotes
widening along existing US 158.
In Jackson, the Old Jackson Bypass, Northern Bypass, Eatended Northern Bypass and Southern
Bypass alternatives were analyzed for capacity. As a result, an interchange is proposed in several
locations. The first location is north of Jackson at the intersection of US 158 Bypass and NC 305.
This interchange (Intersection # 108) is proposed for both of the Northern Bypass alternatives.
The intersection of US 158 Bypass and NC 305 on the southeast of Jackson is also recommended
for an interchange due to the Southern Bypass alternative. The remaining intersections with a
failing LOS will be treated with a Superstreet design.
Directional Crossover Intersection (Superstreet) is the name of an intersection design on a divided
highway in which a right turn, followed by a U-turn, replaces a traditional left-turn ar through
movement. Motorists using the major highway have the ability to turn right and (usually) left
onto the minor street. Motorists on the side street can only turn right onto the major highway,
then must proceed to a median crossover at least 800 feet downstream to make a U-turn on the
major highway if they desire to travel in the opposite direction (see Figure 4).
28
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-8: Intersection Capacity Deficiencies (LOS E or F) Jackson (2030)
Old Jackson Northern Extended Southern
Intersection Bypass Bypass Northern Bypass Proposed Improvement
(SR 1311) Bypass
US 158 Byp/NC 305 _ F F F Diamond interchange
(108) (121)
US 158 Byp/US 158 _ F E F Superstreet design
(109) (111)
US 158 Byp/SR F - - - Superstreet design
1131/NC 305 (26)
US 158/SR 1311 (38) F - - - Superstreet design
US 158/NC305 (70) C C C B
(Existing Alignment)
Note 1: Intersection numbers in parentheses refers to the numbering system in the Capacity Analysis.
Note 2: "US 158 Bypass" denotes the proposed new location sections verses "US 158" which denotes
widening along existing US 158.
Through the Faison's Old Tavern community, widen existing, northern bypass, and southern
bypass alternatives were studied for capacity deficiencies. There were no intersections, either
existing or proposed, that generated a failing LOS. In order to provide access to the community,
an interchange with SR 1344 (Galatia Road) is proposed with the Northern Bypass and with SR
1505.
Through Conway, both northern and southern bypass alternatives were studied. Failing LOS
was discovered to occur on several new location intersections (see Table 2-9).
Table 2-9: Intersection Capacity Deficiencies (LOS E or F) Conway (2030)
Intersection Northern
Bypass Southern
Bypass proposed Improvement
US 158 Byp/NC 35 (138) (143) E F Half clover interchange to avoid
railroad bridges
US 158 Byp/US 158 Bus (140) _ E Superstreet design
(East end)
*- Intersection Number refers to the Capacity Analysis Intersection Numbering
29
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.5.2.3 Interchange Analysis
An interchange analysis was completed for the proposed interchange locations. The
resuks are shown in Table 2-10.
Table 2-10: Interchange Analysis (2030)
Intersection (**) Alternative Intersection Ramp LOS
LOS (where available)
I-95/NC 46 (2) Existing * *
US 158 Bypass/US 158 Garysburg Northern Bypass A -
Bus (104) East of Town
US 158 Bypass/US 301 Garysburg Southern Bypass A -
(106) West of Town
US 158 Bypass/US 301 Garysburg Southern Bypass A -
(107) East of Town
US 158 Bypass/NC 305 Jackson Northern Bypass/Jackson A
(108) West of Jackson Extended Narthern Bypass
US 158 Bypass/US 158 Jackson Southern Bypass A -
Bus (112) West of Jackson
US 158 Bypass/NC 305 Jackson Southern Bypass C A
(121) South of Jackson
US 158 Bypass/NC 35 Conway Northern Bypass B A
(138) Narth of Conway
US 158 Bypass/NC 35 Conway Southern Bypass B A
(143) South of Conway
*- The NC 46 bridge over I-95/NC will be widened to four lanes but an interchange analysis was not
performed for this intersection.
** - Intersection Number refers to the Capacity Analysis Intersection Numbering
2.6 TRAFFIC SAFETY
Collision rates along the study corridor should improve as a result of the proposed widening.
Overall, the project is expected to improve safety by providing a facility that better
accommodates the existing traffic and projected future traffia The median will separate
directional traffic, further enhancing safety. The improved roadway will also enhance delivery
of emergency medical services, which are provided on a regional basis. By utilizing bypass
alternatives around developed areas of Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old Tavern and Conway,
conflicts between through traffic, local motorists, and pedestrians will be reduced, increasing
safety for each. Superstreet design will also be utilized at at-grade crossings to increase safety.
Superstreets eliminate typical left turn movements and allow motorists to make a right turn
followed by a median U-turn. This ultimately reduces the number of conflict points from 32 for a
standard two-way median opening, to 18 for a superstreet.
2.7 PROJECT COSTS
Table 2-11 indicates the estimated right-of-way, construction, and mitigation costs for each
alternative segment.
30
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 2-11: Estimated Project Cost By Alternative
PROJECT COSTS
Alternative Descizption
Right-of-«'ay C:'onstruction LTtilities Mitigation Total
Garysburg
Northern Bypass $10,648,250 $48,500,000 $1,188,686 $736,820 $61,073,756
(A1, B1)
Southern Bypass 1 $13,548,750 $53,100,000 $1,015,868 $1,277,263 $68,941,881
(A1, B2, B3)
Soitthern Bypass 2 $13,713,250 $57,500,000 $953,060 $1,616,515 $73,782,825
(Al, B2, B4)
Jackson
Old Jackson Bypass S3,900,500 $40,200,000 $1,144,221 $2,229,424 $47,474,145
(Dl)
Extended Northern Bypass S5,165,504 $59,130,490 $919,947 $1,423,655 $66,689,592
(C1, E1)
Noi-thern Bypass $6,225,000 $71,300,004 $1,054,723 $990,837 $79,570,560
(C1, E2, E3)
Southern Bypass $9,444,000 $68,000,000 $1,452,850 $1,021,065 $81,523,902
(C1, E2, E4)
Faison's Old Tavern
Widen on Existing 1 S12,684,000 $33,400,000 $1,290,430 $225,511 $47,599,941
(F2, F5, F7)
Widen on Existing 2 $13,688,000 $31,200,000 $1,155,899 $17,690 $46,061,589
(F4, F7)
Northern Bypass 1 $6,343,500 $51,200,000 $423,593 $1,426,798 $59,393,891
(F2, Fb, F9)
Northern Bypass 2 $5,985,500 $49,100,000 $395,593 $1,311,016 $56,792,109
(F2, F6, F10)
Southern Bypass 1 $6,069,500 $43,300,000 $318,493 $434,440 $51,122,433
(F1, F8)
Southern Bypass 2 $5
790
000 $44
400
000 $267
539 $407
320 $50
864
859
(F3, F8) ,
, ,
, , , ,
,
Conway
Northern BSpass 1 $8
832,500 $72,600,000 $1,477
696 $960,007 $84,119,083
(G2, G&, G7, H1) , ,
Northern Bypass 2 $8,570,500 $64,000,000 $1,383,772 $900,912 $74,855,184
(G1, G6, G7, H1)
Southern Bypass 1 $8,916,500 $60,600,000 $1,296,080 $1,398,238 $72,210,818
(G3, G5, G7, H l )
Southern Bypass 2 500
$7 177 $66,200,000 $638
257 $1
769
379 $75
785
136
(G3, G4, H 1) , , ,
, ,
,
Preferred Alternative*
Totals $34,329,750 $237,500,000 $3,849,956 $4,480,028 $280,159,734
*See section 2.8 for identification and discussion of preferred Altemative. Bold indicates segment included in
Preferred Alternative.
31
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.8 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.8.1 Preferred Alternative Selection Process
The seventeen (17) detailed study alternatives were evaluated in the State Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS). Following the publication and distribution of the DEIS to Federal,
state and local agencies and organizations having an interest in the proposed project, a Corridor
Public Hearing was held on September 22°d, 25', and 30lh , 2008 to provide the public an
opportunity to comment on the alternatives. An additional public meeting was held in Jackson
on July 19, 2010 to discuss minor changes in the alignment of the Jackson Eatended Northern
Bypass and the Jackson Northern Bypass. These changes were the result of agencies comments
at the Merger Process Team meeting, held on March 26, 2009, detailed below.
In accordance with An Interagency Agreement Integrating Section 404/NEPA, the Merger
Process Team was convened to consider the comments received on the DEIS and the 17 detailed
study alternatives and to identify the "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative" or
LEDPA. Agencies on the Merger Process Team who attended the March 26, 2009 and October
19, 2010 LEDPA selection meetings included: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries
(NMFS), NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), State Historic Preservation Office (HPO),
NC Division of Marine Fisheries, NCDOT Division 1, NCDOT Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, and NCDOT Roadway Design Unit.
In order to simplify the selection process, discussions at the concurrence meetings focused on
alternatives for each individual community, with the exception of Faison's Old Tavern and
Conway which were combined due to the complexity of alternative combinations. In order to
provide supplemental information for LEDPA decision-making, several techniques were used,
however, Advantages/Disadvantages lists were the main tool used to facilitate discussion. This
technique used limited impact data categories (e.g. total relocations, total stream impacts) in
order to simplify the evaluation, and so that disproportionate weight and importance were not
attached to impacts with greater numbers of data breakdown categories (e.g. high quality
wetlands, medium quality wetlands, and low quality wetlands).
It should be noted that this approach was a tool to help sort and prioritize data. This technique
was not the sole means used to identify the LEDPA. This technique does not assess one impact
type as being more important or critical than another without detailed input. Nevertheless, these
techniques were useful in organizing and comparing data at the concurrence meetings.
32
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.8.2 Selection of LEDPA and Preferred Alternative
As a result of the Concurrence Point 3 meetings, the Merger Process Team selected the following
alternatives as the Preferred Alternative, or LEDPA:
• Garysburg Southern Bypass 1(Segments Al, B2, B3).
• Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments Cl, E2, E3).
• Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypass 2(Segments F2, F6, F10).
• Conway Northern Bypass 2(Segments Gl, G6, G7, Hl).
The signed Concurrence Point 3 form is included in Appendix F. The following provides the
rationale for each selection made. Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 in section 2.4.6 provides impacts
datato accompanythis discussion.
Gar. s?g. Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 was selected as the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative for Garysburg, for the following reasons:
1) The Garysburg Northern Bypass was eliminated from consideration due to the
disproportionately high and adverse impacts it would have on minority and low income
populations within the Town limit of Garysburg.
2) Stream impacts for Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 are 1364 linear feet less than
Garysburg Southern Bypass 2.
3) Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 is the less expensive ofthe two remaining alternatives.
4) Impacts associated with Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 and Garysburg Southern Bypass 2
are fairly similar, however, Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 provides a smoother and safer
connection to the Jackson Bypass alternatives.
Jackson. Northern Jackson Bypass was selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative for Jackson, for the following reasons:
1) Old Jackson Bypass was eliminated from consideration due to high wetland and stream
impacts (40 acres of wetland impacts and 1620 feet of stream impacts).
2) The Southern Jackson Bypass was also eliminated from consideration due to high
environmental impacts, with 25 residential relocations, 30 acres of wetland impacts, and
2107 linear feet of stream impacts.
3) Although shifting the Eatended Northern Jackson Bypass reduced wetland impacts by
12.5 acres, the wetlands avoided are low quality wetlands. The Eatended Northern
Jackson Bypass would still impact 23.5 total acres of wetlands, including 10 acres of high
quality wetlands, 9.5 acres of inedium quality wetlands, and 4 acres of low quality
wetlands.
33
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4) Conversely, the majority of wetland impacts associated with the Northern Jackson
Bypass are to medium or low quality wetlands. The Northern Jackson Bypass would
impact 10.4 total acres of wetlands, including 0.1 acres of high quality wetlands, 5.3
acres of inedium quality wetlands, and 5 acres of low quality wetlands.
5) Shifting the Northern Jackson Bypass to the north eliminated its adverse effect on the
Jackson Historic District. The new alignment will result in No Adverse Effect on both
the Historic Peebles House and the Jackson Historic District.
6) The Eatended Northern Jackson Bypass would fragment wildlife by segmenting a large
tract of woodlands, east of its intersection with NC 305.
7) Public comments strongly supported the Eatended Northern Jackson Bypass. Comments
cited concerns that dividing the Historic Downtown from the newly developed county
facilities, with a roadway, would divide the community. However, impacts to the natural
environment do not justify the selection of the Eatended Northern Jackson Bypass as the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.
Faison's Old Tavern & Conway. Due to the complexity ofthe connections between Faison's Old
Tavern alternatives and Conway Bypass alternatives the two sections were evaluated in terms of
total impacts.
Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypass 2& Conway Northern Bypass 2 were selected as the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternatives for Faison's Old Tavern and Conway,
for the following reasons:
1) Faison's Widen on Existing 1 and Faison's Widen on Existing 2 were eliminated from
consideration due to high residential relocations, 36 relocations and 39 relocations
respectively.
2) Faison's Southern Bypass 2 was dropped from consideration due to its tie-in to the Old
Jackson Bypass alternative, previously eliminated from Jackson alternatives.
3) The combination of Faison's Southern Bypass 1 and Conway Southern Bypass 1 was
dropped from consideration based on its high impact to the surrounding environment.
The combination of Faison's Southern Bypass 1 and Conway Southern Bypass 1 would
result in 45 acres of wetland impacts, 28 residential relocations, and 2,563 linear feet of
stream impacts.
4) Likewise, the combination of Faison's Southern Bypass 1 and Conway Southern Bypass
2 was dropped from consideration based on its high impact to the surrounding
environment. The combination of Faison's Southern Bypass 1 and Conway Southern
Bypass 2 would result in 52 acres of wetland impacts, 22 residential relocations, and
3,331 linear feet of stream impacts.
5) The combination of Faison's Northern Bypass 1 and Conway Northern Bypass 1 was
eliminated from consideration due to its high cost and 5,283 linear feet of stream impacts.
34
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
This combination would also require a small section of widening on existing US 158
between Faison's Old Tavern and Conway. This would limit the continuity of the
freeway section by requiring partial control of access for this section of freeway.
6) Although the combination of Faison's Southern Bypass 1 and Conway Northern Bypass 1
has the lowest impact on the natural environment, with 24 acres of wetland impacts and
2,770 linear feet of stream impacts, the alternatives would require the widening of an
existing section of US 158 between Faison's Old Tavern and Conway. This section of
widening on existing would limit the continuity of the freeway section by requiring a
section of partial control of access.
7) Faison's Northern Bypass 2 and Conway Northern Bypass 2 provide a continuous section
of new location freeway from the west side of Faison's Old Tavern to the east side of
Conway. This continuous section would provide approximately 11.5 miles of freeway
with full control of access, minimizing secondary and cumulative impacts.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
35
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
36
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTS
The project study area runs east-west through the center of Northampton County. This area,
located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, has relatively flat topography. The
Roanoke River is the primary waterway in the study area All waterways in the study area are a
part of the Roanoke River basin system.
Agriculture has been the mainstay of the local economy since initial settlement.
There are several municipalities within the study area Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway are
located along the existing US 158 highway. The unincorporated community of Faison's Old
Tavern is located between Jackson and Conway.
Major highways serving the region include Interstate 95, US 301, US 258, NC 46, NC 35, and
NC 305. US 158 is the primary east-west highway in the study area
3.1 HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS
3.1.1 Ponulation Characteristics
The 1990 US Census and 2000 US Census data (when available) were used to gather information
on the population and demographics of the project study area unless otherwise stated. Census
Tracts 9801 and 9803 encompass the length of the study corridor for this project. Data for the
census tract that includes Weldon and data for Halifax County were not included because these
areas encompass only a very small portion of the project. The statistics for the town of Weldon
were included, however, as this data is more representative ofthe study area.
Table 3-1: Population Growth, 1990-2000
Population Growth
Area 1990 2000 # %
Narth Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4
Northampton County 20,798 22,086 1,268 6.1
Town of Weldon 1,392 1,374 (-18) (-1.3)
Town of Garysburg 1,057 1,254 197 18.6
Town of Jackson 592 695 103 17.4
Town of Conway 759 734 (-25) (-3.3)
Tract9801 5,298 5,431 133 2.5
Tract9803 6,461 6,296 (-165) (-2.6)
Source: US Census Bureau 1990 & 2000
37
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.1.1 Ethnicitv
According to US census data, Northampton County is predominantly "Black or African
American," as this ethnic group includes 59.4 percent of the total population. In contrast, the
State of North Carolina is predominantly "white" with 72.1 percent of the population in this
ethnic group. Ethnicity in the three towns along the study corridor varies. In Conway, whites
make up 65.5 percent of the population, while the Garysburg population is almost entirely made
up of African-Americans with other ethnic groups accounting for less than 4 percent of the
population. The town of Jackson includes a balance of whites and African-Americans. Other
ethnic groups account for less than 1 percent of the total population.
The ethnic mix of Northampton County varied only slightly from 1990 to 2000 (less than 1
percent). The only significant change occurred in Jackson. Census data indicate that the
African-American population increased from 41.6 percent to 47.6 percent, and the white
population decreased from 58.4 percent to 51.9 percent.
Table 3-2: Ethnicity and Race 2000
Tract Tract
FCategory State County Weldon Garysburg Jackson Conway
9801 9803
Total Pop. 8,049,313 22,086 1,374 1,254 695 734 5,431 6,296
White 5,804,656 8,633 497 30 361 481 3,077 1,485
(72.1%) (39.1%) (36.2%) (2.4%) (51.9%) (65.5%) (56.7%) (23.6%)
Blackor
African 1,737,545 13,125 862 1,205 331 244 2,270 4,742
(21.6%) (59.4%) (62.7%) (96.1%) (47.6%) (33.2%) (41.8%) (75.3%)
American
American
Indian/Alaska 99 551 71 2 8 0 4 22 20
(1.2%) (0.3%) (0.15%) (0.6%) (00/0) (0.5%) (0.4%) (0.3%)
Native
113,689 20 1 3 1 0 10 6
Asia (1.4%) (0.10/0) (0.10/0) (0.2%) (0.10/0) (00/0) (0.2%) (0.1%)
Native 3
983 12 1 0 0 0 11 1
Hawaiian / 1
Pacific Islander (0.05%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (00/0) (00/0) (00/0) (0.2%) (0.02%)
Hispanic or
Latino (of any 378,963 161 11 5 2 2 33 29
(4.7%) (0.7%) (0.8%) (0.4%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.6%) (0.5%)
race)
Source:2000 US Censusl3ureau
3.1.1.2 Aee
Census data indicates an aging population in the entire study area According to 2000 census
data, 12 percent of the population of North Carolina is 65 or older. In Northampton County, 17.4
percent of the population is in this age group. In Jackson, 27.6 percent ofthe population is 65 or
older. The median age for the study area ranges from 37.8 in the town of Garysburg to 45 years
in the town of Jackson, compared to the state's median age of 35.3. Many of the people in
Northampton County, including study area tracts, are long-term residents, which is indicative of
the higher elderly population.
38
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.2 Economic Characteristics
3.1.2.1 Income
The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) "Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority and Low-Income Populations," in compliance with Executive Order 12898, dated
February 11, 1994, defines "low-income" as a household income at or below the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) poverty guidelines. Forthe purpose ofthis analysis, census
poverty thresholds were used instead of poverty guidelines of the DHHS because there is very
little difference between the United States Bureau of the Census poverty thresholds (by
household size) and the DHHS poverty guidelines (by household size), and because the poverty
thresholds are updated each year by the Census Bureau. Associated demographic data were
collected and classified into degrees of poverty according to the United States Bureau of the
Census poverty thresholds. The weighted average poverty threshold for 2000, according to the
census, is an annual income level of $17,603 for a family of four.
According to the US Census Income and Poverty Status in 1989, 179,906 families were below
the poverty level in North Carolina ($12,674 for a family of four). This equates to 7.1 percent of
the total number of households. The percentage of families below the poverty level is
significantly higher in the study area at the county, town, and tract leveL The percentage of
families below the poverty level in all three of the study area towns is greater than the state as a
whole, with the greatest percentage in Garysburg at 21.7 percent. Census Tracts 9801 and 9803
area also higher than the state trend with 12.6 percent and 20 percent of households below the
poverty level, respectively.
The median household income for North Carolina was $26,647 in 2000. The median household
income for the study area is lower than the state at the county, town, and tract levels. The
median household income for Northampton County is $18,029. A significantly lower median
household income in Garysburg ($12,865) may be associated with the aging population and
lower educational attainment than the county and state as a whole.
Table 3-3: Income Levels and Poverty Status for 1989
Category State County Weldon Garysburg Jackson Conway Tract
9801 Tract
9803
Number of
House-holds 2,517,098 7,518 551 383 201 310 1,971 2,098
Families Below
the Poverty 179,906 1,149 55
0 83
0 23
0
/ 48
0 248 420
0
(7 1%) (15.3%) (10
%) (21.7
%) (10.5
0)
1 (15.5
%) (12.6%) (20
%)
Line
Source: 1990 US Census Bureau
39
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.2.2 Emplovment Status
According to the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, the unemployment rate in
April 2002 for the state was 6.5 percent, while the rate for Northampton County was higher at
10.4 percent.
In North Carolina, 67.6 percent of the population 16 years and older is in the labor force. The
county, town, and tract level yield somewhat lower statistics ranging from 47.2 percent in
Census Tract 9803 to 64.6 percent in the town of Jackson. The lower rate may be associated
with an aging population and is reflected in the poverty statistics for the area.
3.1.2.3 Economic Base
Northampton County has its roots in agriculture. By the time Northampton County was formed
in 1741 it supported a plantation society, which thrived through the antebellum years.
Agriculture plantation continues to be a principal industry, but employs only 6.4% of the work
force according to the North Carolina Department of Commerce. Nearly one-third of the
workforce (31.2%) is employed in the government sector, followed by manufacturing (17.7%),
service (14.2%), retail trade (11%), and wholesale trade (7.3%). Other principal industries
include teatiles, lumber, chemical, and manufacturing businesses. The county's largest
employers include International Paper in Seaboard, Resinall Corparation in Severn, Fineline
Industries East Incorporated in Woodland, Hampton Farms in Severn, John B. Sanfilippo & Son
Incorporated in Garysburg, FX Gear in Rich Square, Perdue near Conway, and Meherrin
Agricultural and Chemical in Severn. Sanfilippo & Son, referred to locally as "the peanut
factory," and Perdue are the only ones of these businesses located directly on an alternative.
Until recently, Georgia-Pacific was the county's largest employer. The company closed its
Conway hardboard manufacturing plant at the end of 2001. The company continues to operate
its chemical facility, Georgia-Pacific Resins, which employs 100 people at the same site.
3.1.2.4 Housing Costs
The 2000 census data on housing values was not available, but the 1990 census data shows that
housing values for the study area at all levels are significantly lower than the state median value,
which is $65,800. The median value in Northampton County is $38,100. In Northampton
County 71 percent of owner-occupied housing units are valued below $50,000, as compared with
31.4 percent at the state leveL These housing values correspond with the lower income levels for
the area.
3.1.2.5 Business Activities and Employment Centers
Commercial uses are somewhat randomly distributed along most of the US 158 corridor.
Jackson and Conway have concentrations oftypical downtown businesses and services including
a hardware store, florist, restaurant, bank, and professional and government offices. Gas
stations/convenience stores are located in Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway. Major employers
along the study corridors include John B. Sanfilippo & Son Incorporated on NC 46 just west of
Garysburg and the Perdue facility on US 158 east of Conway. The Lowe's Home Improvement
regional distribution center on NC 46 is also a major employment center.
40
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.3 Communitv Facilities and Services
3.1.3.1 Schools
Northampton County has six elementary schools with kindergarten through fifth grades. There
are two middle schools located in Conway and Gaston, which include siath through eighth
grades. The county's two high schools serve ninth through twelfth grade students. Two of these
schools are located directly on an alternative, and several schools are located in the study area.
Garysburg Elementary School is located on NC 46. This school is set back from the road on a
large site. Five buses carry students to and from school each day. Worn paths across the street
indicate a high volume of pedestrian activity in the area. Children from nearby neighborhoods
are able to walk to the school.
Central Elementary School is located on NC 305 north of Jackson. This school property sits just
north of the proposed Jackson Eatended Northern Bypass. Central opened in the fall of 2006 and
was formed by combining Jackson Eastside Elementary and Seaboard-Coates Elementary
Schools. The school has atotal enrollment of approximately 215 students.
One of the county's two high schools is located in the study area. Northampton County High
School East is located on SR 1305 in proximity to the Faison's Old Tavern southern bypass
corridor. The northernmost corner of the school's property falls within the corridor. All students
arrive by car or bus. According to school officials, approximately 75 of the schooPs 500
students drive and 11 buses serve the school.
In addition, school administration is housed in a former school off NC 305 and Bagley Drive in
Jackson.
Table 3-4: Schools in Project Corridor
School
I
I Location
Alternative
Segment
Garysburg Elementary Located on NC 46; set back from the road on a B 1
lar e site
Central Elementary Located on NC 305; north of Jackson El
Narthampton High School Located on SR 1305; in proximity to Faison's F8
Old Tavern southern bypass corridor
3.1.3.2 Parks
A roadside picnic area is located on the north side of US 158 between Garysburg and Jackson.
The picnic area, which overlooks a former millpond that served Boone's Mill, is accessed by a
dead-end section of roadway that parallels US 158. The picnic area is within the US 158 right-
of-way. Tax records indicate that adjacent properties are under private ownership. The
Northampton County Recreation Director confirmed that the county does not own any
recreational facilities and uses school sites for recreational programs.
41
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.3.3 Churches
There are several churches within the study corridor and numerous churches in the study area.
The following churches are located within or very close to the study corridor:
Table 3-5: Churches in Project Corridor
Church
I
I Location
Alternative
Segment
Oak Grove Baptist Church South side of NC 46 near I-95; Garysburg Al
vicinit
The Apostolic Faith Church of North side of US 158; Garysburg B1
Giving Grace
Mt Carmel Baptist Church SR 1333; narth of Jackson D 1
Hill Chapel Baptist Church North side of US 158 between Garysburg and E1,E2
Jackson
Piney Grove Baptist Church SR 1500; east of Jackson E4
Faison's Assembly of God South side of US 158; Faison community F7
St. John ANIE Church North side of US 158; Conway vicinity G2
Zion Methodist Church South of US 158; Faison Community F7, F8, F9
All of the churches within the study corridor are situated fairly close to the roadway. Hill Chapel
Baptist Church is eatremely close to the roadway, however, best fit widening will be utilized to
minimize impacts.
3.1.3.4 Transit
The Chowan Public Transportation Authority (CPTA) provides subscription and demand-
responsive transportation in Northampton, Halifax, Bertie, and Hertford counties. Hours of
operation are 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Riders can schedule transportation a
day in advance to any location within this four-county area. Some fees are either subsidized or
paid through county social service departments. CPTA also provides 14 drivers to transport
children to Head Start programs. In Northampton County, these programs are located in
Woodland and Seaboard. The operations center is located in Rich Square in southern
Northampton County.
3.1.3.5 Emergency Services
In Jackson, the rescue squad is located less than a block north of US 158. The county
coordinates its emergency services with other political jurisdictions to ensure the most effective
operation of emergency management plans.
There are volunteer fire departments operating in Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway. None of
these emergency service facilities are located on an alternative. However, in Jackson, the fire
department is located less than a block off US 158.
42
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.3.6 Public Housing
The Roanoke Chowan Regional Housing Authority provides housing for low-income families in
Northampton, Halifax, and Hertford counties. The agency has several sites in Weldon and
Northampton County, however, only one is located in the study area Located on the southeast
side of US 158 west of the Garysburg town limits, the "Garysburg Complex" includes 58 rental
apartments. Rent is determined based on family income. Although the complex is visible from
US 158, the property is not adjacent to the roadway. Several single-family residential lots buffer
the complex from the roadway.
3.1.4 Community Cohesion
Cohesion is defined by the Federal Highway Administration as "those behavioral or perceptual
relationships that are shared among residents of a community that cause the community to be
identifiable as a discrete, distinctive geographic entity." The majority of residential
development, which can be defined as cohesive communities, in the study area is concentrated in
and around the four municipalities; Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old Tavern and Conway.
3.1.4.1 Neighborhoods
The largest concentration of residential development in the western portion of the study area is
located along US 158/US 301 and NC 46 in the immediate vicinity of Weldon and Garysburg.
However, the designation of NC 46 as US 158 will limit any impact the project will have on the
town of Weldon. Most of the residential development in the Garysburg area is bounded by US
156/.US 301 to the south, US 301 to the east, and Seaboard Coastline Railroad to the northwest.
The largest concentration of residential development in the central portion of the study area is in
the town of Jackson. Most residential development in this area is concentrated along US 158,
NC 305, and SR 1108. Additional clusters of housing can be found along US 158 in the Faison's
Old Tavern area
The largest concentration of residential development in the eastern portion of the study area is
located around the intersection of US 158 and NC 35, within the Conway city limits. However,
residential housing is also dispersed along US 158 and NC 35.
In addition to the more established residential developments, there are scattered farms, isolated
clusters of homes, and rural residents owned and occupied by related family members throughout
the study area Although these homes do not constitute traditional planned neighborhoods, they
are a very stable part ofthe study area's residential character.
43
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
3.2.1 Land Use Plans
3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use
NC 46 and Gar s??g Bvnass. Land use along the NC 46 corridor is primarily agricultural.
Some structures, including mostly single-family homes, a few commercial uses, and a church dot
the roadway. A Lowe's Distribution facility sits on the north side of NC 46 in proximity to I-95.
The Sanfilippo & Son Peanut factory is located on the south side of NC 46 just west of the
railroad and the Garysburg town limits. The Garysburg Elementary School is located on the
north side of the road just inside the town's western limits. Small ranch-style homes line NC 46
inside the town limits, with a convenience store at the road's eastern terminus at US 301.
The southern bypass alternative splits from existing NC 46 just east of the peanut factory. Land
use is primarily agricultural. However, the alternative crosses a mobile-home community and
cemetery adjacent to the railroad tracks at the town's western limits. This new cemetery is
associated with nearby Chapel Grove Baptist Church. Land use on US 158 west of town
includes residential and commercial uses.
Existing US 158 Gar s??g. Along US 158 west of Garysburg, land use is primarily residential
with scattered commercial uses including a convenience-type store with a laundromat, and a
funeral home. A renter-occupied housing development, operated by the Roanoke-Chowan
Housing Authority, is located on the southeast side of the highway, although situated well back
from the road. An adjacent residential subdivision is under construction. Deerfield includes
approximately 50 lots for single-family homes including modular homes and double-wide
modular homes. In Garysburg, land use along the corridor is also mixed with several stores, an
auto sales operation, and a church among the uses. Much of Garysburg is eligible as a district for
the National Register of Historic Places (NR). Several abandoned brick structures of early to
mid-twentieth century vintage are located around the US 158/US 301 split.
Existing US 158 Between Garysburg and Jackson. Land use along the corridor is primarily
agricultural or vacant with several noteworthy historic structures and sites. Mowfield, Verona,
and Longview are plantation-era properties with significant houses and landscapes. The latter is
eligible for and the former two are listed in the National Register. Boone's Mill (said to be the
site of a Civil War battle) is marked today by a picnic area with a view of the scenic millpond.
Existing US 158 Jackson. In Jackson, land use along US 158 is mixed but primarily includes
commercial and institutional uses. The downtown commercial core contains typical early
twentieth century brick stores, most of which are occupied. Businesses include a florist, dime
store, restaurant, auto parts store, hardware store, grocery store, and an antiques shop. The 1858
Northampton County Courthouse dominates the downtown streetscape. Listed in the National
Register, the structure is one of the state's finest antebellum Greek Revival courthouses. It is
contained within the larger National Register - listed Jackson Historic District. Other
institutional and office uses include a doctor's office, a lawyer's office, the town hall, the
Northampton County Museum, the Northampton County Memorial Library, and the sheriffls
office. This downtown commercial area and the adjacent residential areas to the north are
44
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Outside the central core, uses
include several convenience stores/gas stations, banks, a funeral home, auto repair, and a farm
supply store with some scattered residential uses.
NC 305 Jackson. NC 305 runs north south through Jackson. North of Jackson is an agricultural
area with associated residential uses. Of note are several residential structures, Businesses, and
Northampton County facilities.
Existing US 158 Between Jackson and Conway. Land use is primarily agricultural with scattered
residential uses. A review of USGS maps indicates that at least 16 cemeteries dot the corridor,
with many of them located close to the roadway. Most of these cemeteries are probably
associated with the Faison's Old Tavern community, which stretches along the corridor. This
linear community includes a high density of houses relative to other unincorporated segments of
the corridor. Several commercial uses and churches are also located along this segment of the
roadway.
The northern Faison's Old Tavern bypass includes mostly agricultural land. There appear to be
only a few homes in this corridor. The eastern end of the bypass will tie into the northern
Conway bypass.
Existing US 158 Conway. Land use in Conway is residential towards the western and eastern
town limits with commercial uses spreading from the town center at the intersection of US 158
and NC 35. Non-residential uses include a florist/gift shop, a hardware store, a barbershop, a
restaurant, a grocery store, an appliance store, and the town hall. The downtown includes a small
row of attached brick commercial buildings with the remainder being detached structures. Auto
dependent uses include a convenience store/gas station and an auto repair shop. A great part of
the town of Conway is eligible as a district for the National Register.
The northern Conway bypass has several residences in the corridor, but elsewhere land use is
primarily agriculturaL The roadway will cross several existing roads on its way to its eastern
terminus. These intersections with SR 1342, SR 1341, NC 35, and US 158 include some
residential uses.
Existing US 158 East of Conway. As in other segments of this corridor, agriculture dominates
the remainder of the project corridor with scattered residential uses. The USGS maps note
several cemeteries bordering this section of the roadway as we1L The Perdue Hatchery facility
occupies a large site on the south side of US 158. Just east of Conway is the National Register -
eligible J. R. Martin Farm. The Francis Parker House is a National Register site, located on the
north side of US 158 near the Northampton County line. The late eighteenth century house,
situated close to the roadway, was moved to its present site from Hertford County and restored.
3.2.1.2 Zoning Characteristics
Land Use Plans do not exist for most ofthe study area; however, all jurisdictions have adopted or
are preparing zoning ordinances. In addition, thoroughfare plans have been adopted for the
entire study area Plans are summarized by jurisdiction in the following sections.
45
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Northampton County. Northampton County enforces a zoning ordinance outside municipal
planning jurisdictions. According to the county's planning director, the zoning ordinance serves
as the county's land use plan. Most of the US 158 corridor, as well as proposed corridors, is
zoned Agricultural Residential. According to the town's zoning ordinance, "this district is
established to promote a compatible miature of agricultural, forestry, conservation, and very
low-density residential uses where few public services will be available. Protection of the
environment, preservation of prime farm land, and the continuation of rural lifestyles are goals
this district seeks to attain." Residential uses in this district are intended to be those incidental to
farming operations. The zoning map also designates a highway industrial district on the north
side of US 158 just west of Garysburg with a small highway business area on the south side. The
crossroads at Faison's Old Tavern is zoned highway business as well.
Gar s??g. Garysburg's zoning ordinance essentially serves as the land use plan for the town.
In order to provide for orderly and consistent development as well as restrict some types of
undesirable development, the town's zoning regulations are also applied in an area eatending one
mile outside the corporate limits. The zoning ordinance allows primarily residential and
agricultural uses along the existing US 158 and NC 46 corridors with a commercial
concentration at the NC 46/US 301 intersection.
Jackson. Jackson's zoning map indicates that properties fronting on US 158 are zoned for either
residential or commercial uses. The Jackson zoning officer indicated that there is no land use
plan for the town of Jackson. The town is included in the Northampton County Thoroughfare
Plan.
Conway. The town of Conway is currently considering the adoption of a zoning ordinance. The
proposed ordinance indicates primarily residential and commercial zoning districts along US
158. There is no land use plan for the town. The Northampton County Thoroughfare Plan
includes Conway.
3.2.1.3 Future Land Use
Gar. s?g. An Economic Development Plan was developed for the town of Garysburg in 1996.
The plan recognizes the substandard housing conditions and limited economic activity in the
town and is intended to serve as an information resource and guide for future development
efforts. In developing the plan, a community needs survey identified housing repairs, storm
drainage problems, and streets and sidewalks as major needs. The survey also revealed a need
for additional retail and commercial businesses in Garysburg. To address this issue, the
Economic Development Plan recommends a retaiUcommercial development strategy with a
priority on strengthening existing businesses. The strategy also identifies businesses to be
recruited, incentives for recruiting new businesses, and funding resources for community and
economic development. The plan notes that sufficient undeveloped properties are available to
accommodate the growth and development ofthe town.
A preliminary analysis of undeveloped properties indicates that there are 251 sites of less than
one acre for residential development, ten sites of 1 to 10 acres for commercial development, two
sites of 10 to 50 acres for commercial or industrial use, and one site of more than 50 acres
suitable for residential or industrial use. There are also a number of large tracts of land in the
46
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
town's planning jurisdiction outside the corporate limits that are suitable for industrial or
residential subdivision development. Industrial areas are designated along the NC 46 corridor
and southwest ofthe US 158/US 301 intersection.
3.2.2 Transportation Plans
3.2.2.1 Highway Plans
Northampton County. The Northampton County Thoroughfare Plan was developed concurrently
with the Garysburg Thoroughfare Plan and adopted by the Northampton County Board of
Commissioners and the NCDOT in 1995. The primary concern of the Board of Commissioners
was the US 158 corridor, as it is the primary east-west route through the county. It was also
noted that several other facilities needed study, including a connector between US 158 and I-95
and bypasses of Faison's Old Tavern, Jackson, and Conway, in order to relieve congestion and
truck traffic.
The plan recommends improving US 158 to a four-lane divided highway on mostly new location
throughout the county. Due to development along existing US 158, widening the road would be
very disruptive and expensive, according to the plan. The plan endorses the realignment of US
158 south of Garysburg as proposed in the Garysburg Thoroughfare Plan. The improved
roadway east of Garysburg is described in the plan as follows: "It should then run near or on SR
1311 (on new or existing locations) and rejoin existing US 158 where SR 1311 terminates. The
corridor will then bypass Faison's Old Tavern and Conway to the south. An interchange is
recommended for the proposed US 158/NC 35 intersection. Proposed US 158 will connect to the
Murfreesboro Bypass near Hertford County." According to the county's Economic
Development Director, the Northampton County Board of Commissioners supports a full grade-
separated interchange at all intersections of NC and/or US highways.
An important issue in developing the plan was the relocation of US 158 to the SR 1311 (Old
Jackson Bypass Road) corridor instead of improving the existing road. Based on a study of cost
estimates, it was assumed that both alternatives were essentially equal in cost. The NCDOT
Transportation Planning Branch and the Northampton County Economic Development
Commission agreed that US 158 should be aligned near SR 1311 to provide for more direct east-
west access. It was also estimated that 11 homes might receive proximity damages. The plan
states, "the proposed design minimizes impacts to farmland, traverses cut-over timberland and
borders wetland areas wherever possible. Some wetland impacts will occur, and one small
gravesite will need to be relocated. The general effect of the proposed US 158 corridor will be to
free existing US 158 for local traffic."
Gar. s?g, The Garysburg Town Council and the NCDOT adopted the Garysburg Thoroughfare
Plan in 1994 as an update to a 1984 plan. Primary concerns addressed by the plan include the
traffic on US 158, US 301, NC 46, and NC 186. Economic development issues were also a
concern.
The plan recommends widening US 158 to a four-lane divided section and relocating the
roadway to run south of Garysburg from Jackson By pass Road (SR 1311) to the Roanoke River.
In explaining the proposed improvements to US 158 the plan states, "Two options were
47
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
considered for improvements of US 158: widening the existing US 158 or locating a four-lane
section on new location. Due to the development along the existing US 158, the widening ofthe
existing section would be very disruptive and expensive, so this option was eliminated. It is
recommended that the four-lane controlled access facility be moved south of Garysburg on new
location. It should connect at US 301 just south of Washington Avenue (SR 1651) in Halifax
County, cross the Roanoke River at a new location east of the existing US 158 bridge, and run
south of Garysburg. The proposed US 158 should connect to the existing US 158 just south of
Jackson Bypass Road (SR 1311)/US 158 intersection with an interchange. The general effect of
the proposed US 158 corridor would be to free existing US 158 for local traffia The proposed
US 158 would increase speed and safety for through traffic."
The plan also recommends eatending NC 46, which connects Garysburg to I-95, east to a
proposed realignment of US 301. The existing NC 46 ends at US 301, trucks and other traffic
must turn south on US 301 to reach US 158. The thoroughfare plan recommends that NC 46 be
eatended to alleviate congestion and accidents at this intersection. It was also suggested that NC
46 be widened to a standard 24-foot pavement section to improve safety and capacity, in
accordance with the Roanoke Rapids-Weldon-Gaston plan.
3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
3.3.1 Noise Characteristics
Highway Traffic Noise. In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772,
Procedures for Abatement ofHighway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772),
each Type I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. Type I
projects are proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway projects for construction of a highway on
new location or improvements of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal
or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise
found in Title 23 CFR 772, which also includes provisions for traffic noise abatement measures.
When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts. A copy of the
unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Highway Traffic Noise / Construction
Noise Analysis can be viewed in Room 445, the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington
Street, Raleigh.
3.3.2 Air QualitY
The project is located in Northampton County, which has been determined to comply with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment area,
therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable.
3.3.3 Farmlands
The Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 658) is intended to minimize the
impact Federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural uses. It assures that to the greatest eatent possible- Federal programs are
48
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
administered to be compatible with state, local units of government, and private programs and
policies to protect farmland. For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique
farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements
does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or
other land, but not water or urban build-up land.
The FPPA requires all federal agencies, or those receiving federal funding, to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects to farming operations and on prime farmland
soils and soils of statewide or local importance, as designated by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), a division of the US Department of Agriculture. Prime and
unique farmland soils of local or statewide importance located in an urbanized area or in an area
committed to urban development by the local governing body are exempt from the requirements
of the FPPA. Much of the study area is rural in nature and there are numerous active farms.
As is required by the FPPA, the Form NRCS-CPA-106 (for corridor projects) has been
completed (see Appendix G) accordingto FHWA guidelines. Siateen (16) ofthe seventeen (17)
corridors that were analyzed received total point values above 60 points for Parts III and VI of
the NRCS CPA-106 form. Therefore, because point totals for these alternatives exceeded 60
points, and in accordance with FHWA guidance of FPPA, they were submitted to NRCS for
review.
Northampton County has an established Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Program.
According to local officials, the Northampton County VAD Ordinance has limited protections of
VAD's and does not include a public hearing requirement. Old Jackson Bypass is the only
alternative that does not impact a VAD.
A landowner at a Citizens Information Workshop identif'ied his farm, south of Garysburg and
US-158, as a Century Farm. Research from the NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer
Services shows Century Farms located along each ofthe following alternatives:
• Garysburg Northern Bypass
• Garysburg Southern Bypass 1
• Garysburg Southern Bypass 2
• Old Jackson Bypass
• Faison's Widen on Existing 2
• Faison's Old Tavern Southern Bypass 2
3.3.4 Utilities
Underground cable, sewer, electricity, water, gas, and telephone are located within the project
corridor.
3.3.5 Hazardous Materials
No hazardous waste sites or landfills were identified within the project limits. Nineteen possible
sites presently or formerly containing petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) were
identified within the project limits (see Table 3-6).
49
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 3-6: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Property Location
operty Owner
F P
I
ST Owner
F
acility ID #
New Dixie Oi1517
I-95 Exit 176 & NC 46 New Dixie Oil Corp. New Dixie Oil Corp. 0-022615
Gaston, NC 27832
This former Texaco gas station and convenience store (Sunnyside Market) is located on the southeast
quadrant of the I-95 Exit 176. Bottoms Interstate Shell also operated at this location prior to the Texaco
operation, and a gound water incident was reported in that time period. Three USTs are located 80 feet
South of the store and are listed on the UST Section registry. No monitoring wells were noted at the site, and
there is no evidence of USTs or UST removal.
Property Lacation Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Former Truck Stop af
America
I-95 Exit 176 & NC 46 Rena Development LLC Rena Development LLC N/A
Gaston, NC 27832
This former truck stop and fueling station site is located on the northeast quadrant of the I-95 Exit 176. The
store, scales, and fueling area were torn down but the foundation footprints are still visible. The pump island
area is 200 feet from the NC 46 median. A gound water incident was listed for this operation, but no langer
appears on the DENR Groundwater Incident datibase. Tlus site does not appear on the UST Section registry.
No monitoring «ells «ere noted at the site, and there is no other evidence of USTs or UST removal.
Propei-ty Location Property Owner F__UST Owner Facility ID #
M.C. Dunlow Farm
Supply
8026 NC 46 Viala Dunlow Viola Dunlow N/A
Gaston, NC 27832
This former farm supply and Sinclair gas station is located on the south side of NC 46. Apump island is 75
feet fi•om the highway centerline. Twa ASTs are located on the East side af the building. There is no UST
Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no eNiidence of USTs or UST removal on site.
Property Location F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Vassor's Garysburg Mini
Mart
103 US 301 William T. Vassor Williarn T. Vassor 0-022407
Garysburg, NC 27831
This active America Gas gas station and convenience store is located on the south side of NC 46. Three
USTs are situated at the northwest corner of the store, and two USTs at the northeast corner. All are set back
85 feet fi?om the NC 46 median. No monitorin? wells were noted a# the site, and there is no other evidence of
?
LTSTs ar UST retnoval.
50
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 3-6: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites (Cont'd)
Property Location F Property (3wner UST Cfwner Facility ID #
Cuz' I1.•tini 1\4art
100 US 301 Thortan & Doris Majette New Dixie Oil Corp. 0-022398
Garysburg, NC 27831
This active America Gas gas station and convenience store (aka: Nlajettes Crrocery) is located on the
northwest corner of the US 301 and NC 46 intersection. Four (4) USTs are located 100 feet from the NC 46
centerline. No monitoring wells were noted at the site, and there is no other evidence of USTs or UST
removal.
Property Lacation Property Orvner UST Owner Facility ID #
Former store & gas station
999 US 158 Jessica Karnbach Jessica Karnbach N/'A
Garysburg, NC 27831
This former gas station & store (aka: R.O. Harris Station) is located on the North corner of the SR 1301
(Cornwallis Road) and US 158 intersection. There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no
evidence of USTs or UST removal on site. A cursory Schonstedt survey did not pickup any large magnetic
anomalies.
Property Lacation Property Orvner UST Owner Facility ID #
Davis Store
1859 US 158 Janet Davis clo Teddie Janet Davis c;`o Teddie
N/A
Garysburg, NC 27831 Boone Boone
This former store and possiUle gas station is located on the South side of US 158. Tlie store from is 65 feet
from the US 158 median. There is no UST Section Facility ID for this pareel, and no evidence of USTs or
UST removal on site. A cursory Schonstedt survey did not pick up any large magnetic anomalies.
Pi•operty Lacation Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Ray's Place
6530 US 158 Jaseph & Annie Epps Joseph & Annie Epps N/A
Jackson, NC 27$45
This active sore may also be a former gas station. The present management could not recount the parcel
history. The store front is 75 feet from the US 158 median. There is no apparent record of this business on
the UST Section registry. No monitory wells were nated at the site, and there is no evidenee af USTs ar UST
rernoval. This site will have a lo« impact ta this prajeet.
Property Lacation Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
FoiYner store 8i gas station
US 158 Oscar & Judy Earnes Oscar & Judy Barnes NiA
Seabaard, NC 27876
This former gas station & stare is loeated an the south side of US 158 in the 7900 bloek. The woad structure
is 50 feet from the highway median. There is no apparent UST Section Facility ID for this business.
HoweN,-er, at least two (2) monitoring wells are located in front of the building and 28 feet from the US 158
median. The wells were installed in 1997. A cursory Schanstedt survey did not indicate any large magnetic
anomalies.
51
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 3-6: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites (Cont'd)
Property Lacation F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Popes garage
8335 US 158 Alton & Margaret Pope Alton & Margaret Pope N/A
Conway, NC 27820
This foriner garage is located on the north side of US 158. The wood structure is set back 50 feet frain the
US 158 centerline. Tires, automotive parts, oil filters in water filler drums, and vehicles, are located on the
east and north sides of this parcel. There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no evidence of
USTs or UST remova1 on site.
Property Lacation E Property Orvner
A
UST 4??ner
Facility ID #
Taylor's Gas & Grocery
8715 US 158 Joyce Taylor Joyce Taylor 0-029087
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former gas station and convenience store is located on the north side of US 158. The UST registry
shows that four (4) USTs were removed from the property in 1999. A cursory Schonstedt survey did not
locate any large magnetic anomalies. The purnp island is loeated 60 feet from the US 158 rnedian. No
monitoring wells were noted at this site, and there is no other ??idence of USTs or UST reinoval.
Property Lacation F7P4erty Orvner UST 4wner Facility ID #
Craven Davis Store
8761 US 158 Marion Davis Eastern Fuels, Ine. 0-033724
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former gas station and convenience store is located on the North side of US 158, and West of the SR
1505 (NCHS East Road) intersection. One (1) UST was removed in 1994. Avent line is still located at the
southeastern corner af the building. The storefrant and pump island, are set back 52 feet and 50 feet
respectively, trom the highway median. Although a groundwater incident associated with this site, no
monitoring wells were observed. There is no other evidence of L?STs or UST removal.
Praperty Lacation Praperty Owner I F UST Ouner F Facility ID #
Pope's Auto Sales
8775-9 US 158 W.N. Taylor est. W.N. Taylor est. N,/A
Seaboard, NC 27876
This active used car lot is located an the North side af US 158, and West of the SR 1505 (NCHS East Road)
intersection. There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no evidence of UST's or UST removal
on site.
Praperty Lacation Praperty Owner UST 04vner Facility ID #
Faison Qld Tavern
8785 US 158 Elmo Fletcher Cordle Elmo Fleteher Cordle N/A
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former tavern is loeated at the intersection of the US 158 and SR 1505 (NCHS East Road). There is no
apparent record of this business on the UST Section registry. No monitoring wells were noted at the site,
there is no evidence of the UST's or UST reinoval.
52
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 3-6: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites (Cont'd)
Property Location F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Old Tavern Flea I\ilarket
8799 US 15 8
Seaboard, NC 27876
Lafayette Majette
Lafayette Majette
0-026625
This former gas statian and convenience store is located on the northwest corner of US 15$ and SR 1344
(Galatia Church Raad) intersection. The business has apparently operated under several names, including
Ram 4, Red Apple Market #4, and Red Apple Market #46. Two groundwater incident numbers are
associated with this property. The UST section registry indicates that six (6) USTs were removed in March
1993. Two (2) vent lines are still located near the front entrance. The storefront and pump island, are set
back 80 feet and 60 feet respectively, from the highway median. Although groundwater incidents are
associated with this site, no monitoring w•e11s were observed. There is no other evidence of USTs or UST
removal.
Property Location Property Orvner UST ONvner Facility ID #
Tractor Trailer Repair
Yard Felicia Ramsey-Green ET Eight, Ine. N/A
8979 US 15 8
Conway, NC 27820
This active truek repair and junkyard is located on the north side of NC 158 and interseetion with Cumbo
Road (private). Several tractor rigs and trailers are scattered over the praperty. The shop building is located
near tlie rear of the property and oil staining was noted in the sail. There is no UST Section Facility ID for
this parcel, and no evidence of USTs or UST removal on site.
Property Location
F Property Owner
UST Owner
Facility ID #
Northeastern Home Care
9181 US 158 James Titus Deloath James Titus Deloath N/A
Conway, NC 27820
This active health care clinic is located on the north side of US 158. A pump island was noted at the front
entrance and 78 feet from the highway median. The clinic inanager indicated that a gas station operated this
location in the 1970's. An earlier survey showed two (2) UST fill ports and vent lines on the west side of the
building in 2002. There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no present evidence of USTs or
UST reinoval on site.
Property Location F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
FoiYner W.F. Davis Store
9454 US 158 Jean Davis Watson Eastern Fuels, Inc. 0-034221
Conway, NC 27820
This former gas statian and convenience store is located an the south side of US 158. Tlie UST registry
shows that three (3) USTs were removed from the property in December 1993. The property owner
conf'?rmed the removal, and former location of the USTs. The wood structure, with asbestos siding, is set
back 75 feet from the US 158 median. At least three (3) monitoring wells are located adjaeent to the west
side of the building, and surrounding the old tank bed. There is no other evidence of USTs or UST removal.
53
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 3-6: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites (Cont'd)
Property Location F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Davis Farm Supply
10505 US 158 Susan D. Pope Susan D. Pope N/A
Conway, NC 27820
This active farm supply and pesticide business is located across from the US 158 and SR 1500 (Zion Church
Road) intersection. The storeowner indicated that no gas station operated on this location. No monitoring
wells were noted at the site, and there is no evidence of USTs or UST removal.
Property Location F7P4erty Orvner UST 4wner Facility ID #
Residence
10793 US 158 George Thurman Ivlajette George Thurman Majette NIA
Conway, NC 27820
This residence is located on the north side of US 158. The Building has the appearance of a former store and
is 45 feet from the highway median. There is no UST Section Faeility ID for this parcel, and no magnetic
anomalies.
3.3.6 Floodplainsi'Floodways
Noi-thampton County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program designates several of the proposed stream
crossings as Zone AE status, indicating that base flood elevations for the 100-year flood has been
established. At such stream crossings, a designated non-encroachment area will be established
which will carry the same regulatory status as a designated 100-year floodway.
3.3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers
No waters in the study area are designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a
National Wild and Scenic River.
3.3.8 State/National Forests
No State of National Forests currently exists within Northampton County, North Carolina.
3.3.9 Gamelands and Wildlife Refuges
The Upper Roanoke River Wetlands Game Land is located within Northampton County;
however, the Game Land is not located within the project study corridor. The Game Land is
located south of Jackson on SR 1108.
No Wildlife Refuges are located within the study area.
54
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
During the review of historic properties within the study corridors, thirty-five properties were
identified within the study area (see Table 3-7). These properties are either listed on the National
Register or are eligible for listing on the Register.
Table 3-7: Historic Architectural Resources - Eligible Properties
Name Status Alt Segment
Location
Francis Parker House NR Hl
J. R. Nlartin Farm DOE G4, G5, G6
St. John AndE Church DOE G2, G3
Jackson Elementary School DOE E4
Henry Stephenson House DOE Cl, D1
Bellevue SL and DOE D1
Mt. Carmel Baptist Church DOE D 1, F3
Norris Boone House DOE Gl
DeberryMill DOE Gl
Mowfield NR El, E2, E3
Verona NR El, E2
Lon iew DOE Cl
(former) Nebo Baptist Church
and Cemetery DOE Hl
Ira W. Futrell House DOE Eliminated
Northampton County
Courthouse Square Historic
District (in Jackson HD)
NR
E3, E4
Milwaukee Historic District DOE Eliminated
Conway Historic District DOE Gl, G2, G3, G5, G6,
Peebles House (Holly Lodge) DOE E3
55
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-7: Historic Architectural Resources - Eligible Properties (Cont'd)
Name Status Alt. Segment
Location
Jackson Historic District NR E3, FA
Stephenson Farm DOE B1, B3, D1
Garysburg United Methodist
Church Cemetery NR B 1, B2, B3
Trian le Service Station DOE B1, B3, B4
ACL Railroad Bridge SL and DOE Eliminated
SAL Railroad Bridge SL and DOE Eliminated
Roanoke Canal Historic
District NR Eliminated
Weldon Historic District NR Eliminated
Grace Episcopal Church (in
Weldon HD) NR Eliminated
Zion Methodist Church DOE F7, F8, F9
Garysburg Historic District DOE B 1, B2, B3, B4
Gov. Thomas Bragg (Amis-
Bragg) House (in Jackson HD) NR E3, FA
Church of the Savior and
Cemetery (in Jackson HD) NR E3, FA
SAL-ACL Railroad Station SL and DOE Eliminated
Peebles Hill Historic District DOE E3, FA
Oak Grove Baptist Church DOE Al
Northampton County Home DOE El, E3
NK = Listed on National Kegister oY Histonc Ylaces
SL = Study list for National Register
DOE = Determination of Eligibility
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources
One potential site is a roadside picnic area located on the north side of US 158 between
Garysburg and Jackson. The picnic area, which overlooks a former millpond, is accessed by a
dead-end section of roadway that parallels US 158 to the north. A state historical marker reads,
"Boon's Mill. Here on July 28, 1863, a Confederate force repulsed a Union march on the vital
Wilmington and Weldon Railroad. Breastworks 50 yds. S.W."
The picnic area is within the US 158 right of way. Tax records indicate that adjacent properties
are under private ownership. The Boone's Mill site may be eligible for listing in the National
Register. (Note: Boone's Mill was historically spelled "Boon's Mill," as noted on the historical
marker, while the contemporary spelling is "Boone's Mill.")
A detailed archeological study is currently underway for all sections of the Preferred Alternative/
LEDPA.
56
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
3.5.1 Soils/Topography/Geology
Northampton County is on the North Carolina and Virginia border along the divide of the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic provinces in North Carolina. This divide, commonly
referred to as the Fall Zone, separates two physiographic regions that contain moderately
different physical characteristics. The project study area is located in the Middle Coastal Plain
physiographic province (Daniels et al. 1999). The topography of this region is described as
smooth, gently sloping, plateau-like uplands with gentle to steep valley slopes near the rivers
(Daniels et al. 1999). Elevations in the project study area range from approximately 50 feet
above mean sea level (MSL) to 140 feet above MSL. Current land uses within the project
vicinity include rural residential, agricultural, timber production, and undeveloped.
Six soil associations are present within the project study area (Shaffer 1994). The Turbeville-
Caroline association is a well-drained soil located on uplands and has a loamy surface layer with
a clayey subsoil. The Turbeville-Caroline association exists in areas that are nearly level to
strongly sloping. The Gritney-Caroline association is a moderately well-drained to well-drained
soil located on ridgetops and side slopes and has a loamy surface layer with a clayey subsoil.
The Norfolk-Bonneu-Goldsboro association occurs on ridgetops and side slopes. These soils are
well-drained to moderately well-drained and are described as having a sandy or loamy surface
layer and loamy subsoiL The Craven-Bethera-Lenior association consists of moderately well-
drained to poorly-drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and clayey subsoil and occurs on
uplands. The Wickham-Altavista association is characteristic of narrow flood plains along the
Roanoke River. These soils are well-drained to moderately well drained and have a loamy
surface layer and loamy subsoiL The Wehadkee-Chastain association consists of poorly-drained
to well-drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and loamy subsoil and occurs on flood
plains.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Forty soil types are found within the project study area (Shaffer 1994). Table 3-8 lists each soil
map unit and its soil series with slope, drainage capabilities, site index, and general
characteristics. The project study area is dominated by the upland soils Gritney sandy loam,
Goldsboro sandy loam, Norfolk sandy loam, and Bonneau loamy sandy.
57
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-8: Soil Series within the Project Study Area
U
P Soil Series Slope e Drainage General Characteristics
n * *
Ind x Status
Soils have moderate permeability and
Altavista vailable water capacity. The seasonal high
AtA* fine sandy 0-3% 91 Moderately Hydric ater table is at a depth of 1.5 to 2.5 feet
loam uring wet periods. Soils are located on
erraces along larger streaxns.
Soils have moderately rapid permeability in
Autryville Well Non- he upper part of the soil and moderate in the
AuA loamy 0-3% 77 Drained h dric
Y ower part. Available water capacity is low.
sand he seasonal high water table is at a depth of
to 6 feet.
Soils have slow permeability and high
vailable water capacity. The seasonal high
Be* Bethera
0-2%
95 Poorl
Hydric ater table is at or near the surface for 3 to 5
silt loam Drain d onths in mostyears. Soils are on broad
ats or in shallow depressions on the
plands.
Bonneau Soils have moderate permeability and low
BoB loamy 0-6% 95 well Non- vailable water capacity. The seasonal high
Drained hydric ater table is at a depth of 3.5 to 5.0 feet
sand Soils are generally uplands.
Bonneau Soils have moderate permeability and low
BoC loamy 6-12% 95 well Non- vailable water capacity. The seasonal high
Drained hydric ater table is at a depth of 3.5 to 5.0 feet
sand Soils are generally uplands.
Caroline Soils have moderately slow or slow
CaA sandy 0-2% 76 well Non- ermeability and high available water
Drained hydric apacity. A perched seasonal high water
loam able is at a depth of 3.5 to 5.0 feet.
Caroline Soils have moderately slow or slow
CaB sandy 2-6% 76 well Non- ermeability and high available water
Drained hydric apacity. A perched seasonal high water
loam able is at a depth of 3.5 to 5.0 feet.
Soils have slow permeability and moderate
Craven Moderately vailable water capacity. The seasonal high
CrA* fine sandy 0-1% 88 Well Hydric ater table is at a depth of 2 to 3 feet during
loam Drained he spring and winter. Soils are on broad,
mooth ridges in the uplands.
58
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-8: Soil Series within the Project Study Area (Cont'd)
Site Hydric
Map Unit Soil Series Slope Index
.. Drainage Status General Characteristics
Craven Soils have slow permeability and moderate
CrB fine sandy 14% gg Moderately Non- vailable water capacity. The seasonal high water
well Drained hydric able is at a depth of 2 to 3 feet during the spring
loam nd winter. Soils are located on u lands.
Soils have slow permeability and moderate
Craven Moderatel Non- vailable water capacity. The seasonal high water
CrC fine sandy 4-10% gg well Drain d hYdric able is at a depth of 2 to 3 feet during the spring
loam nd winter. Soils are located on side slopes along
rainageways.
Soils have slow permeability and moderate
Craven Moderatel Non- available water capacity. The seasonal high water
Cs132 sandy clay 14% 80 able is at a depth of 2 to 3 feet during the spring
loam well Drain d hydric and winter. Soils are located on narrow ridges in
he u lands.
Craven- Soils have slow permeability and moderate
CuB Urban 0 4% *** Moderately Non- available water capacity. The seasonal high water
land Well Drained hydric able is at a depth of 2 to 3 feet. Intricate mix of
complex 50% Craven soil and 35% Urban land.
Soils have slow permeability and high available
ExA Exttm
? 2o ??
82 Moderately Non- ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is
loam Well Drained hydric at a depth of 2 to 3 feet. Soils are located on
lands.
Goldsboro Soils have moderate permeability and available
GoA sandy 0-2% 90 Moderately Non- ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is
well Drained hydric at a depth of 2 to 3 feet. Soils are located on
loam lands.
Goldsboro Goldsboro soils have moderate permeability and
GuA Urban- 0 Z% *** Moderately Non- available water capacity. The seasonal high water
land Well Drained hydric able is at a depth of 2 to 3 feet. Intricate mix of
complex 50%Goldsboro soil and 30%Urban land.
Gritney Soils have slow permeability and moderate water
GxB sandy 2-6% 85 Moderately Non- capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a
well Drained hydric depth of 1S to 3 feet. Soils are located on
loam plands.
Gritney Soils have slow permeability and moderate water
GxC sandy 6-10% 85 Moderately Non- capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a
well Drained hydric depth of 1.5 to 3 feet. Soils are located on side
loam slo es and rollin areas on u lands.
Gritney Soils have slow permeability and moderate water
GyB2 sandy clay 2-6% gp Moderately Non- capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a
well Drained hydric depth of 1S to 3 feet. Soils are eroded and
loam located on uplands.
59
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-8: Soil Series within the Project Study Area (Cont'd) Sit
U
P Soil Series Slope e Drainage Hydric General Characteristics
n **
Ind x Status
Gritney Moderately Soils have slow permeability and moderate water
GyC2 sandy clay 6-10% 80 Well Non- capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
hydric of 1.5 to 3 feet Soils are eroded and located on side
loam Drained slo es and rollin areas on u lands.
Somewhat Soils have slow permeability and moderate available
Le* Lenoir silt 0-2% 87 Poorly Hydric B ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a
d
h
f 1
0
2
5 f
d
i
i
d
S
il
loam ept
o
.
to
.
eet
ur
ng wet per
o
s.
o
s are
Drained in broad interstream areas on u lands.
Lynchburg Somewhat Soils have moderate permeability and available water
Ly* fine sandy 0-2% 86 Poorly Hydric B capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
loam Drained of 0.5 foot to 1.5 feet. Soils are located on uplands.
Norfolk Well Non- Soils have moderate permeability and available water
NoA sandy loam 0 2% 84 Drained hydric capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
of 4 to 6 feet. Soils are located on u lands.
Norfolk Well Non- Soils have moderate permeability and available water
NoB sandy loam 2 6% 84 Drained hydric capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
of 4 to 6 feet. Soils are located on u lands.
Soils have moderate permeability and available water
NoC Norfolk o
6-10%
g4 Well Non- capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
sandy loam Drained hydric of 4 to 6 feet. Soils are located on side slopes that
drain into creeks.
Norfolk- Soils have moderate permeability and available water
NuB Urban land 0-6% *** +++ Non- capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
hydric of 4 to 6 feet. Soils are located around the towns of
complex Jackson, Seaboard, Gar sbur , and Conwa .
Ocilla Somewhat Soils have moderate permeability and low available
OcA loamy fine 0-3% 85 Poorly Non- ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a
hydric depth of 1. 5 to 2.5 feet during wet periods. Soils are
sand Drained located on u lands.
Pactolus Moderately Non- Soils have rapid permeability and low available water
PtA loamy fine 0-2% 86 Well hydric capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
sand Drained of 1.5 to 3.0 feet. Soils are located on uplands.
Soils have moderate permeability and available water
Ra* Rains fine 0-2% 94 Poorly Hydric A capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
sandy loam Drained of 1 foot during wet periods. Soils are located on
plands.
Seabrook Moderately
Non- Soils have rapid permeability and low available water
Se
loamy sand 0-2% 81 Well
hydric capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
Drained of 2 to 4 feet. Soils are located on stream terraces.
Turberville Well Non- Soils have moderate permeability and available water
TrA loamy sand 0 2% 80 Drained hydric capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth
of more than 6 feet. Soils are located on uplands.
60
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-8: Soil Series within the Project Study Area (Cont'd)
U
P Soil Series Slope e Drainage General Characteristics
n Ind x
* * Status
Turberville Well Non- Soils have moderate permeability and available water
TrB loamy sand 2 6% 80 Drained hydric capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of
more than 6 feet. Soils are located on u lands.
Soils have moderate permeability and available water
Turberville Well Non- capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of
TsA sandy loam o
0-2 /0 80 Drained hydric more than 6 feet. Soils are located on broad, smooth
landscape positions in uplands.
Soils have moderate permeability and available
Turberville Well Non- ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is at
TsB sandy loam o
?-6 /0 80 Drained hydric depth of more than 6 feet. Soils are located on
plands.
Turberville Soils have moderate permeability and available
Tt32 sandy clay 2-6% gp well Non- ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is at
loam Drained hydric depth of more than 6 feet. Soils are eroded and
ocated on uplands.
Turberville- Soils have moderate permeability and available
TxB Urban land 0-8% *** well Non- ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is at
complex Drained hydric depth of
more than 6 feet. Soils a
re and intricate
?
?
ix of 50 /o Turberville soil and 30 /o Urban land.
atural soil layering sequence is disturbed. Map
Ud Udorthents, *** *** *** Non- nit includes borrow pits, cut and fill areas, and
loam
Y h dric
Y andfills.
Soils have moderate permeability and available
Wedowee well Non- ater capacity. The seasonal high water table is at
WeD2 sandy clay 8-15% 70 Drained hydric depth of more than 6 feet. Soils are eroded and
loam ocated on uplands.
Soils have moderate permeability and high
Wehadkee Poorly Hydric vailable water capacity. The seasonal high water
wh* loam o
0-2/0 93 Drained A able is at or near the surface during wet periods.
Soils are located on flood plains along major rivers
nd creeks.
Moderately Soils have moderate permeability and available
WtE winton fine 10- 93 Well Non- ater capacity. A perched seasonal high water
sandy loam 25% Drained hydric able is at a depth of 2 to 4 feet. Soils are located
n slopes along rivers and their tributaries.
Soils have moderate permeability and available
winton fine 25- Moderately Non- ater capacity. A perched seasonal high water
WtF sandy loam 50% 93 Well hydric able is at a depth of 2 to 4 feet. Soils are located
Drained
n slopes along rivers and their major tributaries.
Source: Shaffer 1994.
* Occurs on Hydric Soils list, Gregory 2001.
** Site Index values are based on potential productivity of Pinus taeda and/or Uguidambar styraciflua
*** - No designation has been assigned for the mapping unit.
61
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife
Distribution and composition of terrestrial and aquatic communities reflect variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Within the project study area, some
of the natural community patterns have been modified by previous disturbances. The following
community profile description reflects the Schafale and Weakley (1990) classification scheme
and contains the description of the range of communities that were observed. Nine vegetative
communities are located in the project study area: Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain subtype), Mesic Pine Flatwoods, Maintained/Disturbed
(including agricultural land and existing roadways), Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
(Brownwater Subtype), Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment, Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Flat, and Wet Pine
Flatwoods.
3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife
3.5.2.1.1 Vegetative Communities
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests are found on mid-slopes, low
ridges, upland flats, and other dry-mesic upland areas. The community is generally underlain by
acidic upland soils. Typically, the canopy and subcanopy strata are composed of a variety of
oaks and hickories with white oak (Quercus alba) dominating the canopy. Other common
canopy species include northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velurina),
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). In areas of
disturbance, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and a
variety of pines (Pinus spp.) may contribute to the canopy. The understory typically contains red
maple (Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood (Comus florida), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum),
American holly (flex opaca), and black gum (Nyssa sylvarica). The vines commonly found in
this community are muscadine grape (Uilis rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). The herbaceous layer tends to be sparse.
In the project study area, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests tended to occur on midslopes and
ridges. This community was often found between maintained/disturbed areas such as agricultural
lands, which occur on the upper slopes and ridges, and Mesic Mixed Hardwoods (Coastal Plain
Subtype), which occur on the lower slopes and in the valleys. Typical species found to dominate
the canopy layer of Dry-Mesic OakHickory Forests included white oak, post oak (Quercus
stellata), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black oak, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, and
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). These forests maintained a moderately dense to open understory
dominated by species such as red maple, sweetgum, sourwood, American holly, blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica), black cherry (Prunus serorina), and a miature of younger canopy species. The
shrub layer often consisted of American holly, deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum), red maple,
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and saplings of canopy species. Within the herb and vine
layers, dominant species included common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), glaucous-leaved
greenbrier (Smilax glauca), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine grape, poison
ivy, and crane fly orchid (Tipularia discolor).
62
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtvne). Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
(Coastal Plain Subtype) occurs on mesic (non-wetland) upland areas throughout the Coastal
Plains. Primarily found on north-facing river bluffs and ravine slopes in areas protected from fire
by topography and moisture, these communities are supported by various moist upland soils. The
canopy within this community is dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip tree,
white oak, northern red oak, and sweetgum. Understory species include dogwood, American
holly, hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), sourwood, and red maple. The shrub and herb layers
are described as ranging from sparse to dense and fairly diverse. Common shrubs include horse
sugar (Symplocus rinctoria), witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), and giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea). Herbaceous species may include partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), Christmas fern
(Polysrichum acrosrichoides) and various sedges (Carex spp.). Other oak species observed
include southern red oak and willow oak (Quercus phellos). Chinese privet was common in the
understory. Common greenbrier and muscadine grape were also typical in this community.
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) was a dominant community within
the project study area Most often this community occurred on the low and mid slopes
transitioning from wet areas dominated by bottomland hardwood species to upland communities
such as Mesic Pine Flatwoods, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests, and agricukural fields. The
canopy within this community was dominated by tulip tree, sweetgum, white oak, red maple,
willow oak, water oak, and American beech. Loblolly pine was also observed in the canopy
layer. The understory within this community was often moderately dense and dominated by
younger canopy species as well as American holly and sourwood. The shrub layer consisted of
coastal pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), American holly, various blueberries (Uaccinium spp.),
Chinese privet, and saplings of canopy species. The herb and vine layers included species such
as poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern, ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), muscadine grape, common greenbrier, and giant cane. Areas that had recently been
timbered but were beginning to reestablish vegetation consistent with this community type were
also mapped as Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype). These cutover
communities typically ranged from 5 to 15 years in age.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods. Mesic Pine Flatwoods are mesic sites, located either on flat or rolling
Coastal Plain sediments, that are neither excessively drained nor with a significant seasonal high
water table. This community is underlain by loamy or fine-teatured soils, sometimes on sands,
and is characterized as having a closed to open canopy mainly consisting of longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) or loblolly pine. The understory is commonly sparse and contains species such as
Southern red oak, water oak, post oak, mockernut hickory and sweet gum. The shrub layer will
have varying densities and is similar to Wet Pine Flatwoods. The herbaceous layer is generally
dominated by pineland three-awn grass (Arisrida stricta), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum),
old switch panic grass (Panicum virgatum), little bluestem (Andropogon scoparium), and
roundhead bushclover (Lespedeza capitataL
The Mesic Pine Flatwoods was another dominant community within the project study area,
typically occurring on broad flats along interstream divides. This community often consisted of
large contiguous tracts of land that were being leased for hunting. Many of these tracts of land
are owned by timber companies and routinely logged and replanted. Planted pine forests of all
ages were mapped within this community type. The canopy layer was almost exclusively
dominated by loblolly pine with only longleaf pine present at one location. In addition,
63
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
sweetgum and various oaks were found in the canopy as well. The understory and shrub layers
were moderately dense to sparse and consisted of sweet gum, red maple, water oak, willow oak,
southern red oak, post oak, sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), American holly,
blackgum, winged elm (Ulmus allata), and black cherry. The herb and vine layers included
species such as poison ivy, common greenbrier, blackberry (Rubus sp.), ebony spleenwort,
muscadine grape, partridge berry, and Japanese honeysuckle. This community often occurred
adjacent to Wet Pine Flatwoods. The main differentiating factor between this community and the
Wet Pine Flatwoods community is the lack of hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation such as giant
cane and netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata).
Maintained/Disturbed Lands. The maintained/disturbed lands community is characterized by
human influences and anthropogenic surfaces related to agricultural, commercial and residential
development, roadways, railways, and other areas that have been manipulated. Vegetation
associated with this community is kept in an early state of succession by regular mowing,
plowing, or other maintenance. Within the project study area, this community includes the
following areas: agricultural, rural residential, paved and unpaved roads, railways, industrial
sites, parking lots, commercial development, and recent cutovers (generally less than 2 years
old).
Agricultural fields and recent cutover areas are present throughout much of the project study
area Agricultural fields within the project study area consisted of crop land, active horse and
cattle pasture, plant nurseries, poultry and swine farms, and food plots for wildlife. Cutover areas
too young to be classified as other vegetative communities were classified as
maintained/disturbed lands. Ground cover was often dense in these areas due to debris left over
from timber harvesting and the abundance of early successional species. Species common within
recent cutover areas included sweetgum, loblolly pine, red maple, blackberry, various rushes
(Juncus spp.), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), and poison ivy.
Within fallow fields, vegetation was dominated by sweetgum and loblolly pine. Vines and shrubs
within these areas included muscadine grape, honeysuckle, and blackberry. The herbaceous layer
had high diversity commonly including ebony spleenwort, longstalked aster (Aster dumosus),
feather grass (Microstegium vimineum), and Chinese bushclover (Lespedeza cuneata).
Maintained/disturbed land also includes roadsides and railroad buffers within which sweetgum,
ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), common greenbrier, blackberry, fescue (Festuca spp.), and trumpet
vine were found.
Mature hardwood trees were noted adjacent to maintained residential areas within the project
study area. Canopy trees surrounding the residential areas include red maple, water oak, pecan
(Carya illinoinensis), loblolly pine, and willow oak. Fescue, Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry,
poison ivy, and dandelion (Taraxacum spp.) were observed as the primary groundcover. Other
species identified in these residential areas include mimosa (Albiziajulibrissin), flowering
dogwood, red mulberry (Morus rubra), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweetbay
magno lia.
64
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.2.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
The various forest communities present within the project study area, together with disturbed
lands, offer plant diversity and water availability for wildlife. These forests provide a variety of
habitats for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Species observed during the site visit,
either directly or indirectly by sign, scat, or tracks, are indicated by an asterisk (*).
The project study area likely contains a diverse amphibian population. A variety of salamanders
including the marbled (Ambystoma opacum), two-lined (Eurycea bislineata), three-lined (E.
guttolineata), southern dusky (Desmognathus auriculatus), northern dusky (Desmognathus
fuscus), mud (Pseudo triton montanus), many-lined (Stereochilus marginatus), slimy (Plethodon
glurinosus), and redback (Plethodon cinereus) may exist within the project study area.
Salamanders forage on insects (both aquatic and terrestrial), crustaceans, worms, and other
organisms along the forest floor and in the streams. Salamanders can be found in a variety of
habitats, though most are associated with small streams and seepages. Species such as the
marbled, slimy, and redback salamanders are found primarily in terrestrial habitats under rocks,
leaves, and woody debris. A variety of toads and frogs may be present throughout the project
study area as we1L Toads that may exist within the project study area include the eastern
spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki), American toad (Bufo americanus), * southern toad (Bufo
terrestris), and Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei). The American toad inhabits a variety of
habitats from home gardens to forests. Bullfrogs* (Rana catesbeiana) inhabit large ponds, lakes,
and streams and consume insects, crayfish, and occasionally small vertebrates. Other amphibians
that are likely present include spring peepers* (Hyla crucifer), green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea),
and pickerel frogs* (Rana. palustris). Spring peepers mainly inhabit woodlands while pickerel
frogs and tree frogs are found along shaded streams and wet areas.
Reptile species including snakes, lizards, and turtles are found throughout a variety of ecotones.
During field investigations, the majority of reptiles were observed in forested areas near water.
Depending upon the species, snakes forage on slugs, earthworms, insects, small mammals and
their eggs, fish, and amphibians. Several snake species that are likely to be observed within the
project study area include the brown snake (Storeria dekayi), northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon), * brown water snake (Nerodia tazispilota), * black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern
kingsnake (Lampropelris getulus), * rough green snake (Opheodrys aesrivus), * eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), * worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), * copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), * and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta). *
Lizards feed primarily on insects and inhabit a wide variety of habitats. Lizard species that are
likely to be observed within the project study area include the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), and broadhead skink (E. lariceps). The eastern
fence lizard avoids dense woods and inhabits open areas such as open pine woods, fences, and
building sites. Broadhead skinks are arboreal, generally found in living and dead trees to
considerable heights.
Turtles are generally omnivorous and found in or near water. Turtle species that are likely to be
found within the project study area include the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpenrina), *
yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta), * and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). * Snapping
turtles are very aggressive animals, feeding on aquatic invertebrates and numerous small
65
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
vertebrates in addition to vegetation. Eastern box turtles are largely terrestrial and often found
away from water, but they will enter water during dry, hot weather.
The project study area offers various types of habitat for birds including open fields, residential
areas, forests of various ages and types, open water, stream banks, cutovers, and wetlands. This
habitat diversity provided an opportunity for a wide variety of bird species to be observed within
the project study area Predatory birds observed within the project study area included the red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), * barred owl (Strix varia), * Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), * and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). * These predatory birds mainly consume
rodents and other small animals, and nest above the ground. A bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) * was sighted perched in a tree within the project study area, however, no nesting
sites were identified during field investigations. The bald eagle primarily feeds on fish; therefore,
it is often found near open water. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) * were commonly observed
along stream banks and pond edges within the project study area. Great blue herons feed
primarily on fish and other animals that live in or near the water, and nest in the tops oftall trees
near water.
During the months of March, April, and May an assemblage of migratory song birds was
observed within the project study area. During the spring, as the weather warms and defoliating
insects emerge, these migratory birds inhabit forests throughout North Carolina as they move
northward. Migratory species observed within the project study area include the summer tanager
(Piranga rubra), * blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), * indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), *
white-eyed vireo (Uireo griseus), * common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), * black and white
warbler (Mniorilta varia), * prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), * and hooded warbler
(GVilsonia citrine). * The diets of these birds may include a combination of seeds, berries,
vegetation, worms, and insects. Their nests are generally above ground, usually in trees or
shrubs.
Game species such as American woodcock (Scolopax minor), * Northern bobwhite quail
(Colinus virginianus), * Canada goose (Branta canadensis), * mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), * and wood duck (Aix sponsa) * were also present within the project study area Aside
from the mourning dove and wood duck, these birds nest on the ground. Scavengers such as the
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) * and black vulture (Coragyps atratus) * were also found in the
project study area. These birds feed primarily on fresh or rotting carrion and roost singly or
communally at night. A list of all bird species observed within the project study area is included
in the NRTR.
A diverse mammal population is expected to be associated with the communities present within
the project study area Recent cutover areas throughout the project study area offer habitat for the
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus jloridanus), * and whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). *
These cutover areas are also inhabited by the gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) * which rely
on rabbits and other small mammals as their primary food source. Mammals observed near
streams and wetlands throughout the project study area included muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), *
beaver (Castor canadensis), * and mink (Mustela vison). * Other mammals observed within the
project study area included Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), * raccoon (Procyon lotor), *
eastern mole (Sealopus aquaricus), * and bobcat (Felis rufus). * The agricultural fields within the
project study area likely support small rodents such as the eastern harvest mouse
66
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Reithrodontomys humulis) and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). The eastern harvest
mouse feeds on seeds, fruits, and grasses common to this old-field habitat, and the meadow vole
feeds on the leaves and sterns of a variety of grasses and forbs as well as fungi and insects. The
mature hardwood forests throughout the project study area offer habitat for species such as the
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). * The gray squirrel feeds on acorns and other nuts from
mast-producing trees. Bat species likely to exist within the project study area include Eastern
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subjlavus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), red bat (Lasuirus borealis),
and evening bat (Nycriceius humeralis). Bats are the only mammals capable of sustained flight
and are rarely seen due to their nocturnal nature. They feed on insects and typically roost in old
buildings, caves, and trees. The farm buildings and eatensive forested areas within the project
study area offer excellent habitat for these bats.
3.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtvpe). The Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype) are found throughout the Coastal Plain along large and
medium size rivers. The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods correspond to the new `The
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methods' (WAM) wetland types: Bottomland Hardwood
Forest, Riverine Swamp Forest and Headwater Wetlands. This Palustrine community has a
variety of coarse to fine-grained alluvial soils and is seasonally to intermittently flooded. The
canopy is comprised of a various miature of bottomland oaks including swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water
oak, willow oak, and Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii). Other hardwoods within the canopy
include sweetgum, green ash (Frazinus pennsylvanicum), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata),
bitternut hickory (Carya cordiform is), black walnut (Juglans nigra), hackberry (Celris
laevigata), and American elm (Ulmus americana). The understory is commonly made up of
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), deciduous holly (flex decidua), paw paw (As imina triloba),
and American holly. Typical vine species in this community include poison ivy, muscadine
grape, and common greenbrier. The herb layer is generally sparse with sedges, Indian sea oats
(Chasmanthium larifolium), slender spike grass (Chasmanthium laxum), violet (Uiola spp.), and
false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica).
In the project study area this vegetative community occurred most often in the floodplains of
second or higher order streams. This community was also associated with a majority ofthe larger
wetland systems within the project study area, such as Corduroy Swamp, Ramsey Creek, and
Wildcat Swamp. Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Communities grade to Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) on the upland side. They grade to Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Brownwater subtype) which is found along first order streams and headwater
wetlands. The canopy was dominated by water oak, willow oak, laurel oak, sweetgum, tulip tree,
red maple, and hackberry. The understory was fairly open and commonly contained sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), sweetbay magnolia, Chinese privet, coastal pepperbush, river birch
(Betula nigra), ironwood, black willow (Salix nigra), American holly and younger canopy
species. The herbaceous layer was quite diverse in the wetter portions of this community.
Common herbaceous species observed include giant cane, netted chain fern, sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), slender spikegrass, wool grass, soft
rush (Juncus effusus), various sedges, feather grass, and Christmas fern. Vines occurring in this
community included Japanese honeysuckle, cross vine (Bignonia capreolata), and poison ivy.
67
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment. The Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment
is a Palustrine community and generally consists of beaver ponds, blocked embayments, and
similar manmade impoundments. The Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment corresponds
with WAM's Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh. These communities are permanently flooded in the
center and the existing soils are gradually covered by clayey or mucky sediments. Canopy
coverage in this community ranges from absent to nearly closed, and usually consists of cypress
(Taxodium spp.) or swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora). Floating or submergent aquatics often
occur in the interior of this community, with emergent vegetation sometimes present at the
margins. Common herbaceous species within this community include tearthumb, green arrow-
arum (Peltandra virginica), and arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.).
Within the project study area this community consisted of manmade ponds, such as Boone's
Millpond, borrow pits, graveUsand pits, and agricultural ponds. No canopy was present in this
community; however, it did support various floating, submergent, and/or emergent vegetation
near the pond edges. This community was bordered by a variety of other communities including
Maintained/Disturbed Lands, Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype), Wet
Pine Flatwoods, Mesic Pine Flatwoods, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain
Subtype).
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype). The Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp (Brownwater Subtype) is a Palustrine community located along floodplains of small
streams. The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp corresponds with WAM's Riverine Swamp
Forest and Headwater Wetlands. These communities are made up of various alluvial soils and
are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. The canopy varies but is comprised of bald
cypress, swamp blackgum, and various bottomland hardwoods such as chestnut oak, Shumard
oak, southern red oak, laurel oak, water oak, willow oak, sweet gum, hackberry, sycamore, river
birch, green ash, black walnut, and swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla). The understory is
made up of ironwood, Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), American holly, and red maple.
This community occurred along first order streams and headwater wetlands throughout the
project study area. The canopy species typically consisted of swamp blackgum, green ash, and
red maple. Bald cypress (Taxodium disrichum) was occasionally found dominating the canopy of
this community as we1L The understory and shrub layer was fairly open and consisted of
ironwood, Chinese privet, possum-haw viburnum (Viburnum nudum), and young canopy species.
Poison ivy, common greenbrier, giant cane, feather grass, arrow-arum (Peltandra sp.), and false
nettle occupied the herb and vine layers. This community typically graded into Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) on the adjacent slopes and transitioned to Coastal
Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype) further downstream. This community is
distinguished from Bottomland Hardwoods by their occurrence on small stream floodplains and
headwater wetlands without well-developed alluvial landforms.
Wet Pine Flatwoods. This community is found in areas that are seasonally wet to usually wet
that are generally flat. The Wet Pine Flatwoods correspond with WAM's Pine Flat. Soils are
most commonly wet and sandy. The canopy can be open or closed and consist of various pines
including longleaf pine, loblolly pine or pond pine (Pinus serofina). The understory layer is
commonly sparse to absent. However, a low shrub layer consisting of species such as deciduous
holly, dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), stagger-bush (Lyonia mariana), coastal sweet bay,
68
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
red bay (Persea borbonia), giant cane, and blueberry (Uaccinium spp.). The herbaceous layer has
little diversity and will likely include the pineland three-awn grass and bracken fern.
In the project study area, Wet Pine Flatwoods typically occurred along broad interstream divides.
These areas were often planted pine forests that were owned by timber companies and leased to
individuals for hunting purposes. Tire ruts were commonly found throughout this community as
a result of past logging operations, which have also resulted in significant soil compaction in
some areas. Loblolly pine dominated the canopy in this community and giant cane was often
thick in the understory. Other species found within this community include willow oak, water
oak, sweetgum, red maple, netted chain fern, sweetbay magnolia, and common greenbrier. The
dominance of hydrophytic vegetation such as giant cane and netted chain fern distinguished this
community from Mesic Pine Flatwoods, which often occurred adjacent to it on the landscape.
Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Flat. Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Flats are described as poorly
drained interstream flats with fine-teatured soils, not associated with rivers or estuaries. The
Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Flat corresponds with WAM's Hardwood Flat. These
communities are underlain by poorly drained loamy or clayey mineral soils. These areas are
seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables with poor drainage. The canopy is
dominated by various hardwood trees commonly found in bottomlands. These species include
swamp chestnut oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak, tulip tree, sweet gum, American elm, and red
maple. The understory stratum is composed of ironwood, red maple, American holly, and paw
paw. The shrub layer is often sparse to moderate, and species include spice bush (Lindera
benzoin), red bay, Coastal pepper bush, highbush blueberry (Uaccinium corymbosum), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and giant cane. Vines within this community include poison ivy,
trumpet vine, and muscadine grape. The herbaceous layer is made up of sedges, lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus), false nettle, netted chainfern and partridge-berry.
This community occurred along interstream divides as medium to large flats, but also as small
areas surrounded by agricultural fields and other upland communities. This community was
fairly uncommon within the project study area. In the larger flats, the canopy was composed of
various oak species such as willow oak, water oak, white oak, swamp chestnut oak, and tulip
tree. Red maple, ironwood, and American holly dominated the understory, which was
moderately open. The smaller areas were generally dominated by species such as sweetgum, red
maple, black willow, common greenbrier, and coastal pepperbush. The herbaceous layer was
usually sparse in this community. This community is distinguished from Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) by the presence of hydrophytic species such as black willow and
coastal pepper bush. The presence ofwillow oak, swamp chestnut oak, and water oak distinguish
this community from Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and its position on the landscape separates
it from Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Brownwater Subtype).
3.5.2.2.1 Aquatic Fauna
Aquatic habitat within the project study area ranged from small headwater streams and wetlands
to large third and fourth order streams and floodplain communities. The diversity of aquatic
habitat available produces a variety of aquatic fauna within the project study area. Species
observed during the field investigations, either directly or indirectly by are indicated by an
asterisk (*).
69
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
The most important physical factors that affect freshwater organisms are temperature, light,
water current, and substrate (Voshell 2002). As stream order increases, these factors change and
have a part in determining the type of organisms present within each aquatic community. Benthic
species typically found dominating the smaller headwater and second order streams include
various shredders such as mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), crane flies
(Nematocera), and case maker caddisflies (Trichoptera). Shredders are most abundant in first and
second order streams because these streams usually have an abundance of coarse particulate
organic material (CPOM) entering the stream, which provides a food source for these organisms.
Filter-feeders and collector-gatherers are most abundant in higher order streams due to the
abundance of fine particular organic matter (FPOM), and may include species such as common
net spinner caddisflies (Trichoptera), true flies (Diptera), and water boatmen (Heteroptera).
Predator species that may be found in streams of all orders within the project study area include
damselflies (Zygoptera), dragonflies (Anisoptera), hellgrammites (Megaloptera), and water
striders (Heteroptera). Bivalves are most abundant in medium to large rivers and prefer a stable
substrate consisting of gravel or a combination of gravel and sand. The only bivalves (Elliprio
sp.)* observed within the project study area were found in Reedy Branch, just south of US 158.
Crayfish (Decapoda)* were observed in streams and wetlands throughout the project study area
Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auntus), bluegill (L. macrochirns), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), Eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), golden shiner (Notemigonous
crysoleucas), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), yellow
bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), black crappie (Promoxis nigromaculatus), channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), yellow perch (Perea falvescens), and striped bass are
species that may be present in streams and creeks throughout the project study area. These fish
feed on a variety of living and organic matter including algae, insects, worms, crustaceans,
snails, fish, and detritus.
Other aquatic species likely include several ofthe amphibian, reptilian, and mammalian species.
Salamanders, frogs, turtles, beavers and muskrats are a few of the species that inhabit both
terrestrial and aquatic communities.
3.5.2.3 Summary
Impacts to terrestrial and aquatic organisms will occur as a result of construction of this project.
The acreage covered by each vegetative community within the project study area is depicted in
Table 3-9.
70
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 3-9: Vegetative Communities Within the Project Study Area
Conunwiity Type Area Occupied by
Community (Acres) Percentage of the Total
Study Area Coverage
Terrestrial
Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 221 3%
Mesic MiYed Hardwood Forest 749 11%
Mesic Pine Flats 927 13%
Maintained/Disturbed 4,097 58%
Aquatic
Bottomland HardNvood 238 3%
Coastal Plain Semi-permanent
Impoundment 10 cl%
Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp 416 6%
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Flat 95 1%
Wet Pine Flatwoods 363 5%
Tatal 7,116 100%
3.5.3 Water Resources
3.5.3.1 Watershed Characteristics
The project study area is within the Roanoke and Chowan River basins. Approximately 33
percent of the project study area is located in the Roanoke River basin and 67 percent in the
Chowan River basin. The information presented in the following section is derived from the
Roanoke River Basinwide Assessment Report (NCDWQ 2005b) and the Chowan River
Basinwide Assessment Report (NCDWQ 2006a) unless otherwise stated.
The Roanoke River flows from the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia, east-southeastward across
mountainous, piedinont, and coastal topography, into the Albemarle Sound in North Carolina.
The Roanoke River Basin encompasses approximately 3,503 square miles and includes
approximately 2,389 miles of streams and rivers in North Carolina. A portion of the project study
area is located in USGS HUC 43014147 and DWQ Subbasin 03-42-08. Four major stream
systems, Arthurs Creek, Trouble Field Creek, Occoneechee Creek, and Gumberry Swamp, drain
the project study area within the Roanoke River Basin. These streams flow south to their
confluence with the Roanoke River.
The Chowan River is formed at the Virginia-North Carolina State line by the confluence of the
Nottoway and Blackwater Rivers, and flows southeastward into the Albemarle Sound in North
Carolina. The Chowan River Basin encompasses approximately 1,315 square miles in North
Carolina; however, approximately 76 percent of the drainage basin lies in Virginia. The
remaining portion of the project study area is located in USGS Hydrologic Cataloging Unit
(HUC) 43410243 and DWQ Subbasin 43-01-42. Eight major stream systems drain the project
study area in the Chowan River Basin: Wiccacanee Swamp, Ramsey Creek, Corduroy Swamp,
Wildcat Swamp, Paddys Delight, Reedy Branch, Kirbys Creek, and Maple Fork Branch. These
71
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
streams flow predominantly east and southeast and their waters eventually drain into the
Meherrin River.
Eighty-four stream segments comprising 11.7 miles were identified within the project study area.
The Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) lists these streams along with their associated
NCDWQ Index Number, physical characteristics, and Best Usage Classification.
3.5.3.2 Water Quality
Best usage classification for surface waters is determined by NCDWQ. All ofthe waters in the
Roanoke River Basin portion ofthe project study area are classified as Class C waters. All ofthe
waters in the Chowan River Basin portion of the project study area are classified as Class C,
nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) except for Paddys Delight Creek. It is classified as Class B,
NSW from its source to the dam at Doolittle Millpond. Class C denotes waters that are suitable
for aquatic life propagation, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Class B denotes
waters that are for primary recreation including frequent use for organized swimming. Nutrient
sensitive waters are waters subject to growths of vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient
inputs. Unnamed tributaries (LJTs) receive the same best usage classification as the named
streams into which they flow. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
(HQW), or Water Supply Waters (WS) occur within the project study area. Neither the Roanoke
River nor the Chowan River Basins are subject to vegetated riparian buffer requirements by the
state.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of water quality monitoring stations
strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data to help
determine a waterbody's classification and corresponding water quality standards. The AMS
determines how well a waterbody supports its designated uses. Since none of the streams within
the project study area are monitored by NCDWQ, they are not rated. There are ambient
monitoring stations on the Roanoke River at NC 46 (approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the
project study area) and at US 258 (approximately 4 miles downstream ofthe project study area).
This section is currently rated as Supporting aquatic life based on the ambient monitoring at
these sites.
Section 303(d) ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a comprehensive public
accounting of all impaired waters. The list includes waters impaired by pollutants, such as
nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria, and by pollution, such as hydromodification
and habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from point sources, nonpoint
sources, or atmospheric deposition. The Roanoke River, from the Roanoke Rapids dam to the
Albemarle Sound, is listed on the draft North Carolina 303(d) List as impaired because of fish
consumption advisories (NCDWQ 2006b). The impairment is due to high mercury levels, likely
resulting from atmospheric deposition (NCDWQ 2005b).
72
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.3.3 Surface Waters
3.5.3.3.1 Streams
There are ten named stream systems (on USGS maps) within the project study area and they are
summarized in the following teat.
Arthur's Creek (NCDWQ 23-28) and four of its unnamed tributaries are located within the
project study area. Arthur's Creek is a perennial stream with a bankfiill width of 30 feet and a
bank height of 6 feet. It has a USACE quality assessment of 57. The stream segment within the
project study area is immediately downstream of eatensive gravel pits. Arthur's Creek has
moderate sinuosity and a variety of fish, amphibians, and benthic macroinvertebrates were
observed. However, this stream has evidence of impacts from agriculture and timber production
in addition to some bank failures and channel widening.
Two segments of Trouble Field Creek (NCDWQ 23-29.2) and six of its unnamed tributaries are
found within the project study area. Trouble Field Creek is a perennial stream with a bankfull
width of 6 to 12 feet and a bank height of 6 feet. It has an average USACE quality assessment of
74. The upstream portion of Trouble Field Creek within the project study area exhibits moderate
stream geomorphology with the characteristics becoming strong in the downstream portion. This
stream is very sinuous with a moderate slope. There are small wetland areas along both portions
of the stream with only minor impacts from agriculture or timber production.
Both segments of Occoneechee Creek (NCDWQ 23-31) within the project study area are in
proposed widening areas. In addition to the main channel, there are three unnamed tributaries
within the project study area. The upstream segment is located along the Old Jackson Bypass
(SR 1311) and has a braided channel flowing through a coastal plain small stream swamp. The
downstream segment intersects US 158 west of Jackson and is a single channel flowing through
a bottomland hardwood community. The bankfull width ranges from 4 to 8 feet upstream to 15
to 20 feet in the downstream segment and a bank height of 1 to 3 feet upstream and 3 to 4 feet
downstream. Both reaches are stable with little evidence of erosion or impacts from agriculture
or timber production. Both segments have similar USACE quality assessments of 88 and 89,
respectively.
The project study area intersects Gumberry Swamp (NCDWQ 23-32-1) at three different
locations. In addition, there are six unnamed tributaries to Gumberry Swamp in the project study
area The upstream location of Gumberry Swamp intersects the Jackson Bypass and has a
USACE quality assessment of 72. This stream is located within a bottomland hardwood wetland
and was over its banks at the time of the investigation. There was little evidence of disturbance
and good wildlife habitat was present. The middle crossing of Gumberry Swamp is located
northeast of Jackson where the stream is a braided channel within a beaver impounded area.
Therefore, bankfiill width ranged from 20 to 50 feet and bank heights were from 2 to 5 feet. To
the east of this stream segment, land that was historically used for crop production has been
converted to the production of pine (estimated age 5 years). This segment of Gumberry Swamp
has a USACE quality assessment of 74. The downstream segment of Gumberry Swamp is along
the proposed widening of US 158 to the southwest of Jackson at the discharge to Boones
Millpond. This stream segment has a bankfull width of 30 to 35 feet and a bank height of 5 to 6
73
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
feet. There is riprap on the stream banks and slight erosion downstream of US 158. A bottomland
hardwood wetland community is located to the east of the stream and a young mesic hardwood
community is located to the west of the stream. This downstream segment of Gumberry Swamp
has a USACE quality assessment of 71.
The main channel of Ramsey Creek (NCDWQ 25-4-8-1) is crossed by the project study area at
four different locations: SR 1311 (Jackson Bypass Road) and all three alternatives around the
town of Jackson. The SR 1311 location is the only area where there is a defined stream channel.
The defined channel is approximately 100 feet in length. The stream discharges from a beaver
dam and flows through a set of culverts under SR 1311 (Jackson Bypass Road). This stream
segment has a bankfiill width of 12 to 20 feet and a bank height of 1 to 3 feet. It has a USACE
quality assessment of 60. The remaining portions of Ramsey Creek are encompassed in
bottomland hardwood wetland communities delineated as WB29, WB25, and WB54,
respectively. There are four unnamed tributaries draining into Ramsey Creek within the project
study area.
The upstream portion of Wiccacanee Swamp (DWQ 25-4-8-1.5) is crossed by the project study
area along the proposed widening of SR 1311 and the downstream portion is crossed east of
Jackson along US 158. The upstream segment is located within a bottomland hardwood wetland
community and has a bankfiill width 12 to 15 feet and bank height of 3 to 5 feet. Downstream of
SR 1311, the Wiccacanee Swamp has erosion due to cows accessing the stream from adjacent
pasture land. This segment has a USACE quality assessment of 52. The downstream segment of
Wiccacanee Swamp is also within a bottomland hardwood wetland community and has braided
channels, a bankfull width of 2 to 5 feet, and bank height of 1 to 3 feet. This downstream
segment of Wiccacanee Swamp has a USACE quality assessment of 92 and is characterized by a
wide riparian zone providing canopy coverage and stable stream conditions. There are no
tributaries to Wiccacanee Swamp in the project study area.
Wildcat Swamp (NCDWQ 25-4-8-2) begins near the center of the project study area where
SR 1331 (Jackson Bypass Road) intersects US 158. It flows in an eastwardly direction between
the proposed widening of US 158 and the proposed new southern alignment until it turns south
and intersects the project study area west of SR 1505. Upstream of US 158, two tributaries join
to form braided Wildcat Swamp within a bottomland hardwood wetland community with a
bankfull width up to 25 feet. A single channel is formed as Wildcat Swamp crosses US 158 and
has a bankfull width of 6 to 8 feet and bank height of 2 feet. The USACE quality assessment is
53 for Wildcat Swamp due to unnatural levees and runofffrom adjacent agricultural fields. There
is no defined stream channel where the project study corridor crosses Wildcat Swamp at the
downstream location. This area is delineated as bottomland hardwood wetland community
WB60 and has standing surface water throughout. There are five unnamed tributaries to Wildcat
Swamp in the project study area
Corduroy Swamp (NCDWQ 25-4-4-1) is located along the north side of the project study area
that is proposed as new alignment between Jackson and Conway north of US 158. The main
channel of Corduroy Swamp is not within the project study area However, there are 18 unnamed
tributaries to Corduroy Swamp as well as bottomland hardwood wetlands defined as Corduroy
Swamp within the project study area.
74
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
The main channel of Kirbys Creek (NCDWQ 25-4-4) is located northeast of Conway in the
proposed new alignment portion of the project study area. Approximately 0.4 miles upstream of
the study area, Kirby's Creek discharges from a 40-acre pond at NC 35 and flows through a
bottomland hardwood wetland community lacking a defined channel. Approximately 1,000 feet
of channel was delineated within the wetland. The channel has frequent meanders and stable
banks with tannic waters characteristic of swamps. The stream channel has a bankfull width of
10 feet and bank height of 3 feet. Macroinvertebrates from the Diptera family were observed in
leaf pack habitat. Kirbys Creek has USACE quality assessment of 73. There are 10 unnamed
tributaries to Kirbys Creek within the project study area The southern boundary of this stream
and wetland system is bounded by relatively steep slopes uncharacteristic of the project study
area.
Reedy Branch (NCDWQ 25-4-4-3) is located in the eastern portion of the project study area
where the northern and southern alternatives around Conway meet the existing US 158. Reedy
Branch flows north into Kirbys Creek approximately 1 mile north of the study area Reedy
Branch has a bankfiill width of 8 feet and bank height of 3 feet with frequent meanders and
stable banks. Several Elliprio sp. were observed in the upstream portion of Reedy Branch. The
USACE quality assessment of the stream is 79. However, recent timber harvesting on adjacent
land upstream of US 158 has the potential to degrade the stream. There are three unnamed
tributaries to Reedy Branch in the project study area.
3.5.3.3.2 Ponds
There are 18 surface water bodies or ponds within the project study area comprising 7.3 acres.
Fourteen of the ponds are less than 1 acre in size and are generally located within agricultural or
residential land either at the beginning of streams or as depressions within uplands. The size of
each pond is listed in Table 3-10. Three larger ponds located within the project study area are
described as follows.
Pond P2 is part of a series of ponds that were created when sand was removed from these areas.
This pond is located northeast of the intersection of Jackson Bypass Road (SR 1311) and
SR 1301. Pond P5 was formed as the result of a borrow pit and is located along US 158 at
SR 1312 west of Occoneechee Creek. Pond P7 is Boone's Millpond located along US 158
southwest of Jackson.
75
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-10: List of Ponds within the Project Study Area
ID SurFace Area (Acres) Type/Land Use
P 1 0.4 Forested
P2 0.8 Sand Pit
P3 0.3 Residential
P4 0.3 Forested
PS 0.8 Borrow Pit
P6 0.1 Forested
P7 1.3 Millpond
P8 0.6 Residential
P9 0.4 Hog Lagoon
P10 0.1 Residential
P 11 0.3 Residential
P12 0.2 Forested
P13 0.1 Forested
P14 0.4 Agricultural
P15 0.1 Forested
P16 0.8 Forested
P17 0.1 Forested
P18 0.1 Agricultural
P19 0.1 Residential
3.5.4 JurisdictionalIssues
3.5.4.1 Waters ofthe United States
"Waters of the United States," or jurisdictional waters, are defined in the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (32 USC 1251 et sec) as water bodies including lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands. All
jurisdictional waters were identified and delineated within the project study area. ARCADIS and
NCDOT met with representatives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (LJSACE)
and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) in May 2006 to determine the
jurisdictional status of the streams and wetlands within the project corridors. At the time, a
jurisdictional determination could not be issued, as all USACE representatives were instructed to
await court case decisions. This has since been resolved.
3.5.4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands, for the purposes ofthe CWA, are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically any adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions (33 CFR 328.3). Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas
falls under the jurisdiction ofthe USACE under Section 404 ofthe CWA (33 USC 1344).
One-hundred forty-six (146) jurisdictional wetlands comprising 858.3 acres were delineated
during field investigations. A complete list of each wetland, NCDWQ quality rating, acreage,
76
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
and USFWS classification is available in the NRTR document. Table 3-11 lists the eleven
USFWS wetland types that were identified within the project study area.
Table 3-11: USFWS Wetland Types Found within the Project Study Area
USFW S Description
PEM1F Palustrine, emergent, nonpersistent, semi-permanently flooded
PF01/2C Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved/needle-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
PF01/2F Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved/needle-leaved deciduous, semi-permanently flooded
PF01/4A Palustrine, forested, broad-leavened/needle-leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded
PF01/4C Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved/needle-leaved ever een, seasonall flooded
PFOlA Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
PF01C Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
? O
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, semi-permanently flooded
F04A
L Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded
SS lA Palustrine, scrub shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
P
UBHh h Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, impounded
NCDWQ rates the value of wetlands based on water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization,
pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and recreation/education opportunities.
Each wetland was given a numerical rating on a 0-100 scale with an associated rating of high
(100-66), medium (65-33), or low (32-0). Table 3-12 summarizes the amount of high, medium,
and low quality wetlands within the project study area. Specific wetland site information can be
found in Appendix E.
Table 3-12: Summary of Wetland Qua&ty within the Project Study Area
Rating Wetland Sites Acres
High 39 463
Medium 58 171
Low 49 226
Total 146 860
3.5.4.2.1 Isolated Wetlands
Isolated wetlands are "Waters ofthe United States" that have been determined by the USACE to
meet the functions of a wetland but are not used for interstate commerce or are not connected to
a navigable water body. Isolated wetlands are regulated by NCDWQ and Section 401
regulations, but are not regulated by the USACE and Section 404 regulations. Five isolated
wetlands are located within the project study area.
77
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-13: Isolated Wetlands within the Project Study Area
ID Number DWQ Rating DWQ Quality USFWS Acres
WB43 6 Low PF01/2F 0.1
WA08 25 Low PEM2H 0.7
WA09 11 Low PEM2H 0.3
W1371-Isolated 33 Low PF01C 1.1
WB96 14 Low PF01/2F 0.2
WB43 is a depressional wetland within a planted pine forest and is surrounded by upland.
Precipitation is the hydrologic input to the wetland and groundwater is the output. This
community is dominated by a sparse canopy of red maple, sweet gum, and black gum trees with
a dense herbaceous layer of soft rush and wool grass. This wetland was delineated in January
2006 and soil was saturated within 1 inch ofthe surface.
WA08 and WA09 are old gravel pits located north and south of NC 46 in the western portion of
the project study area. These wetlands have a permanent pool of water and support hydrophytic
vegetation. The delineation of these wetlands occurred in September 2005 and was verified by
the USACE and NCDWQ in May 2006. Aerial photography and USGS show both areas as
having surface water. Hydrologic input is precipitation and overland flow from the road and
output is through groundwater. These wetlands are located upslope from Arthur's Creek, but no
hydrologic connection was found.
WB71 is a depressional wetland located 300 feet west of a riverine wetland system. It was
delineated in May 2006 and verified by the USACE and NCDWQ several weeks later. A scrub-
shrub vegetative community exists due to disturbance in the last 5 years. The dominate trees
include sweet gum, black gum, red maple, and water oak. There was a low diversity of
herbaceous vegetation consisting mainly of wool grass and giant cane. The past disturbance has
left tire ruts 1 to 2 feet deep. The source of water to the wetland is precipitation and overland
flow with groundwater as the outlet.
WB96 is a depressional wetland located within a planted sweet gum plantation. Therefore, the
canopy is made of sweet gum trees planted in bedded rows 10 feet apart. Intermixed with the
sweet gum are red maple, loblolly pine, soft rush, wool grass, and poison-ivy vines. This wetland
was delineated in May 2006 and had surface water of 1 to 3 inches throughout the wetland,
oxidized root channels, and water stained leaves.
3.5.4.2.2 Manmade Linear Wetlands
Manmade linear wetlands meet the same criteria as jurisdictional wetlands. Section 404 and 401
permits are required for impacts to these wetlands, but often mitigation is not required. Four
linear manmade wetlands were identified within the project study area. These wetlands are
connected to jurisdictional wetlands but eatend into adjacent uplands as ditches within
agricultural fields. These wetlands are identif'ied as WB97, WB63, and WA 28 (see Appendix
E). The USACE Wetland Data Forms and NCDWQ Wetland Rating Forms for these wetlands
are located in the NRTR.
78
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.4.3 Jurisdictional Streams
The NCDWQ is the principal administrative agency of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act in
North Carolina. NCDWQ has created defmitions for the identification of jurisdictional streams
(NCDWQ 2005a). A perennial stream has a clearly defined channel that contains water year-
round during a year of normal rainfall with the aquatic bed located below the water table for
most of the year (15A NCAC 02B.0233[2] [i]). An intermittent stream has a well-defined channel
that contains water for only part of the year, typically during the winter and spring when the
aquatic bed is below the water table (15 A NCAC 02B.0233[2][g]).
3.5.4.4 Biological Data
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling within the NCDWQ Subbasin 03-02-08 consists of seven
sites. One monitoring station is located on the Roanoke River at Halifax, approximately 8 miles
downstream of the project study area. This site was not sampled in 2005 due to high flow
conditions, but received a rating of Good in 1999. Another sampling point is located on
Occoneechee Creek approximately 3 miles downstream of the project study area. Occoneechee
Creek is a swampy stream and was rated as Natural with a total taxa richness of 22 and
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness of 4. Swampy streams are
characterized by low velocities, lower dissolved oxygen, lower pH, and sometimes complex
braided channels.
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling within the NCDWQ Subbasin 03-01-02 consists of five
sites, with two of these sites downstream of the project study area. One sampling point is located
on Kirbys Creek at SR 1362 and is approximately 3 miles downstream ofthe project study area.
Another monitoring station is located on Potecasi Creek at SR 1504 near Creeksville and is
approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the project study area Kirbys Creek is a swamp stream
benthic reference site. This stream rated Moderate in 2005 after rating Natural in 1997 and 2000.
The decline is due to a lower habitat score and a decrease in the number of EPT taxa, however, it
continues to support a healthy and pollution intolerant aquatic community. The Potecasi Creek
monitoring station is approximately 2.5 miles downstream from the confluence of Wiccacanee
Swamp and Ramsey Creek. This stream site rated Moderate in 2005. This site had the second
highest habitat score in the Chowan basin, but only one EPT species was collected.
Fish tissue surveys consisting oftwo sites on the Roanoke River, in NCDWQ subbasin 03-02-08,
were conducted through 1999. One ofthese sites was located approximately 2 miles south of the
project study area, near the town of Weldon. These surveys were conducted as part of special
mercury contamination assessments in the eastern part of the state and during routine basinwide
assessments. Six bowfin samples from the site near Weldon had mercury concentrations greater
than the EPA screening value; however, metal concentrations in 21 samples of other fish species
were less than federal and state thresholds for fish consumption.
There are no fish community sampling sites in NCDWQ subbasin 03-02-08. The North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) has designated the Roanoke River from the Roanoke
River Dam to US 258 as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) (15 NCAC IOC .0503). This 35-mile
reach of the river has been designated as the spawning reach for the striped bass (Marone
saxarilis).
79
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.4.5 Protected Species
3.5.4.5.1 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have declined, or are in the process of declining due to
either natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions
of Section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended [ESA]) requires that any action
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected is subject to review by the
USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under state laws. As of September
2010, the USFWS had identif'ied two species that could potentially occur in Northampton
County. These include one endangered species, the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), and one species that was considered threatened but has since been delisted, the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). As of August 8, 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the
Endangered Species Act list. However, this raptor will still be protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).
Table 3-14: Threatened and Endangered Species Known for Northampton County
Scientific
Name Common
Name Federal
Status State
Status Habitat
Requirements Habitat
Available
Haliaeetus Nbture trees
Bald Eagle p g Yes
leucocephalus near open water
Open,old
Picoides Red-cockaded E E growth stands of Yes
borealis Woodpecker
pine
Y - Yrotected
E - Endangered
3.5.4.6 Essential Fish Habitat
Essential fish habitat is defined by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (NMFS 1999). A draft list of counties in
North Carolina containing EFH as well as a draft list of water bodies within the listed counties
has been produced by the Beaufort, North Carolina, office of the NMFS. Northampton County is
not included on the draft list therefore this project is not anticipated to impact EFH.
80
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.4.7 NPDES Discharees
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to
register for a permit. There are 10 permitted NPDES dischargers in DWQ Subbasin 03-02-08
(NCDENR 2006). None of the permitted NPDES dischargers are within a half-mile of the
project study area Information concerning the dischargers in this subbasin is included in
Table 3-15. There are no NPDES facilities in the 03-01-02 subbasin (NCDENR 2006).
Table 3-15: NPDES Dischargers within Subbasin 03-02-08 Northampton County
NPDES Permit # Facility Permit Type Water Body
NC0025721 Town of Weldon WWTP Ma'or, Munici al Roanoke River
NC0024201 Roanoke Rapids, WWTP Major, Municipal Chockoytte Creek
NC0025437 Town of Rich Square, Xlinor, Municipal Bridgers Creek
WWTP
NC0028835 Perdue Farms, Inc. Minor, Industrial &
Roanoke River
?,ewiston) Commercial
Virginia Electric and Power
Minor
Industrial &
NC0079014 Company (Rosemary Power ,
Commercial Chockoytte Creek
Station)
NC0066192 Town of Halifax WWTP Minor, Municipal Quankey Creek
NC0038636 Halifax County (Bakers Nhnor, 100%Domestic UT Kehukee Swamp
Elementary School WWTP)
NC0027642 NCDOC-Odom Correctional Nhnor
100% Domestic Roanoke River
Facility WWTP ,
NC0027626 NCDOGCaledonia Minor, Industrial & Roanoke River
Correctional WWTP Commercial
NC0000752 International Paper Company Major, Industrial & Roanoke River
(Roanoke Rapids Mill) Commercial
W WTP - Waste Water Treatm ent Plant
3.5.4.8 No-point Source Discharges
No-point source (NPS) pollution is described as pollution contained in stormwater and snowmelt
runoff from agricultural, urban, mined, and other lands. NPS pollution comes from diffuse
sources in contrast to point source pollution, which is discharged through a pipe or outlet.
Surface water as well as leachate to groundwater can be impacted by NPS pollution. Evidence of
NPS dischargers observed within the project study area includes agricultural runoff, runoff from
residential lawns, and stormwater runofffrom paved parking lots and roads.
81
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
82
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
In this SFEIS the environmental consequences are shown only for the Preferred Alternatives
(LEDPA) unless any change occurred to the alternative. In this case, only the Jackson Northern
Bypass and Jackson Extended Northern Bypass were revised and impacts are reflected for those
alternatives. Environmental consequences for other detailed study alternatives are described in
the State Draft Envu•onmental Impact Statement published on FebY-uas•y 28, 2008.
4.1 DIRECT IMPACTS
4.1.1 Human Environment
4.1.1.1 Communitv
Social and psychological impacts can result from changes in population, community cohesion,
social values, or the quality of life of the residents in the project study area as a result of the
proposed project. Overall, the project is expected to have a positive impact on quality of life in
Northampton County by providing a safer roadway and a more eff?icient means to reach and be
reached by services.
Foi• the most part, the bypass alternatives will not d'u•ectly cause or encourage an influx or loss of
population, affect the cohesion of the area, or isolate people from one another. Some
displacements will occur with all bypass alternatives; however, it does not appear that these
displacements will have any community-wide social or psychological effects, as most of the
heavily populated areas were avoided.
4.1.1.2 Relocations
Both residential and commercial displacements will result from project implementation (see the
Relocation Reports in Appendix D). Approximately 38 residents and 4 businesses will be
relocated by the prefeYTed alternative.
NCDOT's policy regarding displacements involves providing assistance to those affected by
transportation improvements per the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties
Acquisition Policies Act. All alternatives under evaluation will result in the displacement of
homes and/or businesses. Some residents in the Project Study Area are low-income. If so, and if
they are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Program established by the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646) may be used.
The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects
of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or
businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available
prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
83
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
Relocation Assistance
Relocation Moving Payments
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staffto assist displacees with
information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent
and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program provides
for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site
in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway
project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation advisory services without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample
time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale
prices of replacement property will be within financial means of the families and individuals
displaced, and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation
officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation
regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of
replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other
state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs of
moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations
acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
84
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment
for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-
occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines
is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally
assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered
or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the eatent of eligibility of
any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available,
or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federaUstate legal limitation. The purpose ofthe program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing
can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary.
4.1.1.3 Community Facilities & Services
4.1.1.3.1 Schools
No schools would be directly impacted by the LEDPA. School bus routes may experience minor
delays during project construction activities.
4.1.1.3.2 Churches
There are several churches within the study corridor. The following churches are located within
the study corridor and are likely to be impacted by right of way acquisition. No church
relocations are anticipated for the LEDPA.
Table 4-1: Churches in Project Corridor
Alternative
Church
I
I Location
Se ment
Oak Grove Baptist Church South side of NC 46 near I-95; Garysburg Al
vicinit
Hill Chapel Baptist Church North side of US 158 between Garysburg and EZ
Jackson
85
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.1.3.3 Parks & Recreational Facilities
No official parks or recreational sites will be impacted by the preferred alternative. However,
the roadside picnic area, which overlooks a former millpond (that served Boone's Mill), is
accessed by a dead-end section of roadway that parallels US 158. The picnic area is within the
existing US 158 right of way. Impacts to the site will be minimized as much as possible.
4.1.1.3.4 Police. Fire & Emergency Services
There will be no permanent impacts to area emergency facilities. Careful staging of highway
construction activities such as lane closures will insure that emergency vehicles can maintain
prompt response times in case oftime-critical events. The improvements to the US 158 highway
should resuk in quicker emergency response times.
4.1.1.4 Environmental Justice
According to Transportation and Environmental Justice, one of the three fundamental
environmental justice principles is, "to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on
minority populations and low-income populations." Overall, the study area includes a high
percentage of low-income and minority populations.
An Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum was completed for the Town of Garysburg
dated October 8, 2010. Detailed information concerning this investigation is on file at the North
Carolina Department of Transportation:
Results of the study found that according to the 2000 Census , 60.9% of Northampton County's
population was minority while the town of Garysburg's population was 97.6% minority. As for
low income, 15.3% of Northampton County and 21.7% of Garysburg households were
considered below poverty level. Garysburg constitutes an environmental justice community
based on race. Due to current economic conditions, a July 2010 unemployment rate of 11.5%, it
may also be by low income status.
The Southern Bypass Alternatives would have low to moderate community impacts.
Community concerns were expressed about impacts to Sanfilippo & Son, both to the property
itself as well to access to it. The proposed grade separation over the Northern railroad tracks
would impact both a church cemetery and a manufactured home neighborhood through
additional noise and visual intrusion.
Impacts associated with the Southern Bypass Alternatives, to minority and low income
populations do not appear to be disproportionately high and adverse. Benefits and burdens
resulting from the project are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community.
This assessment has found no evidence or indication of discrimination on the basis of race, color,
natural origin, age, sex, or disability. The proposed project is being implemented in accordance
with Executive Order 12898.
86
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.1.5 Economic
Overall, the improved roadway may have an impact on economic development in the county and
benefit employers in neighboring counties, such as Nucor in Hertford County. A good
transportation network is often criterion for new industries to locate in an area. An improved
roadway will also facilitate commutes to and from work locations. The widening of existing US
158 may have an effect on viability of existing and future businesses by controlling access to the
roadway. Displacements, especially in the downtown areas will likely have a substantial impact
on the tax bases in Jackson and Conway. Because municipal residents pay county property
taxes, these displacements will alter Northampton County's tax base as well. New alignments
will remove more land from property tax rolls. It is assumed that land values for agricultural
land are lower than commercial property in downtown areas. Changes in individual property
values are dependent on proximity to the new roadway. Most of the bypass alternatives may
affect existing businesses on US 158 to some degree by removing through traffia Travel-related
businesses such as gas stations and convenience stores will be most affected. A portion of the
peanut factory site is located in the southern bypass corridor. The alignment will be shifted as far
to the east as possible to minimize impacts to this site.
4.1.2 Land Use and Transportation Planning
4.1.2.1 Land Use Plans and Compatibility
There are no land use plans for much of the study area, however, most of the area is zoned.
Outside of the corporate limits, widening the existing roadway is not expected to cause changes
in existing land use patterns. Construction of any of the bypass alternatives will open new land
for development, most of which is currently zoned for agricukural uses. However, access
controls paired with zoning regulations will direct development. Displacements, especially in
towns, will not only result in alterations to existing land use but may also alter future land use
patterns in the towns.
All of the bypass alternatives will impact farms including cultivated fields and farm buildings.
Some ofthese alternatives also bisect farm roads, potentially impacting farming operations.
4.1.2.2 Transportation Plans
Compatibility with Highway Plans
Garysburg/ Northampton County: the Garysburg and Northampton County plans endorsed
improving existing US 158 from Weldon to Garysburg. This alternative was developed by
NCDOT but was then eliminated from consideration due to impacts to the Roanoke River;
instead, NC 46 will be improved. The plans endorsed bypassing Garysburg to the south, which
is consistent with the preferred alternative selected by the Project Team.
Jackson: the Northampton County plan endorsed utilizing SR 1311 (Old Jackson Bypass Rd) as
the new route for US 158. The "Old Jackson Bypass" alternative was developed to address this
issue; however, the alternative was eliminated due to high wetland and relocation impacts.
87
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Faison's Old Tavern and Conway: the Northampton County plan endorsed bypasses of Faison's
Old Tavern and Conway. The LEDPA is consistent with this endorsement.
Compatibility with Transit Plans
No transit plans currently exist for Northampton County.
Compatibilitv with Bicycle/ Pedestrian Plans
No bicycle or pedestrian plans currently exist for Northampton County and the potential for
bicycle and pedestrian traffic in most of the unincorporated study area is low. Due to vehicle
speeds and the lack of shoulder along existing US 158, these portions of the roadway are not
conductive to either bicyclists or pedestrians. However, in the towns there is opportunity for
notable pedestrian activity. Bypass alternatives will take through traf?ic off local roads, making
them more conducive to pedestrian activity.
4.1.3 Physical Environment
4.1.3.1 Noise
Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours. The maximum number of receptors in each project
alternative predicted to become impacted by future traf?'ic noise is shown in Table 4-2. The table
includes those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or
exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels.
Table 4-2: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts
Traffic Noise Iin acts
Churches/
Alternative Residential gusinesses Total
Schools
Garysburg Southern
g 0 0 8
Bypass 1
Northern Jackson Bypass 52 0 0 52
Faison's Old Tavern
Northern Bypass 2 11 0 0 11
Conway Northern Bypass 2 0 0 2
LEDPA Total 73 0 Q 73
*Yer '1'NM"'2.5 and m accordance with 23 CP'lZ Part 772
The maximum extent of the 72- and 67-dBA noise level contours, measured from the center of
the proposed roadway, is 37 feet and 47 feet, respectively.
"Do Nothing" Alternative. The Traffic Noise Analysis did not consider traffic noise impacts for
the "no-build" alternative because this project is largely proposed to occur along new alignments.
If the traffic currently using the network of roads in the project area should double within the
88
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
neat twenty years, research indicates that future noise levels would increase by approximately 3
dBA. Additional research has found that humans barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA,
whereas a 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable. Therefore, most people working and living
near the roadway will not notice this predicted increase.
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures. Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise
impacts were considered for all impacted receptors in each alternative. The primary noise
abatement measures evaluated for highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic
system management measures, buffer acquisition and noise barriers. For each ofthese measures,
benefits versus costs, engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability, land use issues,
and other factors were included in the noise abatement considerations.
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not considered a
viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental factors. Traffic system
management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement due to the negative impact
they would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway. Costs to acquire
buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of $35,000 per
benefited receptor, causing this abatement measure to be unreasonable.
Noise Barriers. Noise barriers include three basic types: vegetative barriers, earthen berms and
noise walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise. For this
project, the cost of acquiring additional right of way and planting sufficient vegetation is
estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor. Also,
for this project, earthen berms are not found a viable abatement measure because the additional
right of way, materials and construction costs are estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement
threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor.
This project will have both partial control of access (on widening segments) and full control of
access (on new location segments). For partial control, most commercial establishments and
residences will have direct access connections to the proposed project. All intersections will
either be at-grade or incorparate interchanges. Businesses, churches and other related
establishments require accessibility and high visibility. Noise barriers do not allow uncontrolled
access, easy accessibility or high visibility, and would therefore not be acceptable abatement
measures for this project.
Based on this preliminary study, remaining receptors (those not taken by right of way) at all
interchanges will have a maximum predicted increase of approximately 5 dBA and are predicted
to remain well below the impact threshold. Based on the preliminary studies, traffic noise
abatement is not recommended and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. No additional noise
analysis will be performed for this project unless warranted by a significant change in the project
scope, vehicle capacity or alignment.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the FederaUState governments are
not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building
permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the
proposed highway project will be the approval date ofthe Record of Decision. For development
89
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
occurring after this date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible
designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
4.1.3.2 Air QualitY
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). Recently, concerns for air toxics impacts are more frequent
on transportation projects during the NEPA process. Transportation agencies are increasingly
expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their environmental
documents as the science emerges. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis is a continuing
area of research where, while much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air
toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing
project-specific health impacts from MSATs are limited. These limitations impede FHWA's
ability to evaluate how mobile source health risks should factor into project-level decision-
making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Also, EPA has not established
regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the
project development process. FHWA has several research projects underway to more clearly
define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with transportation projects. While this
research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to qualitatively address MSATs and
their relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach (US DOT, Federal
Highway Administration memorandum, "Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents", February 3, 2006). The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in
this emerging field. A qualitative analysis of MSATs for this project is available for review in
the project Air Quality Analysis, located in the Project File, Century Center Building A,
1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh.
4.1.3.3 Farmland
Impacts of land acquisition and construction of the proposed project on farming operations and
prime and important farmland soils is a concern. In accordance with FPPA, Parts I, II, III and VI
of the NRCS-CPA 106 forms (for corridor projects) were completed for all of the alternatives
and were then submitted to the NRCS for further analysis and completion of Parts IV and VII.
NRCS has reviewed Parts IV and V of the NRCS CPA-106 form and all alternatives received
final point totals of less than 160 points (see Appendix G). Therefore, all alternatives fall below
the NRCS minimum criteria rating and will not be evaluated further for farmland impacts.
Farmland impacts associated with the LEDPA are shown in Table 4-3.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
90
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
Table 4-3: Farmland Conversion Impacts (for Preferred Alternatives)
R-2582i84 Faimland
Conversion Matrix Sheet 1 Column
NRCS Form Impacted
Acres NRCS
Evaluation
Garysburg
Ciarysburg Southern
Bypass 1
1'B
gg Be?lo«
Tlu-eshold
Jackson
Northern Jackson
B?-pass
2.?`C
107 Be?lo«
'1'lu-eshold
Faison's Old Tavern
Faison's Old Tavern
Northern Bypass 2
3;'D
F
157 Belo«
Tlu-esliold
Conway
Northern Com?ay
Bvpass 2 5/B 165 Belo«,•
Tlu-eshold
No other alternatives other than those already discussed in this document will be considered
without a re-evaluation of the project's potential impacts upon farmland.
4.1.3.3.1 Farmland Access
Access to farmland may be affected by the full control of access required for sections of new
location roadway. Alternative methods of access such as bridging and access roads will be
evaluated for each potential site. NCDOT will continue to work closely with landowners and
local officials to minimize these impacts. If no feasible access can be provided property
remnants will be acquired by the NCDOT.
4.1.3.4 Visual
Visual impacts can affect a community from both the view of the road and the view from the
road. The view ofthe road by residents contributes to the feeling of community pride and value.
The view from the road is the user's perspective and leaves an impression of the community on
the driver as well as the residents. The overall character of the study area will be affected as the
existing two-lane section changes to a four-lane, median-divided facility. The most significant
visual changes will result where displacements occur.
Boone's Mill is an important local historical site. The scenic area otTers picnic opportunities for
travelers and residents. There are several former plantations and later farms along the roadway
that are either listed in the National Register or are eligible. The Francis Parker House in eastern
Northampton County sits close to the roadway.
The view of the road will be altered as residences and businesses become closer to the roadway.
91
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
4.1.3.5 Hazardous Materials
Table 4-4 lists the 6 UST sites and the anticipated impact on the project.
Table 4-4: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Property Location Property O`vner UST Ov`ner Facility ID # Segment
New Dixie Oil 517 New Dixie Oil
I-95 Exit 176 & NC 46 Cor
p' New Dixie Oil Cor?). 0-022615 Al
Gaston, NC 27832
This site will have a low impact to this project.
Property Location i Fproperty Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Segment
Fonner Truck Stop of America Rena Developinent Rena Development
I-95 Exit 176 & NC 46 LLC LLC N/A A1
Gaston, NC 27832
This site will have a negligible impact to this praject.
Property Locatian Fproperty Owner I F-UST Owner Facility ID # Segment
M.C. Dunlow Farin Supply
8026 NC 46 Viola Dunlow Viola Dunlow N/A Al
Gaston, NC 27$32
This site vvill have a lo«r impact to this project.
Praperty Lacation Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # 1 1 Segment
Foi-rner store & gas statian
999 US 158 Jessica Karnbach Jessica Karnbach N/A FC1
Garysburg, NC 27831
This site will have a loi}r impact to this project.
Property Location I F-Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Segment
Davis Store
1859 US 158
Janet Davis c,lo
Janet Davis c/a
N/A
Cl
Garysburg, NC 2?831 Teddie Eoone Teddie Eoone
This site will have a low impact to this groject.
Property Location ! FProperty Owner F UST Owner Facility ID # Segment
Ray's Plaee
6530 US 158 Joseph & Annie Joseph 8i Annie
N/A
F2
Jacl.,son, NC 27$45 Epps Epps
This site will have a lo«r impact to this project.
4.1.3.6 Floodplain/FloodwaX
It is anticipated that this project will involve several locations requiring approval of a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision for a floodway revision. After completion of the project, a
final Letter of Map Revision will also need to be approved. The NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will
coordinate with local authorities and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
92
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
the final design phase ofthe project and following construction, upon acceptance by NCDOT, to
ensure compliance with applicable floodplain management ordinances.
4.1.3.7 Protected Land
4.1.3.7.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Under provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, if a federal action compromises the
designation of a Wild and Scenic River of forecloses the possibility of future designation, the
implementation of the federal action must be coordinated with the US Department of the Interior
(DOI).
There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project, therefore the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act does not apply.
4.1.3.7.2 State/National Forests
The proposed project will not impact any State or National Forests.
4.1.3.7.3 Gamelands and Wildlife Refuges
The proposed project will not impact any state gamelands, or wildlife refuges.
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
4.1.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources
NCDOT, in consultation with the Army Corp of Engineers and North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO), on September 28, 2010 determined that the LEDPA, as discussed in
section 2.8.2, will have an adverse effect to four historic properties and no adverse effect to four
historic properties. The eatent and details of the impacts are noted in Table 4-5. A copy of the
final concurrence form for effects can be found in Appendix C.
Table 4-5: Historic Architectural Resources (for Preferred Alternatives)
Name Status Alt. Segment
Location Map Effects
Francis Parker House NR Hl Figure 2t Adverse effect
J. R. Martin Farxn DOE G6 Figure 2r & 2s Adverse effect
Henry Stephenson House DOE Cl Figure 2d Adverse effect
Mowfield NR E2 Fi re 2f & 2 No adverse effect
Longview DOE Cl Figure 2e No adverse effect
Peebles House (Holly Lodge) DOE E3 Rev. Figure 2i No adverse effect
Jackson Historic District NR E3 Rev. Figure 2i No adverse effect
Oak Grove Baptist Church DOE A1 Figure 2a Adverse effect
NR = Listed on National Register of Historic Places
DOE = Determination of Eligibility
93
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.4.2 Archaeological Resources
Detailed Archaeological Surveys for the LEDPA are currently underway. The survey's findings
will be reported to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). Any data recovery that is
needed will be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office and documented in the
State Record of Decision (ROD) for this project.
4.1.5 Natural Environment
4.1.5.1 Biotic Communitv and Wildlife
4.1.5.1.1 Terrestrial Community and Wildlife
Temporary fluctuations in the populations of animal species that utilize the communities within
the project study area are anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving,
burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction activities,
while more mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. Most species that may
be temporarily displaced would be expected to re-colonize the area quickly once construction is
complete.
Impacts to terrestrial plants and wildlife due to road construction may involve changes in
microclimate, modified hydrologic regimes, soil compaction, habitat fragmentation, and
increased road mortality. Changes in microclimate (moisture regimes, wind access, and available
light) and microhabitat (wetlands and seeps) can negatively affect animals, such as salamanders,
that rely on small pockets of these resources. Changes in microclimate can also affect the
assemblage of plant life. For example, species that are shade intolerant will likely out-compete
shade tolerant species in areas adjacent to the road. Cut and fill activities associated with
construction can modify hydrologic regimes. Crossings of streams and wetlands can also change
hydrologic patterns of these habitats, affecting the animals and plants that live there.
Construction of a new road corridor would involve impacts to areas that road construction on
existing alignment would not. Soil within the new road corridor would likely become compacted,
reducing its ability to transport water. This change in the physical properties of the soil would
alter the habitat for slow-moving, burrowing, and/or subterranean species such as woodchucks
and moles.
The majority of the land within the project study area has already been fragmented by roads,
residential and commercial development, and agricultural practices. However, several large
tracks of land within the project study area may be further fragmented as a result of construction
of a new road corridor. Habitat fragmentation divides ecological units and increases wildlife
competition, mortality, and avoidance behavior, which could potentially lower wildlife diversity.
Road mortality for animals could also increase as a result of construction of a new road corridor.
Many animals such as Virginia opossum, raccoon, and gray fox are generalists and are attracted
to the artificially created edge habitats associated with roads and other types of development.
Several bird species are also attracted to this edge habitat. While these animals might benefit
94
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
from the additional habitat created by the new road corridor they would also be subject to
mortality due to passing vehicles.
4.1.5.1.2 Aquatic Community and Wildlife
Cut and fill activities associated with road construction will impact soils due to removal,
relocation, and compaction. The primary sources of water quality degradation in rural areas are
agricultural operations and construction. Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to discharges and
inputs resulting from construction. Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the project study area during construction. Appropriate measures must be taken to
avoid spilling construction materials and chemicals and to control runoff.
Potential impacts to aquatic resources associated with construction of the proposed project
include increased sedimentation, scouring ofthe streambed, soil compaction, and loss of shading
due to vegetation removaL Increased sedimentation from lateral flows is also expected. Measures
to minimize these potential impacts include the formulation of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and
appropriate road maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stages ofthe project.
Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment, and environmental
impacts from construction activities may result in long-term or irreversible effects. Impacts
usually associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and scouring of
the streambed. In-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts adjacent streamside
vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can clog the
gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Siltation
may also cover benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment that inhibit their
ability to obtain oxygen.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction
enhances erosion and possible sedimentation. Early re-vegetation of these areas helps to reduce
the impacts by stabilizing the underlying soils and holding them in place. Erosion may carry
soils, toxic compounds, trash, and other materials into the aquatic communities at the
construction site. As a result, bars may form at and downstream of the site. Increased light
penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may increase water temperatures. Warmer
water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen
concentrations.
An in-stream construction moratorium, to limit the effects on fishery resources, such as the
striped bass, will be implemented February 15 through June 30 (as per NMFS, FWS, and WRC).
The Roanoke River is listed as a primary nursery area by the NMFS. Although the Roanoke
River no longer intersects the project study area, there are unnamed tributaries to the Roanoke
River within the project study area.
95
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.5.2 Water Resources
Construction of the proposed project may impact water resources by one or more of the
following processes:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, and toxic
spills, and increased vehicular use.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and use of best management practices.
The contractor will be required to follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures (as outlined in 23 CFR 650, Subpart B and Article 107-13) entitled Control ofErosion,
Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures are
outlined in the following list.
• Use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff during
construction.
• Regular maintenance and inspection of these structures to insure effectiveness.
• Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams and
tributaries to help reduce the potential for petroleum contamination or discharges of other
hazardous materials into receiving waters.
• Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites to help alleviate sediment loadings and reduce runoff.
Partial mitigation of increased runoff from new highway surfaces by providing grassed
road shoulders and limited use of ditching.
• Careful management and use of herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds, or other
chemical constituents to minimize potential negative impacts on water quality. Roadside
maintenance crews are well-versed in the use ofthese chemicals.
• Avoidance of direct discharges into streams whenever feasible. Filtering runoff effluent
through roadside vegetation in order to remove contaminants and to minimize runoff
velocities.
4.1.5.2.1 Surface Waters/Jurisdictional Issues
4.1.5.2.1.1 Streams
Of the 84 stream segments identified within the project study area, 37 of these streams
comprising 7.2 miles were classified as intermittent and 47 streams comprising 4.5 miles were
identified as perennial streams. All impacts to perennial streams typically require compensatory
mitigation. Final determination of mitigation requirements for impacts to intermittent streams is
96
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
left to the discretion of the USACE and will be determined during the permitting stage of the
project. Stream impacts associated with the LEDPA can be found in Table 4-6.
4.1.5.2.1.2 Ponds
Eighteen surface water bodies or ponds were found within the Study area; however, only 8 are
within the LEDPA study corridor. The NCDOT will utilize best fit widening to minimize
impacts to surface water bodies.
4.1.5.2.1.3 Wetlands
Wetland and stream impacts for all alternatives can be found in Appendix E.
Wetland and stream impacts were calculated for the LEDPA. Wetland impacts are calculated
from slope stake to slope stake plus an additional 25' outside of each limit as determined from
the current functional design plans for each alternative studied. Table 4-6 shows the anticipated
wetland and stream impacts associated with the LEDPA.
Table 4-6: Wetland and Stream Impacts for LEDPA
Wetland/ Wetland Stream
Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization
Identification (Acres) (Feet)
Widening on north side of NC 46 to
A1 SA O1 129 reduce impacts to Historic Oak Grove
Baptist Church
Widening on north side of NC 46 to
WA O 1 0.4 reduce impacts to Historic Oak Grove
Baptist Church
WA 03 0.1 None
SA02 192 None
WA 04 0.1 None
WA 09 0
2 Widening to the south side of NC 46
. avoids impacts to WA 08
B2 SA04 156 None
WA 07 2.1 None
SB 02 261 Maintained 90° crossing
Half-Cloverleaf interchange build on
WB 02 0
1 south side of US 158/ US 301 to
. minimize impacts to WB 02 and
WB 03
97
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 4-6: Wetland and Stream Impacts for LEDPA (Cont'd)
Wetland/ Wetland Stream
Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization
Identification (Acres) (Feet)
Half-Cloverleaf interchange build on south
B3 WB 02 2.3 side of US 158/ US 301 to minimize impacts
to WB 02 and WB 03
Half-Cloverleaf interchange build on south
WB 03 1 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 alignxnent avoids impacts to
SB 03
Widening on south side of US 158 to
SB OS 228 minimize impacts to SB 07
Widening on south side of US 158 to
WB 08 0.7 minimize impacts to WB 08 and SB 07
Cl WB 14 0 Widening on south side to avoid impacts to
WB 14
Widening on north side of US 158 to
WB 11 1.1 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
Widening on south side of US 158 to
E2 WA 20 0.2 minimize impacts to WA 20
WA 21 0.8 None
WB 95 0.9 None
Impacts are due to longer radius of curve to
WB 92 lA limit impacts to Historic Mowfield Properly
WB 19 0.1 None
Additional bridge on south side of US 158 to
SB 15 196
minimize impacts
WB 21 0.1 None
Widening on south side of US 158 to avoid
WB 20 0.1 impacts to WB 20 and P 7
SB 16 1149 None
98
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 4-6: Wetland and Stream Impacts for LEDPA (Cont'd)
Wetland/ Wetland Stream
Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization
Identification (Acres) (Feet)
Impacts are due to shift in corridor and
E3 Rev. WB 23 1.7 alignxnent to reduce impact to Jackson
Historic District
Impact avoided by shift in corridor and
SB 19 0 alignxnent to reduce impacts to Jackson
Historic District
A 1295-ft bridge will be used to
WB 25-27 0
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
Widening on north side of US 158 to
WA 93 0.8 minimize impacts to WA 93
SA 90 221 None
SA 25 175 None
WA 46 0.5 None
Widening on north side of US 158 to
WA 47 0.2 minimize impacts to WA 47
F6 WA 42 1.4 None
SA 29 238 None
New alignment is to the south to
WA 43 0.3
minimize impacts
Crossing is approximately 90° and at
WA 53 1.4
narrowest point
Crossing is approximately 90° to
SA 30 236
minimize impacts
WA 54 6.7 None
SA 35 222 None
WA 55 0.6 None
Half-Cloverleaf Interchange on east
SA 36 345 side of SR 1344 to reduce impacts
Half-Cloverleaf Interchange on east
SA 37 238 side of SR 1344 to reduce impacts
WA 56 0.3 None
99
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 4-6: Wetland and Stream Impacts for LEDPA (Cont'd)
Wetland/ Wetland Stream
Segment Stream Impacts Impacts Avoidance & Minimization
Identification (Acres) (Feet)
New alignment crosses southern partion to
F 10 WA 57 2
minimize impacts
New alignment crosses southern partion to
WA 58 0.7
minimize im acts
New alignment crosses southern partion to
SA 39 217
minimize impacts
WA 59 4.6 None
New alignment crosses southern partion to
SA 42 32
minimize impacts
SA 41 272 Crossing is approximately 90° to 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 OS
narrowest point
WA 63 0.9 Crossing located at narrowest point
New alignment crosses northern partion to
WA 65 0.2
minimize impacts
New alignment is to the south to minimize
WA 67 0.1
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
100
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 4-6: Wetland and Stream Impacts for LEDPA (Cont'd)
Wetland/ Wetland
Segment Stream Impacts Sti•eam Avoidance & Minimization
Identification (Acres) ?1Pacts (Feet)
G6 WA 75-76 0.8 New alignxnent crossing is
approximately 90° to minunize impacts
SA 54 321 New alignment crossing is
approximately 90° to minunize impacts
WA 77 (1-24) 1.3 New alignment crosses southern portion
to minimize impact
WA 77 (25-56) 1 New alignment crosses southern portion
ta minimize impact
SA 58 281 Nane
SA 56 51 None
SA 57 43 New alignment crosses southern portion
to minimize impact
SA 64 42 None
SA 61 113 None
G7 SB 35 181 None
WS 75 0.1 None
WS 76 0.1 Widening on soutliern side of US 158 to
minunize impacts to WB 76
WS 83 0.1 Widening on southern side of US 158 to
minimize impacts to WE 83
SE 64 74 Widening on southern side of US 158 to
minimize impacts
WB 82 0.1 None
H1
WS 84
0.1 Widening on southern side of US 158 to
minirnize impacts to WE 84 and Historic
Francis Parker House
WB 35 0 None
Total 56.8 9142
101
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.5.2.2 Brideine
Table 4-7 illustrates the proposed structures for the LEDPA. These include all locations that are
deemed major hydraulic crossings and have been agreed upon by the Merger Team at the
Concurrence Point 2A meeting, (see section 6.1.1 for explanation of the Merger Process/Terms).
Proposed structures for all detail study alternatives can be found in Appendix E.
Table 4-7: Proposed Bridges/Drainage Structures
Segment Wetland/Steam
System Existing Structure Proposed Structure
A1 WA 03/ WA 06/ SA 02 Triple 9-ft x 9-ft RCBC Retain and extend as needed
133 WB 06/ SB 03 Not applicable Single 6-ft x 5-ft RCBC
131B3 WB 09/ SB OS Triple 8-ft x 6-ft RCBC Retain and extend as needed
Cl WB 17/ WB 18/ SB 11 Triple 8-ft x 9-ft RCBC Retain and extend as needed
EZ iJT to Gumberry
Swam Zp 46-in x 31-in CSPA Single 8-ft x 5-ft RCBC
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
F2 WA 46/ WA 47/ SA 25 Single 54-in CMP Double 6-ft x 5-ft RCBC
G1 WA 63/ SA 48 Not applicable Single 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC
G 1 wA 70/ WA 72/ WA
73/ SA 51/ SA 52 Not applicable Double 6-ft x 6-ft RCBC or 975-ft
brid e
G7 WB 76/ SB 35 Single 10-ft x 6-ft
RCBC Retain and extend as needed
* CMP - Corrugated Metal Pipe
* CSPA - Corrugated Steel Pipe Arch
* RCBC - Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
4.1.5.2.3 Permit Issues
This section discusses the necessary permits or certifications that would be required for project
construction as well as methods to avoid, minimize, or compensate for those impacts.
4.1.5.2.3.1 Permit Requirements
Section 404 of the CWA requires regulation of discharges into Waters of the United States. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative agency
of the CWA; however, the USACE has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and
enforcement of the provisions of the CWA covering discharges of fill materials (33 CFR 320-
330). An Individual Permit would likely be required based on the potential that cumulative loss
of stream channel and wetlands would be greater than the current thresholds for Nationwide
Permits.
102
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Any action that may result in a discharge into Waters of the United States within North Carolina
requires a water quality certification from NCDWQ. An Individual 401 Water Quality
Certification will be necessary for impacts before an Individual 404 Permit can be obtained. The
USACE does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. Therefore, an Isolated Wetland Permit
will be required from NCDWQ if an alternative impacts any of the isolated wetlands. NCDOT
will coordinate with the USACE and NCDWQ after the completion of final design to obtain the
necessary permits required by Sections 404 and 401 ofthe CWA.
4.1.5.2.3.2 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation
policy that embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation must be
considered in sequential order.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters
of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
USEPA and the USACE, "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
In the development of alternatives, several wetland areas were avoided by shifting alignments.
Impacts to the Roanoke River were avoided by eliminating the "Garysburg - Widen Existing"
option between Weldon and Garysburg.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of inedian widths, right-of-
way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. The following other methods will minimize
adverse impacts to water resources.
• Strict enforcement of BMPs to control sedimentation during project construction
• Bridge high quality, linear wetland systems
• Minimize clearing and grubbing activity
• Decrease or eliminate discharges into streams
• Re-establish vegetation on exposed areas
• Minimize in-stream activity
Project specific avoidance and minimization efforts, as concurred upon by the Section
404/NEPA Merger Project Team can be found in Appendix F.
103
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided or minimized to the maximum eatent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been completed.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the
United States. Such action should be undertaken in areas adjacent to the discharge site when
feasible.
Opportunities for on-site mitigation were investigated within the project vicinity. Soil survey
data (Shaffer 1994) and aerial photography were used to determine specific sites for field
investigation. Field investigations resulted in a surprisingly low potential for on-site mitigation.
Many of the streams that are mapped within agricultural fields, pastures, and cutovers are
intermittent or ephemeral channels. The majority of perennial streams within the project study
area exist in mature bottomland hardwood systems or other areas that are already forested.
Vegetation surrounding the perennial streams protects the banks and creates a fairly stable
stream system in most cases. There are also very few areas mapped as hydric A soils that are not
currently forested, and in most cases considered existing wetlands.
There are four potential on-site mitigation opportunities, consisting of riverine wetland
mitigation along with small amounts of stream mitigation, adjacent to the project study area.
The first opportunity exists along the headwaters of Wildcat Swamp. This area is located east of
US 158 south of its intersection with Wildcat Swamp (SA25). The land is currently in active
cattle pasture. An unnamed tributary, which starts as the discharge from Pond P8, was dry during
site visits in May 2006 and determined to be an ephemeral channeL Therefore, stream mitigation
is not an option at this site. However, the soils surrounding the unnamed tributary are mapped as
Hydric B soils. There are two existing ponds along the tributary, one near its headwaters (P8)
and one just before its confluence with Wildcat Swamp (outside the project study area). Cattle
have unrestricted access to both ponds as well as to the ephemeral channel that connects them.
Low to moderate potential for approximately 2 to 3 acres of headwater wetland
restoration/creation exists along this tributary. The cattle need to be restricted from this drainage
feature. The ponds and the land surrounding them could be drained, graded, and planted with
native vegetation to reestablish what appears to have once been a headwater wetland system
draining into Wildcat Swamp. The ephemeral channel that connects the two ponds could also be
planted and possibly graded into a wetland swale.
Another on-site mitigation opportunity exists along an unnamed tributary to Gumberry Swamp.
This site is located just south of SR 1311 (Jackson Bypass Road) approximately 0.5 mile east of
its intersection with Gumberry Swamp. This tributary begins in the project study area, in an
agricultural field, as a linear manmade wetland (WA28). Approximately 500 feet south of the
project study area, this manmade wetland transitions into a channelized stream. The stream flows
into a large beaver swamp, which eventually drains into Gumberry Swamp. The stream was
determined to be perennial at the time of the site visit in May 2006. There was water in the
channel, persistent bed and banks, low to moderate flow, and a relic floodplain.
104
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
The stream has been straightened and ditched in the past and lost connection to its floodplain.
The stream is incised, with high banks at its headwaters but its bank height decreases as it
reaches its confluence with the beaver swamp. The soils surrounding this tributary are mapped as
Hydric B soils and there appears to be existing wetlands in the relic floodplain on the north side
of the stream. Moderate potential for approximately 2 acres of wetland enhancement, restoration,
and/or creation along with 300 to 400 linear feet of stream restaration exists at this site. The
linear manmade wetland could be graded and planted with native vegetation to establish a natural
headwater wetland. The stream could be restored by reconnecting it to its floodplain and
establishing proper dimension, pattern, and profile. The land adjacent to the stream could be
graded and planted with native vegetation to restore, create, and/or enhance riverine wetlands.
A third on-site mitigation opportunity exists along an unnamed tributary to Lily Pond Creek
(SB24). This site is located just west of the town of Jackson. The tributary flows north to south
through agricultural fields, under US 158, and continues through agricultural fields out of the
project study area to the south. This tributary has been straightened and ditched and has lost
connection to its floodplain. There is a very narrow strip of vegetation along each side of the
stream, but the channel is incised and shows moderate amounts of erosion. The stream was
determined to be ephemeral upstream of US 158 and intermittent downstream of US 158 at the
time of the site visit in May 2006. Although there was standing water in most of the intermittent
portion of the stream, there were areas of dry streambed. The soils surrounding the tributary are
mapped as Hydric A and B soils. The relic floodplain on each side ofthe stream is in agricultural
production and the stream is draining approximately 300 acres of agricultural land. Northampton
County was suffering from a drought at the time of the site visit. This stream should be re-
evaluated under normal rainfall conditions to determine its status as intermittent versus perennial
downstream of US 158. If this stream were determined to be perennial under normal
circumstances, there is potential for approximately 4,000 linear feet of stream and several acres
of riverine wetland restoration at this site. Since the stream is classified as intermittent, this site is
not eligible for stream mitigation.
Possibly the best opportunity for on-site mitigation exists at a site approximately 0.25 miles
north of the intersection of Ramsey Creek and US 158 just east of the town of Jackson. The
floodplain of Ramsey Creek at this location was flagged as an existing wetland (WB54-55). The
land north of this wetland is currently in active cattle pasture west of US 158 and has a
commercial plant nursery to the east of US 158. Hydric A soils are mapped within the existing
wetland (WB54-55) and on the land to the north of this wetland. According to the Northampton
County NRCS (05-09-06), the land that is currently in active cattle pasture is mapped as prior
converted agricultural land. At the time ofthe site visit, in May 2006, the cattle pasture adjacent
to the wetland had standing water in several places and contained hydric soil indicators. The
dominant vegetation within this portion of the cattle pasture was soft rush and fescue. The plant
nursery to the east of US 158 is also mapped as Hydric A soils; however, this area was not
checked for hydrology or hydric soil indicators. This site provides an excellent opportunity for
approximately 6 acres of wetland enhancement within the cattle pasture and possibly 10 acres of
wetland restaration or enhancement within the plant nursery. The cattle pasture could be planted
with native vegetation and the wetland (WB54-55) adjacent to the cattle pasture could be used as
a reference wetland to restore the cattle pasture and possibly the plant nursery to bottomland
hardwood forests.
105
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
If sufficient on-site mitigation is not found, impacts will be compensated through offsite
mitigation. In accordance with the MOA among the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District," July 22, 2003, the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), will be requested
to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the CWA compensatory mitigation requirements for this
project.
4.1.5.2.4 Buffer Areas
The proposed project will not impact any existing buffers.
4.1.5.2.5 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
Bald Eaale (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Federal Status: DELISTED from ESA, Protected under MBTA and BGEPA
State Status: ENDANGERED
Biological Conclusion: NOT APPLICABLE
The Roanoke River is the largest body of water providing nesting habitat for bald eagles. There
are several small millponds and large beaver swamps that may provide foraging habitat. The
gravel pits northwest of Garysburg and the sand pits east of Garysburg are the largest bodies of
open water that may provide additional nesting habitat.
Bald eagle surveys were conducted during each field day with special attention given to
preferred habitat areas. Field surveys were conducted between September 2005 and May 2006.
The western portion of the project study area near Garysburg is within lmile of the Roanoke
River, which is suitable habitat for this raptor. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species
and unique habitats in September 2005 and March 2006 depicted no observations of the bald
eagle within or near the project study area.
A single bald eagle was observed in the riparian area of Trouble Field Creek. This area is 1.25
miles northeast ofthe Roanoke River and 0.5 mile west ofthe sand pit ponds along SR 1311. No
nests were located within or adjacent the project study area. The USFWS (Jordan 2006) and
NCWRC (Allen 2006) have no known nests within one mile of the project study area.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Federal Status: ENDANGERED
State Status: ENDANGERED
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
106
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
A review ofthe NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats in July of 2007 revealed no
observations of the RCW within or near the project study area. The listing for this county is
based on a historic record from 1973.
The project was evaluated for the presence of potential nesting and foraging habitat using aerial
photography and ground-truthing. Each area of potential habitat was evaluated based on its
geographic relationship to the project corridor and connectivity to other areas of suitable habitat.
Appropriate habitat was field surveyed.
A total of 24 forested stands were identified as potentially containing suitable foraging or nesting
habitat for the RCW. Field surveys revealed that the majority of forested stands either lacked a
dominate pine component, were not connected to stands containing necessary foraging and/or
nesting habitat, or were too young to be considered suitable habitat. No active cavity trees were
found during field surveys, nor were any individual red-cockaded woodpeckers observed. A
single mature loblolly pine was observed to contain multiple cavity excavations. However,
evening and morning monitoring of this tree did not reveal active use by the RCW or any other
woodpecker species. The cavities in this tree showed evidence of disturbance from other species
and were not symmetrical as would be expected in an RCW cavity that was still active.
Additionally, there were no cavities that had active resin flows around the entrance. It is possible
that this tree contains relict RCW cavities. This evidence is supported by the fact that a single
Long leaf pine remains in close proximity. RCW activity in this are, if it ever existed, appears to
be historic. No evidence of current RCW activity was found at any of the stand locations.
Therefore, this project will not affect the RCW.
4.1.5.2.6 Essential Fish Habitat
The proposed project will have no impact on essential fish habitat.
4.1.6 Construction
Impacts during construction of this project are expected to be similar to those associated with
any major roadway construction. The temporary increase in noise and air pollution, erosion,
utility disruptions, traffic maintenance, visual and safety considerations must be examined during
design and construction. The plans and specifications for the project will be developed to
minimize these and other impacts.
Prior to right-of-way acquisition, there will be a design public meeting and/or hearing for the
LEDPA to address details of the project and potential impacts from construction. A
preconstruction conference also will be held involving the contractor, local officials, public
utility officials and the Division of Highways. This preconstruction conference will address
construction procedures and precautionary measures to also take place prior to construction, to
allow ample time for relocation of any affected geodetic markers.
Potential construction impacts are summarized below.
107
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.6.1 Air Quality
Adverse construction impacts to air quality may include air pollutant emissions from
construction equipment exhaust; fugitive dust emissions from clearing, demolition, grading and
other construction activities; open burning for the disposal of construction debris; and particulate
matter emitted from hot asphalt plants providing materials for construction.
Vehicular activity associated with construction operations is not expected to represent an air
quality problem, except for temporary fugitive dust emissions.
Fugitive dust emissions can be mitigated by minimizing the area of exposed earth material;
providing temporary and permanent seeding and landscaping as early as possible; providing
coverage for hauled and stockpiled materials; and applying water to stabilized exposed earth and
haul areas. The NCDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Structures. Section 107, Legal
Relations and Responsibility to Public, requires that the contractor control dust within the project
area and all other areas affected by the construction of the project (i.e., unpaved roads, haul
roads, disposal and borrow sites, etc.).
In accordance with Section 200, Clearing and Grubbing, of the NCDOT Standard Specifications
for Roads and Structures, when debris is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
such a manner as to prevent injury to all property within and outside of the right-of-way.
Burning shall be done in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, ordinances and
regulations. All burning shall be under the constant care of competent watchmen. Burning shall
be thorough and shall not be permitted to smolder and result in dense smoke.
Particulate matter emitted from hot mix asphalt plants providing materials for construction will
be controlled within the limit established by the State Air Pollution Control Board.
4.1.6.2 Water Quality
Soil erosion resulting from roadway grading operations constitutes the major potential impact to
water quality. The amount of erosion during construction varies dependent on the size of the
disbursed area, roadway vertical grades, roadway cut and fill slopes, and the effectiveness of
installed erosion control devices. The effectiveness of the erosion control devices will depend
upon the quality of maintaining the devices.
Based upon the presence of wetlands, streams, and other natural habitats within the study area,
the entire study area is deemed sensitive to sedimentation impacts. Temporary construction
impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a
stringent erosion control schedule and the NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters as applicable. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures).
Mitigation measures to control erosion and sedimentation are described in the Federal Aid Policy
Guide and the North Carolina Administrative Codes, Chapter 4, Sedimentation Control.
108
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Measures commonly recommended for the construction phase of highway projects include:
mulching, sodding, diversion berms, sediment catch basins, and clean-up practices. Construction
activities shall be organized in stages to minimize the exposures of cleared areas and erodible
earth to the eatent possible. Wherever feasible, erosion control measures shall be retained as
permanent features in the roadway design.
4.1.6.3 Noise
Construction noise, especially during the grading and structure building phase, is of particular
concern. The operation of equipment, such as front-end loaders, bulldozers, graders, scrapers,
compressors, and pile drivers, will cause temporary noise impacts during construction.
Although no methods have been established for predicting construction noise impacts, FHWA
recommends the following general steps be performed for this type of project:
• Identify land use or activities which may be affected by noise from construction of the
project;
• Determine measures which are needed to minimize or eliminate adverse construction noise
impacts to the community; and,
• Incorporate the needed noise abatement measures in the construction contract plans and
specifications.
Noise sensitive areas near project construction sites may experience increases in noise levels.
These increases, however, would be temporary and would not require special mitigation.
Table 4-8 indicates the noise levels which can be anticipated during construction for various
types of equipment, based on the General Services Administration Standards adopted in 1972.
No areas within the study are where eatreme quiet is necessary will be impacted by construction
noise.
Adverse effects from construction noise can be minimized by limiting the permitted times and/or
days for operating certain equipment, and by locating temporary construction work areas and
material storage areas away from noise sensitive receptors.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
109
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 4-8: Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment GSA Maximum Allowable
Noise Level At 50 Feet (dBA) Extent Of Noise Impact In
Excess Of 70 dBA (Feet)
Frontloader 79 150
Backhoe 85 300
Dozer graders, tractor 80 160
Concrete mixer, concrete
pump, crane, derrick 82_88 200-400
Pumps 76 100
Generators 78 140
Compressors 81 180
Pile drivers 101 1,865
Jack hammers 88 400
Rock drill 98 1,335
Pneumatic tools 86 335
Saws, vibrations 76-78 100-140
Truck 91 600
Scrapers, pavers 88-89 400-465
SOURCE: General Services Adminishation Standards, 1972.
4.1.6.4 Biotic Communities
Construction practices such as staging and stockpiling operations could result in the
displacement of the resident wildlife population. Both the clearing of habitats and the noise and
vibration from construction operations could result in disruption to mobile wildlife species.
Sedentary species may be lost. The period of construction activities would be a period of
maximum disruption since this would initiate competition between relocates and the resident
wildlife populations adjacent to the construction site. Biotic impacts are anticipated to be
temporary, however, because staging and stockpiling areas will be abandoned after construction.
Ultimately, these areas may provide replacement habitat for some wildlife species.
110
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.6.5 Construction Waste
Waste and construction debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right-of-way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions.
Disposal of waste or debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted.
Standards included in the NCDOT's Standard Specifications require the contractor to exercise
every reasonable precaution throughout construction of the project to prevent pollution of rivers,
streams, and water impoundments. Pollutants such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, bitumen, raw
sewage, and other harmful wastes will not be discharged into or alongside rivers, streams or
impoundments or into natural or man-made channels emptying into such receiving waters.
Renovations of structures containing asbestos material and demolition of both non-asbestos
containing structures and asbestos containing structures must be in accordance with NCAC
2D.0525, which requires notif'ications and removal prior to demolition.
The contractor is required by NCDOT Standard Specifications to provide sanitary facilities for
use by his employees during construction of the project. The contractor will be required to
observe and comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees regarding the
disposal of solid waste.
4.1.6.6 Traffic Maintenance & Detour Accessibilitv
The contractor will be required to maintain through and local traffic including all existing roads
which cross, intersect or are located within the project limits.
Construction work will be carried out in a manner which would create a minimum amount of
inconvenience to traffic, especially emergency service vehicles. Detours will be adequately
signed and maintained.
The contractor will be required to provide, erect and maintain barricades, warning lights, danger
signals, signs and sufficient flagmen to direct traffic during construction. All necessary
precautions will be used to protect the construction workers and the safety of the public.
Two-way traffic should be maintained, if possible, at all times. However, if one-way traffic is
required, traffic will be periodically altered by flagmen and/or traffic control devices in order to
minimize excessive delays.
Signing, barricades, lighting, traffic control devices, and traffic control operations used in
maintaining traffic will be in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Street and Highways.
111
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1.7 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources
The construction of the US 158 project in the proposed corridor will require certain irreversible
and irretrievable commitments of resources.
Woodlands, farmland, floodplains and other land taken in right-of-way will be irreversibly
committed to transportation use. Loss of businesses, wildlife, farm and forest products
associated with these lands will be irretrievable. Construction of the freeway will have an
irreversible effect on noise, water and air quality along the corridor.
In addition to natural resources, there are human resources which will be consumed. The labor,
energy, and materials committed for construction of the freeway will be irretrievable. A
commitment of funds will be necessary for construction and maintenance ofthe new facility.
The project's irreversible commitment of resources is outweighed by the beneficial commitment
to a safer, improved transportation facility. Benefits will consist of improved local accessibility,
savings in vehicle operating costs and time, and maintaining and improving the communities'
economic growth and well-being ofthe community.
4.1.8 Relationship Between Short-term Impacts and Long-term Productivity
This section discusses the relationship between those aspects of the human environment that
must be used in construction of the project as they may relate to long-term productivity of the
area.
The construction phase of the proposed action will cause short-term impacts on the environment.
These impacts will include increased noise and air pollution, increased erosion and siltation of
streams and ponds, and occasional disruption of utilities and traffic. No long-term impacts are
expected from the construction activity.
The proposed action will require displacement of homes and businesses within the proposed
right-of-way. However, replacement housing available will be found for the displaced
homeowners and tenants within the study area. Many of the businesses will relocate and
employment opportunities will be redistributed to new locations. Improved access within the
study area will increase land value and stimulate long-term residential and business growth.
Construction of the highway will cause short-term changes and losses to natural resources.
Aquatic and terrestrial habitats within the limits of construction will be replaced by the freeway.
However, some habitat within the right-of-way could be eventually restored as a result of aquatic
and terrestrial productivity and migration.
Land use planning and/or zoning control by local municipal and county officials should ensure
development along the proposed freeway that is compatible with the highway environment and
existing land use. Long-term land use goals will control growth and development along the
roadway and provide a safe and cost-effective transportation facility.
112
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.2 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
As required by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (CFR Regulations, Title
40, Section 1502.16), a discussion of both the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action
must be addressed in this document. Direct effects are those effects that are caused by the action
and occur at the same time and place. Direct effects are those effects that are primarily discussed
throughoutthe Environmental Consequences section ofthis document.
Indirect or secondary effects are those effects, "which are caused by the action and are later in
time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." Examples of indirect
effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in land
use patterns, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air, noise, water and other
natural systems, including ecosystems.
A cumulative effect is defined as the "impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions." Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor actions,
but collectively represent a significant impact over a longer period of time.
Indirect and cumulative effects are described in more detail in the Qualitative Indirect and
Cumulative Effects (ICE) Assessment dated August 25th, 2008.
Overall, the improved roadway will result in mild stimulus for change in land use. The project
will result in cross-county travel time savings, but will not serve specific development and will
not likely influence intra-regional land development decisions. It may however stimulate some
complementary development in the vicinity of new interchanges.
Near the town of Jackson, the project could increase the marketability of the Verona site. This
former plantation is being marketed for industrial development, however the market for
development in this area is modest. This may also result in increased property values. Although
the bypass alternatives will open new land for development, controlled access is proposed.
Coupled with zoning regulations, these controls will prevent significant changes in land use.
However, given roadway access, the potential for development pressures exists. Land use
changes are not expected unless local policy is revised. Increased development may impact
water quality. Reduced access to existing businesses may eventually result in lower tax values.
Access to businesses along the existing corridor will be limited, as the divided median facility
will restrict turning movements. The resulting cumulative impact may be a loss of business as
customers find a more convenient alternative. Immediate changes are not expected, except
during the construction phase. The absence of through traffic in the towns is also expected to
impact businesses over time. However, businesses that are supported mostly by local customers
should not be affected.
The overall character of the study area will be affected as the existing two-lane section changes
to afour-lane median-divided facility.
113
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.2.1 Existing Conditions
• Similar to other rural eastern North Carolina counties, Northampton County has
experienced minimal population growth during recent years. Approximately 1,300
people were added to the County between 1990 and 2000 (a 6.2% population growth
rate).
• Between 1990 and 2004, employment in Northampton County grew by over 26%, which
is a net gain of over 1,000 jobs. Based on available employment sector data, more than
800 jobs were added to the retail trade industry during that time frame, while there was a
loss ofnearly 500 manufacturing jobs.
• Land throughout the Demographic Area and Northampton County is predominantly
undeveloped or utilized for agricultural uses. Most of the residential development is
located along Roanoke Rapids Lake, in the eatreme northwestern portion of the Growth
Impact Study Area (GISA). A number of paper mills, including two International Paper
and two Georgia Pacific facilities, generate much of the activity in the area, and
contribute to a substantial amount oftrucktraffic along US 158.
• There are no water supply watersheds within the GISA for this project. The GISA is
located in portions of both the Chowan River and Roanoke River basins. These river
basins have no buffer regulations.
• A search of DWQ's 2006 Draft 303(d) List reveals that Painter Swamp is an impaired
water body within the GISA with an unknown source of impairment. There are also
numerous wetlands scattered throughout the GISA and the Roanoke River is considered
an anadromous fish spawning area
4.2.2 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
• This project should improve regional access from I-95 in Northampton County eastward
to the Town of Murfreesboro. Cumulatively, these improvements with other TIP projects
along US 158 could make this region more attractive for industries that rely upon the
transportation of goods and services on a regional or national level.
• There may be increased potential for commercial development at various locations,
particularly in the vicinity of new interchanges. Residential development may take place
along feeder roads because of access to a four-lane highway. Due to the lack of
development pressures, this development would likely be limited in scale.
• With the length of the project over 30 miles and a potential 10 mph increase in the speed
limit along most sections of the new roadway, the travel time savings from one terminus
to the other for most of the alternatives should approach the 10 minute level.
4.2.3 Findings
• Based on an evaluation of GISA development conditions and the identification of human
and/or environmental features that could be impacted, the potential for indirect effects
associated with TIP R-2582/R-2584 is low.
• Existing land planning, the large amount of rural land, limited availability of utilities
outside built-up areas (especially sewer), low population growth, and limited
development pressures should minimize the potential for impacts to water quality.
114
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Envu•onmental Impact Statement
4.2.4 Summary of Environmental Consequences
A summary of impacts for the LEDPA/Preferred alternative is shown in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9: Summaiy of Impacts for LEDPAIPreferred Alternative
Impacted Resource Preferred Alternative
Segments Included A1 B2 B3 C1 E2 E3 F2 F6
F10G1G6G7H1
Length (miles) 34.6
Interchanges 5
Railroad Crossings 3
Schools 1
Recreational Areas and Parks 1
Churches 1
Cemeteries 1
Major Utility Crassings 2
Historic Properties (Adverse Effect/No Adverse
Effect) 4/4
Archaeola ical Sites 1 Unknown
Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0
NRCS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below Threshold
Residential Relocations 3$
Business Relocations 4
Noise Receptors Impaeted 73
Wetland Im acts (acres) 56.8
Stream Im acts (feet) 9142
'Water Supply Watershed Pratected Areas 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0
Minority/ Low Income Papulations (Adverse cei
Dis ro ortionate Im acts) No
Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0
Undergraund Storage Tank Sites 6
Construction Cost $240,901,257
Right of Way Cost $34,329,750
Mitigation $4,480,028
Utilities Cost $3,$49,956
Total Cost $283,560,991
Note 1: Archeological suDTeys are undenvay.
115
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
116
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 5
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF
THE STATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT
Federal Aaencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Commerce
Department of Agriculture
Department ofthe Interior
Department of Health and Human Services
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Soil Conservation Service
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
State Aaencies
NC Department of Human Resources
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
State Clearinghouse
Local Governments
Upper Coastal Plain Council of Governments
Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization
Chairman, Northampton County Board of Commissioners
Northampton County Manager's Office
Mayor of Garysburg
Mayor of Jackson
Mayor of Conway
Libraries
Northampton Memorial Library
Murfreesboro Public Library
117
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
118
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 6
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a summary of the agency coordination and public involvement processes
that were carried out as a part of the preparation of this study.
6.1 AGENCY COORDINATION
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this
State Final EIS. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
Federal Aaencies
* US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
* US Environmental Protection Agency (LJSEPA)
* US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
* National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
State Aaencies
* NC Department of Cultural Resources (DCR)
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
* NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC)
* NC Division of Forest Resources
* NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
* NC Division of Environmental Health
* NC Department of Crime Control & Public Safety (NFIP)
NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
Local Aaencies
Upper Coastal Plains Council of Governments
* Town of Garysburg
Town of Conway
* Town of Jackson
* Town of Weldon
Halifax County Commissioner
Northampton County Commissioner
* Northampton County Schools
119
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
6.1.1 Merger Process Team
The Section 404/ NEPA Interagency Merger Process (Merger Process) was developed in 1997 to
provide resource agencies with an early opportunity to be involved in major project decisions at
key points in the planning process. It was amended in 2001 to include additional coordination
points. The amended process includes the following decision points:
• Concurrence Point 1 Purpose and Need and Study Area Defined
• Concurrence Point 2 Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
• Concurrence Point 2A Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
• Concurrence Point 3 LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative)
• Concurrence Point 4A Avoidance and Minimization
• Concurrence Point 4B 30% Hydraulic Design Review
• Concurrence Point 4C Permit Drawing Review
Meetings are held with the resource agencies at these critical junctures to present information to
the agencies, to discuss agency concerns relating to that concurrence point, and to ultimately gain
agency agreement on the proposals made in regards to that concurrence point. In the current
process, agencies all agree to the decisions made by signing a concurrence point form.
The following agencies/organizations have been involved in the Merger Process Team meetings
for this project (i.e., the Merger Process Team):
• NC Department of Transportation (Co-chair)
• US Army Corps of Engineers (Co-chair)
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• NC Department of Cultural Resources (State Historic Preservation Office)
• Mid-Carolina Rural Planning Organization
The concurrence and precursor meetings held to date are summarized below.
Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point 1): The Merger Team met on February 9, 2000 and
reached concurrence on Concurrence Point 1(Purpose and Need) for the project. The Purpose
and Need ofthe project was defined as:
120
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Improve traffic flow and level of service (LOS) on this section of US 158
• Improve safety along US 158
• Improve access to existing and future industry
Detailed Study Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2):
March 10 2005 - The Merger Team met on March 10, 2005 and reached concurrence on
Concurrence Point 2(Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward) for the project. The
following alternatives were carried forward for detailed study:
Gar s??g
• Widen on Existing
• Garysburg Northern Bypass
• Garysburg Southern Bypass 1
• Garysburg Southern Bypass 2
Jackson
• Old Jackson Bypass
• Eatended Northern Jackson Bypass
• Northern Jackson Bypass
• Southern Jackson Bypass
Faison's Old Tavern
• Widen on Existing
• Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypass
• Faison's Old Tavern Southern Bypass
• Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypass & Conway Northern Bypass
Conwav
• Northern Conway Bypass
• Southern Conway Bypass 1
• Southern Conway Bypass 2
The team also agreed to eliminate the following alternatives:
• Widen on existing US 158 in Jackson
• Widen on existing US 158 in Conway
AuQUSt 18 2005 MeetinQ - A supplemental Concurrence Point 2 meeting was held. The
Merger Team met and concurred with dropping the Garysburg Widen on Existing
Alternative. The elimination of this alternative moved the western project limit from the
east of Weldon to the intersection of I-95 and NC 46 west of Garysburg. The remaining
alternatives from the March 10th meeting were carried forward.
June 5& June 18 2007 - Merger Team members and NCDOT representatives met in the
field on the two dates to view the wetland and stream locations to be discussed at the
121
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Concurrence Point 2A meeting. The sites that were visited during the field meetings were
all High Quality Waters with impacts greater than one acre.
Bridging Decisions (Concurrence Point 2A): The Merger Team met on June 19, 2007 and
reached concurrence, on bridging options for high quality wetlands and major hydraulic
crossings for the project. The team decided not to drop any other alternatives until after the
public hearing.
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) (Concurrence Point 3): The
Merger Team met on March 26, 2009 to discuss the results of detailed environmental studies
completed for each of the alternatives carried forward from the March 10lh 2005 meeting and the
August 18th 2005 meeting. As a result of the discussion the Merger Team was able to concur on
LEDPA for 3 of the 4 communities. The following alternatives were selected as a part of the
LEDPA:
•Garysburg Southern Bypass 1
•Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypass 2
•Conway Northern Bypass 2
The following Jackson alternatives were also eliminated from further consideration:
• Old Jackson Bypass
• Southern Jackson Bypass
As a result of the meeting, and at the request of the Merger Team, the Northern Jackson Bypass
Alternative corridor was shifted north to minimize impacts to the Jackson Historic District. The
Eatended Northern Jackson Bypass Alternative corridor was also shifted slightly, near its egress
from existing US 158, to reduce wetland impacts.
LEDPA / Avoidance and Minimization (Concurrence Point 3 Continued and 4& The Merger
Team met on October 19, 2010 to discuss the results of updated detailed environmental studies
completed for each ofthe remaining Jackson Bypasses. As a result ofthe discussion the Merger
Team was able to concur on a LEDPA for the Jackson Bypass alternatives. The result of the full
LEDPA is as follows:
• Garysburg Southern Bypass 1
• Northern Jackson Bypass
• Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypass 2
• Conway Northern Bypass 2
The Merger Team also discussed Avoidance and Minimization measures to be implemented both
project wide and site specifia To allow time to adequately document Avoidance and
Minimization measures it was determined that the final concurrence would be completed via
email correspondence. Concurrence via email was reach on February 1, 2011.
A copy ofthe signed concurrence point forms are provided in Appendix F.
122
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
6.1.2 Agency Comments on State Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Draft EIS was approved by the NCDOT on February 29, 2008 and was distributed to
Federal, State and local agencies, as well as locations for public review. See Chapter 5 for a list
of these agencies. Various comments concerning the DEIS for this project were received from
the Federal, State and local agencies. Responses to these comments have been incorporated into
this environmental document where appropriate. The following is a summary of the comments
and responses for each agency. Copies of the comment letters are in Appendix B.
Aaencv: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Letter Date: July 8, 2008
Comments/ Responses:
Gar s??g
Comment: "The human impacts for the Northern Bypass are substantially higher than either the
Southern Bypass 1 or the Southern Bypass 2 alternatives. The Northern Bypass has
32 residential (R) and 5 business (B) relocations and 28 noise receptor (NR) impacts
compared to the Southern Bypass 1, 11R/2B/8NR and Southern Bypass 2,
ll R/2B/7NR."
Response: Comment noted. The human impacts were discussed in detail at the Merger Team
Meeting on March 26, 2009 and resulted in the Northern Jackson Bypass being
dropped from further consideration. The Merger Team concurred with Garysburg
Southern Bypass 1 as the LEDPA for this section ofthe project.
Comment: "EPA is not clear as to why Southern Bypass 1(Sections Al, B2 & 133) has 2
interchanges and the Southern Bypass 2(Sections Al, B2 & 134) has only 1
interchange. EPA understands the need for an interchange at US 158/US 301 but not
for the interchange east of Garysburg for the Southern Bypass 2 alternative. This
should be explained at the neat Concurrence Point meeting."
Response: Neither Southern Bypass 1 nor Southern Bypass 2 proposes an interchange east of
Garysburg. The Northern Bypass had proposed an interchange at existing US 158
and US 158 Bypass; however, the Northern Bypass alternative was dropped from
consideration at the Concurrence Point 3 meeting. The interchanges for Garysburg
Southern Bypass 1(LEDPA) are the existing interchange at I-95 and NC 46, and the
proposed interchange ofUS 158 and US 301 southwest ofGarysburg.
Comment: "The DEIS also identifies that the Garysburg Northern Bypass Alternative has an
`adverse and disproportionate impact' to minority/low income populations. EPA
does not dispute the general information contained on page 43 of the DEIS
concerning environmental justice issues. However, NCDOT should work closely
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the Lead Federal Agency to
123
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
ensure that they concur with NCDOT's findings under the Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice."
Response: An Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum was completed on October 8,
2010. The findings of the report support an adverse and disproportionate impact to a
minority/ low income population for the Garysburg Northern Bypass. A copy of the
full Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum can be found in Appendix E.
Jackson
Comment: "The Southern Jackson Bypass and the Northern Jackson Bypass alternatives have
greater residential relocations than either the Old Jackson Bypass or the Northern
Eatended Jackson Bypass (i.e., 25, 11, 6 and 5, respectively). Wetland impacts are
substantially less for the Northern Jackson Bypass (i.e., 16 acres) compared to the
other three alternatives (i.e., 34, 40, and 43 acres). Stream impacts are least for the
Northern Eatended Jackson Bypass at 850 linear feet compared to 1,620 linear feet,
and 2,110 linear feet for the Old Jackson Bypass, Northern Jackson Bypass, and the
Southern Jackson Bypass, respectively."
Response: Comment noted. Impacts were discussed in detail at the Concurrence Point 3
meeting.
Comment: "Noise receptor impacts are a magnitude greater (i.e., 52 receptors) for the Northern
Jackson Bypass than the other three alternatives (0, 4 and 11)."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "There are 10 eligible or listed historic properties for both the Northern Jackson
Bypass and the Southern Jackson Bypass compared to 4 properties for the other two
alternatives."
Response: Historic impacts associated with the Northern Jackson Bypass alternative were
reduced by shifting the corridor north to avoid impacts to the Jackson historic
district.
Comment: "It should be noted that there is potentially an invasive plant species issue for the
Old Jackson Bypass route. Substantial colonies of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia
japonica, et al.) have been identified within NCDOT right-of-way (ROW) along the
existing Jackson Bypass Road, including NC 305, at Gumberry Creek and near St.
John Church Road. EPA would be seeking avoidance and minimization measures
and BMP's for this highly invasive plant species should the Old Jackson Bypass
alternative be selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)."
Response: Comment noted. Old Jackson Bypass was dropped from consideration at the
Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA) meeting.
124
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Faison's Old Tavern
Comment: "The Southern Bypass alternatives appear to present a better balance between human
impacts and natural resource impacts (e.g., Faison's Southern Bypass #2: 5
residential relocations, 9 acres of wetlands and 540 linear feet of stream impacts)."
Response: While the Southern Bypass alternatives had the fewest environmental impacts, the
Northern Bypass alternative was selected because it provided a longer section of new
location freeway with full control of access. The benefits of choosing a Northern
Bypass would reduce indirect and cumulative impacts due to the project.
Comment: "There is a notation in the summary that the alternatives that improve/widen existing
US 158 have a`potentiaP adverse and disproportionate impact to low
income/minority populations. An actual analysis is not presented on page 43 of the
DEIS. This issue needs to be further evaluated and examined by the NCDOT and
coordinated with the USACE."
Response: While no formal Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum was completed for
the Faison's Old Tavern community the Widen on Existing alternatives were
dropped due to high relocation impacts.
Conwav
Comment: "It should be noted by EPA that there is also an invasive plant species issue for the
Northern Bypass alternatives. Substantial colonies of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia
japonica, et al.) have been identified along local roadways, NC 35 at Kirby's Creek,
Tower Road, and others. EPA would be seeking avoidance and minimization
measure and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for this highly invasive plant
species should one of the Northern Bypass alternatives be selected as the LEDPA."
Response: Comment noted. Conway Northern Bypass 2 was selected as the LEDPA for this
section of the project. Best Management Practices will be implemented where
applicable.
Comment: "The total impact to farmland from the proposed project is substantial (i.e.,
approximately 800 acres) and NCDOT should work closely with local officials and
landowners to minimize impacts where practicable."
Response: NCDOT understands the concern with impacts to farmland, as this has been a topic
of concern at many of the public meetings. NCDOT is currently investigating
possible solutions to help minimize impacts and to reduce the amount of isolated
un-farmable land. NCDOT will continue to work closely with landowners and
local officials to minimize these impacts.
Comment: "EPA also requests that NCDOT consider steepening side slopes to 2:1 in wetland
areas and potentially reducing the 46-foot median width at bridge crossings."
125
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response: As agreed upon by the Merger Team, 3:1 side slopes will be utilized in all
jurisdictional areas; however, NCDOT will utilize 2:1 slopes where feasible and
practicable.
Comment: "The DEIS evaluated 4 potential on-site mitigation opportunities (Pages 95 and 96).
There is a detailed discussion concerning each potential mitigation site location.
Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetlands Section should be requested to conduct
on-site feasibility visits with NCDOT and other Merger team members at a later
date in the Merger 01 process."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "EPA recognizes that NCDOT may seek to obtain compensatory mitigation through
the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for impacts that cannot be found on-
site. EPA and other resource agencies have previously identified some streams and
wetlands along the proposed corridors that may be enhanced or restored from past
agricultural activities through on-site mitigation efforts. EPA recommends that
NCDOT continue to explore on-site mitigation opportunities along the selected
highway alignment once a`LEDPA selection' is made by the Merger team."
Response: Comment noted.
Agency: North Caro&na Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Letter Date: July 2, 2008
Comments/Responses:
Comment: "There continue to be a number of concerns identified by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission in relation to secondary and cumulative impacts. We ask that the
Department of Transportation continue to work with state and federal agencies in
order to adequately addressed project concerns prior to fmalizing plans."
Response: The NCDOT will continue to work with state and federal agencies through the
Merger Process and Permit Applications.
Agency: North Caro&na Wildlife Resource Commission
Letter Date: July 1, 2008
Comments/Responses:
Comment: "Direct impacts to streams and wetland for a project of this scope can be significant
with potential wetland impacts of 119 acres and potential stream impacts of 10,610
linear feet. Although not quantitatively documented in the DEIS the project will also
have eatensive impacts to upland natural systems. These direct impacts in addition to
the indirect effects of habitat fragmentation caused by new location segments and
126
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
increased fragmentation due to widening the existing facility will cause considerable
impacts to the fish and wildlife resources in the project area."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "Additional natural resource minimization efforts will be assessed during
concurrence point 4a once the Merger Team has selected a LEDPA. At this time we
concur with the DEIS for this project. We will continue to assess the impacts
associated with the remaining alternatives in preparation for the selection of the
LEDPA."
Response: Comment noted. NCWRC concurred with the final selection of LEDPA at the
Merger Team meeting October 19, 2010. Avoidance and Minimization measures
were agreed upon February 1, 2011.
Agency: North Caro&na Division of Water Quality
Letter Date: June 16, 2008
Project Specific Comments/Responses:
Comment: "This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a
participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "All waters in the Chowan River Basin, with exception of Paddie's Delight Creek
are class C; NSW waters ofthe State. Paddies Delight Creek is a class B; NSW water
of the State. The DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that
could result from this project. The DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient
runoff in the Chowan River Basin. The DWQ requests that road design plans provide
treatment ofthe storm water runoffthrough best management practices as detailed in
the most recent version ofNC DWQ StormwaterBestManagementPracrices."
Response: Protective sediment and erosion control BMP's will be implemented to reduce the
risk of nutrient runoff in the Chowan River Basin.
Comment: "Page V of the summary indicated that right-of-way (ROW) acquisition will begin in
the State Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, while page 1 states ROW acquisition will begin in
FY 2011."
Response: Since the publication of the DEIS the right-of-way acquisition date has moved from
State FY 2012 to FY 2014.
Comment: "Discussions in Section VI (Human Environmental Effects) include many statistics,
most of which came from the US Census Bureau. Table 6-3 (Income Levels and
127
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Poverty Status for 1989) and the associated text, include data from 1989, which is 19
years old. It would seem the Census Bureau has newer data pertaining to poverty
levels. Updated data may be available for much of the other data discussed in the
document as well."
Response: The latest Census update (2000) did not include Poverty Status updates for the
project study area. While a 2010 Census has been completed, updated data is
currently unavailable.
Comment: "The DWQ is pleased that the NCDOT has already investigated potential onsite
mitigation possibilities for this project. The DWQ prefers on-site mitigation to off-
site mitigation. The NCDOT is encouraged to consult further with the DWQ and
other regulatory agencies as necessary to make sure that any on-site mitigation
pursued is as successful as possible."
Response: The NCDOT will continue to consult with the DWQ and other regulatory agencies
for possible on-site mitigation sites.
Comment: "A map showing the location of UST's and other GeoEnvironmental (corresponding
to Table 6-9) sites should be included. These could be shown on the alternative
maps."
Response: UST's have been added to the alternative vicinity maps.
General Comments/ Responses
Comment: "Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application,
should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream
impacts with corresponding mapping."
Response: Itemized wetland and stream impacts are presented in Table 4-6 ofthis document.
Comment: "If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to
present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a
401 Water Quality Certification."
Response: Additional information on avoidance and minimization measures for the Preferred
Alternative is presented in the signed Concurrence Point 4A Form in Appendix F. A
mitigation plan will be prepared as a part of the 401 Water Certification Application.
Comment: "Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce
the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives
should include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC
DWQ Stormwater Best Management Pracrice, such as grassed swales, buffer areas,
preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc."
128
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response: The NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
followed in order to reduce impacts to streams and wetland from storm water runoff.
Comment: "After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certif'ication, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need
to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams)
to the maximum eatent practicaL In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commision's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mitigation will be required for
impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required,
the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation."
Response: Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams has been
demonstrated during the Concurrence Point 4A meeting held on October 19, 2010.
Merger Process Team members concurred with the avoidance/minimization
measures via email on February 1, 2011. Additional measures may be identified
during Concurrence Point 4B and 4C meetings to be held as further design is
completed. Since wetland impacts are greater than one acre, wetland mitigation will
be provided through both on-site mitigation, previously discussed in section
4.1.5.2.3.2 ofthis document, and the EEP.
Comment: "In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A
NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150
linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values.
The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation."
Response: Since impacts of greater than 150 linear feet are anticipated at several perennial
streams, a mitigation plan will be prepared that is designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. Onsite mitigation and EEP will be evaluated as options for
mitigation.
Comment: "The DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result
from this project. The NCDOT should address these concerns by describing the
potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating
factors that would reduce the impacts."
Response: This information has been included in Section 4.1.5 of the FEIS.
Comment: "The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to,
bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and
riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts,
in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be
included as part ofthe 401 Water Quality Certification Application."
129
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response: All impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers will be included
in the final impact calculations and will be a part of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application.
Comment: "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,
the NCDOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum eatent
practicable."
Response: Culverts will be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic
organisms. Bridges will be used as agreed to by the Merger Process Team at the
Concurrence Point 2A meeting held on June 19, 2007. Bridge bents will not be
installed in creeks to the eatent practicable under NCDOT structure design
guidelines.
Comment: "Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or
streams."
Response: Sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed in wetlands or streams to
the maximum eatent practicable.
Comment: "Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum eatent practical.
Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401
Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation."
Response: Borrow/ waste areas will avoid wetlands to the maximum eatent practicable.
Impacts to wetlands in borrow/ waste areas will be presented in the 401 Water
Quality Certification and compensatory mitigation will be provided, if required.
Comment: "The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address
the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specif'ically, stormwater
should not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters."
Response: The 401 Water Quality Certification application will specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. Stormwater will not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
Comment: `Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to
wetlands and streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps
of Engineers and 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
130
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
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 eatent practical, the development of an
acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate."
Response: Based on currently anticipated impacts to wetlands and streams, an Individual Permit
application will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers and the corresponding 401
Water Quality Certification will be submitted to the Division of Water Quality. The
adequacy of avoidance and minimization of wetlands and stream impacts has already
been discussed and agreed upon by the Merger Process Team at a Concurrence Point
4A meeting held on October 19, 2010 and concurred on via email on February 1,
2011. Information on avoidance and minimization of wetlands and stream impacts
(as presented and discussed at the CP 4A meeting listed above), a stormwater
management plan, and appropriate mitigation plans will be included in the permit
application.
Comment: "Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures
usually do not require work within the stream or grubbing of the stream banks and do
not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances
provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, do
not block fish passage, and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters."
Response: Comments noted. Bridge bents will not be installed in creeks to the eatent
practicable under NCDOT structure design guidelines.
Comment: "Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the streams. Stormwater
should be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through s ite- appropriate means
(grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the
stream. Please refer to the most current version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best
Management Pracrices."
Response: Comment noted. Stormwater will likely be directed across the bridge and pre-treated
through site-appropriate means before entering the stream. The most current version
of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices will be used to determine
appropriate measures to be taken. It is expected NC DWQ will continue
coordination with NCDOT through upcoming Merger meetings as hydraulic design
progresses.
Comment: "If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to
prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that
inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to surface waters
due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills."
Response: Comment noted. A dry work area will be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts
uncured concrete will not be discharged to surface waters.
131
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment: "If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site should be graded to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or
mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species should be planted.
When using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed.
Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized
equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimize soil disturbance."
Response: Comment noted. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site will
be graded to its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas will be
planted. When using temporary structures, the area will be cleared but not grubbed.
The area will be cleared with chain saws, mowers, bush hogs, or other mechanized
equipment leaving the stumps and root mat intact to allow the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizing soil disturbance.
Comment: "Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands should
be placed below the elevation of the streamed by one foot for all culverts with a
diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts
having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and
aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures should not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream
and downstream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide
evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If
this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features
encountered during construction, please contact the DWQ for guidance on how to
proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required."
Response: Comment noted. Culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches will be placed
below the elevation of the streambed by one foot in waters, streams, and wetlands.
Culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches will be placed below the elevation of
the streambed by 20 percent ofthe culvert diameter in waters, streams, and wetlands,
to allow flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts
and other structures including temporary erosion control measures, will not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds
or banks, adjacent to or upstream and downstream of those structures. NCDOT will
provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained, if requested in writing by
DWQ.
Comment: "If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural
stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain
elevation and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be
avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically
decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage."
132
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response: If needed, multiple pipes and barrels will be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible. Widening the stream channel will be avoided
whenever possible.
Comment: "If foundation test borings are necessary, it should be noted in the document.
Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number
3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities."
Response: Final design is underway and the need for test borings has not been established. In
the event that they are needed, NCDOT will coordinate the permitting with the
Division of Water Quality.
Comment: "Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most
recent version ofNCS000250."
Response: Comment noted. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water
resources will be implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent
version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
Comment: "All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area
Approved BMP measures from the most current version ofthe NCDOT Construction
and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water."
Response: Comment noted. All work in or adjacent to stream waters will be conducted in a dry
work area. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of the NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual will be used to prevent excavation
in flowing water.
Comment: "While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region
Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NGCREWS) maps and soil survey maps are
useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform
onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval."
Response: Qualified wetland personnel have performed onsite wetland delineations. These
delineations were approved by Corps of Engineers personnel during field reviews.
Comment: "Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels
in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams. This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic
fluids, or other toxic materials."
133
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response: Comment noted. Heavy equipment will be operated from the bank rather than in
stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment will be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters.
Comment: "Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the
streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders
or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed."
Response: Comment noted. Riprap will not be placed in active thalweg channel or placed in the
streambed in a manner that would preclude aquatic life passage. Bioengineering
boulders or structures will be properly designed, sized, and installed, if needed.
Comment: "Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum
eatent possible. Riparian vegetation must be re-established within the construction
limits of the project by the end of the growing season following completion of
construction."
Response: Comment noted. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) will be preserved to
the maximum eatent possible. Riparian vegetation will be reestablished within the
construction limits by the end of the growing season, following completion of
construction.
Agency: North Caro&na Department of Cultural Resources
Letter Date: June 9, 2008
Comments/Responses:
Comment: "When a final roadway alternative is chosen, please notify our office in writing. The
appropriate archaeological survey methodology can then be determined."
Response: The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office
to ensure appropriate archaeological surveys are completed. Results of
archaeological surveys will be documented in the Record of Decision.
Comment: "The document accurately reflects the status and effects for historic buildings and
districts."
Response: Comment noted.
134
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Agency: North Caro&na Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Letter Date: June 4, 2008
Comments/Responses:
Comment: "The North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) is in general
agreement with the information provided in Section VIL Natural Environment
Effects A. Physical Effects 2. Water Resources b. Floodplain Management. Several
of the streams within the project boundary have been studied with limited detail or
detail study methods. As such the streams have special flood hazards areas (SFHAs),
base flood elevations (BFEs), and floodways or non-encroachment areas.
Construction within a floodway or a non-encroachment area requires, prior to
construction, approval of either a no-rise study with a no-rise certification for
projects that do not increase base flood elevations or for projects that result in an
increase in base flood elevations the approval of a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision."
Response: Comment noted. Floodplain/ Floodways are discussed in Section 4.1.3.6 of this
document. If required a no-rise study or Conditional Letter of Map Revision will be
completed prior to construction.
Comment: "The NCFMP and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that includes NCDOT no-rise studies and
Letter of Map Revisions. Please contact Dr. David Chang, NCDOT Assistant
Hydraulics Engineer for further information and guidance."
Response: Comment noted.
Agency: United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Letter Date: May 29, 2008
Comments/Responses:
Comment: "Overall, the project will have very significant impacts on fish and wildlife
resources, including impacts to streams, wetlands, upland forest and other habitat
types. These impacts will be in the form of direct loss of habitat and habitat
fragmentation effects on remaining habitat. Although these habitats are already
fragmented by the predominantly agricultural land use of the project area, additional
cumulative habitat fragmentation effects will occur.
Response: Comment noted. NCDOT has worked with the Merger Team to minimize these
impacts.
135
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment: "The effects of forest habitat fragmentation usually eatend well beyond the project
footprint and can lead to local eatirpation of forest interior species and wildlife
species which require large home ranges or that travel eatensive distances for all or
part of their life history. Roads often act as physical barriers to wildlife movement
and/or cause significant wildlife mortality in the form of road-killed animals. Forest
fragmentation can lead to increased predation of some species and increased brown-
headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism of the nests of neotropical migrant birds.
Habitat fragmentation can also facilitate invasive and/or nonnative species
colonization of fragmented lands."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is the only federally
threatened or endangered species listed for Northampton County. The SDEIS renders
a biological conclusion of "no effecY" for this species on page 98. However, there is
insufficient treatment of the subject within the SDEIS for us to understand how you
arrived at that conclusion. Page 98 states that suitable habitat is present, but there is
no indication as to whether that habitat was surveyed for RCW cavity trees. While
we believe that the occurrence of RCWs within the study area is unlikely, additional
documentation would be prudent."
Response: An additional Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides Borealis) Survey Report was
completed by the NCDOT in October 2007. A discussion of the findings can be
found in Section 4.1.5.2.5. A copy of the full report should have been forwarded to
your office.
Comment: "Our input has been incorporated into the SDEIS. At this time we do not have a
preferred alternative. We will defer that decision until Concurrence Point 3 in the
Merger Process, and we will provide additional comments and recommendations for
further avoidance and minimization to fish and wildlife resources as appropriate."
Response: Comment noted.
6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6.2.1 Citizen Informational Workshops
A series of Citizens Informational Workshops were held on April 4, 9 and 11, 2002 in
Garysburg, Jackson, and Conway, respectively. The presentation at the three workshops was the
same for each location. The purpose of these workshops was to introduce the project to the
public, and involve the public in the project planning process by obtaining suggestions and
comments on the project from the people it will affect most.
Numerous comments received indicated there was a great need for the project, specifically to aid
in economic development of northeastern North Carolina. There were also several other
comments from residents opposed to widening alternatives near their residence.
136
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on July 12, 2004 at the County Administration
Building in Jackson. A single workshop was held because the majority of the project had not
changed since it was first presented in a series of previous workshops in 2002; the only changes
that were made were the addition of two new alternatives in the Jackson vicinity.
6.2.2 Corridor Public Hearines
A series of Corridor Public Hearings were held. The purpose of the corridor hearing was for
NCDOT to share with the public all of the routes under consideration when a highway location
may be changed, and to accept feedback regarding the available choices. This process of
accepting comments helps to inform the NCDOT and Merger Teams decision-making process.
The proceedings of the hearing were recorded and transcribed into written record. The
moderator briefly reviewed the Corridor Public Hearing Map and several other aspects of the
project, and then entertained comments from the attendees.
Both verbal comments made at the Corridor Public Hearing and written statements received
during the post hearing comment period form the formal public comment record for the project.
Gar s??g: 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 opposed 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.
Jackson: 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
Eatended 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.
Conway & Faison's Old Tavern: 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 opposed 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 of Faison's Old Tavern or Conway. Property owners
impacted by the Northern Bypass were in support of the Southern Bypass and vice versa
Jackson (Revised Alternatives): An additional Public Hearing was held on July 19, 2010 at the
Jackson Cultural Wellness Center. To notify the public of changes made to the Eatended
Northern Jackson Bypass and Northern Jackson Bypass corridor alignments. Approximately 114
citizens attended the Hearing. Approximately 150 written comments were received following
the Hearing. A majority of comments received were opposed to the Northern Jackson Bypass
and favored the Eatended 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.
137
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
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 B.
6.2.3 Design Public Hearing
A Design Public Hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public
hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the LEDPA and associated
impacts. The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding
the proposed project.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
138
R-2582 & R-2584 State Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 7
LIST OF PREPARERS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways prepared this report.
North Caro&na Department of
Transportation
Robert Hanson, PE
Eastern Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Manager responsible for development of
planning/ environmental studies in eastern
North Carolina Twenty-four years of
experience in transportation engineering and
project management.
Charles Cox, PE
Eastern Project Development Group
Supervisor
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Matthew Potter, PE
Eastern Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Jason Moore, PE
Project Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Bryan Key, PE
Project Design Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Highway Planning Engineer responsible for
the development of planning/ environmental
studies. Twenty years of experience in
engineering and planning.
Project Engineer responsible for
coordination and review of studies in
connection with this project. Six years of
experience in engineering and planning.
Engineer assigned to oversee coordination
of roadway design elements of proposed
action. Nineteen years of experience in
engineering.
Engineer assigned to oversee coordination
of roadway design elements of proposed
action. Fourteen years of experience in
engineering.
139
R-2582/R-2584
Appendix A
(Figures)
---- ------
------- -- ------- ?6 -- -
,------ - C----- b
2?'? ? AG S?G ?? . ?..,
? o
z ='ti9
co ? i
w
_ (is,s8 o m N ? ?
NC co ?rr
3 a I
Nc, 56
z h -- ~ \ w
?
?
i
;
^
? C, Q
LEGEND
GarysburgAlternative _
Jackson Alternatives _
FaisonsAlternative _
Conway Alternative
Alternative Segment E1, G4
h r
0
z °
?b13 p PPP?
U
Z
H
W Zm
H a
N
a U)
?
W
wzaaZ
00
= J
0?=
W
Z
?a o
LL w
0
UZ
Z
ZU
pWO
?
U)0
>
>
_x Z
OLL
z0oaw
W
(7
Zw
00?OQ ? }N
?P a ? ?
acnH?m
a?z:5 0 ?0"0
? 0 ? m M O N Lr)
?
Z Z Z ? N
2
VZLoQw QW
(9W =-
Wc)
LL ?
?w0? Zd
F- w? F
0? /
m
LL
County:
Northampton
Div: TIP#
? R-2582 &
R-2584
WBS 34472.1.1
Date:
NOVEMBER 2010
FIGURE
1
A1
B2
Legend
? New Lacation Bypass
? New Location Bypasses
? Widen Existing Roads
A1,B1 Garysburg Northern Bypass
A1,62,B3 Garysburg Southern Bypassl
A1,62,B4 Garysburg Southern Bypass 2
GARYSBURG
SR 1388
?
?
0
_
Y
B3
SR 9311
U
Gt ?4
S F
wo z
F25 D PP(r?,
U
z
? a
w Zm
? aN
N
a (1) W-j
wzQaZ
oo= z
z?c?Wa
J>H
0aL-ow
0
UZZVZ
=aoWo
??-o>
oLL ?w z
zooaw
N
W
> ?
H >- ?
Q z N
w ON
W U?
J Z cv
Q 0?
? Qw
? =0
m ?
?
N a
0
a
c?
/
County:
NORTHAMPTON
Div:
1 TIP#
R-2582184
WBS:
34472.1.1
Date:
MARCH 2Q08
Figure
1A
U
Gt ?4
S F
wo z
F25 D PP(r?,
U
z
? a
w Zm
? aN
N
a (0 W-j
wzQaZ
oo= z
z?c?Wa
Jr?H
?aL- ow
0
Z
UZZV
=qpWO
??-0>
OLL w Z
zooaw
N
W ?
> OC)
F z N
N
? U?
J 0cr,
a aU
?
W
O 20
Oa
Q za
?
?
County:
NORTHAMPTON
Div:
1 TIP#
R-25s2I84
WBS:
34472.1.1
Date:
MARCH 2Q08
Figure
1B
U
Gt ?4
S F
wo z
F25 D PP(r?,
U
z
? a
w Zm
? aN
N
a (0 W-j
wzQaZ
oo= z
z?c?Wa
Jr?H
?aL- ow
0
Z
UZZV
=qpWO
??-0>
OLL w Z
zooaw
z r?
w I.- LO
Wy zN
> W
?
? 0?
?a 0?
Da' aU
?
pj ?o
ya rya
LL
00-
F--
/
1 C
County:
NORTHAMPTON
Div:
1 TIP#
R-25s2I84
WBS:
34472.1.1
Date:
MARCH 2Q08
Figure
35
U
¢
? G1,G2
G1
? G6
U
? G7
H1
U x
U
? 15$
158 G2
° G5
x
a G4
?
35 coNwAY
I
Legend
-
New Location Bypasses
G3 New Location Bypasses
- Widen Existing Roads
G2,G6,G7,H1 Conway Northern Bypass 1
G1,G6,G7,H1 Conway Northern Bypass 2
G3,G5,G7,H1 Conway Southern Bypass 1 ?
35 G3,G4,H1 Conway Southern Bypass 2
bV
4p ?a
yS F
0 ?
PIS ' o PP??,
V
Z
F- Q
W m
Z
? Q0)
W
a U1WJ
wzQaZ
DO= J
p>z
???ow
¢(1)0 ?
UZZUZ
XFNw0
oLL??z
zooaw
N IT
w }oo
? ~ N 10
? z i
Z 0
co
W z? N
?
J a?
a ?U
QW
?1 2 0
Z Oa
o z -
/
County:
NQRTHAMPTON
Div:
1 TIP#
R-2582184
WBS:
34472.1.1
Date:
MARCH 20
08
Figure
1D
IBYJ.TORTORELLA
BY:
J.TORTORELLA