HomeMy WebLinkAbout20161221_Environmental Assessment_20131010NC 11 and US 13
From NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near Winton
Hertford County
Federal -Aid Project NHF-0013(37)
WBS Element 45449.1.1
TIP Project R-5311
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
Date hn F. Sullivan III, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
/0 3Q i3
Dat (b ichard W. Hancock, P.E.
Manager, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Unit
,/‘
NC 11 and US 13
From NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near Winton
Hertford County
Federal -Aid Project NHF-0013(37)
WBS Element 45449.1.1
TIP Project # R-5311
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation prepared by AECOM:
Edward B. McFalls, P.E.
Department Manager, Transportation Planning
AECOM
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation:
Kim L. Gillespie, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Ja es A. McInnis, Jr., P.E
Project Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
!cv
0
022546 /0/ l/l13
• ®h'e000eeao >®
ass , go
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ......................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 5
A. General Description ................................................................................................ 5
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ..................................................................... 5
C. Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................... 5
II. PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................ 7
A. Project Purpose ....................................................................................................... 7
B. Need for Project ...................................................................................................... 7
1. Description of Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 7
a. Route Classification ........................................................................................ 7
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility ....................................................... 7
c. School Bus Usage ........................................................................................... 9
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity ............................................................................... 9
e. Crash History ................................................................................................ 10
f. Airports ......................................................................................................... 11
g. Other Highway Projects in the Area ............................................................. 11
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ..................................................................... 12
a. Local Transportation Plans ........................................................................... 12
b. Statewide Plans ............................................................................................. 12
c. Land Use Plans ............................................................................................. 12
3. Evacuation Route ................................................................................................ 13
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ................................................................................. 13
1. Safety ................................................................................................................... 13
2. Traffic Carrying Capacity ................................................................................... 14
III. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 15
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ............................................................................. 15
1. Alternate Modes of Transportation ..................................................................... 15
2. No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................... 15
3. Transportation Systems Management ................................................................. 16
4. Improve Existing Facility .................................................................................... 17
B. Detailed Study Alternatives .................................................................................. 19
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 22
A. Roadway Typical Section and Alignment ............................................................ 22
B. Right of Way and Access Control ........................................................................ 22
C. Speed Limit ........................................................................................................... 23
D. Design Speed ........................................................................................................ 23
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................................. 23
F. Intersections/Interchanges ..................................................................................... 23
G. Service Roads........................................................................................................ 24
H. Railroad Crossings ................................................................................................ 24
I. Structures .............................................................................................................. 24
J. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways ....................................................... 24
K. Utilities .................................................................................................................. 24
L. Landscaping .......................................................................................................... 25
M. Noise Barriers ....................................................................................................... 25
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ......................... 26
A. Natural Resources ................................................................................................. 26
1. Biotic Resources .................................................................................................. 26
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................... 26
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ................................................................... 27
c. Terrestrial Wildlife ........................................................................................ 28
d. Aquatic Communities ................................................................................... 28
e. Invasive Species ............................................................................................ 28
2. Waters of the United States ................................................................................. 29
a. Streams, Rivers and Impoundments ............................................................. 29
b. Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 30
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................. 32
d. Anticipated Permit Requirements ................................................................. 35
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ..................................................... 35
3. Rare and Protected Species ................................................................................. 36
a. Federally Protected Species .......................................................................... 36
b. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ............................................... 36
4. Coastal Zone Issues ............................................................................................. 37
a. Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern ............... 37
b. Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................... 37
5. Soils ..................................................................................................................... 37
B. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 38
1. Historic Architectural Resources ......................................................................... 38
2. Archaeological Resources ................................................................................... 39
C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources ................................................................................... 40
D. Prime and Important Farmland ............................................................................. 40
E. Social Effects ........................................................................................................ 41
1. Neighborhoods/Communities .............................................................................. 41
2. Relocation of Homes and Businesses .................................................................. 41
3. Minority/Low-Income Populations ..................................................................... 42
F. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 43
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ............................................................................ 43
2. Future Land Use .................................................................................................. 43
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans ............................................................... 44
G. Economic Effects .................................................................................................. 44
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ........................................................................... 44
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...................................................................................... 44
J. Traffic Noise Analysis .......................................................................................... 44
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ......................................................... 44
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives ............................................................................. 45
a. Traffic System Management Measures ........................................................ 45
b. Highway Alignment Changes ....................................................................... 45
c. Noise Barriers ............................................................................................... 46
d. Buffer Zones ................................................................................................. 47
3. Construction Noise .............................................................................................. 47
4. Summary ............................................................................................................. 48
K. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................................. 48
1. Project Air Quality Effects .................................................................................. 48
2. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) ................................................................... 48
3. Construction Air Quality Effects ......................................................................... 49
L. Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 50
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................................................... 51
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ......................................................................... 51
B. Public Hearing ...................................................................................................... 51
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process ................................................................................... 51
D. Other Agency Coordination .................................................................................. 52
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figures 2A/2B Environmental Features Maps
Figures 3A-3G Project Plan View with Aerial Photograph – Alternatives 1 and 3
Figures 4A-4G Project Plan View with Aerial Photograph – Alternatives 5 and 6
Figures 5A-5E 2008 and 2035 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (No-Build & Build)
Figure 6 Typical Sections
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Agency Comments
Appendix B – NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Reports
Appendix C – Concurrence Information
TABLES PAGE
Table S-1: Comparison of Detailed Study Alternatives ................................................ 3
Table 1: Cost Estimates by Alternative .......................................................................... 6
Table 2: Accident Rate Comparison ............................................................................. 11
Table 3: Intersection Accident Rate Comparison ........................................................ 11
Table 4: Alternative Safety Analysis Results................................................................ 17
Table 5: Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives ...................................................... 18
Table 6: Comparison of Detailed Study Alternatives .................................................. 20
Table 7: Proposed Right of Way Widths and Access Control .................................... 22
Table 8: Proposed Intersections/Interchanges ............................................................. 23
Table 9: Proposed Structures ........................................................................................ 24
Table 10: Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area .......................... 27
Table 11: Terrestrial Community Impacts by Alternative ......................................... 28
Table 12: Water Resources in the Study Area ............................................................. 29
Table 13: Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Study Area............... 30
Table 14: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area .................. 31
Table 15: Estimated Stream Impacts ............................................................................ 33
Table 16: Estimated Wetland Impacts .......................................................................... 34
Table 17: Federally Protected Species for Hertford County ...................................... 36
Table 18: Soils in the Study Area .................................................................................. 37
Table 19: Historic Resource Effects .............................................................................. 39
Table 20: Prime Farmland Impacts .............................................................................. 41
Table 21: Anticipated Relocations ................................................................................. 41
Table 22: Environmental Effects of Adjacent Projects ............................................... 44
Table 23: Existing & Predicted Noise Impacts............................................................. 45
Environmental Assessment – R-5311 Page 1 of 1
October 2013
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 11 and US 13
From NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near Winton
Hertford County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-0013(37)
WBS Element 45449.1.1
TIP Project # R-5311
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Additional coordination will occur with the State Historic Preservation Office if it is
determined during the design phase that full movement access to SR 1131 (Saluda
Hall Road) for the National Register-eligible Newsome-Hall House property cannot
be provided.
Roadway Design Unit
No additional right of way or easements will be acquired from the National Register-
eligible Newsome-Hall House property.
- 1 -
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The proposed project will make improvements to existing NC 11, SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) and portions of existing US 13 from just south of the NC 11 intersection
with NC 561 to the US 13 interchange with US 158 and NC 45, a distance of
approximately 7.8 miles.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety of the NC 11/US 13 corridor
between the NC 11/NC 561 intersection and the US 13/US 158/NC 45 intersection in
Hertford County.
3. Alternatives Considered
Along with the No-Build alternative, a total of six alternatives have been considered for
this project. Four of the six (Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 6) were studied in detail and are
still under consideration.
Alternative 1 – Freeway (Part New Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four-lane freeway from south of NC 561 to US 13. A four-lane roadway on new
location would be constructed between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) at US 13 and existing
US 13 at its northern intersection with NC 461. Full control of access would exist for this
new roadway. Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four-lane freeway between the
northern intersection with NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45 and interchanges would be
constructed at the intersections of NC 11 with NC 561 and NC 11/SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) with NC 11. All other crossing roads would be grade separated or have
their access removed and turned into cul-de-sacs. Additional right of way would be
required to construct the new road segment east of existing US 13, between
US 13/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and the northern US 13/NC 461 intersection.
- 2 -
Alternative 3 – Freeway/Expressway (Existing Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four-lane freeway from south of NC 561 to US 13. The portion of US 13 from SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) to NC 461 would be widened to four lanes with partial control of access
(one driveway per parcel). Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four-lane freeway
between the northern intersection with NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45. Interchanges
would be constructed at NC 11 and NC 561, NC 11/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and the US
13 and the northern leg of NC 461.
Alternative 5 – Superstreet (Existing Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of NC 11, existing SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and
existing US 13 to a four-lane roadway from south of NC 561 to south of US 158/NC 45.
Partial control of access would be obtained along existing US 13 between SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) and the northern intersection with NC 461 since this section of US 13
currently has no control of access. Although an interchange would be constructed at the
northern intersection of US 13 and NC 461, a superstreet design will be utilized at the
remaining intersections, with the exception of NC 11 and NC 561, which will be an offset
or “dog leg” superstreet design.
Alternative 6 – Superstreet (Part New Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four-lane roadway from south of NC 561 to US 13. A four-lane roadway on new
location would be constructed between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) at US 13 and the
northern intersection of US 13 at NC 461, which will become a grade separation. Full
control of access would be obtained for the new location portion of the project beyond
SR 1408 (Saluda Hall Road), meaning that connections to the facility are only provided
via ramps at interchanges. Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four-lane roadway
between NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45. No interchanges would be constructed with
this alternative, but a superstreet design will be utilized at the remaining intersections,
with the exception of NC 11 and NC 561, which will be an offset or “dog leg” superstreet
design.
- 3 -
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table S-1: Comparison of Detailed Study Alternatives
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Project Length (miles) 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.9
Relocations Residential 1 54 54 1
Business 0 2 2 0
Total 2 50 52 1
Minority/Low Income
Populations -
Disproportionate Impacts*
No Yes Yes No
Historic Properties
(adverse effect) 0 1 1 0
Community Facilities
Impacted** 0 2+ 2+ 0
Section 4(f) Impacts 0 2 2 0
Prime Farmland (acres) 58.7 68.9 62.2 51.5
Noise Impacts 2 26 26 1
Wetlands (acres) 118.7 77.0 48.7 83.5
Streams (linear feet) 1,141 1,101 1,101 1,171
Floodplain (acres) 0 0 0 0
Federally Protected Species 0 0 0 0
* The impacts to the affected communities are considered to be disproportionately high and adverse since there is not
enough available housing in this area to accommodate those relocated by these alternatives.
** Impacts to schools, parks, churches, fire stations, cemeteries, etc.
+ Community facilities impacted include the Pleasant Plains Church & cemetery
5. Permits Required
For this project, a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Permit
will be required, in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, although the
USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
- 4 -
construction. Because a Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality will also be needed.
6. Coordination
Comments regarding the proposed project were requested from various federal, state and
local agencies. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A. An
asterisk indicates comments were received from that agency.
* US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
* US Fish & Wildlife Service
* NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
* NC Department of Cultural Resources – State Historic Preservation Office
* NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
NC Division of Air Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Division of Emergency Management
* NC Division of Environmental Health
* NC Division of Marine Fisheries
* NC Division of Water Quality
* NC Natural Heritage Program
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mid East Rural Planning Organization
7. Contact Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: (919) 856-4346
Richard Hancock, P.E.
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: (919) 707-6000
- 5 -
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The subject project proposes to improve NC 11 and US 13 from just south of the NC 11
intersection with NC 561 to the US 13 interchange with US 158 and NC 45. The project
length is approximately 7.8 miles.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The sections of NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and US 13 to be improved under this
project were originally part of two alternatives studied under the proposed US 13
Ahoskie Bypass project (TIP Project R-2205). Project R-2205 would have widened
portions of existing US 13 to a four-lane, median divided facility, upgraded the highway
to either freeway or expressway standards, and would also have included a new location
bypass of Ahoskie. However, Project R-2205 is no longer funded in the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and project development studies for this
project have been discontinued.
Due to safety issues along the section of NC 11 and US 13 between Ahoskie and Winton,
particularly at the intersections of NC 11 and NC 561 and NC 11/SR 1213
(Old NC 11 Road) and NC 11, TIP Project R-5311 was programmed in the 2012-2018
STIP. It should also be noted that in September 2010, NCDOT closed one approach to
the NC 11/SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Road) intersection to temporarily address safety
concerns.
According to the Draft 2013-2023 NCDOT Program and Resource Plan, right-of-way
acquisition for Section A (the construction of an interchange or superstreet intersection at
the existing intersection of NC 11/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and SR 1213
(Old NC 11 Road)) is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, and the construction
is scheduled for FY 2016. Right-of-way and construction for Section B (the remainder of
the project from just south of the intersection of NC 11 and NC 561 to the intersection of
US 13/US 158/NC 45) are scheduled to begin in FY 2017 and FY 2019, respectively.
C. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate included in the Draft 2013-2023 NCDOT Program and Resource Plan
for this project is $87,161,000, which includes $9,400,000 for Section A and $77,761,000
for Section B. For Section A, $500,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition and
$8,900,000 for construction, while for Section B, $4,425,000 is allocated for right of way
acquisition, $236,000 for mitigation, and $73,100,000 for construction. Current cost
estimates for each alternative are shown below in Table 1. Refer to Figures 3A-3G and
4A-4G for the individual alternative alignments.
- 6 -
Table 1: Cost Estimates by Alternative
Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Right of Way
Acquisition
$1,812,640 $15,543,520 $14,969,690 $1,243,270
Wetland Mitigation $6,035,300 $3,915,100 $2,472,500 $4,244,500
Utility Relocation $697,720 $1,004,920 $1,004,920 $697,720
Construction $64,600,000 $71,100,000 $54,000,000 $50,200,000
Total $73,145,660 $91,563,540 $72,447,110 $56,385,490
- 7 -
II. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to improve the safety of the NC 11/US 13 corridor between
the NC 11/NC 561 intersection and the US 13/US 158/NC 45 intersection in Hertford
County.
B. Need for Project
1. Description of Existing Conditions
The subject sections of NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 are located in north
central Hertford County. In the project area, NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and
US 13 are a continuous roadway (see Figure 1). The subject roadway is designated as
NC 11 from south of the project to the NC 11 intersection. From north of the NC 11
intersection to the US 13 intersection, the roadway is designated as SR 1212
(Shortcut Road). North of the US 13 intersection, the roadway is designated as US 13
(with a short section designated as US 13/NC 461) up to the northern project limits at the
US 158/NC 45 intersection. North of the project, the roadway is designated
US 13/US 158. The portions of NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 in the
project area connect the Towns of Ahoskie and Winton (see Figure 1).
a. Route Classification
NC 11 and US 13 are both classified as minor arterials in the North Carolina Functional
Classification System within the project study area.
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility
(1) Roadway Typical Section
The subject sections of NC 11 and US 13 are primarily two-lane roads with 12-foot lanes,
4-foot paved shoulders, and unpaved shoulders that vary from 2-10 feet, depending on
the location. Both left and right dedicated turn lanes are located intermittently at
intersections along the project.
(2) Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The existing horizontal alignment of NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 within
the project limits meets a design speed of at least 65 miles per hour (mph). The vertical
alignments of NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 within the project limits are
flat, with no steep grades.
- 8 -
(3) Right of Way and Access Control
Within the project limits, existing right of way along NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut
Road) is approximately 400 feet wide, in order to allow for the future upgrade of this
facility to freeway standards. Along US 13, the existing right of way varies within the
project study area from 60 feet between the intersections of SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and
the northern leg of NC 461 to nearly 320 feet north of NC 461. At the intersections of
NC 11 and NC 561 and NC 11/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 11, NCDOT had
previously purchased right of way to accommodate future interchanges.
Throughout the project, limited control of access exists along NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut
Road), and US 13 throughout the project, except in the section of US 13 between
SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and the northern intersection with NC 461, which currently has
no control of access.
(4) Speed Limit
The posted speed limit on NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and US 13 is 55 miles per
hour (mph) within the study area.
(5) Intersections
Along the entire project length, there are twelve intersections, ten of which are stop-sign-
controlled and two of which are signalized. Two of the ten stop-sign-controlled
intersections also have flashing caution signals. Intersections along the project are listed
below:
NC 11 at SR 1108 (Bonner Bridge Road/Fire Tower Road) – unsignalized
NC 11 at NC 561 (St. Johns Highway) - signalized
NC 11 at SR 1130 (Modlin Hatchery Road) – unsignalized
NC 11/SR 1212 at NC 11 – unsignalized (flashing signal only)
US 13 at SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) – unsignalized (flashing signal only)
US 13 & SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Road)/SR 1411 (Brinkleyville Road) – unsignalized
US 13 at SR 1408/SR 1311 (Saluda Hall Road) – unsignalized; offset intersection
US 13 at SR 1409 (Hall Siding Road) – unsignalized
US 13 at SR 1132 (Pleasant Plain Road) – unsignalized
- 9 -
US 13 at NC 461 – unsignalized
US 13/NC 461 at NC 461 (Old US Highway 13) – unsignalized
US 13 at US 158/NC 45 – signalized (an interchange is currently being
constructed at this intersection under Project R-2507A)
(6) Railroad Crossings
No railroad crossings exist along the NC 11/US 13 corridor within the study area.
(7) Structures
There are no bridge structures or box culverts on NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut
Road), or US 13 within the project study area. The only existing major crossing is at an
unnamed tributary to Horse Swamp (Stream SZ), where three 48-inch concrete pipes
carry the stream under US 13.
(8) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
No special bicycle accommodations or sidewalks exist along the NC 11/US 13 corridor
within the study area.
(9) Utilities
There are several utilities located in the project study area, including power and telephone
poles, an 8-inch gas line, a 12-inch PVC water line, and an 8-inch PVC sewer line.
Additionally, Century Link has copper communication cables crossing underneath NC 11
at NC 561, SR 1130 (Modlin Hatchery Road), and under US 13 at SR 1408/SR 1311
(Saluda Hall Road), and fiber optic cable crossing under the intersection of US 13 and
SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Road).
c. School Bus Usage
Thirty five buses, which make up over half of the county’s entire fleet, travel along
NC 11 and US 13 twice daily during an average school week.
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity
(1) No-Build Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for the NC 11/SR 1212/US 13 corridor were observed for the base year
(2008) and estimated for the future year (2035). As shown in Figure 5A, in the year
2008, traffic along the corridor in the study area ranged between 4,100 and 9,200 vehicles
per day (vpd). In the year 2035, as shown in Figure 5A, traffic volumes along NC 11,
- 10 -
SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 are expected to range between 5,100 and 13,500
vpd.
(2) No-Build Levels of Service
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terms of level of
service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of a
facility to carry traffic and how individual users perceive traffic conditions. It is based on
factors of speed, travel time, comfort, maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and
safety. Levels of Service range from “A” to “F”, with “A” representing free flow (ideal
conditions), and “F” representing forced or breakdown flow (undesirable conditions).
A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity when it is just able to
accommodate the traffic demand. Once the traffic demand exceeds the facility’s capacity
(LOS E), excessive delays occur.
The results of the traffic capacity analysis for NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and
US 13 in the project area show sections of the existing road are currently (2008)
operating at level of service C. By the year 2035, sections of the existing road will be
operating at level of service D.
A 2035 No-Build Capacity Analysis indicates 8 of the 10 intersections that were studied
along the project corridor are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS in both the AM
and PM peak hours. Both intersections with an unacceptable LOS along NC 11/US 13
(SR 1408/SR 1311 (Saluda Hall Road) and NC 461) are minor street approaches
operating with two-way stop control.
e. Crash History
A Traffic Safety Analysis was conducted for the time period from April 1, 2007 to
March 31, 2012 for NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and US 13 from 0.5 mile west of
SR 1108 (Bonner Bridge Road/Fire Tower Road) to south of US 158 in Hertford County.
There were 179 reported crashes along this segment during the analysis period. Four
fatal crashes were reported, resulting in a fatal crash rate of 5.31 fatal crashes per
100 Million Vehicle Miles (MVM), which exceeds the statewide average fatal crash rate
of 1.83 fatal crashes per 100 MVM, as well as the critical crash rate (4.77 fatal crashes
per 100 MVM). Current crash rates also exceed the statewide and critical crash rates
across all categories, with the exception of wet crash rates, which exceed the statewide
rate, but not the critical crash rate. A number of these crashes were angle crashes,
typically caused by drivers on a cross street pulling out in front of drivers on the mainline
route. Table 2 shows the comparison of the crash rates for the analyzed sections of
NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 versus the 2008-2010 statewide overall
rural NC crash rates.
- 11 -
Table 2: Accident Rate Comparison
Crash Type Crashes Crashes per
100 MVM
Statewide
Rate1 Critical Rate2
Total 179 237.61 169.96 195.06
Fatal 4 5.31 1.83 4.77
Non-Fatal Injury 66 87.61 59.18 74.14
Night 61 80.97 60.28 75.83
Wet 29 38.49 29.09 39.69
1 – 2008‐2010 statewide crash rate for rural North Carolina (NC) routes
2 – Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
Intersection safety analyses were also done over this same time period for the
intersections of NC 11 and NC 561, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 11 and US 13 and
NC 461, all of which have been noted as having a consistent history of safety problems.
Table 3 compares the total and fatal crash rates at these three intersections over the
analysis period.
Table 3: Intersection Accident Rate Comparison
Intersection Total Crashes Total Crashes
per 100MVE Fatal Crashes Fatal Crashes
per 100 MVE
NC 11 & NC 561 12 72.18 1 6.01
NC 11/SR 1212 & NC 11 28 218.94 2 15.64
US 13 & NC 461 6 43.21 0 0
100MVE = 100 Million Vehicles Entered
f. Airports
There are no airports located near the study area.
g. Other Highway Projects in the Area
There are two other TIP projects located in the vicinity of this proposed project:
R-2507: Widening of US 13 to multi-lanes from US 158 to the Virginia State Line
o Section A: US 158 in Winton to the US 158 Bypass in Tarheel;
currently under construction
o Section B: US 158 Bypass in Tarheel to SR 1202 (Eure Road/Gates
School Road); currently unfunded
o Section C: SR 1202 (Eure Road/Gates School Road) to Virginia State
Line; currently unfunded
R-2583: Widening of US 158 to multi-lanes from Murfreesboro Bypass to
US 13 west of Winton, partly on new location; currently under construction
- 12 -
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans
a. Local Transportation Plans
The Hertford County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is in the early stages of
initial data collection. The study is a joint effort between Hertford County, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) Transportation Planning Branch
(TPB), and the Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization (RPO). The Hertford County
CTP Status Report (July 17, 2012) shows the study completion to be scheduled for
August 2014. Though there is no currently adopted CTP, there is a thoroughfare plan
that was created for Hertford County by NCDOT in May 1985 to provide for the orderly
development of an adequate street system as land development occurred.
b. Statewide Plans
The Strategic Highway Corridors (SHC) provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable
highways throughout North Carolina. The designation as a SHC is based on mobility,
connectivity to activity centers, and connectivity to interstates, interstate relief routes,
major hurricane evacuation routes, and corridors that are part of a national or statewide
highway system. In the revised version of the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan
for Division 1 (dated July 2008), the NC 11/US 13 corridor was designated as a freeway,
and was noted as needing an upgrade.
This section of US 13 is also included in the National Highway System as a Strategic
Highway Network (STRAHNET) route. The STRAHNET is a nearly 63,000-mile
system of roads deemed necessary for emergency mobilization and peacetime movement
of heavy armor, fuel, ammunition, repair parts, food, and other commodities to support
US military operations. Even though the Department of Defense primarily deploys heavy
equipment by rail, highways play a critical role.
c. Land Use Plans
The Hertford County Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan Update
was adopted on January 18, 2011. This plan analyzed existing and emerging conditions
by stating policies and implementation actions in order to guide development in the
CAMA permitting process.
According to the Hertford County CAMA Land Use Plan, much of the growth that the
Town of Ahoskie has experienced in recent years has been single lot and multi-lot
subdivisions for new modular homes. The local planning team also expects increased
development along the Chowan River.
- 13 -
3. Evacuation Route
While the US 158 and US 158/US 13 corridors north of the project study area are
designated as hurricane evacuation routes, the NC 11/US 13 corridor located within the
project study area is not designated as an evacuation route.
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Safety
All of the alternatives currently under consideration for this project would improve the
NC 11/US 13 corridor in the project area to a four-lane, median divided facility.
Intersections along the project would either be removed, grade separated, or upgraded to
superstreet intersections (no left turns from side streets) or interchanges. Widening
NC 11 and US 13 to four-lane divided roadways and changing access patterns at the
existing intersections is expected to improve the safety of the route throughout the study
area.
Over 70% of the crashes occurring on NC 11 between 2007 and 2012 were frontal impact
crashes. Construction of a median divided, either fully or partially controlled access
facility is expected to reduce these types of accidents by either channelizing or
eliminating all left turn and side road through movements. Given that over half of the
frontal impact crashes occurred at the intersection of NC 11/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road)
and NC 11, changing this intersection to a superstreet or an interchange would drastically
reduce the potential for frontal impact crashes. In addition, the proposed new lanes
should help to reduce the number of rear-end type crashes by reducing congestion and
providing another lane for faster moving traffic to move into, in order to avoid stopping
or slowing vehicles.
The proposed median will reduce the likelihood of head-on collisions by separating the
opposing lanes.
It has been noted there are a high percentage of heavy vehicles along the corridor, with
heavy truck percentages ranging from 19 to 22%. The proposed project would provide
an upgraded route for these vehicles by improving both the available capacity and overall
safety of this facility.
A traffic safety analysis was performed by the NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit in
August 2012. This study compared the different alternatives for the project from a safety
perspective. Safety performance functions were used to make comparisons regarding the
safety performance of the potential alternatives. Safety performance functions are
mathematical equations that relate characteristics of a road segment or intersection to the
number of predicted crashes at that site. The safety performance functions used in the
analysis came from the Highway Safety Manual and safety performance functions
developed or calibrated specifically for North Carolina.
- 14 -
Based on the traffic safety analysis, if no improvements are made to the existing facility
(i.e., the No-Build alternative), the number of crashes within the project limits is expected
to be 58% higher in the design year (2035) than in the current year.
2. Traffic Carrying Capacity
Although the primary purpose of this project is to improve the safety of NC 11 and US 13
within the project area, the project will improve the traffic carrying capacity of the
existing facility. With any of the alternatives under consideration, NC 11 and US 13 in
the project area will operate at LOS A in the year 2035.
- 15 -
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
1. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Hertford County is primarily rural in nature, and therefore, has few options available with
regard to alternative modes of transportation. However, there are two publicly subsidized
operations available for those who may not have access to a car for their transportation
needs.
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority (CPTA) is a demand responsive, paratransit
community transportation program funded by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation’s Public Transportation Division that serves the transportation needs of
Bertie, Halifax, Hertford and Northampton Counties. CPTA provides local services,
Monday through Friday, for trips to human service agencies, medical appointments,
community colleges, daycares, dialysis clinics, Headstart programs, individual shopping
trips, and many other destinations, although there are no fixed routes.
The Hertford County Office of Aging also provides some limited public transportation
services for senior citizens living within the county limits. They offer two types of
services: one that is available every other week and may be scheduled by any of the seven
local communities for their citizens, and one that is by appointment only for medical
services.
Given these limited options for alternative transportation, and the fact that the use of
public transportation systems wouldn’t substantially reduce or mitigate the existing safety
issues within the project study area, this alternative was not considered a viable option
and was eliminated from further consideration.
2. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build alternative avoids impacts to the study area. However, this alternative
does not address the purpose and need of the project because it does not improve the
safety of the NC 11/US 13 corridor. According to the Alternative Safety Analysis (see
Section II-C-1), under the No-Build alternative, by year 2035, crashes are predicted to be
58% higher than in the current year. For this reason, this alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
- 16 -
3. Transportation Systems Management
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies seek to maximize the efficiency,
safety, and utility of existing and planned transportation infrastructure. TSM strategies
encompass many activities, such as:
Traffic incident management
Traffic signal coordination
Transit signal priority (TSP) and bus rapid transit (BRT)
Freight management
Work zone management
Special event management
Road weather management
Congestion pricing
Managed lanes
Ridesharing and demand management programs
Electronic toll collection and transit smart cards
Traveler information systems
TSM is also connected to planning and infrastructure considerations such as access
management, street network layout, and intersection design (e.g., use of roundabouts,
right-turn slip lanes and median islands, four-way stops, turning lanes). The emerging
integration of operational improvements with urban design and context-sensitive roadway
design—through such means as boulevard designs, repurposing of excess road capacity
for bicycle lanes, and use of roundabouts—can help improve vehicular operations and
multimodal access, while improving safety, enhancing aesthetics, and reducing
emissions.
In the case of this particular study area, some TSM measures have been implemented in
an effort to help reduce the existing safety issues at some intersections, including the
closing of SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Road) at its intersection with NC 11 and
SR 1212 (Shortcut Road). While this does reduce the number of crashes at the
intersection in question, it does not wholly solve the larger safety issue, and was therefore
eliminated from further consideration as a viable alternative for this project.
- 17 -
4. Improve Existing Facility
It is expected that the upgrade of the existing roadway would meet the project purpose
and need by improving the safety of the NC 11/US 13 corridor between the intersection
of NC 11 and NC 561 and the intersection of US 13 and US 158/NC 45 near Winton in
Hertford County.
Six preliminary alternatives for improving the existing facility were investigated for the
project. A traffic safety analysis was performed by the NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit in
2012 in order to compare the different alternatives for the project from a safety
perspective (see Section II-C-1). Table 4 presents the predicted percent reduction in
crashes within the project limits for each alternative in comparison to the No Build
alternative.
As noted in Table 4 below, the 2012 traffic safety analysis found that all of the
alternatives investigated would likely result in fewer accidents in the design year than the
No Build alternative given that each build alternative would reduce conflict points on the
existing roads. The table presents the predicted percent reduction in crashes within the
project limits for each alternative in comparison to the No Build alternative.
Table 4: Alternative Safety Analysis Results
Alternative Description
Predicted
Crash
Difference
from No Build
1 Freeway, part on new location 52% decrease
2 Freeway on existing location 53% decrease
3 Freeway/expressway on existing location 45% decrease
4 Construct interchanges at NC 11/NC 561 and
NC 11-SR 1212/NC 11 intersections only 24% decrease
5 Superstreet on existing location 24% decrease
6 Superstreet, part on new location 24% decrease
Source: Alternative Comparison for R‐5311, Safety Planning Group, Traffic Safety Division, NCDOT, 8/8/2012
These preliminary alternatives were also evaluated from an environmental standpoint.
Table 5 below presents the potential environmental impacts of the preliminary
alternatives.
- 18 -
Table 5: Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives
Resource Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6
Project Length (miles) 8.1 8.2 8.2 Spot
Improvements 8.2 8.1
Relocations Residential 34 96 87 0 63 1
Business 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 34 96 87 0 63 1
Churches 0 1 1 0 1 0
Cemeteries 0 1 1 0 1 0
Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC Crews Wetland
Impacts (acres)+ 80 70 70 63 22 33
Delineated Wetland
Impacts (acres) 143 87 87 74 28 85
Delineated Stream
Impacts (linear Feet) 585 296 296 0 296 580
Hydric Soils (acres) 245 243 243 93 160 170
Prime Farmland Soils
(acres) 117 131 131 72 66 63
Structures/Districts
Listed on or Eligible for
National Register 0 3 3 0 3 0
+ NC CREWS wetlands were included since delineated wetlands were not available for the portion of the project along existing US 13,
between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 461. Impacts presented are based on preliminary environmental analysis.
Four of the six preliminary alternatives were selected for detailed studies based on the
results of the traffic safety analysis and preliminary environmental analysis. Alternatives
2 and 4 were dropped from consideration. These alternatives are described below.
- 19 -
Alternative 2 – Freeway (Existing Location)
Alternative 2 would involve upgrading existing NC 11, existing SR 1212 (Shortcut
Road), and existing US 13 to a four-lane freeway from south of NC 561 to south of
US 158/NC 45. Interchanges would be constructed at the NC 11/NC 561, NC 11-
SR 1212/NC 11 and US 13/NC 461 intersections. All other crossing roads would be
grade separated or cul-de-saced. Full control of access would be obtained along the
portion of existing US 13 between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 461. Service roads
would likely be required to provide access to adjacent properties in this area, because this
section of US 13 currently has no control of access. Alternative 2 was eliminated from
consideration because it would relocate substantially more homes and would have greater
community impacts than the other alternatives.
Alternative 4 – Interchanges Only
Alternative 4 would involve constructing interchanges only at the NC 11/NC 561 and
NC 11-SR 1212/NC 11 intersections. NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and US 13 would
remain two-lane roads with this alternative. No improvements would be made to the
portion of existing US 13 between SR 1212 and NC 461. Alternative 4 was eliminated
because it would provide much less crash reduction than the other alternatives.
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
Four alternatives were studied in detail for the proposed project (see Table 6 for a
comparison of project related impacts). Detailed environmental surveys and preliminary
designs were prepared for Alternatives 1, 3, 5 and 6. Alternatives 3 and 5 would both use
property from two historic properties and would relocate substantially more homes and
businesses than either Alternative 1 or Alternative 6. However, Alternatives 3 and 5 both
have fewer wetland impacts than Alternatives 1 and 6. Historic properties are protected
by Section 4(f) of the USDOT of 1966. Section 4(f) of the United States Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 states FHWA can only select alternatives which use land
from historic sites if there is no feasible and prudent alternative. Alternatives 1 and 6 are
both feasible and prudent alternatives. At this stage of the project, all four alternatives
are still under consideration; however, NCDOT prefers to select either Alternative 1 or 6
as the LEDPA, given that they have fewer community impacts and will not require a
Section 4(f) evaluation.
- 20 -
Table 6: Comparison of Detailed Study Alternatives
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Project Length (miles) 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.9
Relocations Residential 1 54 54 1
Business 0 2 2 0
Total 2 50 52 1
Minority/Low Income
Populations -
Disproportionate Impacts*
No Yes Yes No
Historic Properties
(adverse effect) 0 1 1 0
Community Facilities
Impacted** 0 2+ 2+ 0
Section 4(f) Impacts 0 2 2 0
Prime Farmland (acres) 58.7 68.9 62.2 51.5
Noise Impacts 2 26 26 1
Wetlands (acres) 118.7 77.0 48.7 83.5
Streams (linear feet) 1,141 1,101 1,101 1,171
Floodplain (acres) 0 0 0 0
Federally Protected Species 0 0 0 0
* The impacts to the affected communities are considered to be disproportionately high and adverse since there is not
enough available housing in this area to accommodate those relocated by these alternatives.
** Impacts to schools, parks, churches, fire stations, cemeteries, etc.
+ Community facilities impacted include the Pleasant Plains Church & cemetery
The following alternatives were selected for detailed study:
Alternative 1 – Freeway (Part New Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four-lane freeway from south of NC 561 to US 13. A four-lane roadway on new
location would be constructed between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) at US 13 and existing
US 13 at its northern intersection with NC 461. Full control of access would exist for this
- 21 -
new roadway. Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four-lane freeway between the
northern intersection with NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45 and interchanges would be
constructed at the intersections of NC 11 with NC 561 and NC 11/SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) with NC 11. All other crossing roads would be grade separated or have
their access removed and turned into cul-de-sacs. Additional right of way would be
required to construct the new road segment east of existing US 13, between
US 13/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and the northern US 13/NC 461 intersection.
Alternative 3 – Freeway/Expressway (Existing Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four-lane freeway from south of NC 561 to US 13. The portion of US 13 from SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) to NC 461 would be widened to four lanes with partial control of access
(one driveway per parcel). Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four-lane freeway
between the northern intersection with NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45. Interchanges
would be constructed at NC 11 and NC 561, NC 11/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 11
and the northern intersection of US 13 and NC 461.
Alternative 5 – Superstreet (Existing Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of NC 11, existing SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and
existing US 13 to a four-lane roadway from south of NC 561 to south of US 158/NC 45.
Partial control of access would be obtained along existing US 13 between SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) and the northern intersection with NC 461 since this section of US 13
currently has no control of access. Although an interchange would be constructed at the
northern intersection of US 13 and NC 461, a superstreet design will be utilized at the
remaining intersections, with the exception of NC 11 and NC 561, which will be an offset
or “dog leg” superstreet design.
Alternative 6 – Superstreet (Part New Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four-lane roadway from south of NC 561 to US 13. A four-lane roadway on new
location would be constructed between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) at US 13 and the
northern intersection of US 13 at NC 461, which will become a grade separation. Full
control of access would be obtained for the new location portion of the project north of
SR 1408 (Saluda Hall Road), meaning that connections to the facility are only provided
via ramps at interchanges. Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four-lane roadway
between NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45. No interchanges would be constructed with
this alternative, but a superstreet design will be utilized at the remaining intersections,
with the exception of NC 11 and NC 561, which will be an offset or “dog leg” superstreet
design.
- 22 -
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Although there are four proposed alternatives under consideration, they are basically
variations on two facility types, a freeway/expressway option (Alternatives 1 and 3) and a
superstreet option (Alternatives 5 and 6). As such, description of proposed improvements
will be described in terms of these two options, with additional detail added where each
alternative varies.
A. Roadway Typical Section and Alignment
All proposed alternatives will be designed as four-lane, median divided sections with
twelve foot lanes (see Figure 6). For the freeway/expressway alternatives, there will be
10-foot outside shoulders (4-foot paved), 6-foot inside shoulders (2-foot paved), and a
46-foot grass median. For the superstreet alternatives, there will be 8-foot outside
shoulders (4-foot paved), 6-foot inside shoulders (2-foot paved), and a 46-foot grass
median. In cases where guardrail will be necessary, the outside shoulder width will be
15 feet for the freeway/expressway alternatives and 13 feet for the superstreet
alternatives.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
Existing right of way along NC 11 from NC 561 to SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), SR 1212
from NC 11 to US 13 and US 13 from NC 461 to the northern project terminus is
adequate for widening the routes. Between the intersection with SR 1212 (Shortcut
Road) and the northern intersection with NC 461, the existing section of US 13 will
require a proposed right of way width of 150 feet, although more will be required at
intersections/interchanges. For the new location sections on Alternatives 1 and 6, a
minimum of 300 feet of right of way will be required. Table 7 below presents proposed
right of way widths and access control for the detailed study alternatives.
Table 7: Proposed Right of Way Widths and Access Control
Section Alternatives
Existing
Right of
Way Width
Proposed
Right of
Way Width
Existing
Access
Control
Proposed
Access
Control
NC 11 and SR 1212
from NC 561 to
US 13
1, 3 400 feet 400 feet Limited Full
5, 6 400 feet 400 feet Limited Limited*
US 13 from SR 1212
to northern NC 461
Intersection
1, 6 N/A (new
location) 300 feet N/A (New
Location) Full*
3, 5 60 feet 150 feet None Partial
US 13 from northern
NC 461 intersection
to US 158/NC 45
1, 3, 5, 6 320 feet 320 feet Limited Full
* Limited control of access for Alt. 6 extends to SR 1408; Full control of access would be obtained for the new location portion
of Alt. 6 north of SR 1408 (Saluda Hall Road)
- 23 -
C. Speed Limit
It is anticipated NC 11 and US 13 will be signed at 55 mph within the project limits. The
actual speed limit(s) for the project will be determined during final design.
D. Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed project is 70 mph.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
Design exceptions are not anticipated for this project.
F. Intersections/Interchanges
For the proposed alternatives, there will be changes to several existing intersections,
depending on the proposed facility type (freeway/expressway/superstreet) and whether
the project is located on existing or new location. Table 8 below details proposed
changes to the existing intersections under each alternative.
Table 8: Proposed Intersections/Interchanges
Intersection Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
NC 11 & SR 1108 Terminate Terminate
RI/RO – east leg
only; terminate
west leg
RI/RO – east leg
only; terminate
west leg
NC 11 & NC 561 Interchange Interchange Superstreet Superstreet
NC 11 & SR 1130 Grade Separation Grade Separation Superstreet Superstreet
NC 11 & SR 1213 Interchange Interchange Superstreet Superstreet
US 13 & SR 1212 Terminate & realign
into SR 1408
Terminate & realign
into SR 1408
Terminate & realign
into SR 1408 Realign; superstreet
US 13 & SR 1408 Terminate (NL) Superstreet Superstreet Superstreet (NL)
US 13 &
SR 1213/SR 1411 Realign Realign Realign Realign
US 13 & SR 1409 Terminate (NL) Superstreet Superstreet Terminate (NL)
US 13 & SR 1132 N/A Terminate Terminate N/A
US 13 &
NC 461 (southern) N/A Realign; superstreet Realign; superstreet N/A
US 13/NC 461 &
NC 461 (northern) Grade Separation Interchange Interchange Grade Separation
US 13 &
US 158/NC 45 Part of TIP R-2507A Part of TIP R-2507A Part of TIP R-2507A Part of TIP R-2507A
RI/RO = Right in, right out; NL = New location
- 24 -
G. Service Roads
Under Alternatives 3 and 5, the existing southern intersection of US 13 and NC 461 will
be terminated (see Figures 3A-3G and 4A-4G). Existing NC 461 will be realigned to
intersect with US 13 just north of SR 1132 (Pleasant Plains Road) and south of the
existing US 13/NC 461 intersection, maintaining access to homes along existing NC 461
between SR 1132 (Pleasant Plains Road) and US 13. Also under Alternatives 3 and 5,
direct access to homes along the portion of NC 461 north of the northern NC 461
intersection with US 13 will be eliminated in order to accommodate the new interchange
and control of access limits. In order to retain access for these homeowners, it is
proposed to realign and extend SR 1464 (Adron B. Jones Road) to SR 1407 (Blue Foot
Road).
H. Railroad Crossings
There will not be any railroad crossings along the proposed NC 11/US 13 corridor.
I. Structures
Table 9 lists the major structures by alternative and their proposed improvements.
Figures 2A/2B illustrate the location of these stream crossings.
Table 9: Proposed Structures
Stream Existing Structure Proposed Hydraulic Structure Alternative(s)
UT to Horse
Swamp (SZ) 3 @ 48-inch RCP Extend 3 @ 48-inch RCP 1, 3, 5, 6
Mill Branch
(existing location) 2 @ 48-inch RCP
4 @ 48-inch RCP
(Retain & extend existing two,
supplement with 2 additional)
3 & 5
Mill Branch
(new location) N/A 1 @ 84-inch RCP* 1 & 6
RCP = Reinforced Concrete Pipe
*This pipe will be buried 1‐foot to create a hydraulic opening of 72‐inches
J. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
Since this facility will be mainly controlled access, there will not be any special bicycle
or pedestrian accommodations.
K. Utilities
There are several utilities located in the project study area, including copper
communication cables, water and sewer lines, as well as gas and power infrastructure.
NCDOT will coordinate with the appropriate utility companies to determine if the
- 25 -
proposed project will affect any of the existing utilities and if any relocations will be
required.
L. Landscaping
No special landscaping is proposed as a part of the project. Disturbed areas along the
project will be reseeded with grass.
M. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers meet both feasibility and reasonableness requirements outlined in the
2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy for any of the four proposed design
alternatives. Therefore, no traffic noise abatement measures are recommended.
- 26 -
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Six terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/disturbed, non-
riverine swamp forest (sweetgum subtype), non-riverine wet hardwood forest (oak flat
subtype), brownwater bottomland hardwood forest (high subtype), pine forest, and mesic
mixed hardwood forest (coastal plain subtype). A brief description of each community
type follows.
(1) Maintained/Disturbed
Maintained/disturbed areas are scattered throughout the study area in places where the
vegetation is periodically mowed, such as roadside shoulders, residential lawns,
agricultural fields, and overhead utility corridors. The vegetation in this community is
comprised of low growing grasses and herbs, including fescue, clover, wild onion,
broomsedge, blackberry, and Japanese honeysuckle.
(2) Non-Riverine Swamp Forest (Sweetgum Subtype)
The non-riverine swamp forest community occurs on large flatwoods throughout the
study area. Areas of this community type in the study area show signs of recent logging
activities. Large tracts of land appear to have been clear cut within the last five years.
Sweetgum, red maple, and tulip poplar dominate the over story canopy, while red maple,
sweetgum, giant cane, Chinese privet, and multiflora rose occur in the understory. Vine
species were limited to greenbriar, poison ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle.
(3) Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak Flat Subtype)
The non-riverine wet hardwood forest is the most common forested community found in
the project study area. This community type is found on broad flats with little
topographic relief and is often segmented by agricultural fields. Large tracts within this
community have been recently logged, and dominant canopy species in this community
include swamp chestnut oak, laurel oak, loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar,
American holly, and water oak. The understory is dominated by American holly, high-
bush blueberry, red maple, and sweetgum. Vine species observed were limited to
greenbriar, poison ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle.
(4) Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood Forest (High Subtype)
The brownwater bottomland hardwood forest is found at the southwestern end of the
project study area along the banks of Ahoskie Creek. This area was once the active
- 27 -
floodplain of Ahoskie Creek, but historic channelization and human impacts no longer
allow this system to flood, resulting in a drier forest community. Hardwood species such
as swamp chestnut oak, sweetgum, musclewood, and green ash dominate the canopy
layer. The understory is dominated by American holly and highbush blueberry.
Herbaceous and vine species observed were limited to Japanese grass, greenbriar, and
Japanese honeysuckle.
(5) Pine Forest
Loblolly pine stands are present in the study area in tracts managed for silvicultural
operations. Canopy species observed included loblolly pine and sweetgum. The
understory consisted of sweetgum, red maple, and red cedar. Herbaceous and vine
species observed were limited to blackberry, greenbriar, and Japanese honeysuckle.
(6) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plan Subtype)
Mesic mixed hardwood forest communities are located on slight topographic terraces
throughout the project study area. Dominant species in this community include
American beech, water oak, sweetgum, tulip poplar, red oak, white oak, and red maple in
the overstory. Species in the understory consist of American holly, red cedar, American
beech, red maple, red oak, and Chinese privet. Herbaceous and vine species observed
were limited to Christmas fern and greenbriar.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. Table 10 displays the total
coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area, while Table 11 shows impacts to
each terrestrial community by alternative.
Table 10: Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area
Community Impacts (acres)
Maintained/Disturbed 832.4
Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 725.4
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest 364.8
Pine Forest 205.1
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 109.7
Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood Forest 12.0
Total:2,249.4
- 28 -
Table 11: Terrestrial Community Impacts by Alternative
Community Alt. 1
(acres)
Alt. 3
(acres)
Alt. 5
(acres)
Alt. 6
(acres)
Maintained/Disturbed 154.54 228.86 209.46 130.28
Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 91.79 74.81 49.50 57.02
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest 40.24 9.17 9.17 40.24
Pine Forest 19.13 22.03 16.71 13.83
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 12.78 24.91 24.20 12.24
Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.22
Total:318.70 359.98 309.24 253.83
c. Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed
are indicated with *). Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and
stream corridors found within the study area include species such as eastern chipmunk,
common mouse, gray squirrel*, eastern cottontail*, raccoon, Virginia opossum, and
white-tailed deer*. Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include the
red-shouldered hawk, American crow*, eastern meadowlark, yellow-bellied sapsucker,
pileated woodpecker*, Carolina chickadee, and tufted titmouse. Birds that may use the
open habitat or water bodies within the study area include American kestrel, belted
kingfisher, eastern bluebird, great blue heron, and turkey vulture. Reptile and amphibian
species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include the water
moccasin, eastern ribbon snake, copperhead, green snake*, corn snake, black rat snake,
black racer, eastern box turtle*, snapping turtle*, American toad*, spring peeper, eastern
fence lizard, and five-lined skink.
d. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities in the study area consist of both perennial and intermittent coastal
streams. The perennial streams in the study area could support bluegill, bluehead chub,
and redbreast sunfish. Intermittent streams in the study area are relatively small in size
and would support aquatic communities of spring peeper, crayfish, and various benthic
macroinvertebrates such as amphipods and isopods.
e. Invasive Species
Four species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found
to occur in the study area. The species identified were Chinese privet (Threat), Japanese
grass (Threat), multiflora rose (Threat), and Japanese honeysuckle (Moderate Threat).
NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate.
- 29 -
2. Waters of the United States
a. Streams, Rivers and Impoundments
Water resources in the study area are part of the Chowan River basin [US Geological
Survey Hydrologic Units 03010203 and 03010204]. Nine jurisdictional streams were
identified in the study area (Table 12). The locations of these streams are shown on
Figures 2A/2B. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of these
streams are detailed in Table 13 below. All jurisdictional streams in the study area have
been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 12: Water Resources in the Study Area
Stream
Name Map ID Classification NCDWQ
Index #
Best Usage
Classification
Flat Swamp Flat
Swamp Intermittent 25-14-1-8-2 C;NSW
Ahoskie
Creek
Ahoskie
Creek Perennial 25-14-1 C;NSW
UT to Mill
Branch SC Intermittent 25-4-8-11 C;NSW
UT to Flat
Swamp SX Intermittent 25-14-1-8-2 C;NSW
UT to Horse
Swamp SY Perennial 25-14-1-8-1 C;NSW
UT to Horse
Swamp SZ Perennial 25-14-1-8-1 C;NSW
UT to Flat
Swamp SBB Intermittent 25-14-1-8-2 C;NSW
UT to Flat
Swamp SCC Intermittent 25-14-1-8-2 C;NSW
Mill Branch Mill
Branch Perennial 25-4-8-11 C;NSW
NCDWQ Classifications: C – Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation, Fresh Water; NSW ‐ Nutrient Sensitive Waters
- 30 -
Table 13: Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Study Area
Stream/Map
ID
Bank
Height
(ft.)
Bankfull
Width
(ft.)
Water
Depth
(in)
Channel
SubstrateVelocity Clarity
Flat Swamp 5 15 6 Silt Moderate Slightly
Turbid
Ahoskie Creek 10 12 24 Silt, Sand Fast Turbid
SC 5 6 6 Silt, Sand Slow Clear
SX 3 8 12 Silt Slow Clear
SY 6 6 12 Silt, Sand Moderate Clear
SZ 1 8 20 Silt Slow Slightly
Turbid
SBB 4 10 12 Silt Slow Clear
SCC 3 6 30 Silt Slow Clear
Mill Branch 5 6 8 Silt, Sand Moderate Clear
There are no designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) present
in the study area. There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply
watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within one mile downstream of the study area. No streams
within the project study area, or within one mile downstream of the study area, are
identified on the North Carolina 2012 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters.
No benthic sampling stations or fish monitoring data is available for any streams in the
study area or within one mile of the study area.
b. Wetlands
Forty-nine jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project study area. All
wetlands in the study area are within the Chowan River basin (USGS Hydrologic Units
03010203 and 03010204). Wetland classification and quality rating data are presented in
Table 14. The locations of these wetlands are shown on Figures 2A/2B.
- 31 -
Table 14: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area
Map ID
NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ Wetland
Rating HUC Code Area (acres)
WA Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 12 03010203 54.3
WB Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 17.4
WD Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 7.1
WF Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 5.1
WG Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 6.1
WH Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 271.0
WJ Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 32.2
WL Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 12 03010204 12.6
WM Bottomland
Hardwood Forest Riparian 12 03010203 17.7
WN Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 12 03010203 7.1
WO Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 24.4
WP Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 24.6
WR Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 23.9
WS Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 20.7
WT Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 13.8
WU Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203
03010204 46.2
WV Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 7.3
WX Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 94.1
WY Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203
03010204 60.2
WZ Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 43.9
WAA Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 4.2
WAB Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 0.8
WAC Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 12 03010203 0.2
WAD Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 2.7
WAE Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 12 03010204 9.0
WAF1 Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 2.9
WAF2 Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 7.7
WAF3 Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 0.02
WAF4 Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 0.3
WAF5 Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 0.2
WAG Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 1.2
WAH Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 6.4
WAI Bottomland
Hardwood Forest Riparian 16 03010204 3.3
WBB Bottomland
Hardwood Forest Riparian 12 03010203 1.0
- 32 -
Map ID
NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ Wetland
Rating HUC Code Area (acres)
WBC Bottomland
Hardwood Forest Riparian 20 03010203 0.9
WHA Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 97.6
WNA Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 0.3
WRA Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 7.5
WRB Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 4.1
WSA Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 6.2
WSS Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 2.9
WTT Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 9.2
WUU Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 8.0
WVV Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 3.4
WWA Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 10.1
WWW Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 17.6
WXX Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010204 37.1
WYY Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 31.6
WZZ Hardwood Flat Non-Riparian 16 03010203 19.7
Total: 1,085.8
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will likely impact streams by pipe installation and/or
the lengthening of existing pipes. Construction activities are likely to alter and/or
interrupt stream flows and water levels at each aquatic site.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion;
Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal;
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction;
Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation;
Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas;
Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction,
toxic spills, and increased vehicular use.
- 33 -
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
NCDOT’s Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during construction of the project.
Tables 15 and 16 present the estimated impacts to streams and wetlands. Impacts lie
within an area delineated 25 feet outside of the slope stakes.
Table 15: Estimated Stream Impacts
Map ID Class Alternative 1
(linear feet)
Alternative 3
(linear feet)
Alternative 5
(linear feet)
Alternative 6
(linear feet)
SZ P 155 165 165 161
SY P 273 273 273 273
SX I 135 130 130 151
SC I 81 79 79 81
Mill Branch P 254 327 327 254
Flat Swamp I 252 200 200 252
Total: 1,150 1,174 1,174 1,172
Classification: I – Intermittent; P – Perennial
- 34 -
Table 16: Estimated Wetland Impacts
Map ID
NC
W
A
M
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Class DWQ
Rating
Alternative 1
(acres)
Alternative 3
(acres)
Alternative 5
(acres)
Alternative 6
(acres)
WA HWF NR 12 7.53 0 0 7.61
WAD HWF NR 16 4.34 0 0 0
WAE HWF NR 12 0 2.72 2.72 0
WAF1 HWF NR 16 0 0.29 0.29 0
WB HWF NR 16 2.79 0.01 0.01 2.59
WD HWF NR 16 1.23 0.42 0.42 0
WG HWF NR 16 0 0.87 0.87 0
WH HWF NR 16 31.91 11.63 11.63 31.95
WHA HWF NR 16 13.68 0.15 0.15 13.68
WJ HWF NR 16 0 4.70 4.70 0
WL HWF NR 12 0 0.16 0.16 0
WN HWF NR 12 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.35
WO HWF NR 16 2.98 2.99 1.44 1.44
WP HWF NR 16 4.96 5.00 0.26 0.25
WR HWF NR 16 2.33 2.32 0.53 0.55
WS HWF NR 16 0.68 0.67 0.73 0.74
WSA HWF NR 16 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09
WT HWF NR 16 1.63 1.64 0.99 0.99
WU HWF NR 16 7.11 7.20 1.89 1.91
WV HWF NR 16 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28
WWA HWF NR 16 1.79 1.83 1.83 1.84
WWW HWF NR 16 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.27
WX HWF NR 16 7.12 7.06 1.50 1.68
- 35 -
Map ID
NC
W
A
M
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Class DWQ
Rating
Alternative 1
(acres)
Alternative 3
(acres)
Alternative 5
(acres)
Alternative 6
(acres)
WXX HWF NR 16 4.35 4.63 4.63 4.54
WY HWF NR 16 10.10 10.09 5.71 5.68
WYY HWF NR 16 0 0.06 0.06 0
WZ HWF NR 16 8.28 8.35 4.01 4.07
WZZ HWF NR 16 4.94 2.93 2.84 2.99
NC 461
Wetland HWF NR 16 0 0.35 0.35 0
TOTAL: 118.73 77.02 48.66 83.50
NCWAM Classifications: HWF – Hardwood Flat
Classification: NR – Non‐Riparian
d. Anticipated Permit Requirements
For this project, a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Permit in
accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be required; however, the
USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the NCDWQ will also be needed.
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
The proposed project primarily involves improving an existing road, which crosses
streams. Wetlands are adjacent to the existing road, as well. Total avoidance of streams
and wetlands by the project is not feasible.
NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable when choosing a preferred alternative and during project
design. At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or
design of the preferred alternative. Once a final decision has been rendered on the
location of the preferred alternative, NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and
wetland mitigation opportunities. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be
provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
- 36 -
3. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally Protected Species
As of September 22, 2010, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists three
federally protected species for Hertford County (Table 17).
Table 17: Federally Protected Species for Hertford County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Present
Federal
Status Biological Conclusion
Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon No E No Effect
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker No E No Effect
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee No E No Effect
E = Endangered; a taxon “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”
Suitable habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon does not exist in the study area (confirmed via
telephone correspondence with Fritz Rohde, NMFS, May 31, 2013). No estuarine or
large river systems are present within the project study area.
Surveys for red-cockaded woodpecker were conducted by biologists throughout the
project study area in October and November 2012. Pedestrian surveys of forested areas
were also completed within the project study area. No suitable foraging or nesting
habitat was observed. Forested stands within the study area that have greater than 50%
composition of pines are less than 30 years old due to active timber management
practices, and are not of sufficient age to provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for
red-cockaded woodpeckers. No cavity trees or individuals were observed.
Suitable habitat for the West Indian manatee does not exist within the study area. Streams
within the study area are characterized as headwater systems and would not meet the size,
depth, or flow requirements for this species.
A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records, updated April
2013, indicates no known occurrence of any of these species within one mile of the study
area. Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences it has been determined this
project will not affect any federally protected species.
b. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within one mile of open water.
- 37 -
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a
1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on
April 24, 2013 using 2010 color aerials. The Chowan River is located approximately 0.7
mile northeast of the project study area. Surveys were conducted throughout areas of
suitable habitat in October and November 2012. No bald eagles or suitable nesting sites
were observed. Suitable nesting trees were observed to be sparse within the study area
and within 660 feet of the study area. A review of the NCNHP database, updated April
2013, revealed no known occurrences of this species within one mile of the project study
area. Due to the results of the survey and lack of known occurrences, it has been
determined that this project will not affect this species.
4. Coastal Zone Issues
a. Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
One Area of Environmental Concern (AEC), Ahoskie Creek, was identified in the study
area. Although Ahoskie Creek is a designated Public Trust Water, the project as
currently proposed does not impact or cross this water body; therefore, a CAMA permit
will not be required.
b. Essential Fish Habitat
No designated Essential Fish Habitat occurs in the study area.
5. Soils
The Hertford County Soil Survey identifies 11 soil series within the project study area
(Table 18). This information is based on soil mapping for Hertford County.
Table 18: Soils in the Study Area
Soil Series Map Unit Drainage Class Hydric
Bibb soils BB Poorly Drained Hydric
Caroline fine sandy loam (0-2% slopes) CaA Well Drained Nonhydric
Caroline fine sandy loam (2-6% slopes) CaB Well Drained Nonhydric
Craven fine sandy loam (0-1% slopes) CrA Moderately Well Drained Nonhydric
Goldsboro fine sandy loam (0-2% slopes)GoA Moderately Well Drained Hydric*
Leaf loam LF Poorly Drained Hydric
Lenoir loam Ln Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric*
Norfolk loamy fine sand (0-2% slopes) NoA Well Drained Nonhydric
Norfolk loamy fine sand (2-6% slopes) NoB Well Drained Hydric*
Roanoke loam Ro Poorly Drained Hydric*
Udorthents, sandy Ud Variable Nonhydric
* ‐ Soils which are primarily nonhydric, but which may contain hydric inclusions
- 38 -
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 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 in the National
Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity
to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
As noted in the July 1, 2011 letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO),
three structures of historic or architectural importance have been identified within the
project study area. These include the Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School, the Newsome-
Hall House, and the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church, all of which have been determined
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Given the function and
proximity of the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church and Rosenwald School, they have been
considered as one joint historic resource. A description of each resource is provided
below.
The Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School, located on the west side of US 13, just south of
the intersection with SR 1132 (Pleasant Plain Road), was built in the 1920s and is a well-
preserved, one story, symmetrical frame building that was originally constructed as a
school for African-American children. The school was built with assistance from the
Rosenwald Fund, which was named for Chicago philanthropist Julius Rosenwald,
president of Sears, Roebuck, and Company. The Rosenwald Fund offered matching
grants to rural communities interested in building black schools, which often became the
centers of small, rural, black settlements in early 20th century North Carolina. Pleasant
Plains School, a three-teacher facility, was one of the first of ten Rosenwald schools built
in Hertford County, and is a well-preserved example. Since the 1960s, after it ceased
functioning as a school, the building has been used by its owner, Pleasant Plains Baptist
Church, as a recreation building and community center.
Pleasant Plains Baptist Church, organized in 1851 and located across US 13 from the
Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School, is a 1949 Gothic Revival, 2-story brick church.
The Newsome-Hall House is a two-story farmhouse with Queen Anne style-influence
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of US 13 and SR 1131 (Saluda Hall
Road). It was originally the home of W.D. Newsome, a free black man that lived from
1822-1916, and served Hertford County as both a county commissioner (1868-1870) and
a state legislator in the House of Representatives (1870-1872).
On June 11, 2013, a meeting was held with the State Historic Preservation Office to seek
concurrence on the effects that the various alternatives would have on these resources.
Table 19 presents the effects of each alternative on these resources.
- 39 -
Table 19: Historic Resource Effects
Alternative Historic Resource Project Effect
1 Newsome-Hall House No effect
1 Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
No effect
3 Newsome-Hall House No adverse effect
3 Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
Adverse effect
5 Newsome-Hall House No adverse effect
5 Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
Adverse effect
6 Newsome-Hall House No adverse effect
6 Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
No effect
Under Alternative 1, there will not be any impacts to either of the historic resources, and
under Alternatives 3, 5, and 6, there will be no adverse effect to the Newsome-Hall
House since the access may be affected, but the character of the property will not suffer.
However, under Alternatives 3 and 5, the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church and Rosenwald
School will both have adverse impacts due to a loss of property and a change in access.
The church will lose nearly 40 feet off the front of their lot, which will reduce the
available parking and impact the adjacent cemetery, which could necessitate the
relocation of graves. The church building itself will not be directly affected. The
Rosenwald School will also lose approximately 100 feet of property as a result of the
additional right of way that will be acquired, although the structure itself will not be
affected.
2. Archaeological Resources
In 1977, during the initial planning phases for the NC 11 Ahoskie Bypass project, known
archaeological sites were surveyed and recorded within the project study area. None of
these identified sites were found to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places; regardless, as a result of the construction of that project, these sites have
since been destroyed.
There may be areas within the current study area that have a high potential for the
presence of eligible archaeological resources, particularly those dating to the historic
period. As the designs are refined and a preferred alternative chosen, NCDOT will
coordinate with the SHPO so they may assess the potential effects of the project and the
need for an archaeological investigation.
- 40 -
C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, and all
historic sites of national, state, and local significance may be used for federal projects
only if: a) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and b) the
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such
use.
Three resources protected by Section 4(f) exist within the project study area: the
Newsome-Hall House, the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church, and the Pleasant Plains
Rosenwald School. All of these are historic sites that are either listed on or eligible to be
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Alternatives 1 and 6 will not impact
any of these resources. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have an adverse effect on the Pleasant
Plains church and school, with an impact of 0.3 acre on this property, which is considered
a Section 4(f) resource. The Newsome-Hall House is not expected to be adversely
affected by any alternative. If Alternatives 3 and 5 are not dropped from consideration
after the USACE’s Public Notice period and the subsequent public hearing, a Section 4(f)
evaluation will be prepared.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 stipulates that
property acquired or developed with the assistance of the Fund may not be converted to a
use other than public recreation unless suitable replacement property is provided. No
properties purchased or improved with funds from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund are located along the project.
D. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies, their
representatives, or those agencies that receive federal funding to consider the impact of
land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land
which has been previously developed or planned for development by the local governing
body or land within a defined urban area based on US Census mapping is exempt from
the requirements of the Act.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as
designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Land which is
planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation
afforded other rural, agricultural areas. This policy does not apply to lands which are
already in or committed to development projects such as water impoundment,
transportation, and urban development.
There are several active farm operations in the study area (see Table 20 for the prime
farmland impacts for each alternative). A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (NRCS
- 41 -
CPA-106) has been completed for this project, and since all alternatives surpassed the 60
point threshold for Part VI, the Farmland Impact Conversion Rating Form was submitted
to NRCS for review. Upon completion of their review (Parts IV and V of the NRCS
CPA-106 form), it was determined all alternatives received final point totals of less than
160 points. Therefore, all alternatives fall below the NRCS minimum criteria rating and
will not be evaluated further for farmland impacts. These alternatives will not have a
significant impact to farmland.
Table 20: Prime Farmland Impacts
Alternative Prime Farmland Impacts
(acres)
1 58.7
3 68.9
5 62.2
6 51.5
E. Social Effects
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
Much of the land immediately adjacent to NC 11 and US 13 is undeveloped, although
there are two small residential communities within the project study area: the California
community, located near the intersection of NC 461 and US 13, and the Pleasant Plains
community, which is generally located along existing US 13 in the vicinity of Pleasant
Plains Baptist Church. Both of these communities have been established for several
decades, and are mostly comprised of African-American, Native American, and multi-
racial residents that are typically middle aged or senior citizens, many of whom are
related.
2. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
Each of the four alternatives under consideration will impact homes and businesses.
Table 21 below presents the anticipated effects of the project on homes and businesses.
Table 21: Anticipated Relocations
Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Residential Relocatees 1 (1) 54 (54) 54 (54) 1 (1)
Business Relocatees 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1)
Total Relocations 1 (1) 54 (54) 54 (54) 1 (1)
Parentheses () indicates minority owned or occupied homes or businesses.
- 42 -
3. Minority/Low-Income Populations
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects individuals from discrimination on the
grounds of race, age, color, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order
12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations” provides that each federal agency shall make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
and low-income populations.
The racial character of the project study area in the 2010 census was very similar to that
of Hertford County. African-Americans were the majority of residents in the
demographic study area (DSA), making up 62 percent of the population, slightly higher
than the county’s total of 60.5 percent. Whites were the second largest population group,
making up 33.8 percent in the DSA and 35.6 percent in the county. People who
identified themselves as Hispanic in ethnicity represent 3.5 percent of the demographic
study area population and 2.6 percent of the county population, as reflected by the 2010
census.
In addition to the potential presence of minority communities, there is also a high
likelihood that low-income communities may be impacted as part of this project.
According to the American Community Survey, over 20% of the population of the census
block group encompassing both the California and Pleasant Plains communities, which
constitute the vast majority of residential development in the project study area, is
considered “very poor”, while the average for Hertford County is only 9.4%.
Communities are generally considered as qualifying for Environmental Justice
consideration when the population of the area in question qualifying as “below the
poverty level” is over 5 percentage points higher than the county average. Given that
“very poor” is a more extreme level of poverty than simply being considered “below the
poverty level”, it is likely that consideration will need to be accorded for low-income
Environmental Justice populations as well.
While minority and low income populations are present in the study area, no notably
adverse community impacts are anticipated with Alternatives 1 and 6; thus, impacts to
minority and low income populations do not appear to be disproportionately high and
adverse for these alternatives. Benefits and burdens resulting from the construction of
either of these alternatives are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the
community.
Notably adverse community impacts to low income and minority populations are
anticipated with Alternatives 3 and 5 due to the high number of relocations and the
subsequent loss of community cohesion. Ultimately, benefits and burdens resulting from
the project are not anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community.
Despite the fact the project’s proposed safety improvements will benefit all users of the
facility, the impacts to the affected communities are considered to be disproportionately
- 43 -
high and adverse since there is not enough available housing in this area to easily absorb
the proposed relocatees, given the low housing vacancy rate within the area.
Public involvement and outreach activities must ensure full and fair participation of all
potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. A
Citizens Informational Workshop was held for the project on March 27, 2012. This
workshop was advertised in local media outlets, and newsletters announcing the
workshop were mailed to area property owners.
Through the public involvement efforts, citizens have been kept informed of the proposed
project. Alternatives have been developed and measures implemented to minimize
impacts to the low-income and minority populations identified. This project is being
implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
F. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Land along NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 in the study area is located
within Hertford County’s planning jurisdiction. Land use along the corridor is primarily
farmland and forests; however, there is a more heavily concentrated residential area near
the southern NC 461 and US 13 intersection. Pleasant Plains Church and cemetery is
also located within this residential area.
Zoning along NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and US 13 within the study area consists
primarily of residential agriculture district (RA-20) zoning. Several light industrial (IL)
and commercial highway district (CH) zoned land uses are scattered along the corridor.
2. Future Land Use
According to the Hertford County CAMA Land Use Plan Update (January 2011), a
majority of Hertford County’s land use is agriculture and forestry operations. The county
intends for development to occur in areas that can access current and planned
infrastructure. The Future Land Use Map shows a majority of the NC 11/US 13 corridor
in the study area slated for rural development; the area of the corridor just north of the
northern NC 461 intersection with US 13 and southeast of the Town of Winton is marked
as developed.
Properties within the rural development area generally have access to limited services
such as county water, police, and fire protection. As such, land uses cannot support a
high density of uses without extension of full municipal services. Rural development
areas are allowed a residential density of 2 units per acre, with an average of 30% lot
coverage.
- 44 -
Development in the county is primarily restricted by the inability of county soils to
support small lot septic tank placement. The county handles each septic tank permit on a
case-by-case basis to ensure that new development does not overwhelm the soils’ ability
to process wastewater.
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
This project is consistent with local land use plans.
G. Economic Effects
No direct economic impacts are expected to result from this project.
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
As discussed in Section II.B.1.g, two funded highway projects are either planned or
currently under construction for the study area. The expected environmental effects of
these other projects are presented in Table 22.
Table 22: Environmental Effects of Adjacent Projects
TIP # R-2507A TIP # R-2583
Detailed Environmental Surveys? Yes Yes
Homes Relocated 7 19
Businesses Relocated 5 2
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 30.6 4
Streams Affected (Linear Feet) 598 1,890
Historic Properties Affected 2* 3**
Forested Land Affected (Acres) 170.2 26
Project Length (Miles) 7.1 8.1
* Two properties eligible for the National Register will be adversely affected
** There are three properties in the project study area, but all three have “no effect” calls
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Hertford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
However, there are no flood zones in the study area.
J. Traffic Noise Analysis
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Table 23 summarizes the predicted number of receptors impacted by future traffic noise
for each project alternative. The table includes those receptors expected to experience
- 45 -
traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement
Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.
Table 23: Existing & Predicted Noise Impacts
Existing
Conditions
(2008)
Alternative 1
(2035)
Alternative 3
(2035)
Alternative 5
(2035)
Alternative 6
(2035)
Homes 53 2 26 26 1
Businesses 0 0 0 0 0
Churches/Schools 1 0 2 2 0
Total Impacts 54 2 28 28 1
*Per TNM®2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives
The feasibility and reasonableness of noise abatement measures were considered and
evaluated for all receptors which would be impacted by any of the four detailed study
alternatives. Feasibility and reasonableness are distinct and separate considerations.
Feasibility is the consideration as to whether noise abatement measures can be
implemented. Reasonableness is the consideration as to whether noise abatement
measures should be implemented. Per NCDOT Policy, the following traffic noise
abatement measures may be considered: highway alignment selection, traffic systems
management, buffer zones, noise barriers (earth berms and noise walls), and noise
insulation of Activity Category D land use facilities.
a. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures such as prohibition of truck traffic, lowering speed limits,
limiting of traffic volumes, and/or limiting time of operation were considered as possible
traffic noise impact abatement measures. The NC 11/US 13 corridor is classified as a
minor arterial, meaning the facility should provide relatively high overall travel speeds
and minimum interference for through movements. Therefore, prohibition of truck traffic,
speed limit reduction, or screening total traffic volumes would diminish the functional
capacity of the highway facility and are not considered practicable.
b. Highway Alignment Changes
Highway alignment selection for traffic noise abatement measures involves modifying
the horizontal and vertical geometry of the proposed facility to minimize traffic noise to
noise-sensitive receptors. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement
- 46 -
purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is
primarily a matter of locating the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
receptors. Appreciable reductions in traffic noise transmissions to sensitive receptors can
be made by adjusting the vertical highway alignment and/or section geometry. For
example, lowering a roadway below existing grade creates a cut section which could act
similarly as an earth berm, depending upon the relative location(s) of noise-sensitive
receptor(s).
For Alternatives 1 and 6, the proposed alignments reroute the traffic east of the majority
of noise sensitive receptors within the study area and notably reduce the amount of
impacted receptors in comparison to existing conditions. For both Alternatives 3 and 5,
noise impacts are notably higher when compared to alternatives on new location.
However, when compared to existing conditions, Alternatives 3 and 5 show a reduced
number of impacted noise receptors because of potential relocations. It should be noted
while construction impacts associated with Alternatives 3 and 5 are anticipated to
relocate a substantial number of noise sensitive receptors, the numerous remaining noise
sensitive receptors may be located closer to the improved roadway due to its expanded
footprint.
c. Noise Barriers
Highway sound barriers are primarily constructed as earth berms or solid-mass walls that
are in close proximity to noise-sensitive land use(s). To be effective, a sound barrier
must be long enough and tall enough to shield the impacted receptor(s). Generally, the
noise wall length must be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, if a receptor is 200 feet from the roadway, an effective barrier would be
approximately 1,600 feet long – with the receptor in the horizontal center. On roadway
facilities with direct access for driveways, sound barriers are typically not feasible
because the openings render the barrier ineffective in impeding the transmission of traffic
noise. Due to the requisite lengths for effectiveness, sound barriers are typically not
economical for isolated or most low-density areas. However, sound barriers may be
economical for the benefit of as few as one predicted traffic noise impact if the barrier
can benefit enough total receptors – impacted and non-impacted combined – to meet
applicable reasonableness criteria.
For Alternative 1, both impacted receptors were considered for noise barriers, although
no barriers were ultimately recommended. One impact was unfeasible because access to
the residence would be eliminated, and the other impact was not considered reasonable
due to the high cost. For Alternatives 3 and 5, noise barriers were not considered feasible
for any of the identified impacted receptors since access to residences and businesses
would be eliminated, therefore no barriers were recommended for either of these
alternatives. Finally, for Alternative 6, although a noise barrier would be feasible for the
impacted receptor, it was not considered reasonable due to the high cost. Overall, no
noise barriers are recommended on this project.
- 47 -
d. Buffer Zones
Buffer zones are undeveloped, open spaces which border a highway. Buffer zones are
typically not practical and/or cost effective for noise mitigation due to the substantial
amount of right-of-way required, and would not be a feasible noise mitigation measure
for this alternative. Creating buffer zones may prevent development vacant properties in
the future; however, it would not prove effective in mitigating traffic noise impacts
associated with any of the proposed alternatives, due to their proximity to the existing
and/or proposed roadways. Further, the associated costs would exceed the NCDOT
Policy reasonable abatement cost threshold per benefited receptor.
3. Construction Noise
The predominant construction activities associated with this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. Temporary and localized construction noise
impacts are likely to occur as a result of these activities. Predicted daytime impacts will
be temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living, working, or
attending school near the project. During evening and nighttime hours, steady-state
construction noise emissions such as those from paving operations will be audible, and
may cause impacts to activities such as sleep. Sporadic evening and nighttime
construction equipment noise emissions (i.e., backup alarms, lift gate closures, etc.) are
possible and will be perceived as distinctly louder than the surrounding steady-state
acoustic environment, and will likely cause severe impacts to general peace and usage of
noise-sensitive areas – particularly residences, hospitals, and hotels.
Extremely loud construction noise activities such as the use of pile-drivers and impact
hammers (jack hammer, hoe ram) will provide sporadic, temporary, and significant
construction noise impacts in the vicinity of such activities. It is recommended that
construction activities that will produce extremely loud noises be scheduled during times
of the day when such noises will create as minimal disturbance as possible.
Generally, low-cost and easily implemented construction noise control measures should
be incorporated into the project plans and specifications. These measures include, but are
not limited to, work-hour limits, equipment exhaust muffler requirements, haul-road
locations, elimination of “tail gate banging”, ambient-sensitive backup alarms,
construction noise compliant mechanisms, and consistent and transparent community
communication.
While discrete construction noise level prediction is difficult for a particular receptor or
group of receptors, it can be assessed in a general capacity with respect to distance from
known or likely project activities. For this project, earth removal, grading, hauling and
paving is anticipated to occur along the entire proposed facility and may expose adjacent
noise sensitive receptors to construction related noise. Pile driving is anticipated to occur
at the proposed interchanges. In order to reduce the impacts of construction noise, it is
recommended that:
- 48 -
Earth removal, grading, hauling, and paving activities in the vicinity of residences
should be limited to weekday daytime hours.
If meeting the project schedule requires that earth removal, grading, hauling
and/or paving must occur during evening, nighttime and/or weekend hours in the
vicinity of residences, the contractor shall notify NCDOT as soon as possible. In
such instance(s), all reasonable attempts shall be made to notify and to make
appropriate arrangements for the mitigation of the predicted construction noise
impacts upon the affected property owners and/or residents.
4. Summary
Based on the results of the Traffic Noise Analysis, no noise barriers meet both feasibility
and reasonableness requirements outlined in the 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement
Policy for any of the four proposed design alternatives. Therefore, no traffic noise
abatement measures are recommended. 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.
K. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the
ambient air quality.
1. Project Air Quality Effects
Since this project is located in Hertford County, which does not have transportation
control measures outlined in the current state air quality implementation plan, a general
project-level air quality analysis was performed. It was determined that the project will
not cause or contribute to a new violation of the NAAQS, or increase the frequency or
severity of a violation.
2. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as
hazardous air pollutants. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including
on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry
cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
- 49 -
The FHWA developed a tiered approach with three categories for analyzing MSAT in
NEPA documents, depending on specific project circumstances:
1. No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT
effects;
2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or
3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with
higher potential MSAT effects.
Since this project is anticipated to have low potential MSAT effects, a qualitative analysis
was performed.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the proposed improvements to NC 11
and US 13 will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes; therefore,
under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of
MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative.
However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the
No-Build alternative cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable
information in forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts.
Generally, when a highway is widened, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the
Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No-Build Alternative, but this could be
offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with
lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSAT will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts
away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations,
coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all
cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be substantially lower than today.
For all Build Alternatives in the design year it is expected there would be reduced MSAT
emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No-Build Alternative, due
to the reduced VMT associated with more direct routing, and due to EPA's MSAT
reduction programs.
A copy of the unabridged version of the full air quality technical report entitled Air
Quality Analysis can be viewed at the NCDOT Century Center, 1000 Birch Ridge Drive,
Raleigh.
3. Construction Air Quality Effects
Construction activities will cause minor short-term air quality impacts in the form of dust
from earthwork and unpaved roads and smoke from open burning. These impacts will be
minimized by adherence to all state and local regulations. Construction equipment and
associated work practices and procedures will have to meet the NCDOT Standard
- 50 -
Specifications and NC Division of Air Quality emission standards that govern activities
such as open burning.
L. Hazardous Materials
Four sites presently or formerly containing petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs)
were identified within the project limits:
The former Winton Dollar Bill previously operated as a gas station. The facility is
located at the intersection of US 13 and NC 45 in Winton. The UST Section
Registry shows four USTs at this facility that were closed in 1992. This site is
anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project.
The Keene property is a former UST facility. The facility is located at
614 US Highway 13 in Winton. The UST Section Registry notes that this site
formerly contained USTs, but it is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental
impacts to the project.
The A.B. Jones property is a former UST facility. The facility is located at
634 US Highway 13 in Winton. The UST Section Registry notes that this site
formerly contained USTs, but is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental
impacts to the project.
The Deborah Simmons property previously operated as the Al Simmons store.
The facility is located at 830 US Highway 13 in Ahoskie. The UST Section
Registry shows three USTs at this facility that were closed in 1993. This site is
anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project.
No hazardous waste sites or landfills were identified within the project limits. If right of
way is required from any of these properties, soil and groundwater assessments will be
performed before right of way acquisition. Discovery of additional sites not recorded by
regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernible during the project reconnaissance may
occur.
- 51 -
VI.COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on March 27, 2012 at the Bearfield Primary
School in Ahoskie. The meeting was advertised through a newsletter mailed to property
owners in the project area and local media announcements. There were approximately 47
attendees; eight comment sheets were received at the conclusion of the workshop.
Citizens who attended this workshop generally felt that improvements needed to be made
to several of the existing intersections to make them safer, but they were also concerned
about impacts to their homes, access, and overall quality of life. Several people stated
that NCDOT should use right of way that they already own rather than purchasing new
right of way.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following approval of this document. The public hearing
will allow citizens to view more detailed information than was previously available at the
informational workshop, and will also provide a forum for public comments. Comments
received at the hearing will be reviewed and may be incorporated into the project, if
feasible and practicable.
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process
This project has followed the NEPA/404 Merger process. The Merger process is an
interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act into the National Environmental Policy Act decision making process.
The following agencies participated on the NEPA/404 merger team for this project:
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Highway Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Transportation
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Division of Water Quality
Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization (RPO)
On September 14, 2011, the merger team concurred on the purpose and need
(Concurrence Point 1) for this project. At the Concurrence Point 2 meeting, which was
held on September 19, 2012, the merger team concurred on alternatives for detailed
- 52 -
study. The team decided to eliminate Alternatives 2 and 4 from consideration, and to
carry forward Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 6 for more detailed analysis. The merger team
concurred on the appropriate structure types for stream crossings (Concurrence Point 2A)
at a merger team meeting held on June 18, 2013. Copies of these concurrence forms are
included in Appendix C.
The merger team will select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
(LEDPA) for the project following the public hearing. The team will also concur on
further avoidance and minimization measures for the project following selection of the
preferred alternative.
D. Other Agency Coordination
Comments regarding the proposed project were requested from various federal, state and
local agencies. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A. An
asterisk indicates comments were received from that agency.
* US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
* US Fish & Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
* NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
* NC Department of Cultural Resources – State Historic Preservation Office
* NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
NC Division of Air Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Division of Emergency Management
* NC Division of Environmental Health
* NC Division of Marine Fisheries
* NC Division of Water Quality
* NC Natural Heritage Program
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization
UV11
tu13
UV561
tu13
tu158
UV11
UV461
UV45
AhkiAhki
WintonWinton
Ahoskie C reek
Flat Swamp
Potecasi Creek
H o r s e S w a m p
Deep C r eek
M ill Branch
Modlin Hatchery Rd (SR 1130)
H
a
ll
S
i
d
i
n
g
R
d
(
S
R
1
4
0
9
)
Saluda Hall Rd (SR 1408)
O
l
d
H
w
y
1
1
02,5005,000
Feet
¯
R-2507A
R-2583 Chowan River
INSET MAP
""11
""461 "¡13
""561
""11
"¡13
"¡158
""45
TIP ProjectsStudy Area
Municipal Limits
Alternatives 1 and 6
Alternatives 3 and 5
US Route
NC Route
Secondary Roads
LEGEND
"""¡
Figure
1
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
TIP Project Number R-5311
Improvements to US 13/NC 11
from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie
to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near Winton
Vicinity Map
SR 1212 (Shortcut Rd)S R 1 1 3 1 (S a l u d a Ha ll R d )SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Rd)S R 1 4 1 1(B r i n k l e y v i l l e R d )S R 1 4 0 8 (S alu d a H all R d)S R 1 1 3 0 (M o d l i n H a t c h e r y R d )
S R 1 1 3 0 (M o d l i n H a t ch e r y R d )
S
R
1
1
0
8
(
B
o
n
n
e
r
B
r
i
d
g
e
R
d
)
S
R
1
1
0
8
(
F
i
r
e
T
o
w
e
r
R
d
)
SR 1108 (B
o
o
ne Far
m R
d)
S
R
1
1
0
8
(
U
n
i
o
n
R
d
)
S a i n t J o h n s H i g h w a y
SR 1215 (Deerwood Rd)Newsome‐Hall House (NRE)MATCHLINE SHEET 2BWXWYWZWU
WP
WO
WS
WB
WM
WZZWA
WT
WR
WT
WAD WVWD WWA
WR
A
WN
WS
A
WAWAA
WR
B
WZZWADWAB
WB
C
WB
B
WN
A
WAC WZZWYSX
S Z
SYSXSY ¯
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,000 Feet
LE
G
E
N
D
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
L
i
s
t
e
d
o
r
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
L
i
s
t
e
d
o
r
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Figure 2ANorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonEnvironmental Features
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
2A
2B
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯
S R 1 1 3 1 (S a l u d a H a ll R d )S R 1 4 0 8 (S alud a H all R d)
S
R
1
4
0
9
(
H
a
ll S
i
d
i
n
g
R
d
)
S
R
1
1
7
4
(
M
t
M
o
r
i
a
h
R
d
)
S
R
1
4
3
2
(
B
i
g
M
i
l
l
R
d
)
S
R
1
4
0
7
(
B
l
u
e
F
o
o
t
R
d
)
O
l
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
3
S R 1 4 0 0 (R i v e r R d )SR 1401 (Elks Rd)
Oak Villa RdTown of Winton
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
Pl
a
i
n
s
Ro
s
e
n
w
a
l
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
(N
R
E
)
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
Pl
a
i
n
s
Ba
p
t
i
s
t
Ch
u
r
c
h
(N
R
E
)
Ne
w
s
o
m
e
‐Ha
l
l
Ho
u
s
e
(N
R
E
)
MATCHLINE SHEET 2A
C H O W A N R I V E R
WH
WH
WH
A
WA
WJ
WX
X
WY
Y
WB
WZ
Z
WL
WZ
WWW
WA
D
WTT
WD
WA
E
WX
WG
WUU
WF
WA
F
2
WAH
WA
WA
A
WA
I
WZ
Z
WVV
NC
4
6
1
WSS
WX
X
WA
F
1
WL
WA
D
WA
G
WA
B
WA
F
4
WA
C
WZ
Z
SCC
S
B
B
SC
MILL BRANCH
S C ¯
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,000 Feet
LE
G
E
N
D
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
L
i
s
t
e
d
o
r
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
L
i
s
t
e
d
o
r
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Figure 2BNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonEnvironmental Features
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
2A
2B
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯
BE
G
I
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
R
1
1
0
8
(
B
o
n
n
e
r
B
r
i
d
g
e
R
d
)
S a i n t J o h n s H i g h w a y
S
R
1
1
0
8
(
F
i
r
e
T
o
w
e
r
R
d
)
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
MATCHLINE SHEET 3B
"
"
11
""561 ""561WPWO
WM
WRWRA
WN
WB
C
WB
B
WN
A
A H O S K I E C R E E K
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternatives 1 and 3
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3A
3G
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
3
G
SR 1215 (Deerwood Rd)S R 1 1 3 0(M o d li n H a t c h e r y R d )S R 1 1 3 0(M o d l in H a t c h e r y R d )
MATCHLINE SHEET 3A
MATCHLINE SHEET 3C1/3C2
"
"
11
WY
WS
WT
WU
WR
WT
WS
A
WR
B
WR
A
WY
S Z
S Z
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternatives 1 and 3
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3B
3G
#0
MATCHLINE SHEET 3B
MATCHLINE SHEET 3D1MATCHLINE SHEET 3D2
"
"
11
"
"
11
"¡13
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
3
G
Newsome Hall House (NRE)
SR 1215
(Deerwood Rd)
SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Rd)
S R 1 1 3 1 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )S R 1 4 0 8 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )Intersection to be removed
"¡13
SX FLAT SWAMPFLAT S W A M P
WX
WY
WZ
WU
WB WZZWDWAAWADWAC FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 1
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3C1
3G
#0
MATCHLINE SHEET 3B
MATCHLINE SHEET 3D1MATCHLINE SHEET 3D2
"
"
11
"
"
11
"¡13
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
3
G
Newsome Hall House (NRE)
SR 1215
(Deerwood Rd)
SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Rd)
S R 1 1 3 1 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )S R 1 4 0 8 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )Intersection to be removed
"¡13
WX
WY
WZ
WU
WB WZZWDWAAWADWACSXFLAT S W A FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 3
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3C2
3G
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
3
D
2
MATCHLINE SHEET 3E1/3E2
MATCHLINE SHEET 3C1/3C2
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
MATCHLINE SHEET 3C1/3C2
MATCHLINE SHEET 3E1/3E2
S R 1 4 0 8 (S alu d a H all R d)
S
R
1
4
0
9 (
H
all
S
idin
g
R
d
)
S R 1 4 0 9 (H a l l S i d i n g R d )
MILL BRANCH
SCC
S
B
B
MILL BRANCH
FLAT SWAMP
FL A T S W A M P
WH
A
WA
WB
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 1
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3D1
3G
#0 #0
MATCHLINE 3C1/3C2
MATCHLINE 3D1
MATCHLINE 3E1/3E2
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
P
l
a
i
n
s
Ba
p
t
i
s
t
C
h
u
r
c
h
(
N
R
E
)
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
P
l
a
i
n
s
Ro
s
e
n
w
a
l
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
(N
R
E
)
S R 1 1 7 4 (M t M o r i a h R d )
"
"
46
1
"¡13
"¡13 WHWJ
WL
WG
WF
SCC
MILL BRANCH
F L A T S W A
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 3
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3D2
3G
MATCHLINE SHEET 3D2MATCHLINE SHEET 3D1
MATCHLINE SHEET 3F
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
"¡13
S
R
1
4
0
7
(Blue Foot Rd)Oak Villa RdOld Highway 13""461
WH
WH
WXX
WY
Y
WA
E
WAF2
WA
F
1
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 1
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3E1
3G
MATCHLINE SHEET 3D1MATCHLINE SHEET 3D2
MATCHLINE SHEET 3F
"¡13
"¡13
Intersection to be removed
S
R
1
4
0
7
(Blue Foot Rd)Oak Villa RdOld Highway 13""461
WH
WH
WXX
WY
Y
WA
E
WAF2
WA
F
1
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 3
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3E2
3G
MATCHLINE SHEET 3E1/3E2
END PROJECT
O
l
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
3
TOWN OF WINTONTIP R-2507ATIP R-2583
"¡
""
13
"¡158 "¡158"¡13 45
WX
X
WW
W
WTTWUU
WA
H
WA
I
WVV
WS
S
WX
X
WA
G
WA
F
4
WA
F
5
SC
S C
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternatives 1 and 3
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3F
3G
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
3
B
MATCHLINE SHEET 3C1/3C2
S R 1 1 3 0
(M o d li n H a t c h e r y R d )
SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Rd)
"¡13
S R 1 4 1 1
(B r i n k l e y v i l l e R d )
"¡13
S
Y
S
Y
WX
WV
WW
A
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonUS 13 & SR 1213/SR1411 Alternative 1 and 3
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
3C
1
/
3
C
2
3B
3A
3D
2
3D
1
3E
1
/
3
E
2
3F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet3G
3G
BE
G
I
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
R
1
1
0
8
(
B
o
n
n
e
r
B
r
i
d
g
e
R
d
)
S a i n t J o h n s H i g h w a y
S
R
1
1
0
8
(
F
i
r
e
T
o
w
e
r
R
d
)
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
MATCHLINE SHEET 4B
"
"
11
""561 ""561WPWO
WM
WRWRA
WN
WB
C
WB
B
WN
A
A H O S K I E C R E E K
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternatives 5 and 6
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4A
4G
MATCHLINE SHEET 4GSR 1215 (Deerwood Rd)S R 1 1 3 0(M o d li n H a t c h e r y R d )S R 1 1 3 0(M o d l in H a t c h e r y R d )
MATCHLINE SHEET 4A
MATCHLINE SHEET 4C1/4C2
"
"
11
WY
WS
WT
WU
WR
WT
WS
A
WR
B
WR
A
WY
S Z
S Z
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternatives 5 and 6
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4B
4G
#0
"
"
11
"
"
11
"¡13
MATCHLINE SHEET 4B
MATCHLINE SHEET 4D2MATCHLINE SHEET 4D1
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
4
G
Newsome Hall House (NRE)
SR 1215
(Deerwood Rd)
SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Rd)
S R 1 1 3 1 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )S R 1 4 0 8 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )Intersection to be removed
"¡13
WX
WY
WZ
WU
WB WZZWDWAAWADWACSX FLAT SWAMPFLAT S W A M P FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 5
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4C1
4G
#0
MATCHLINE SHEET 4B
MATCHLINE SHEET 4D2MATCHLINE SHEET 4D1
"
"
"
"
11
11
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
4
G
Newsome Hall House (NRE)
SR 1215
(Deerwood Rd)
SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Rd)
S R 1 1 3 1 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )S R 1 4 0 8 (S a l u d a H a l l R d )Intersection to be removed
"¡13
SX FLAT SWAMPFLAT S W A M P FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 6
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4C2
4G
#0 #0
"¡13
MATCHLINE SHEET 4C1/4C2
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
4
D
2
MATCHLINE SHEET 4E1/4E2
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
P
l
a
i
n
s
Ba
p
t
i
s
t
C
h
u
r
c
h
(
N
R
E
)
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
P
l
a
i
n
s
Ro
s
e
n
w
a
l
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
(N
R
E
)
S R 1 1 7 4 (M t M o r i a h R d )
"
"
46
1
"¡13
"¡13
S R 1 4 0 9 (H a l l S i d i n g R d )
""461 WHWJ
WL
WG
WF
MILL BRANCH
S
B
B
S
C
C
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 5
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4D1
4G
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
4
D
1
MATCHLINE SHEET 4E1/4E2
MATCHLINE SHEET 4C1/4C2
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
S R 1 4 0 8 (S alu d a H all R d)
S
R
1
4
0
9 (
H
all
S
idin
g
R
d
)
"¡13
WH
SCC
S
B
B
FLAT SWAMP
MILL BRANCH FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 6
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4D2
4G
MATCHLINE SHEET 4D1 MATCHLINE SHEET 4D2
MATCHLINE SHEET 4F
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
"¡13
S
R
1
4
0
7
(Blue Foot Rd)Oak Villa RdOld Highway 13""461
WH
WH
WXX
WY
Y
WA
E
WAF2
WA
F
1
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 5
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4E1
4G
MATCHLINE SHEET 4D2MATCHLINE SHEET 4D1
MATCHLINE SHEET 4F"¡13
S
R
1
4
0
7
(Blue Foot Rd)Oak Villa RdOld Highway 13""461
WH
WH
WY
Y
WXX
WA
E
WAF2
WA
F
1
M
I
L
L
B
R
A
N
C
H
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternative 6
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4E2
4G
MATCHLINE SHEET 4E1/4E2
END PROJECT
O
l
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
3
TOWN OF WINTONTIP R-2507ATIP R-2583
"¡
""
13
"¡158 "¡158"¡13 45
WX
X
WW
W
WTTWUU
WA
H
WA
I
WS
S
WVV
WX
X
WA
G
WA
F
4
WA
F
5
SC
S C
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonAlternatives 5 and 6
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
TI
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4F
4G
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
H
E
E
T
4
B
MATCHLINE SHEET 4C1/4C2
S R 1 1 3 0
(M o d li n H a t c h e r y R d )
SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Rd)
"¡13
S R 1 4 1 1
(B r i n k l e y v i l l e R d )
"¡13
S
Y
S
Y
WX
WV
WW
A
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonUS 13 & SR 1212/SR 1411 Alternative 5 and 6
LE
G
E
N
D
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
r
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
d
g
e
o
f
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
Pa
r
c
e
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
#0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
SH
E
E
T
K
E
Y
4C
1
/
4
C
2
4B
4A
4D
1
4D
2
4E
1
/
4
E
2
4F
¯
Ah
o
s
k
i
e
Co
f
i
e
l
d
Wi
n
t
o
n
¯05001,000250 Feet4G
4G
US 13/US 158
ss
A,L,
592J 9
72
SR 1131
(Saluda Hall Rd)
9 P�
(3*ss
20
26
12
21
10) 15
19
15
41
52
NC 11
7,
15
41
ss
51
62
NC 11
40
46
9
55"41
9 51
10 7
14
12
y-
(42J 9
3
SR 1132
(Pleasant Plains Rd)
(3,1) 9
6
8
7
3
2
3
39 N-
45 9
9 P SR 1213
<3 (Old Hwy 11)
20 Ij ss
27 SR 1130
(Modlin Hatchery Rd)
1
2
NC 461
85 4
NC 561 (Saint Johns Hwy)
US 158
SS P
<9 8
8 20
ss 20 �
9J.9 80 h
13 2 114/<1
11
55 Pm
(3,5) 9
9
13
sue,
52 J
78
US 13
NOT TO SCALE
9 P�
`�Ss
g3
11
ss
9 11
36 24
52 13) Q2
,„
88 34
135 'n'
ss
19 19-.- ArLl
12
45 N
64 59 C 45
101
3
4 9
55
30
34
SR 1409
(Hall Siding Rd)
SR 1408
(Saluda Hall Rd)
NC 461
Figure 5A - 2008 and 2035 No -Build
TIP Project R-5311
Average Daily Traffic
LEGEND
2008
2035
-1 Less than 50 vpd
X Movement Prohibited
No. of Vehicles Per Day in 100's
DHV PM
(dD
DHV Design Hourly Volumes (%) = K
PM PM Peak Period
D Peak Hour Directional Split (%)
—► Indicates Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT-STs (%)
ss
93
US 13
9 Pill
(311 SS
3
A �h `' 54
2J
8
23
49
NC 11
15
15 ss
72 NC 561 (Saint Johns Hwy)
NC 461
61
NC 11
:r
99 ' 9
9 PM
(5-55
20 20
35
30
5h 54
1
9 P
(3SS
3
27
78
US 13/NC 461
SR 1409
(Hall Siding Rd)
ss
122
127 J 9
SR 1213
(Old Hwy 11)
SR 1130
(Modlin Hatchery Rd)
(2!)
NOT TO SCALE
US 158 ss
11
US 13/US 158
120,$
h^
(' 1> 9 h
52
34
191 `` ss
35
122
ss
IB 9
84 NC 45
(2,1)9
20 NC 461
SR 1409
(Hall Siding Rd)
Figure 5B - 2035 Build Alternate 1
TIP Project R-5311
Average Daily Traffic
LEGEND
### No. of Vehicles Per Day in 100's
-1 Less than 50 vpd
X Movement Prohibited
DHV PM
(dD
DHV Design Hourly Volumes (%) = K
PM PM Peak Period
D Peak Hour Directional Split (%)
Indicates Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT-STs (%)
ss
93
23)
49
hh.
NC 11
SR 1132
(Saluda Hall Rd)
9 P
(3ISs
3
8
1
NC 11
hh
Propsed NC 461/SR 1132
(Pleasant Plains Rd)
ham'
4
ti A11
� 9 121 f, ss
55�M
7
h`)
124
22
11
US 158 ss�
135
52
US 13/US 158
120 h"
��
h
ss
hh (S J )
59 NC 45
7
a lol
55 NC 461
34
h
8
h
a h 130
71
54
17
9„ZVI-
(37.4)
3
ti
�`54
15
ss
72
95
s,
rQA�
149 J 9
SR 1213
(Old Hwy 11)
SR 1130
(Modlin Hatchery Rd)
NC 561 (Saint Johns Hwy)
55PM
(3,4) 9
13 SR 1408
(Saluda Hall Rd)
34
NOT TO SCALE
SR 1409
(Hall Siding Rd)
Figure 5C - 2035 Build Alternate 3
TIP Project R-5311
Average Daily Traffic
LEGEND
### No. of Vehicles Per Day in 100's
-1 Less than 50 vpd
X Movement Prohibited
DHV PM
(dD
DHV Design Hourly Volumes (%) = K
PM PM Peak Period
D Peak Hour Directional Split (%)
—�► Indicates Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT-STs (%)
SR 1132
(Saluda Hall Rd)
NC 11
Propsed NC 461/SR 1132
(Pleasant Plains Rd)
55,PM
(3,1)
8
46 J 9
3
°' 6
9
�a\ss y5 t 51 ss
26 rX
10, 123
15SR 1213
•12 (ate �S (Old Hwy 11)
a 27
ss 44\ti`,, SR 1130
(q 9 hh ` 54 (Modlin Hatchery Rd)
7
81
h
130
93
8
15
Ss
49 (Qz)J 9
55 4 ti72 NC 561 (Saint Johns Hwy)
NC 11
33
22
55
124
7
11
55� M
(3,4) 9
13 SR 1408
(Saluda Hall Rd)
US 158
135
11
Ss
Ss
US 13/US 158
120 S
(sA`� h^
I7 9 hh
52 _18
32
34
19, 12
101
NOT TO SCALE
SR 1409
(Hall Siding Rd)
Ss
35
rrs411
59 NC 45
NC 461
Figure 5D - 2035 Build Alternate 5
TIP Project R-5311
Average Daily Traffic
LEGEND
### No. of Vehicles Per Day in l00's
-1 Less than 50 vpd
X Movement Prohibited
DHV PM
(d D
DHV Design Hourly Volumes (%) = K
PM PM Peak Period
D Peak Hour Directional Split (%)
—► Indicates Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT-STs (%)
US 13/US 158
ss
93
49
c�h
NC 11
28
23)
US 13
15
9
54
15
15 ss
72
NC 461
57
NC 11
0
20
27
SR 1408
(Saluda Hall Rd)
ss
84
9
a 3
4�
y5 ` 102
14
12
27
63
US 13/NC 461
9 ��
(S 4) 55
12
US 158 ss
SR 1409 h`
(Hall Siding Rd)S-'
ss„ 122
(2"9
ss
15
1
hh
ss
-1
A�
125 J
SR 1213
9 (Old Hwy 11)
-1
CNS11-
'
52 _18
hh 9(\it'r
A9 qt' 122
118
SR 1130
(Modlin Hatchery Rd)
NC 561 (Saint Johns Hwy)
9
s,^
1
11
Old NC 13
NOT TO SCALE
h
19
122
ss
34
35
hh
ss
84 NC 45
55��
(2,1) 9
12 NC 461
SR 1409
(Hall Siding Rd)
SR 1408
(Saluda Hall Rd)
Figure 5E - 2035 Build Alternate 6
TIP Project R-5311
Average Daily Traffic
LEGEND
### No. of Vehicles Per Day in 100's
-1 Less than 50 vpd
X Movement Prohibited
DHV (dD
DHV Design Hourly Volumes (%) = K
PM PM Peak Period
D Peak Hour Directional Split (%)
—► Indicates Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT-STs (%)
FigureNorth Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis UnitTIP Project Number R-5311 Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/NC 561 near Ahoskie to US 13/US 158/NC 45 near WintonTypical Sections 6
10
'
6
'
1
8
'
8'
(4
'
P
S
*
)
12
'
1
2
'
4
6
'
1
2
'
1
2
'
3
0
'
23
'
2
3
'
6:1
6
:
1
6
:
1
4:1
8'(4' PS*)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
5
&
6
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
&
3
VARIABLE SLOPE
(3:1 MAX)
VARIABLE SLOPE(3:1 MAX)
10
'
6'
18
'
10
'
(4
'
P
S
*
)
12
'
1
2
'
4
6
'
1
2
'
1
2
'
3
0
'
23
'
23
'
6:1
6
:
1
6
:
1
4:1
10'(4' PS*)
VARIABLE SLOPE
(3:1 MAX)
VARIABLE SLOPE(3:1 MAX)
6'
6
'
6'
6
'
*
P
S
=
P
A
V
E
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
E
R
2'
P
S
*
2
'
P
S
*
2'
P
S
*
2
'
P
S
*
EX
T
R
A
3
'
F
O
R
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
APPENDIX A
AGENCY COMMENTS
Gillespie, Allyn K
From: Biddlecome, William J SAW <William.J.Biddlecome@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 3:38 PM
To: Gillespie, Allyn K
Subject: R-5311 US13/NC11 Improvements (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Kim,
This is in response to your June 3, 2011 letter requesting information which may be helpful.in evaluating potential environmental
impacts of the above mentioned project..
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977; as amended, will be required
for the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including temporary
impacts for construction access or bridge demolition, and the disposal of construction debris.
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work may involves the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and
wetlands. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a project -specific determination of
Department of the Army permit requirements. These plans should include temporary impacts from any necessary construction
access. If there are only minor impacts to waters, including wetlands, the work might be authorized under one or more nationwide or
regional general permits provided avoidance and minimization are adequately addressed.
The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department of the Army
permits. Authorization of aquatic fill activities requires that the project be water dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are
available. Our initial review emphasis for North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will focus on the impacts
to waters and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is
considered to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred.
In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be
satisfied prior to the fmal permit decision. A Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a fmal plan for compensatory
mitigation is approved. Mitigation for stream impacts may also be required.
Special attention should be given to avoiding impacts to stream/wetland corridors that parallel the proposed project, such as Flat
Swamp, Horse Swamp, unnamed tributaries to Horse Swamp, Mill Branch and UT❑s to Mill Branch. NCDOT should have some
preliminary wetland and stream delineation information for the southern section of this project closest to Ahoskie from TIP Project
1
# R-2205. However, the delineation for that project was never finalized because some areas had to be re-evaluated and the project
was put on hold before it was accomplished. There may also be some delineation information available for the northern section of this
project from TIP #,s R-2507A and R-2583,
I recommend you coordinate with me as this project develops to determine if the project should be coordinated through the 404/NEPA
merger process or through our nationwide and general permit process. Please advise me as soon as it❑s known when and where the
project scoping meeting will be held for this project. Thanks!
Bill Biddlecome
Regulatory Project Manager
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
(910) 251-4558
william.j.biddlecome@usace.army.mil
We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to improving service to our customers. We would
appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is located at:
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
2
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 9, 2011
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed improvements to US 13/NC 11
from the NC 11/NC 561 intersection near Ahoskie to the US 13/158/NC 45 intersection near
Winton in Hertford County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-5311). These comments provide
information in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
The Service does not have any specific concerns for this project at this time. However, the
Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
3. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank -full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. Off -site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on -site bridges.
For projects requiring an on -site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;
6. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process;
7. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in -water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre -adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
8. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Construction and Maintenance Activities should
be implemented; and
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally threatened or endangered species. To assist you, a county -
by -county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information
on their life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at http://nc-
es. fws. gov/es/countyfr. html .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any
known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The
NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does
not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not
been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species,
surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e. likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e. no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Wetland boundaries should be
determined by using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in indirect and cumulative
effects to natural resources;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
,92f t
t,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Steven W. Troxler
Commissioner
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
Agricultural Services
June 23, 2011
Ms. Sheila Green
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301
State #: 11-E-4220-0299
RE: Proposal for TIP No. R-5311
Dear Ms. Green:
Vernon N. Cox
Environmental Programs
Specialist
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the request for information regarding the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to approximately 10 miles of the NC 11/US 13
corridor in the vicinity of Ahoskie, in Hertford County. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) is concerned about the conversion of North Carolina's farm and forest
lands to other uses. Due to the importance of agricultural activities in the area, as well as the economy
of the entire state, NCDA&CS strongly encourages the project planners to avoid conversion of
agricultural land to other uses whenever possible. When avoidance is not possible, all reasonable efforts
to minimize impacts to agricultural operations and agricultural land should be implemented.
With regard to additional information, it is suggested that the NCDOT Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch contact the Hertford Soil and Water Conservation District to obtain
information regarding potential impacts to agricultural activities in the area by the proposed project.
Contact information for the District is given below.
Hertford Soil & Water Conservation District
P.O. Box 265
305 West Tryon Street
Winton, NC 27986-0265
(252) 358-7846
Respectfully,
ernon N. Cox
Environmental Programs Specialist
E-mail: vernon.cox@ncagr.gov
1001 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina, 27699-1001 (919) 707-3070 • Fax (919) 716-0105
TTY: 1-800-735-2962 Voice: 1-877-735-8200
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 1, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudia Brown, Acting Administrator
Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Claudia Brown
SUBJECT:
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
US 13/NC 11, From the NC 11/NC 561 Intersection near Ahoskie to South to the US
13/158/NC 45 Intersection near Winton, R-5311, Hertford County, CH 11-1159
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the above project and offer the
following comments.
The known archaeological sites recorded within the study area were located in 1977 during the survey for the
Ahoskie Bypass project and have been destroyed by construction of that project. None of those identified sites
were found to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
There may be areas within the current study area that have a high potential for the presence of eligible
archaeological resources, particularly those dating to the historic period. As plans develop concerning the
width of the improvements and the extent of the new interchanges, we recommend that our office be provided
with this information in order that we may assess the potential effects of the project and the need for
archaeological investigations.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structures of historic or
architectural importance within the general area of this project:
Site Number Site Name Status
HF 0575 Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School Determined Eligible (DOE)
HF 0623 Newsome -Hall House DOE
HF 0947 Pleasant Plains Baptist Church DOE
The location of these properties is available on our GIS website at http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
Because our search included properties surveyed in 2010-2011 as part of the Hertford County resurvey
performed by Coastal Carolina Research, additional architectural survey work for this project is not necessary.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc:
State Clearinghouse
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Scott Power
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number ( Due Date '
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may nerd to be obtained in order for this project to comply with North
Carolina Law Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office Indreated on the reverse of the form. All applications, information and guidelines
relative to these plans and permits arc available from the same Regional O)Tice
Normal PtoecssTune
(statutory tune limit)
PERMITS
SPIECIAI. APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
'
Permit to construct & operate wastewater ueatmem
facilities. sewer system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contracts On•site inspection Postwpplrcation technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface wafer and/or
perms to operate and construct wastewater fatilities
discharging into state coast surface water
Application 1110 days before begin activity On•sue inspection rre•application
conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
treatment faciliry•grani d after NPDES Reply time, 30 days alter receipt of
plans or issue of NPDES permu•whichever is later
90.120 days
(N/A)
Water Use Permit
Pre•application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A )
Well Comuucrion Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well
7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent npanan propeny owner
inspection Pre -application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N C Department of Administration and Federal
Easement
Dredge and Fill Permit
55 days
(90days)
Pcrmrt to consuu et & operate Au Pollution Abatement
fatalities indlor Emission Sources as per I5 A NCAC
t2 ilutie (i thru 2Q U300)
Application must be submitted and permit received prior to
construction and operation of the source If a permit is required in an
area washout local zorong, then there an additional requirements and
umelmes (2Q.0113)
9Udays
Permit to construct & operate Transportation Facility as
per I S A NCAC (2 D Og00, 2Q 0h01)
Application must be submitted at least 90 days prior to construction or
modification of the source
90 days
1
Any open hunting associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D 1900
60days
(90 days)
i ;
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 20 1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
temps al prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control
Group 919.707•S950
N/A
Complex Source Pamir required under 15 A NCAC
213 0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Consul Act of 1973 must he properly addressed for any land disturbing activm- An erosion &
vedimeniatuin control plan will be required if um or more acies to he disturbed Plan lila) with proper Regional Office (land Quality
Section) At least 30 days before beginning activity A fee of S65 fur the first acre or any pan of an arm An express review upturn is
available with additional fees
20 day s
(30 days)
i�
cdumentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDO1•'s approved program Particular attention should be given to
design and installation of apprupnatc perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stornwater vronveyanoes and outlets
(30 days)
Mining Perna
On -site inspection usual Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
type mint and number of acres of affected laid. Any are mined greater
than one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must he received
before the permit can he issued
30 days
(60 days)
North Centime flaming prune
On•site inspection byN C Division ion Forest Resources if permexceeds 4 days
I day
(N/A)
Special Ground Cleasance Burning Permit • 22
carman us coastal C with organic soils
On•sitc inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources required il'more than
five acres of ground cleating activities are involved Inspections should be
n quested at least ten days before actual bum is planned
I day
(NIA)
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90• LO day s
(N/A)
tTun Saicty Penult
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hire N.0 qualified engineer to prepare plans, inspect construction
certify consuuctioii is according to ENR approved plans May also moue
permit under mosquito control pogrom And a 404 permit from Corps of
lingincers An inspection of sites necessary to verify HazardClassification A
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application An additional
•uoccssing fee trued on a percentage or the total project cost will he requited
nnnn rnmnlninn
30days
(60 days)
Normal Process Time
(statutory time Inns)
PERM! IS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
I I
I t
Permit to drill exploratory od or gas well
rile surety bond of 13.000 +nth L.V R running to State of NC conditional that
any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abondonmenk be plugged
according to IiNR rules and regulations
10 days
NIA
10 days
NIA
Geophysical Eyeptorauon PermitApplication
filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of pemut
Application by letter No standard application form
I I
State lakes Constitution Permit
Application fees based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian
property.
13.20 days
NIA
Iv<
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A
60 days
(130 days)
I I
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
S230 00 fee must accompany application
SS days
(I SU day5)
I I
CAMA Permit for MINOR dcvelmment
S50 00 fee must accompany application
22 days
(25 days]
I I
Several gcoietic monuments are locateed on or near the project area If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify
N C Geodetic Survey, Ilea 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611
i I
Abandonment of any wells, if reauirat must be in accordance with Title ) 5A Subchapter 2C 0100
.
Notification of the proper regional ulrice o requested if 'orphan' und5ground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation
I I
Compliance with ISA NCAC 211 1000 (Coastal Stormwatet Rules) is required
43 Jays
(NIA)
I I
tar Pamlico or None Riparian Buffer Rules required
* Other comments )attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
' Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
(828) 296-4500
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
(910)433-3300
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite
Mooresville, NC 28115
(704) 663-1699
Raleigh Regional Office
714 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
/(919) 791-4200
f�1 Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
(252) 946.6481
i 1 Wilmington Regional Office
301 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
(910)796-7215
f i Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336) 771-5000
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Number
11-0299
County
Hertford
Project Name NC -DOT Type of Project Scopins - Widening of US
13/NC ➢➢ an,ci converting
existing intersections to
interchanges. TIP No. R-5311
1
❑ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
❑ This project will be classified as a non -community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 733-2321.
• If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
❑ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 733-6407.
El The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
(919) 733-6407.
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on -site waste disposal methods,
contact the On -Site Wastewater Section at (919) 733-2895.
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
❑ If existing water lines will be reloca`ed during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, (919) 733-2321.
For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Jim McRight PWSS 06/16/2011
Reviewer
Section/Branch Date
Comments provided by:
Regional Program Person
Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
Central Office program person
Name: Joev White Telephone #: (252) 948-3894
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
Public Water Supply
Other, Name of Program
Response (check all applicable):
No objection to project as proposed
No comment
Insufficient information to complete review
Comments attached
See comments below
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name: NC -DOT Type of Project:
X
X
X
X
Project Number
11-0299
County
Hertford
Scopine — Widenine of US 13/NC
1 1 and converting existing
intersections to interchanges. TIP
No. R-531 1
Date Rec'd:
Date Revd:
06/20/11
06/21/11
Relocation of existing potable water supply lines will require engineered plans and
specifications to be submitted to the Public Water Supply Section for review and approval
before construction. Final approval must be issued before placing the water mains into
service.
Contractors should be aware of utility locations during entrance and egress from the project
area. Please contact the Hertford County Water Department to assist with the Iocation of
existing utilities in the project area.
Return to :
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the Division of Environmental Health
AwA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Beverly Eaves Perdue Dr. Louis B. Daniell!! Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: Anne Deaton
FROM: Kevin Hart
DATE: July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: NCDOT Scoping- Widening of US 13/NC 11 and converting existing intersections to interchanges
Tip No. R-5311
The following comments by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) on the subject project
are offered pursuant to G.S. 113-131. The NCDOT is requesting comments regarding widening of US 13/NC
11. According to the scoping vicinity map the road will cross tributaries of the Chowan River (AFSA).
In future documentation the NCDMF requests that the following information be provided.
1. All water body impacts including streams and wetlands. Please include the name of these waterbodies,
the impacts, and the area (i.e. acres or square footage) being impacted.
2. The NCDMF requests that bridges be used to cross waterbodies. The bridges will minimize impacts
from the project.
3. If utilities are associated with the project the NCDMF requests that either directional boring is used to
cross waterways or the utilities run along the bridge. If new utilities are needed to run alongside the
road the NCDMF requests that they be placed in the current right-of-way (ROW) to minimize impacts
associated with this project.
4. The Chowan River is designated as an anadromous fish spawning area. To minimize impacts to
important anadromous fish habitat during the period of peak migration, the NCDMF requests that
inwater work be done outside of the moratorium period of February 15 through June 30 (Deaton et al.
2010).
If you have any comments or questions,please call me at (252) 948-3878 or email me at Kevin.Hartrncdenr.gov
Deaton, A.S., W.S. Chappell, K. Hart, J. O'Neal. 2010. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, NC. 617
pages.
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
ATA
Rem
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Director Secretary
June 15, 2011
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Gillespie, P.E., NCDOT
From: David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Quality, Central Office
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to US 13/NC 11from the NC 11/NC 561 intersection near
Ahoskie to the US 13/158/NC 45 intersection near Winton, in Hertford County, Federal Aid Project No.
NHF-0013(37), TIP R-5311 3
Reference your correspondence dated June 6, 2011 in which you requested comments for the referenced project.
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to streams and jurisdictional wetlands in
the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name
River Basin
Stream
Classification(s)
Stream Index
Number
303(d) Listing
UT to Mill Branch
Chowan
C:NSW
25-4-8-11
None
Mill Branch
Chowan
C:NSW
25-4-8-11
None
UT to Horse Swamp
Chowan
C:NSW
25-14-1-8-1
None
Horse Swamp
Chowan
C:NSW
25-14-1-8-1
None
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water
Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. There is insufficient information provided regarding the scope of work to be performed to allow the NCDWQ
to provide meaningful specific comments at this time.
2. All surface waters are class C: NSW waters of the State. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. NCDWQ recommends that highly protective sediment
and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to surface waters in the project
area. NCDWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best
management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management
Practices.
General Project Comments:
3. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. 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.
4. 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
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://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq
NorthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ
Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes,
retention basins, etc.
5. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification,
NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of
impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental
Management Commission'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.
6. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 [hl),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single 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.
7. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. 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.
8. If an old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless otherwise
authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition
will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
9. Whenever possible, NCDWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment. The
horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges should allow for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure. Fish passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters should not be blocked. Bridge supports
(bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site -appropriate means (grassed swales, pre -formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ's Stormwater
Best Management Practices.
11. 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.
12. 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 minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands should be below the elevation of
the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert
diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic
life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures
should not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks,
adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide
evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by NCDWQ. If this condition is
unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact
NCDWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
14. 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, floodplain benches, and/or sills may be
required 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.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved
under General 401 Certification Number 3624/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise approved
by NCDWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of 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.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance (NC -CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies require
that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
21. 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.
22. In most cases, NCDWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road
closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland
impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a
new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should
be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. 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.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
David Wainwright at (919) 807-6405.
cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cathy Brittingham, Division of Coastal Management
Garcy Ward, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, & Community Affairs
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Linda Pearsall, Director
June 14, 2011
MEMORANDUM
Dee Freeman, Secretary
TO: Gregory Thorpe, NC DOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Start of Study — Proposed Improvements to Approximately 10 Miles of the NC 11/US 13
Corridor, from near Ahoskie to Winton; Hertford County
REFERENCE: Federal Aid Project NHF-0013(37), WBS Element 45449.1.1, Tip Project R-5311
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of significant natural communities, significant natural
heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. We have
a 1958 record of the State Significantly Rare showy aster (Eu,ybia spectabilis), from "Roadside - field
border, California, Hertford County". Not only is the location of the record somewhat vague, our
Program almost always considers a record with a last date in the 1950's as an historical one. Thus, our
Program will assume that the species does not currently exist at the location where reported.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919-715-4195 \ FAX: 919-715-3060 Internet: www.oneNCNaturally.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
Division of �H 9 Days
Oivis►
JUN 15c�11
preconstruc,;""
project
Environment.
„andk
No NhCarolina
atura!!i
Natural Resources Planning and Conservation
06/30/2011 11:07 9195289639
PAGE 03
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ti
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program t
DATE: June 30, 2011
SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the
proposed widening of US 13/NC 11 and existing intersection
improvements, Hertford County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-53I I, SCH#
11-0299.
This memorandum responds to a request from the NCDOT for our concerns
regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project.
Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with
certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time we do not have any specific concerns related to this project.
However, we do anticipate participating in the NEPA/404 Merger planning process for
this project. To help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general
informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
and,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601.
WWW.ncnhp.org
Mailing Address: Division of inland Fisheries o 1721 Mail Service Center U Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919) 707-0220 Fox: (919) 707-0028
06/30/2011 11:07 9195289839 PAGE 04
R-5311
June 30, 2011
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
(919) 733-3610
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project -related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at (919) 528-9886.
APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/
RELOCATION REPORTS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be available prior
to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
x Relocation Assistance
x Relocation Moving Payments
x Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available
to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments 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 case 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/or 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 assistance 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 which 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 the 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 and 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 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 a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by 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 prior to
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 extent 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 federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program
is to allow broad latitude in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not believed this program will be
necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities for relocation
within the area.
EIS R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT: 45449.1.1 COUNTY Hertford Alternate 1 of 4 Alternate
T.I.P. NO.: R-5311
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 from the NC 11/NC 561 intersection near Ahoskie to the US
13/158/NC 45 intersection near Winton, Hertford County, NCDOT Division 1
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 1001 00
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Billboards 0 3 3 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 0 20-40M 10+150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 10+250-400 0
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 0 600 UP 0
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 20+0
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project? 3. No businesses impacted by this alternative.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
6. Internet and local contact revealed sufficient housing available within
range of of the project. Expanded search outside the County within 25
miles increased the resource pool. Due to the rural nature of this area,
this range is considered comparable for replacement resources to the
project area.
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
x 6. Source for available housing (list). .
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?8. Housing is available in all price ranges but probability still exists
based on household determination, ds&s requirements, etc. for larger
housing to be required. For the minimal rental impacts estimated, it is
assumed there is a high probability for low income occupants that would
require last resort housing options. Approximately 17%-18% of
population are considered low income so some probability for super
supplement payments to accommodate last resort housing issue. For
owner’s super supplement payments will also be considered optimum
response to Last Resort Housing needs.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 9. There was a wheelchair ramp observed to the one residential
displacement HTR.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. See cover memo for further explanation and #8 above
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14.Are suitable business sites available (list14.See number 3 above.
source).
15.Number months estimated to complete15.Typical relocation time-frame should be sufficient to accommodate
identified impacts
RELOCATION? 18
Total Estimated Relocation Costs: $59,500
9/23/13 10/4/13
D. Wade Brown, SR/WA, R/W-RAC
Right of Way Agent
Date Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
EIS R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT: 45449.1.1 COUNTY Hertford Alternate 3 of 4 Alternate
T.I.P. NO.: R-5311
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 from the NC 11/NC 561 intersection near Ahoskie to the US
13/158/NC 45 intersection near Winton, Hertford County, NCDOT Division 1
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential51 3 54 54 3 7 13 1120
Businesses0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Billboards 0 3 3 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
PP /
Cemetery
Plots
1275 87 87 0-20M 3 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 10+$ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 5 150-250 0 20-40M 10+150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 12 250-400 3 40-70M 10+250-400 5
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 11 400-600 0 70-100M 10+400-600 10+
X 2.Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 20 600 UP 0 100 UP 10+600 UP 10+
displacement?TOTAL 51 3 50+25
x 3.Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project?2.Pleasant Plain Baptist Church – 75 cemetery plots impacted; area
does exist on the remainder but may not be sufficient to accommodate
all displaced plots. Family cemeteries are typical in the area and may
serve as replacement resources as well as possibility of the church
using excess land on the west side of US 13 for replacement site. The
church improvement is not directly impacted but proposed taking does
come in proximity to front of the church and impacts parking.
3.No businesses impacted by this alternative.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
x 6.Source for available housing (list).6.Internet and local contact revealed sufficient housing available within
range of of the project. Expanded search outside the County within 25
miles increased the resource pool. Due to the rural nature of this area,
this range is considered comparable for replacement resources to the
project area.
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
x 8.Should Last Resort Housing be considered?8. Housing is available in all price ranges but probability still exists
based on household determination, ds&s requirements, etc. for larger
housing to be required. For the minimal rental impacts estimated, it is
assumed there is a high probability for low income occupants that would
require last resort housing options. Approximately 17%-18% of
population are considered low income so some probability for super
supplement payments to accommodate last resort housing issue. For
owner’s super supplement payments will also be considered optimum
response to Last Resort Housing needs.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 9. There were wheelchair ramps and elderly occupants observed on
some impacted residences. This did not represent a majority of the
properties impacted.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. See cover memo for further explanation and #8 above.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 14. See number 3 above. No businesses are impacted by this project.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete 15. Typical relocation time-frame should be sufficient to accommodate
identified impacts
RELOCATION? 18
Total Estimated Relocation Costs: $1,999,500
Other personal property moves were 3 billboards and 12 parcels that contained unhabitable housing or storage sheds. Personal Property
moves were assumed on all of those 12 instances.
9/23/13
10/4/13
D. Wade Brown, SR/WA, R/W-RAC
Right of Way Agent
Date Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
EIS R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT: 45449.1.1 COUNTY Hertford Alternate 5 of 4 Alternate
T.I.P. NO.: R-5311
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 from the NC 11/NC 561 intersection near Ahoskie to the US
13/158/NC 45 intersection near Winton, Hertford County, NCDOT Division 1
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 51 3 54 543713 1120
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Billboards 0 6 6 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
PP /
Cemetery
Plots
12 75 87 87 0-20M 3 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 10+$ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 5 150-250 0 20-40M 10+150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 12 250-400 3 40-70M 10+250-400 5
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 11 400-600 0 70-100M 10+400-600 10+
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 20 600 UP 0 100 UP 10+600 UP 10+
displacement? TOTAL 51 3 50+25
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project? 2. Pleasant Plain Baptist Church – 75 cemetery plots impacted; area
does exist on the remainder but may not be sufficient to accommodate
all displaced plots. Family cemeteries are typical in the area and may
serve as replacement resources as well as possibility of the church
using excess land on the west side of US 13 for replacement site. The
church improvement is not directly impacted but proposed taking does
come in proximity to front of the church and impacts parking.
3. No businesses impacted by this alternative.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
x 6. Source for available housing (list). 6. Internet and local contact revealed sufficient housing available within
range of of the project. Expanded search outside the County within 25
miles increased the resource pool. Due to the rural nature of this area,
this range is considered comparable for replacement resources to the
project area.
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?8. Housing is available in all price ranges but probability still exists
based on household determination, ds&s requirements, etc. for larger
housing to be required. For the minimal rental impacts estimated, it is
assumed there is a high probability for low income occupants that would
require last resort housing options. Approximately 17%-18% of
population are considered low income so some probability for super
supplement payments to accommodate last resort housing issue. For
owner’s super supplement payments will also be considered optimum
response to Last Resort Housing needs.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 9. There were wheelchair ramps and elderly occupants observed on
some impacted residences. This did not represent a majority of the
properties impacted.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. See cover memo for further explanation and #8 above.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 14. See number 3 above. No businesses are impacted by this project.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete 15. Typical relocation time-frame should be sufficient to accommodate
identified impacts
RELOCATION? 18
Total Estimated Relocation Costs: $2,029,500
Other personal property moves were 6 billboards and 12 parcels that contained unhabitable housing or storage sheds. Personal Property
moves were assumed on all of those 12 instances.
9/23/13
10/4/13
D. Wade Brown, SR/WA, R/W-RAC
Right of Way Agent
Date Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
EIS R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT: 45449.1.1 COUNTY Hertford Alternate 6 of 4 Alternate
T.I.P. NO.: R-5311
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 from the NC 11/NC 561 intersection near Ahoskie to the US
13/158/NC 45 intersection near Winton, Hertford County, NCDOT Division 1
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential1 0 1 100100
Businesses0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Billboards 0 3 3 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 0 20-40M 10+150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 10+250-400 0
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 0 600 UP 0
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 20+0
x 3.Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project?3.No businesses impacted by this alternative.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
6.Internet and local contact revealed sufficient housing available within
range of of the project. Expanded search outside the County within 25
miles increased the resource pool. Due to the rural nature of this area,
this range is considered comparable for replacement resources to the
project area.
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
x 6.Source for available housing (list)..
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
x 8.Should Last Resort Housing be considered?8. Housing is available in all price ranges but probability still exists
based on household determination, ds&s requirements, etc. for larger
housing to be required. For the minimal rental impacts estimated, it is
assumed there is a high probability for low income occupants that would
require last resort housing options. Approximately 17%-18% of
population are considered low income so some probability for super
supplement payments to accommodate last resort housing issue. For
owner’s super supplement payments will also be considered optimum
response to Last Resort Housing needs.
x 9.Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.9.There was a wheelchair ramp observed to the one residential
displacement HTR.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12.Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. See cover memo for further explanation and #8 above
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 14. See number 3 above.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete 15. Typical relocation time-frame should be sufficient to accommodate
identified impacts
RELOCATION? 18
Total Estimated Relocation Costs: $59,500
9/23/13
10/4/13
D. Wade Brown, SR/WA, R/W-RAC
Right of Way Agent
Date Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
APPENDIX C
CONCURRENCE INFORMATION
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 1: Purpose and Need
PROJECT NO./TIP NO./ NAME/DESCRIPTION:
Federal Aid Project Number: NHF-0013(37)
State Project Number: WBS Element 45449.1.1
TIP Project Number: R-5311
TIP Description: US 13/NC 11 from the NC 11-561 intersection to the US 13-158/
NC 45 intersection, Hertford County
The Project Team concurred on this date of September 14, 2011 with the purpose of and
need for the proposed project as stated below and the project study area as described
below and shown in the attached exhibit.
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project
The purpose of this project is to improve the safety of the NC 11/US 13 corridor between. the
NC 11-561 intersection and the US 13-158/NC 45 intersection in Hertford County.
NAME
i
1)
•
AGENCY
tiFW
13jacoveqNil/ M511cL
4.144N")
0cA/
Aktrit
� X���������U�U���' ���������N��
.°.~,°="�".~.~�..~~~�"~.~="^"""."mo�^�ooxn�m�n��o^�~�="�nm°omn
REVISED —Concurrence Point No. 2:Design � Options for Detailed Study
PROJECT NO./T|PNOJNAK0G/QE3CR|PT|ON;
Federal Aid Project Number:
State Project Number:
TIP Project Number:
TIP Description:
NHF-0013(37)
VVRGElement 4544O.i.1
R,5311
Improvements b`US13/NC11from NC11/NC501t0U813/
UG158/U845inHertford County
The Project Team concurred oothis date oySeptember 19/%01%thaNtheNoQomdo8w|Noommdiune(as
indicated in the right column) be carried forward for detailed study.
Alternative
Four -lane
divided
Part on
new
location*
Freeway
Full
Interchanges at NCi1/NC
5O1'SIR 1y12/SR1213'UG
13/NC481
Yes
Alternative
Four -lane
divided
Existing
location
Froavvmy
Full
Interchanges atNU11/NC
501,GR1212/GR1213.US
13/NC401
No
Alternative
Four -lane
divided
Existing
|DVat|Vn
Expressway
Partial
Interchanges atNC11/NC
581.8R1212/3R1213.US
18/NC401
Yes
Alternative
Two-lane
undivided
Existing
location
Expressway
Partial
Interchanges otNC11/NC
561'SIR 12i218Rl213'8S
13/NC401;n0widening
No
Alternative
Four -lane
divided
Existing
location
Gupnrotreet
Partial
Conversion ofintersections hu
ouperutreetotNC1VNC581
'
8R1212/8R1213. U813/NC
481
Yes
Alternative
Four -lane
divided
Part on
new
location*
8uperotoeei
on existing,
Freeway on
new location
Partial
Conversion $fintersections k)
auPerstreoiaiNC11/WC5Qi.
SIR 1212/GR1213^UG13/NC
461
Yes
The new location segment would extend from US 13/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to US 13/NC 461, east of existing US 13.
UGArmy Corps ofEngineers
UGEnvironmental Protection Agency
USFish and Wildlife Service
NCWildlife Resources Commission
NCDepartment ofCultural Resources
NCDENR.Division pfWater Quality
NC Department of Transportation
q/q�'9/z'
�
U
`
�y��
r
Federal Highway Administration
NC Division of Coastal Management
Peanut Belt RPO
NCDENR, Division of Marine Fisheries
// Ua I�ao/?otz
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
REVISED — Concurrence Point No. 2: Design Options for Detailed Study
PROJECT NO./TIP NO.! NAMEIDESCRIPTION:
Federal Aid Project Number:
State Project Number:
TIP Project Number:
TIP Description:
NHF-0013(37)
WBS Element 45449.1.1
R-5311
Improvements to US 13 / NC 11 from NC 11/ NC 561 to US 13 /
US 158 / US 45 in Hertford County
The Project Team concurred on this date of September 19, 2012 that the following alternatives (as
indicated in the right column) be carried forward for detailed study.
Alternative -
Typical
Section
Location
- =
Facility
Type
Control'"
- of
Access '
Intersection/Interchange
Descriptions ,-
Yes/No
Alternative 1
Four -lane
divided
Part on
new
location*
Freeway
Full
Interchanges at NC 11/NC
561, SR 1212/SR 1213, US
13/NC 461
Yes
Alternative 2
Four -lane
divided
Existing
location
Freeway
Full
Interchanges at NC 11/NC
561, SR 1212/SR 1213, US
13/NC 461
No
Alternative 3
Four -lane
divided
Existing
location
Expressway
Partial
Interchanges at NC 11/NC
561, SR 1212/SR 1213, US
13/NC 461
Yes
Alternative 4
Two-lane
undivided
Existing
location
Expressway
Partial
Interchanges at NC 11/NC
561, SR 1212/SR 1213, US
13/NC 461; no widening
No
Alternative 5
Four -lane
divided
Existing
location
Superstreet
Partial
Conversion of intersections to
superstreet at NC 11/NC 561,
SR 1212/SR 1213, US 13/NC
461
, Yes
Alternative 6
Four -lane
divided
Part on
new
location*
Superstreet
on existing,
Freeway on
new location
Partial
Conversion of intersections to
superstreet at NC 11/NC 561,
SR 1212/SR 1213, US 13/NC
461
Yes
'The new location segment would extend from US 13/SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to US 13/NC 461, east of existing US 13.
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC -Department of Cultural Resources
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Transportation
11S1.41. S '1114hi2.
1R112
/j 1,.2-011-
dfilkii 7,1 /
r
Federal Highway Administration
NC Division of Coastal Management
Peanut Belt RPO
NCDENR, Division of Marine Fisheries
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Bridging Decisions & Alignment Review
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Federal Aid Project Number: NHF-0013(37)
State Project Number: WBS Element 45449.1.1
TIP Project Number: R-5311
TIP Description: Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 11/ NC 561 to
US 13/US 158/US 45 in Hertford County
The Project Team concurred on this date of June 18, 2012 that the only major hydraulic structures
on this project will be those listed in Table 1 below. All other structures are anticipated to have
hydraulic openings of 72-inches or less.
Table 1: Hydraulic Structure Recommendations
RCP – reinforced concrete pipe
RCBC – reinforced concrete box culvert
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Federal Highway Administration
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Division of Water Resources
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Department of Transportation
Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization
Stream Station Alternative Existing Structure Recommended
Structure
Stream
Impacts
(linear feet)
SZ 82+40 All 3 @ 48-inch RCP Retain & extend 165
Mill Branch 309+48 3 & 5 2 @ 48-inch RCP Minimum required
hydraulic structure 255
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71C1C841-22DA-4550-85BB-6D21E797A2DE
09/19/2013
09/04/2013
09/05/2013
09/05/2013
09/05/2013
09/10/2013
09/10/2013
09/04/2013
09/05/2013
09/19/2013
09/06/2013
09/04/2013