Extension of NC 94

F WATE Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q 9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\Q~ QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
OD r Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
o ~

June 16, 2008

MEMORANDUM

To: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator

From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality''I;VJ

Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to the proposed Extension of NC 94
from existing NC 32 to Existing US 17 Bypass, Chowan County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP1114(2), TIP U-3419.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated March 2008. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:

Project Specific Comments:

1. This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, the DWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. Queen Anne Creek and associated unnamed tributaries are class C; NSW waters of the
State. The DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result
from this project. The DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion
control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Queen Anne Creek
and unnamed tributaries. The DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of
the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent
version of the DWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices.

General Comments:

3. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.

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 the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.

NorthCazolina
Transportation Permitting Unit aturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncvvetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

5. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. 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[h]),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.

7. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The
NCDOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.

8. The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
9. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.

11. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.

12. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.

13. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be

aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.

14. Whenever possible, the DWQ 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 the l and structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
wildlife passage beneath canoeists and boaters.

15. 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
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.

16. 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.
17. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site should be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations by the time work is completed. 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.

18. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands should be placed 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 DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
19. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
_ section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
20. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.

J implemented 21. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient

version of North Carolina Sedmment and Erosion
and maintained in accordance with the most
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.
25. 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.

26. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.

The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone].

cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
_ Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cathy Brittingham, Division of Coastal Management

- Garcy Ward, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form

Project Number County Date Received Date Response Due (firm deadline)

0 -3-7 Hc) W P, 11 low -I OT

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review

Asheville en Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries

Fayetteville ',4 Water Coastal Management

Mooresville Groundwater o, Wildlife TR A V i5 W i L_-soO

Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources

Washington _ Water Resources Environmental Health

Wilmington Parks & Recreation _ Solid Waste Mgmt

Winston-Salem Water Quality Dor- Radiation Protection

_ Air Quality _ Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

Response (check all applicable)

No objection to project as proposed g

No comment

Insufficient information to complete review

Other (specify or attach comments) a`

RETURN TO:
Melba McGee' Environmental Coordinator
~fih
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs Q`~~,~ ~'r~trry

Extension of NC 94
from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass
Chowan County
Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2)
WBS No. 34949.1.1
T.I.P. No. U-3419

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
• AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)

• <~Of pOR11i C4f, j,
• ~p G`9
y
• o Z
A
~FHFOF 1121 O
•

•
APPROVED:

4t Gl' .
o r Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
• Project Development and Environmental An is Branch, NCDOT

Date c_..~fthn F. Sullivan III, PE, Division Administr for
Federal Highway Administration

Extension of NC 94
from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass

Chowan County
Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2)
• WBS No. 34949.1.1
T.I.P. No. U-3419

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

• North Carolina Department of Transportation

• March, 2008

• Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:

• .,,,?avszr.r
rya+~n~en:w„•w•I/v~
o
e 6, Ea L

o
ate Charles R. Cox, PE %-.$,A• f ~F`~'~'Q
Project Engineer
• ~Djrr~ao»~:Neo~~~
•

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• PROJECT COMMITMENTS

Extension of NC 94
from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass
. Chowan County
• Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2)
WBS No. 34949.1.1
T.I.P. No. U-3419

• Project Development and Environmental Analvsis Branch - Archaeology

• An archeological survey will be completed once the recommended alternative is selected.

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment
March 2008 Page 1 of 1

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY V

A. TYPE OF ACTION V
• B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION V
C. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT V
• D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VI
. E. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS VII
F. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE VIII
• G. SPECIAL PERMITS REQUIRED VIII
• H. COORDINATION D{
1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION D{
• I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1
• A. TYPE OF ACTION I
• B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION I
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2
. A. TRUCK TRAFFIC IMPACTS 2
• B. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT 2
• III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY 3
• A. LENGTH OF PROJECT 3
B. PROJECT TERMINALS 3
• C. EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION 3
D. ROUTE CLASSIFICATION 3
• E. RIGHT OF WAY 3
• F. BRIDGE/DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 4
. G. SPEED LIMIT 4
H. ACCESS CONTROL 4
• I. INTERSECTION AND TYPE OF CONTROL 4
J. UTILITIES 4
• K. SCHOOL BUSES 4
. L. RAILROADS 4
M. SIDEWALKS 5
• N. PARKING 5
• O. BICYCLE FACILITIES 5
P. GREENWAYS 5
• Q. OTHER TIP PROJECTS 5
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 6
. A. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6
• B. ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION 6
C. NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES 6
D. ALTERNATIVES DROPPED FROM CONSIDERATION 7
E. COMPARISON OF REMAINING ALTERNATIVES 9
F. CAPACITY ANALYSIS 10
• G. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 14
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 15
A. DESIGN SPEED 15
• B. TYPICAL SECTION 15
C. RIGHT OF WAY 15
•
1

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

D. ACCESS CONTROL 15 •
E. BRiDGE/DRAINAGE STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 15
F. PARKING 16
16 .
G. SIDEWALKSBICYCLE FACILITIES 16
H. INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND TYPE OF CONTROL 16 •
1. RAILROADS •
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 17
•
A. COMMUNITY EFFECTS 17
17 •
1. Community Characteristics 17
a. Community Description 17 •
b. Population Characteristics 18 •
c. Ethnicity 18
d. Age 19 •
e. Income 21
f. Business and Employment Characteristics 22
g. Community Resources 22
h. Emergency Services 23 •
i. Utilities 23 •
j. Plans and Regulations 23
2. Community Impact Analysis 23
a. Displacements/Relocation Impacts
b. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility 25
25 •
C. Economic Conditions 27 •
d. Transportation Access 28
e. Farmland Impacts 28 •
f. Environmental Justice 29
g. Wild and Scenic Rivers •
3. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 29 29 • 31
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 31
4. Compliance Guidelines 31
5. Historic Architecture 31 •
6. Archaeology 31
C. SECTION 4(F) 31 •
D. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 32 •
1. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) 32
E. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS 32 •
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours 33 .
2. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures 33
3. Noise Barriers 34
4. Summary 34 •
F. GEODETIC MARKERS 34
G. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS •
VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 35
•
A. PHYSICAL RESOURCES 35
35
1. Soils 35
2. Water Resources 35
a. Physical Characteristics 37
b. Point and Non-Point Source Discharges 37
B. BIOTIC RESOURCES 37 •
a. Terrestrial Communities 38 •
b. Terrestrial Wildlife 38
C. Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife 39
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 40
C. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS 40 •
1. Waters of the United States •
11
•

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• a. Requirements 40
• b. Jurisdictional Streams and Ponds 40
C. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams 41
d. Impacts to Waters of the United States 42
• 2. Permit Issues 43
a. Requirements 43
• b. Mitigation 43
• 3. Rare and Protected Species 45
a. Federally Protected Species 45
• b. Federal Species of Concern 45
D. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 46
• VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 47
• A. COMMENTS SOLICITED 47
• B. NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS COORDINATION 47
. C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 48
•
• TABLES

• TABLE S-1: COMPARISON OF CURRENT ALTERNATIVES VII
TABLE 4-1: COMPARISON OF CURRENT ALTERNATIVES 9
TABLE 4-2: 2030 ARTERIAL SCREENING (ALL ALTERNATIVES) 10
. TABLE 4-3: 2030 PARADISE #2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 11
TABLE 4-4: 2030 PEANUT #1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 12
TABLE 4-5: 2020 SOUNDSIDE WESTERN INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 13
TABLE 4-6: 2030 PARADISE #2 INTERCHANGE ANALYSIS 13
• TABLE 4-7: 2030 PEANUT #1 INTERCHANGE ANALYSIS 14
• TABLE 4-8: 2030 SOUNDSIDE WESTERN INTERCHANGE ANALYSIS 14
. TABLE 5-1: PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 16
TABLE 6-1: POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000 17
TABLE 6-2: POPULATION BY RACE, 2000 18
• TABLE 6-3: POPULATION BY AGE, 2000 19
• TABLE 6-4: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1990-2000 19
TABLE 6-5: % BELOW POVERTY, 1990-2000 20
TABLE 6-6: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, 1990-2000 20
• TABLE 6-7: EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR DEMOGRAPHIC AREA, 1990-2000 21
• TABLE 7-1: STREAM CHARACTERISTICS 36
• TABLE 7-2: NATURAL COMMUNITIES 37
TABLE 7-3: JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND OPEN WATERS 41
TABLE 7-4: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS 42
• TABLE 7-5: FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN LISTED FOR CHOWAN COUNTY 46

APPENDICES

• iii

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A FIGURES
FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP .
FIGURE 2 ALTERNTATIVES MAP •
FIGURE 3 TYPICAL SECTION OF PROPOSED ROADWAY
APPENDIX B MERGER TEAM SIGNATURE SHEETS
APPENDIX C AGENCY COMMENTS
APPENDIX D CULTURAL RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION •
APPENDIX E NOISE REPORT TABLES •
APPENDIX F RELOCATION REPORT
APPENDIX G TRAFFIC FORECAST DIAGRAMS

iv

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• Extension of NC 94
from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass
Chowan County
Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2)
. WBS No. 34949.1.1

• T.I.P. No. U-3419

SUMMARY

A. Tyne of Action

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts
. of this proposed transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina
• Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) do not
anticipate significant impacts to the environment will occur due to this proposed project. A final
determination will be made in supplemental documentation, likely a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) document.

• B. General Description

The NCDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, proposes the construction of a two-lane
road on new location from NC 94/ NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in Edenton, Chowan County, North
. Carolina.

The proposed two-lane facility will have 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (2-foot
paved). The total length of the project is approximately 3.0 miles, depending on the alternative
• chosen.

This project is included in the approved 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and the 2008-2015 Draft TIP. The total cost in the STIP is $29,314,000, which
includes $6,400,000 for right of way, $914,000 for mitigation and $22,000,000 for construction.
• The current estimated right of way cost ranges from $5,588,750 to $22,786,250 and estimated
• construction cost ranges from $14,399,000 to $38,549,000 depending on the alternative selected.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2010 with
construction to begin in FFY 2012.

• C. Purpose and Need for Proiect

The purpose of the project is to reduce truck traffic along existing NC 32 within
downtown Edenton.

v

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

D. Alternatives Considered •

There are currently three build alternatives being considered for this project. All three
alternatives begin at the intersection of NC 32, NC 94 (Soundside Road), and SR 1103 (Hobbs •
Lane) east of downtown Edenton. The alternatives utilize the existing SR 1103 (Hobbs Lane) •
alignment before turning north and crossing an unnamed tributary of Queen Anne Creek. The •
alternatives incorporate a service road near the beginning of the project in order to maintain
access to fields that are currently accessed via Hobbs Lane. Construction for this service road
ends before the unnamed tributary of Queen Anne Creek. The current intersection of SR 1102 •
(Yeopim Road) and NC 32 will be moved east of the existing intersection. •

Paradise Road #2 - From the south terminal, this alternative turns northwest, crosses an

agricultural field then crosses another tributary of Queen Anne Creek. This alternative continues
in a northwesterly direction across another agricultural field, then crosses Queen Anne Creek •
before reaching the intersection of Old Hertford Road. The alternative proposes an at-grade •
crossing at Old Hertford Road. The alternative proceeds across more agricultural fields, includes
an at-grade crossing at US 17 Business (N. Broad Street), a grade separation of the Chesapeake
and Albemarle Railroad, and a new half diamond/cloverleaf interchange with US 17 Bypass.
The existing Paradise Road Bridge over US 17 Bypass will remain in place to provide access to
the properties along Paradise Road, but the ramps will be removed. •

Peanut Drive - From the south terminal, this alternative turns northwest, crosses an agricultural
field then crosses another tributary of Queen Anne Creek. This alternative proceeds north along .
the edge of the large wooded tract before turning west and crossing Queen Anne Creek (to the •
north of the Paradise Road proposed location). This alternative then crosses US 17 Business (N. .
Broad Street) and follows the existing Peanut Drive. A grade-separation over the Railroad and a •
new half-diamond/cloverleaf interchange with US 17 Bypass are proposed. The existing
Paradise Road Bridge over US 17 Bypass will remain in place to provide access to the properties .
along Paradise Road, but the ramps will be removed. Old Hertford Road will not have direct •
access to the new road, but will be redirected to align with US 17 Business. .

Soundside Road Western - From the south terminal, this alternative crosses an agricultural •
field then crosses another tributary of Queen Anne Creek. The alignment then continues north •
along the edge of the large wooded tract and crosses Butternut Lane before ending just south of
the existing interchange of US 17 Business and US 17 Bypass. The existing interchange thwill
e •
remain in place with no improvements. In addition, a realignment of US 17 Business near interchange with US 17 is required to meet current design standards.

vi

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

E. Summary of Environmental Effects

Table S-1: Comparison of Current Alternatives
Paradise Road Peanut Drive Soundside
• Impacted Resource #2 #1 Road Western

Length 3.1 miles 3.1 miles 2.9 miles
New Interchanges 1 1 0
• Railroad Crossings 1 1 0
• Schools 0 0 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0
Churches 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0
• Residential Relocations 6 14 2
. Business Relocations 3 10 0
Historic Properties (Eligible or Listed on 0 0 0
the National Register)
Section 4(f) Properties 0 0 0
• Archeological Sites (Note 1) Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined
• NRCS - Potential Farmland Conversion 43 acres 51 acres 37 acres
• Wetland Impacts 6.1 acres 6 acres 7.3 acres

Stream Impacts 370 ft 120 ft 0 ft
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Gamelands 0 0 0
• Federally Listed Species Within Corridor No Effect No Effect No Effect
• Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0
Known Hazardous Material Sites or 0 0 0
Hazardous Spill Basins
Noise Rece tors Impacted 1 1 0
Minority / Low Income Populations
• (Adverse & Disproportionate Impacts) NO No No
Construction Cost $30,541,000 $38,741,000 $14,399,000
Right of Way Cost $7,230,900 $22,786,300 $5,588,800
Utilities Cost $1,106,900 $1,677,800 $433,600
Mitigation Cost $539,400 $411,000 $428,500
Total Project Cost $39,418,200 $63,6161100 $20,849,900
Notes:
(1) Archeological surveys will be performed once the preferred alternative is selected.

• vii

U-3419 Environmental Assessment .

F. Recommended Alternative

No alternative is recommended at this time. Comments received at the design public
hearing will be reviewed, and the additional coordination with other federal, state, and local •
agencies will occur before a final decision is made.

G. Special Permits Required •

Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under the jurisdiction of the USACE. •
Permits will be required for highway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The •
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) may cover the impacts to the •
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and pond within the project study area. NWP 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access, and Dewatering) may be needed for temporary construction access if that
issue is not addressed in the NEPA document. Since the project impacts exceed the NWP 14 •
permit thresholds (300 linear feet of impact per stream and 0.5-acre cumulative wetland impact), •
an Individual Section 404 permit will be required. •

A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification will be required for any activity which

may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which an issuance of a federal
permit is required. The issuance of a required Section 401 certification is a prerequisite to the
issuance of a Section 404 permit. Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications for NWP 14
and 33 are #3404 and #3366, respectively. An Individual Section 404 and/or Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required since impact thresholds will be exceeded.

Queen Anne Creek and UTl of Queen Anne Creek are considered navigable waters by
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and regulated as Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs), therefore any impacts to these surface waters, or within 30 feet
of the shoreline, may require a CAMA Major Permit for development.

Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE, DWQ, and DCM. The
NCDOT will coordinate with the regulatory agencies after the completion of the final design to
obtain the necessary permits.

viii

` U-3419 Environmental Assessment

H. Coordination

The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of

this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
. asterisk

*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
*National Marine Fisheries Service
*N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
• *N.C. Division of Coastal Management
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chowan County
*Town of Edenton
• *State Clearinghouse
! *N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
. *N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Division of Water Quality
*Division of Parks and Recreation
*N.C. Division of Forest Resources
*N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation

• These comments and related issues, included in Appendix C, have been addressed in this
document.

1. Additional Information

Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting either of the following:

John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division Administrator
. Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]

M
• Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
• Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
• Telephone [phone]

lx

•
•
U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Extension of NC 94
From NC 32 to US 17 Bypass
Chowan County
• Federal Aid Project STP-1114(2)
. WBS No. 34949.1.1
T.I.P. No. U-3419

• I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

A. Type of Action

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts
of this proposed transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina
• Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) do not
anticipate significant impacts to the environment will occur due to this proposed project. A final
determination will be made in supplemental documentation, likely a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) document.

B. General Description

The NCDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, proposes the construction of a two-lane
• road on new location from NC 94/ NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in Edenton, Chowan County, North
. Carolina.

The proposed two-lane facility will have 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (2-foot
paved). The total length of the project is approximately 3.0 miles, depending on the alternative
• chosen.

This project is included in the approved 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and the 2008-2015 Draft TIP. The total cost in the STIP is $29,314,000, which
includes $6,400,000 for right of way, $914,000 for mitigation and $22,000,000 for construction.
The current estimated right of way cost ranges from $5,588,750 to $22,786,250 and estimated
construction cost ranges from $14,399,000 to $38,549,000 depending on the alternative selected.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2010 with
construction to begin in FFY 2012.

. 1

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A. Truck Traffic Impacts

Three major highways serve Edenton area: US 17, NC 32, and NC 94. The main
industrial area near Edenton is located on NC 94 near the Edenton Airport. Heavy trucks are
introduced onto the street network by logging and other industries off of NC 94. Most of the .
traffic that currently accesses the industrial area travels from US 17 to NC 32. NC 32 carries this .
traffic through the Central Business District and the Edenton Historic District. .

According to the 2005 traffic volumes, over 760 trucks passed through downtown
Edenton on NC 32. By 2030, it is expected that over 1400 trucks will use travel through
downtown Edenton each day. Trucks must maneuver through several difficult turns going •
through downtown (in the historic district) to follow NC 32. •

For over 20 years, the Edenton Historical Commission has expressed concerned about the •
effects that heavy truck volumes has on the historic district. A 1987 letter stated that the trucks: •
• Cause excessive vibrations in the c. 1773 James Iredell House State Historic Site.
• Damage has occurred to walls and foundation of the house. •
• Dishes and breakable items in the house have been known to move across tables due to the
vibrations.

Tourism has been an important part of the downtown Edenton's economy because of the
well preserved historic district. Walking tours in the historic district have been endangered by

excessive trucks. a

NC 32 currently runs by the John A. Holmes High School. This school has high .
pedestrian population. The superintendent of the school system has in past correspondence
requested a re-routing of this highway due to potential safety hazards involving school buses and
school children pedestrians.

The Edenton thoroughfare plan states that "the most evident deficiency in the Edenton
road network is the lack of a circumferential route that would allow traffic to access the US 17
Bypass without passing through the center of town. Improvement of existing streets in the
downtown is limited by the abundance of historic properties and the large trees that line the
pavement edge." The lack of a route around Edenton from the southeast is a major driving force
for this project. Past attempts to reroute truck traffic to other streets downtown were not
successful. •

B. Purpose of the Proiect

The purpose of the project is to reduce truck traffic along existing NC 32 within
downtown Edenton. •

2 •

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY

A. Length of Proiect

The project will be between 2.9 and 3.1 miles in length, depending on the alternative
selected.

B. Proiect Terminals

• The project begins at the intersection of NC 94, NC 32, and SR 1103 (Hobbs Lane). The
project ends either just north of the existing Paradise Road interchange with US 17 Bypass or

with the existing US 17 Business interchange with US 17 Bypass, depending on the alternative.

. C. Existing Typical Section

NC 94, NC 32, and NC 37 are two-lane roadways with grass shoulders. Peanut Drive and
Old Hertford Road are two-lane roadways with grass shoulders. Hobbs Lane (SR 1103) is a two-
lane dirt road. Coke Avenue, Perry Road and Shannon Way are all two-lane residential
roadways. US 17 Bypass is a four-lane median divided freeway with fully controlled access
within the project study area. US 17 Business is currently a two-lane roadway with shoulders
that widens to three lanes between the railroad crossing and SR 1319 (Paradise Road).

• D. Route Classification

NC 94 is a rural minor collector that primarily serves the Airport and Industrial Park
southeast of Edenton. NC 32 is a minor arterial that runs through the Central Business District
and carries traffic from Edenton south to Washington County and north to Virginia. US 17
. Bypass is a principal arterial and connects Edenton with Windsor to the west and Hertford to the
• east. US 17 Business is the prime local arterial running through the City of Edenton. NC 37 is a
rural major collector and runs combined on sections of both NC 32 and US 17 Bypass. Peanut
Drive is a local road that serves an industrial park. The remaining streets in the project study
area, including Old Hertford Road, Hobbs Lane, Coke Avenue, Perry Road and Shannon Way,
are local roads that serve the residents of Edenton.

E. Right of Way

• Existing right of way for NC 94 is approximately 70 feet. The existing right of way for
NC 32 is 60 feet near the project beginning. Existing right of way for US 17 Bypass is 320 feet
within the project study area. Right of way for US 17 Business is between 50 feet north of
Edenton and 110 feet near the railroad crossing. Paradise Road has an existing right of way
width of between 40 and 60 feet near the existing interchange with US 17 Bypass. Old Hertford
S Road and Coke Avenue have existing right of way widths of between 45 to 50 feet. Hobbs Lane
. has an existing right of way width of 60 feet.

• 3

•
•
U-3419 Environmental Assessment

F. Bridge/Drainage Structures •

There are no existing culverts or bridges that cross streams within the project study area. •
•
G. Speed Limit

Current speed limits within the project study area range from 60 mph on US 17 Bypass to
20 mph on local streets in downtown Edenton. •
•
H. Access Control

Within the project study area, NC 94 and NC 43 do not have any access control. US 17
Bypass is a full access controlled facility with interchanges at Paradise Road and US 17 •
Business. US 17 Business does not have any control of access. The other roads in the project •
area do not have access control. •

1. Intersection and Type of Control

All but one of the intersections within the project area are stop sign controlled. Signals
control traffic at the intersection of Paradise Road and US 17 Business.
•
I Utilities

Gas, electric, telephone, cable television, water, and drainage systems are all located •
within the project alternative corridors. Relocations are expected for these utilities where
conflicts exist.
•
K. School Buses

On NC 94, near the beginning of the project, there are approximately five buses that run
twice a day. On NC 32, there are approximately 43 school buses that run twice a day. There are •
four school buses that operate on Old Hertford Road, approximately six on US 17, three on US
17 Business near Peanut Drive and approximately eight on Paradise Road to the west of Edenton.
These buses make both morning and afternoon trips. School buses serve two elementary schools, •
a middle school and J. A. Holmes High School which is located within the project study area but

will not be impacted by the project. There is no school bus traffic on the roads that will be •
directly altered by this project (Hobbs Lane or Peanut Drive). •

L. Railroads •
•
One railroad corridor is located within the project area. The Chesapeake & Albemarle •
(CA) Railroad is a privately owned and operated shortline railroad that runs from Edenton, NC to
Norfolk, VA. This railroad has an at-grade intersection with Peanut Drive. The railroad crosses •
under US 17 Bypass west of the US 17 Business interchange.
•

•
4

•

•

U-3419 Environmental Assessment
•
•
M. Sidewalks

• There are no existing sidewalks located within the project area.

N. Parking
•
There is no on street parking located within the project area.

0. Bicycle Facilities
•
• NC 94 (Soundside Road) is part of an established bicycle route.
•
. P. Greenways

S There are no greenways located within the project area.
•
Q. Other TIP Projects

Other TIP projects in the area include:
•
• • B-4463, Replacement of Bridge No. 12 on NC 32 over Queen Anne Creek, Chowan County,
scheduled for right of way in 2010 and construction in 2011.
• • U-5001, Western Connector (Luke Street) Albania Street to Virginia Street. Construct multi-
lanes, some on new location. Chowan County, Unfunded Project.
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
5

•

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
i
Alternatives considered for this project included the "no build", alternate modes and •
several new location alternatives. These are documented in the following sections.

A. No-Build Alternative .

The no-build alternative would forego any improvements to existing roads with exception •
of routine maintenance. This alternative does not meet the purpose of the project because it •
would not improve safety or reduce truck traffic through downtown Edenton. It is used as a basis •
for comparison of other alternatives.

B. Alternative Modes of Transportation

Considering the size and location of Edenton, alternate modes of transportation are not ,
considered viable alternatives for the project. Expansion of rail service and implementation of
bus service in the project area would not meet the purpose of the project. The Industrial Park is
currently not served by rail. A military base was once served by rail in the vicinity of the •

Industrial Park, however, an ice storm wiped out the railroad bridge over the Albemarle Sound in •
the 1970s and Norfolk Southern decided it would be unprofitable to replace the bridge. Chowan
County did not disagree with this decision. Subsequently, the railroad tracks between Queen i
Anne Creek and the Albemarle Sound were removed.

In general, "just in time" inventories negatively affected train shipments in Chowan
County. This refers to the ability of trucks to ship items more quickly than rail. In addition,
small shipments are not well served by rail as economies of scale are reached more easily with
large loads. Rail shipments are less flexible than truck shipments in that due to the lower •
frequency of rail shipping, product may be required to sit in storage while waiting for shipment.
This rigidity also limits rail shipment of perishable goods. Considering all of this, it is not
surprising that for the types of shipping that occur in Edenton, rail rates are not competitive with
the trucking rates.

C. New Location Alternatives

Three alternatives are currently being considered for this project. In this evaluation they
are referred to as: Paradise #2, Peanut Drive #1, and Soundisde Road Western. All three •
alternatives begin at the intersection of NC 32, NC 94 (Soundiide Road), and SR 1103 (Hobbs •
Lane) east of downtown Edenton. The alternatives utilize the existing SR 1103 (Hobbs Lane) •
alignment before turning north and crossing an unnamed tributary of Queen Anne Creek. The
alternatives incorporate a service road near the beginning of the project in order to maintain
access to fields that are currently accessed via Hobbs Lane. Construction for this service road •
ends before the unnamed tributary of Queen Anne Creek. The current intersection of SR 1102 •
(Yeopim Road) and NC 32 will be moved east of the existing intersection. •

6

S

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• All three of the remaining alternatives will substantially reduce the amount of truck traffic
within the downtown historic district. With no improvements, approximately 1460 trucks will
use the current NC 32 route by the year 2030. By contract, with the extension of NC 94 in place,

the truck traffic on NC 32 within the historic district will be reduced by approximately 60%.

Paradise Road #2: From the south terminal, this alternative turns northwest, crosses an
agricultural field then crosses another tributary of Queen Anne Creek. This alternative continues
in a northwesterly direction across another agricultural field, then crosses Queen Anne Creek
before reaching the intersection of Old Hertford Road. The alternative proposes an at-grade
• crossing at Old Hertford Road. The alternative proceeds across more agricultural fields, includes
S an at-grade crossing at US 17 Business (N. Broad Street), a grade separation of the Chesapeake
and Albemarle Railroad, and a new half diamond/cloverleaf interchange with US 17 Bypass.
The existing Paradise Road Bridge over US 17 Bypass will remain in place to provide access to
the properties along Paradise Road, but the ramps will be removed.

• Peanut Drive #1: From the south terminal, this alternative turns northwest, crosses an
agricultural field then crosses another tributary of Queen Anne Creek. This alternative proceeds
north along the edge of the large wooded tract before turning west and crossing Queen Anne
Creek (to the north of the Paradise Road proposed location). This alternative then crosses US 17
Business (N. Broad Street) and follows the existing Peanut Drive. A grade-separation over the
Railroad and a new half-diamond/cloverleaf interchange with US 17 Bypass are proposed. The
existing Paradise Road Bridge over US 17 Bypass will remain in place to provide access to the
properties along Paradise Road, but the ramps will be removed. Old Hertford Road will not have
• direct access to the new road, but will be redirected to align with US 17 Business.

S Soundside Road Western: From the south terminal, this alternative crosses an agricultural field
then crosses another tributary of Queen Anne Creek. The alignment then continues north along
the edge of the large wooded tract and crosses Butternut Lane before ending just south of the
• existing interchange of US 17 Business and US 17 Bypass. The existing interchange will remain
• in place with no improvements. In addition, a realignment of US 17 Business near the
interchange with US 17 is required to meet current design standards.
0

0 D. Alternatives Dropped From Consideration
0 Soundside Eastern: This was the original vision for the project in the thoroughfare plan.
• However, this alternative was eliminated due to habitat fragmentation issues and higher wetland

0 impacts than other alternatives.
0
• Upgrade Old Hertford Road: The Old Hertford Road community has a sizable concentration
of low income/ minority populations. The community has a high number of children and adult
pedestrians that regularly cross the roadway. Highway improvements would bisect the
0 community. Several additional residences would be eliminated by this alternative. This
0 alternative due to pedestrian safety, noise, and relocation impacts to the community, this
. alternative was eliminated.

0
7

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

Peanut Drive #2: While similar to the current Peanut Drive alternative through the Industrial
Park, this alternative would utilize Old Hertford Road. This alternative was eliminated due to the
same community impacts as Old Hertford Road alternative.

Peanut Drive #3: This alternative is similar to Peanut Drive #2, except that it cuts east on new •
location just past the intersection of Old Hertford Road and Paxton Lane. This alternative was
eliminated due to the same community impacts as Old Hertford Road alternative.

Paradise Road #1: This alternative is similar to the Paradise Road #2 alternative but utilizes Old .
Hertford Road for the beginning of the project. This alternative was eliminated due to the same •
community impacts as Old Hertford Road alternative. .

Paradise Road #3: This alternative also uses a portion of Old Hertford Road and was eliminated
for the same reason.

Upgrade the existing CBD roadway network: This alternative would upgrade the existing road
network within downtown Edenton. It would not have met the purpose of the project to reduce •
truck traffic in downtown.

Place restrictions on Truck Traffic on NC 32 through Edenton: This alternative would have
restricted truck traffic from the downtown road network and forced the trucks to another existing i
route. As there wasn't another adequate existing adequate route in the area, this option was •
deemed not feasible.

Use of NC 37: This alternative was eliminated because it created a much longer truck route than
~
any routes in Edenton and would not capture much of the truck traffic. •

8

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

i
E. Comparison of Remaining Alternatives

Table 4-1: Comparison of Current Alternatives

' Paradise Road Peanut Drive Soundside
Impacted Resource #2 #1 Road Western
Length 3.1 miles 3.1 miles 2.9 miles
New Interchanges 1 1 0
Railroad Crossings 1 1 0
Schools 0 0 0

Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0
• Churches 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0
Residential Relocations 6 14 2
Business Relocations 3 10 0
Historic Properties (Eligible or Listed on 0 0 0
the National Register)

S Section 4(f) Properties 0 0 0
Archeological Sites (Note 1) Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined
i NRCS - Potential Farmland Conversion 43 acres 51 acres 37 acres
Wetland Impacts 6.1 acres 6 acres 7.3 acres
Stream Impacts 370 ft 330 ft 0 ft
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Gamelands 0 0 0
Federally Listed Species Within Corridor No Effect No Effect No Effect
Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0
Known Hazardous Material Sites or 0 0 0
• Hazardous Spill Basins
Noise Receptors Impacted 1 1 0
Minority / Low Income Populations No No No
(Adverse & Dis ro ortionate Impacts)
Construction Cost $30,541,000 $38,741,000 $14,399,000
Right of Way Cost $7,230,900 $22,786,300 $5,588,800
. Utilities Cost $1,106,900 $1,677,800 $433,600
Miti ation Cost $539,400 $411,000 $428,500
Total Project Cost $39,418,200 $63,616,100 $20,849,900
Notes:
• (1) Archeological surveys will be performed once the preferred alternative is selected.

9

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

F. Capacity Analysis

All three alternatives were analyzed for the design year (2030). Capacity analyses were
performed on the mainline, intersections, and interchanges.

Two-Lane Mainline Analysis •

According to a planning level arterial analysis completed for this project, approximately
up to 17,000 vehicles could be carried on a two-lane urban arterial roadway at LOS D. This is
denoted as "passing". The analysis showed that the project roadway and NC 32 would "pass", •
whereas the US 17 business would "fail" unless widened by the design year 2030 (see Appendix •
Table 4-2). •

Table 4-2: 2030 Arterial Screening (All Alternatives) .
Proposed NC US 17 Business NC 32
Segment 94 Extension
•
Soundside Road Alternative Pass Fail Pass
Peanut Road Alternative Pass Fail Pass
Paradise Road Alternative Pass Fail Pass

Intersection Analysis i

Intersection capacity analyses were performed all major intersections within the study .
area. Both signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated. Only the northbound left- •
turn movement onto Old Hertford Road from US 17 business had a failing LOS (for Peanut Road •
alternative only); otherwise, all intersections operated at a LOS of D or better. The intersection
of NC 94, NC 32, and SR 1103 (Hobbs Lane) is proposed to be signalized as part of this project.

Because of the proximity of Old Hertford Road/ US 17 business intersection to the
proposed intersection US 17 business with the Peanut Alternative, no signalization is proposed
for Old Hertford Road.

10

. U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Table 4-3: 2030 Paradise #2 Intersection Analysis

Traffic Weekday AM Peak Weekda PM Peak
Intersection Control LOS Delay LOS Delay
(see) (see)
NC 32 at NC 94/Paradise Road Signalized D 48.1 D 37.2
NC 32 at Perry Road
. • Northbound Approach Unsignalized B 15.0 C 15.5

• Southbound Approach B 15.0 C 15.3
• Paradise Road and Old Hertford Signalized B 14.0 A 9.9
Road
US Business and Paradise Road Signalized D 41.3 D 43.1
US Business and Coke Road Signalized C 20.5 C 21.3
• US 17 Bypass EB Ramps at
. Peanut Road Alternative Unsignalized C 23.1 D 32.1
Eastbound Approach
US 17 Bypass WB ramps
at Peanut Road Alternative Unsignalized B 11.6 B 11.8
• Westbound Approach

11

s
•
U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

Table 4-4: 2030 Peanut #1 Intersection Analysis

Traffic Weekda AM Peak Weekda PM Peak •

FF rsection Control LOS Ds a LOS Delay
C 94/Peanut Signalized D 45.0 D 35.8
rry Road
und Approach B 15.0 C 15.9 U nsignalized
• ouound Approach B 15.0 C 15.3
US 17 Business and Peanut Signalized D 37.4 D 37.8 •
Road •
US 17 Business and Peanut
(With eastbound U-turns, Signalized D 38.0 D 38.7
revised geometry at Old
Hertford Road)
US 17 Business and Old
Hertford Road
Northbound left-turn F 60.2 F 66.6
• Northbound right-turn Unsignalized B 13.5 C 16.3 •
• Revised NB approach C 19.6 C 16.0 •
(right- turn only) •
Old Hertford Road at Local Unsignalized 9.9 A B 10.3 •
Road Southbound Approach
US 17 Bypass EB Ramps at 17.3 C 16.7 •
Peanut Road Alternative Unsignalized C .
Westbound Approach .
US 17 Bypass WB Ramps at 12 2 B 11.4
Peanut Road Alternative Unsignalized B
Westbound Approach
Peanut Road Alternative and 12 1 B 14.9
Existing Paradise Road, Unsignalized B
Eastbound Approach •

12

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Table 4-5: 2020 Soundside Western Intersection Analysis

Weekday AM Peak Weekday PM Peak
• Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay LOS Delay
• (sec) (sec)
NC 32 at NC 94/Southside (

Road Signalized D 44.8 C 33.5
~
US 17 Business/Shannon Way Signalized B 18.1 B 18.3
• at Southside Road
US 17 Bypass EB ramps at
US 17 Business
• Westbound Left-turn lane Unsignalized B 11.4 B 13.6
• Westbound Right-turn lane A 10.3 B 10.2
US 17 Bypass WB at US 17
• Business
• Westbound Left-turn lane Unsignalized B 11.1 B 11.3
• Westbound Right-turn lane A 8.4 A 8.4
NC 32 and Perry Road
• Northbound Approach Unsignalized B 15.0 C 15.5
• • Southbound Approach B 15.0 C 15.3
• Shannon Way and Service Unsignalized B 10.8 B 10.8
Road

Interchange Analysis

i Interchange and ramp capacity analyses were performed for each alternative where they
connect to US 17 bypass. The US 17 interchanges with each alternative will function at a high
LOS.

Table 4-6: 2030 Paradise #2 Interchange Analysis (Proposed US 17 Bypass Interchange)

AM PM
Intersection Merge/Diverge DENSITY LOS DENSITY LOS
(c/mi/In) c/mi/In)
Ramp A D 5.8 A 5.8 A
i Ramp B M 9.2 A 9.6 A
• Ramp C D 7.7 A 7.7 A
Ramp D M 7.8 A 7.9 A

13

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

Table 4-7: 2030 Peanut #1 Interchange Analysis (Proposed US 17 B ass Interchange)
AM PM
Ramp Junction
(Design Merge/Diverge DENSITY LOS DENSITY LOS
Designation) c/milln)
c/mi/ln )
Ramp A D 5.8 A 5.8 A •
Ramp A M 9.4 A 9.5 A •
Ramp D D 7.9 A 7.8 A
Ramp D M 7.7 A 7.7 A

Table 4-8: 2030 Soundside Western Interchange Analysis (Existing US 17 Bypass & US 17 •
•
Business Interchange)
AM PM
Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge DENSITY LOS DENSITY LOS •
(Design Designation) c/mi/ln) c/mi/ln
Ramp A D 8.6 A 8.6 A
Ramp B M 7.8 A 7.9 A •
Ramp C D 5.8 A 5.8 A
Ramp D M 9.9 A 10.4 A •

G. Recommended Alternative

No alternative is recommended at this time. Comments received at the design public
hearing will be reviewed, and the additional coordination with other federal, state, and local
agencies will occur before a final decision is made.

14

i U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

A. Design Speed

• The proposed design speed for the new roadway will be 60 mph, and the facility is
• expected to be posted at 55 mph.

B. Typical Section

s
. The proposed typical section will be two 12-foot lanes with eight-foot shoulders (two-
foot paved shoulders) (see Figure 4). Intersection lane configuration on US 17 Business for both
the Paradise and Peanut alternatives widens existing US 17 Business to a four-lane median
section in the intersection vicinity. This is necessary to accommodate future traffic projections.

C. Right of Way

Proposed right-of-way will be approximately 150 feet for all alignments.

D. Access Control

The new facility will have limited controlled access. At-grade intersections will be
maintained. On the new location section, there will be no new access points off of the new
roadway.

• E. Bridge/Drainage Structure Improvements

All three alternatives include various bridge or culvert recommendations for the wetland
and stream crossings (see Table 5-1). In addition, with both the Paradise and Peanut alternatives,
• a new interchange will be constructed just northwest of the existing Paradise Road interchange.
Along with the new interchange, the existing Paradise Road Bridge over US 17 bypass will
remain in place for local traffic use. With the Soundside alternative, the roadway will tie into
existing prior to the existing US 17Business/ US 17 Bypass interchange. This alternative does
• not require a new structure at this location.

15

U-3419 Environmental Assessment .

S
Table 5-1: Proposed Drainage Structures •

Site Alternative Location Structure
11 paradise, Peanut, rUnna med Tributary 1 to Queen Minimum Length Bridge,
Soundside Anne Creek a roximately 140 ft
Paradise, Peanut, name d Tributary lA to Culvert, single 10-ft x 6-ft RCBC
22 Soundside Queen Anne Creek
Minimum Length Bridge, .
33 Paradise Queen Anne Creek approximately 120 ft

44 Peanut Queen Anne Creek Culvert, single 9-ft x 6-ft RCBC •

F. Parkin i
S
Parking is not being incorporated into this project. .

G. SidewalksBicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and bicycle facilities are not currently proposed as part of this project.
i
H. Intersection Treatment and Tyne of Control

Intersection treatment will be similar for the three alternatives where they have similar .
designs. For all three alternatives, the intersection at existing NC 32 will remain at grade but will •
be signalized. The Paradise and Peanut alternatives will have at-grade, signalized intersections
with US 17 Business and will both have a new interchange with US 17 Bypass. The Paradise
alternative also has an at-grade intersection with Old Hertford Road. This intersection will be
stop-controlled for Old Hertford Road. The Soundside alternative requires a reconstruction of its i
proposed intersection with US 17 Business and this intersection will likely be signalized. •

1. Railroads

Both the Paradise and Peanut alternatives include constructing a bridge over the •
Chesapeake & Albemarle railroad. •

16

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

A. Community Effects

1. Community Characteristics

a. Community Description

The Old Hertford community is situated along Old Hertford Road and includes Paxton
Lane. The community has been in existence for 30-50 years. This community can be generally
• categorized as a predominately African American lower to middle-income neighborhood. The
neighborhood is a mixture of single family homes on small lots, apartments, and a public housing
development. Most of the members attend Union Grove Church on Tyler Lane. Approximately
60% of the houses have children under eighteen, and many of these children play on Old
• Hertford Road.

b. Population Characteristics

Similar to other counties in this geographical area, Chowan County's population grew at
• a slow pace between 1990 and 2000, adding 1,020 people, or a 7.6% population increase. In
comparison, the State of North Carolina's population grew by 21.4% during the same timeframe.
Indicative of its predominantly rural land use, the demographic area, which is located in southern
Chowan County, grew by only 7.9% in population from 3,149 persons in 1990 to 3,397 persons
• in 2000.

Table 6-1: Population Growth, 1990-2000

Area Po 'ulation Growth
1990 2000 # %
Demographic Area 3,149 3,397 248 7.9
Edenton 5,268 5,394 126 4.6
Chowan County 13,506 14,526 1,020 7.6
• North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4
. Source: US Census Bureau 1990 & 2000

Most of the population growth within the demographic area is a result of retirees attracted
to the rural living environment and the open water amenities. Also, demographic area residents
• enjoy a relatively low property cost and low property tax rates, as property values in this area
i with such sought after amenities are lower than in other locations of the state and region.

17

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

c. Ethnicity

A total of 3,397 people resided within the demographic area in 2000. 52.6% of the
people within the demographic area were white, compared to 42.3% in Edenton, 59.9% in
Chowan County and 70.2% in North Carolina. This equates to a substantially higher percentage •
(47.4%) of minorities within the demographic area than within the state as a whole (29.8%). •
•
Most of the minority population within the demographic area was Black or African-American
(44.9%).

Table 6-2: Population by Race, 2000
Demographic Edenton Chowan
Coup North Carolina
Race Area
Po . % Pa" . % Po . % Po % •
White 1,786 52.6 2,283 42.3 8,703 59.9 5,647,155 70.2
Black or African 1,525 44.9 2,956 54.8 5,415 37.3 1,723,301 21.4 •
•
American
American Indian or 5 0.1 11 0.2 42 0.3 95,333 1.2
Alaska Native
Asian 10 0.3 34 0.6 50 0.4 112,416 1.4 •
Native Hawaiian or 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3,165 0.0
Pacific Islands .
Hispanic or Latino 45 1.3 75 1.5 219 1.5 378,963 4.7
Other Races 0 0.0 4 0.1 6 0.0 9,015 0.0
Two or More Races 26 0.8 28 0.5 91 0.6 79,965 1.0 •
Total 3,397 100 5,394 100 145526 100 8,049,313 100 •

d. Age •

In terms of age distribution, the demographic area had a slightly lower percent (16.3%) of •
elderly population (65 or older) in 2000 than did Edenton (20.5%) or Chowan County (17.9%), •
•
but had a higher percentage than North Carolina (12.0%). In addition, the demographic area has
a slightly higher percentage of older working age population (45-64 years) than does Chowan
County and the State, reflecting the demographic area's mature, agricultural nature, and low
turnover of property. Both Chowan County and the demographic area have higher percentages of ,
population aged 45 and older and much lower percentages of population between the ages of 20- •
44 than does North Carolina as a whole. .

18

•
• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• Table 6-3: Population by Age, 2000
Demographic Chowan
• Age Area Edenton Coup North Carolina
Pop. % Po % o Po % Pop. %
19 years and under 965 28.4 1,598 29.6 3,989 27.5 2,193,360 27.3
20-44 ears 1,013 29.8 1,603 29.7 45389 30.2 3,078,043 38.2

45-64 ears 864 25.4 1,089 20.2 3,542 24.4 1,808,862 22.5
65 or more years 555 16.4 1,104 20.5 2,606 17.9 969,048 12.0

a Total 3,397 100 5,394 100 14,526 100 8,049,313 100
e. Income

In 1989, the median household income for the demographic area was $20,776, nearly
• identical to Chowan County ($20,397) but much lower than North Carolina ($26,647). This gap
remained through the 1990's with the 1999 median household income in the demographic area at
$33,801, versus $39,184 for North Carolina. The median household income for the demographic
area in that given ten-year period increased 62.7%. One reason for the increase in median
. household income may be that during this period, Edenton experienced a fair amount of
• commercial growth in terms of light industry and agri-business. Also, the addition of Chowan
County Hospital during the 1990's added higher paying medical and health-related jobs, as well
as an increase in the total number of jobs.

Table 6-4: Median Household Income, 1990-2000

Area Household Income Chan e
• 1990 2000 # %
Demographic Area $20,776 $33,801 $13,025 62.7
Edenton $17,140 $25,241 $8,101 47.3
Chowan County $20,397 $30,928 $10,531 51.6
North Carolina $26,647 $39,184 $12,537 47.0

Low median household incomes usually translate into higher poverty rates. In 1990, the
percentage of the demographic area population that lived below the poverty level was 20.7%,
somewhat higher than Chowan County (17.3%) and much higher than that of North Carolina

(12.5%). Poverty rates for both Chowan County and North Carolina slightly decreased between
• 1990 and 2000, while the demographic area poverty rate increased somewhat. A possible
explanation for the increase in population below poverty level within the demographic area could
be attributed to the aforementioned public housing community in Census Tract 9901, Block
Group-1.

19

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

It is noteworthy to add that the block groups comprising the demographic area cover a
relatively larger area that may or may not be impacted by TIP U-3419. Census Tract 9901, Block
Group-1 in particular, is vast in size when compared to the other block groups associated with •
demographic area, and contains the entire eastern region of Chowan County. Taking that into
consideration, not only does the demographic area contain lower income neighborhoods such as •
The Old Hertford Community, but also includes higher income and retirement neighborhoods
much further south and east in Chowan County, including the Chowan Golf and Country Club.
This in turn may reflect a broad range in household income and employment.

Table 6-5: % Below Poverty, 1990-2000

Area 1990 #
% BM11.9 Chan e
Demographic Area 20.7 1.7 8.2
Edenton 23.0 -1.1 -4.8
Chowan County 17.3 -0.6 -3.5 •
North Carolina 12.5 -0.6 44.8 •

The US Census Bureau employs a set of income thresholds that vary by the size and
composition of a family to determine poverty status. These thresholds are not based on .
geographic boundaries but are adjusted for inflation. The thresholds are also based on income •

before taxes, and do not include any capital gains or non-cash benefits such as public assistance. •
In addition, people living in military barracks or institutional group homes are not included in the
poverty statistics.

Table 6-6: Unemployment Rate, 1990-2000 •
•
Unem to ment Rate Chan e
•
Area 1990 2000 # %
Demogr a hic Area 8.4 8.4 0.0 0.0
Edenton 10.9 12.0 1.1 10.1
Chowan County 8.1 3.8 -4.3 -53.1 •
North Carolina 4.2 3.6 -0.6 -14.3 •

20

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

L Business and Employment Characteristics

Table 6-7 shows employment growth figures for Chowan County between 1990 and
• 2000. It is apparent that the services industry added the most jobs in Chowan County between
• 1990 and 2000. Much of this growth was driven by tourism and the attractiveness to retirees
relocating here, particularly in southern Chowan County and Edenton near the project location.
As stated previously, the addition of the Chowan County Hospital has contributed to the job
growth within the services industry. Industries in Chowan County that lost employment during
the decade include agriculture and wholesale trade. Overall, job growth in Edenton and Chowan

• County is driven by the population, which explains the service industry's growth.

Employment by sector within the demographic area as reflected in Table 6-7 indicates
that retail trade jobs decreased by over 82% from 1990 to 2000. The explanation for this trend is
. that most businesses in this area reclassified many of their retail positions as part-time positions.
As a result, part-time retail employees were not included in the calculation of retail trade
employment in 2000.

Table 6-7: Employment by Sector Demographic Area, 1990-2000

Sector E to ment Change
1990 2000 # %
• Construction 103 166 63 61.2
Agriculture 76 48 -28 -36.8
Mining 0 0 0 0
Manufacturing 220 237 17 7.7
• Transportation/ 80 22 -58 -72.5
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade 36 69 33 91.7
Retail Trade 316 56 -260 -82.3
FIRE 53 33 -20 -37.7
Services 254 528 274 107.9
• Government 117 138 21 17.9
Total 1,255 1,297 42 3.3

Tourism is a prominent means of revenue for Edenton; the North Carolina Department of
• Commerce recorded over 13 million dollars for 2001 were earned from tourism alone. Also
• noteworthy is that 160 jobs in Edenton are directly attributable to tourism alone.

21

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

g. Community Resources

There are several public facilities, predominantly churches (some of historic significance) •
within or near the demographic area and the potential road alignment alternatives. •

Perhaps the most prominent public facility within the demographic area is the Edenton
Municipal Airport, located off NC 94. Current expansions and upgrades to this facility are taking
place to accommodate the forecasted growth to the region. According to local planners and the .
local Chamber of Commerce, upgrades such as runway extensions and new terminal expansions •
are currently in the planning process or currently underway. •

In addition to several churches, the John A. Holmes High School is located on the
intersection of Broad Street and Woodward Street. Although not within the demographic area •
itself, the high school is directly adjacent to the western extent of the demographic area
boundary. The Chowan Golf and Country Club is situated in the extreme southern portion of
Chowan County, but falls within the demographic area. None of the proposed alternatives
directly impacts these facilities.

Most of downtown Edenton falls within the historic district. Edenton is well known for
its fine examples of Jacobean, Georgian, Federal, Greek Revival and Victorian architectural
styles spanning 250 years. The historic district is extensive with two structures designated
National Historic Landmarks and numerous other buildings listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The Town of Edenton is in the process of drafting a proposal to expand the •

limits of the historic district to include other neighborhoods, buildings, and places that qualify as •
historically significant. The historic district also attracts a significant number of tourists •
annually.

Hayes Plantation is located within the southeastern portion of the demographic area and is
listed with the National Register as a National Historic Landmark. No negative impacts to
historical properties are anticipated to occur as a result of any of the proposed TIP U-3419
alternatives. However, TIP U-3419's rerouting of truck traffic outside of historic downtown •
Edenton would minimize further damage to historical properties resulting from vibrations. •

h. Emergency Services •

Chowan County Hospital, the main hospital serving Chowan County and the local region, •
is located just northwest of the demographic area. A branch of the Albemarle Mental Health •
Center is located within the western limits of the demographic area on Broad Street North. Both S
the police and county sheriffs departmentsare tdd the EMS Paramedic
Street and Court Street, respectively. The Edenton Fire Department an
Unit are both located on Broad Street in Edenton, just west of the demographic area boundary. •
There are no existing paramedic units or volunteer fire departments within the demographic area, •
•
as the downtown Edenton emergency units have jurisdiction over most of southern and eastern
Chowan County.

22

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

i. Utilities

Water service is provided along all of the major roads within the demographic area
including, but not limited to, US 17 Business, NC 32 and NC 37. However, sewer service is
. currently limited to the Edenton city limits.

j. Plans and Regulations

• The Edenton and Chowan County Land Use Plan Update, dated September 22, 1998, is
• the result of a joint planning effort between Edenton and Chowan County in which the members
of the respective Planning Boards of each jurisdiction joined to form a single committee to guide
the planning process.
r
• The City of Edenton has planning and zoning district jurisdiction along the US 17 Bypass
• to NC 32, Oaktree Road to the north and SR 1202 to the west. Jurisdiction continues south of
US 17 Business to Edenton Bay and East of Old Hertford Road. Outside the city limits of
Edenton, the county has no documented zoning with the exception of The Edenton Municipal
S Airport and The Chowan Golf and Country Club. The airport has been zoned for industrial use
• and the golf club has been zoned for low-density residential use.

i Several residential clusters or nodes toward the eastern extent of the demographic area
have local deed restrictions governing subdivision unit density and, to an extent, architectural
• design guidelines. The remaining portions of the demographic area are otherwise undeveloped
• and currently not specifially zoned.

2. Community Impact Analysis

a. Displacements/Relocation Impacts

Both residential and commercial displacements are anticipated from project
implementation (see the Relocation Report in Appendix F). The total residential relocations
range from 2 to 14 and business relocations range from 0 to 10, depend on the alternative chosen

• and are detailed in the Impacted Resources Table (see Table 4-1).

NCDOT's policy regarding displacements involves providing assistance to those affected
by transportation improvements per the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Properties Acquisition Policies Act. All alternatives under evaluation will result in the
• displacement of homes and/or businesses. Some residents in the study area are low-income, and
if they are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Program established by the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646) will be used.

The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the
. effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or
businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs.

23

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the •
inconvenience of relocation:

Relocation Assistance •
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement

The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staff 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 cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing •

Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.

The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the •
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-
18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to •
each highway project for this purpose.

The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation advisory services without S
regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to •
allow ample time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of replacement housing •
that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written
notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and •
sale prices of replacement property will be within financial means of the families and individuals •
displaced, and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation •
officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm •
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.

All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2)
rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant
housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information •
concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will •
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in •
adjusting to a new location. •

24

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

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 the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has
been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the 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
latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement
housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary.

• b. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility

The construction of an extension of US 94 is not likely to conflict with the existing
zoning and proposed land use for that area. Outside the municipal boundary of Edenton and an
• area of surrounding land in the vicinity of the Edenton Municipal Airport, almost all land in the
demographic area is zoned for Residential/Agricultural. Most of the land use that the alternatives
traverse is of this category. Just about all of this rural land is utilized for agricultural purposes.
Where all three proposed alternatives extend along the farmland corridor, the roadway design
• shall maintain controlled access, thereby limiting the likelihood for any potential development.

The Soundside alternative extends to the existing interchange of Broad Street North and
the US 17 Bypass. Land use for this area is categorized as "Urban Transition". As a result of
adjoining the extension of US 94 to this interchange, it is likely to spark potential development
consistent with the current land use of the area. The land surrounding Peanut Drive is zoned for
• industrial use, as this is the location of the Gateway Industrial Park. Any growth to the industrial
park as a result of the Peanut alternative should not be in conflict with any current land use or

25

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

zoning ordinances. The Paradise alternative may induce additional growth and development t •
the interchange of Paradise Road and the US 17 Bypass, which is consistent f the highway
commercial use zoning in place for this area.

c. Economic Conditions

This project has the potential to induce positive economic growth and development.
With factors such as a growing light industrial market and a slow but steady influx of retirees to •
the local area, commercial development such as restaurants, convenience stores, and other •
service facilities may locate along these alignments where partial or no access control will exist. S
Growth of this nature may occur along the Peanut alternative, where this alignment intersects •
with US 17 Business and also at the interchange of US 17 Bypass where the alternative aligns
with Paradise Road. Similarly, the Paradise alternative has the potential to experience growth at •
the intersection US 17 Business and at the interchange of US 17 Bypass where it aligns with •
Paradise Road. The Soundside alternative has less opportunity for growth, due in part to full •
control of access along most of its length.

Paradise Drive

The Paradise Road corridor is further south of the existing Peanut Drive, which would •

make it adjacent to the existing industrial park. Due to its proximity to existing Peanut Drive and
the US 17 Bypass, the likelihood of commercial development (predominantly light industrial) as •
a result of this alignment would be enhanced in certain locations. The intersection of US 17 •
Business with the alternative may induce growth along the Paradise Road Extension north of US
17 Business where full access control ends. Also, induced growth or enhancement fthe existing •
south
development may be generated along US 17 Business north and
intersection.
Potential growth would be enhanced at certain locations as a result of the access provided
by the proposed bypass, but it is possible that business "relocations" within the same community
could take place. According to the NCHRP Report 456, "it is not unusual for a transportation
project to improve the accessibility of certain sites relative to other locations within the same •
community. When this occurs, businesses seeking a competitive advantage may relocate to sites
whose accessibility is better than their current location" (Transportation Research Board, p. 109).

Peanut Drive

The Peanut Drive alternative ties in closer to the industrial park locations of the
demographic area. While most land has been commercially developed along existing Peanut •
Drive, development north and south along US 17 Business near or adjacent to this proposed
alternative may induce growth and development. This alternative utilizes the existing Peanut •
Drive alignment but due to grade differences, impacts the businesses currently located along the •
roadway. The construction of this alternative with the inclusion of the railroad bridge and the •
location of the railroad effectively cuts off access to the Gateway Industrial Park and heavily •
impacts much of the industry on Peanut Drive. •

26

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• Soundside Road

Farmland along this alternative is primarily vacant and could accommodate low-density
residential development. This land may be less likely to generate commercial development due
• to controlled access of the proposed facility and that there are more attractive commercial and
• industrial locations elsewhere in the demographic area. However, potential for minimal
commercial development is favorable at the current intersection of NC 94 and NC 32, which is
the southern terminus of the project's four proposed alignments. It should also be noted that
potential for any economic growth would be largely limited to at-grade intersections due to the
• control of access along the project.

The redirecting of truck through-traffic off of the US 17 Bypass should not have negative
economic impacts on the City of Edenton. There are no industrial manufacturing plants or
• commercial warehouses located within downtown Edenton or the historic district. There are few
• commercial businesses along the existing US 17 Business corridor which rely on drive-by
businesses such as convenience stores, gas stations or fast food restaurants in which a bypass
would negatively effect. Therefore, it is unlikely businesses would feel any negative effects of
diverting through-truck traffic. Growth and development at the interchange of US 17 Bypass and
• NC 32 consists of several hotel chains, convenience store/gasoline stations, and a supermarket
• shopping center. Most of these commercial businesses are supported by tourism and vacationers,
and not truck through-traffic. However, a minor change in traffic patterns associated with TIP U-

3419 may cause motorists traveling south along US 17 Bypass to divert from the NC 32/US 17
Bypass interchange that will connect with the extension of NC 94. Minor economic impacts that
• do occur as a result of redirecting truck through-traffic out of the historic district would likely be
• minimal, as downtown is a vacation destination.

d. Transportation Access

Neighborhood Access

The project area is generally rural in nature and with the exception of Old Hertford
Community, located off Old Hertford Road between NC 32 and US 17 Business, residential
• development is sparse and mainly located west of all three alternatives near the Town of
• Edenton. Access to the homes along US 17 Business just east of the Soundside Alternative
should not be impacted by either of these alternatives. Peanut Drive Alternative will offer
improved access to US 17 Bypass for residents of Old Hertford Community and the other
scattered residencies along Old Hertford Road and US 17 Business south of Peanut Drive.
Paradise Road Alternative will offer direct access to US 17 Bypass to residents in the Old
Hertford Community. Overall, all the alternatives will provide more direct access to US 17
Bypass for the residents located in the vicinity of the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94, as well as
those located along the Albemarle Sound.

27

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

Commercial Access •

Each alternative will provide an improved, more direct route to and from the US 17
Bypass for those industries located in the Northeast Airport Industrial Park as well as the few
industrial locations scattered south of NC 32. The Paradise alternative will improve commercial •
access to the Gateway Industrial Park since Peanut Drive is in close proximity to this alternative. •
It will also provide improved access to those businesses located along US 17 Business.

The Peanut alternative was initially conceived to provide improved access to the Gateway
Industrial Park, but after design work was completed, this is not practical. The grade required to •
bridge over the railroad causes impacts to the industrial park to the extent that most of the •
properties are cut off from accessing either the new roadway or US 17 Business. From a
commercial access standpoint, this alternative now has the least appeal, though it does provide
improved commercial access for those businesses located along US 17 Business that would •
benefit from improved access to US 17 Bypass. •

Since the Soundside alternative stays to the east of the US 17 Business corridor,
commercial access improvement with this alternative is limited to truck traffic associated with
the Airport industrial park.

e. Farmland Impacts •

North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and

Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and •
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources •
Conservation Service (MRCS). These soils are determined by the SCS based on criteria such as
crop yield and level of input of economic resources. The Chowan County Soil Survey used for
this analysis was completed in 1982.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is designed to minimize the degree to which
federally sponsored programs contribute to the "unnecessary and irreversible conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural uses," and ensure that these programs are consistent with state, local
and private programs to protect farmland.

All three alternatives impact prime farmland to the extent shown in the remaining
alternatives comparison table (Table 4-1).

E Environmental Justice

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. Special

28

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• populations may include the elderly, children, the disabled, low-income areas, American Indians
and other minority groups. Executive Order 12898 requires that Environmental Justice
principals be incorporated into all transportation studies, programs, policies and activities. The
three environmental principles are: 1) to ensure the full and fair participation of all potentially

• affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 2) to avoid, minimize or
• mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including
social and economic effects, on minority or low income populations. 3) to fully evaluate the
benefits and burdens of transportation programs, policies, and activities, upon low-income and
minority populations.

• The demographic area includes a sizeable African-American community, but the
demographic area mirrors the county in terms of racial mix. The Paradise Road alternative will
pass to the north of the Old Hertford Road community, potentially bisecting an area the
community uses on a regular basis, and potentially affecting the neighborhood cohesion that is
• currently present. Local public forums in the past were held discussing the proposed alternatives.
Variations of the Paradise Road alternative were met with opposition by those living in the Old
Hertford Road community. Some members of this community walk and/or bike to their
employment centers within the Gateway Industrial Park. In addition to the Industrial Park, a
• recreation area consisting of a few athletic fields is located along the northern fringe of Old
• Hertford Road. Children living in this community use these fields regularly. Increased noise
from potential truck traffic was also a concern to many residents of this community. Alternatives
that directly impacted the Old Hertford Road community were dropped. Public outreach and
alternative selection has minimized likely effects to the surrounding communities.

This assessment has found no evidence or indication of discrimination on the basis of
race, color, natural origin, age, sex, or disability. The proposed project is being implemented in
accordance with Executive Order 12898.

• g. Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project, therefore, the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act does not apply.

. 3. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis

In a qualitative evaluation, the following areas were rated for indirect impacts. The
impact ratings are: "No" (no impact), "Maybe" (potential for impact), or "Yes" (definitely an
• impact). A "yes" would indicate that a full scale indirect and cumulative impact analysis would
be required.

Indirect Impacts

• Potential for Induced Development - Maybe
• Distance to major urban center: approximately 2 miles to Edenton
• Traffic volumes on surrounding roads: relatively low volumes on US 32

29

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• Presence of frontage roads: access will be controlled
• Availability of water & sewer: no sewer service is available along the proposed project •

Conflict with Local Plan - No
• The project is consistent with Chowan County's land use plan and Edenton's existing zoning
and future land use plan.

Explicit Economic Development Purpose - No

• The project purpose and need to divert truck traffic from downtown Edenton. While
improvements in traffic flow and overall mobility enhance economic decision making over •
broad geographies, this project has no explicit economic component. •

Planned to Serve Specific Development - No •
• The project purpose and need is to divert truck traffic from downtown Edenton. No specific
development will be served by this project.

Likely to Stimulate Development with Complementary Functions - Maybe •
• The project will create some new access and intersections, enhancing the development
potential of a few properties. Such complementary development would likely include gas
stations and other small convenience oriented businesses. However, as there is no sewer
service in the vicinity, these opportunities would not be immediately forthcoming. •

Likely to Influence Intraregional Land Development Location Decisions - No
• While the overall conditions for urbanization in this area are favorable for development, the
market for this area is relatively slow and steady. Thus and the proposed project will aid, but •
not transform development potential in the region. Control of access to the proposed facility
will limit location of development. •

Notable Features Significantly Impacted - Maybe
• As notable features include both the natural and human environmental resources, there will •
likely be some effects to certain resources, whether directly or indirectly affected. However, •
these effects should be minimal to moderate. As any change in land use will impart some •
effects with some negative and some positive, there may be potential in spot locations to
affect various resources such as soils, storm water regimes, human settlements and others.
However overall this project should not impart dramatic or substantial negative effects in the •
general vicinity.

Cumulative Impacts

Water Related Impacts
• As Chowan County is a CAMA county, water resources in the general area have CAMA- .
associated rules and regulations to assist in the protection of water and coastal resources. •

30

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Other Cumulative Impacts
• The proposed project will add minimally to moderately to the overall cumulative impacts in
the Edenton area. While some impacts may result in minor losses to resource inventories
• (some farmland effects), other resources (Edenton historic properties and neighborhoods)

• may benefit with the redirection of heavy truck traffic.

B. Cultural Resources

• 4. Compliance Guidelines

This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part
• 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.

• 5. Historic Architecture

There are no historic structures eligible for the National Register located within the Area
of Potential Effects (APE). The Edenton Historic District is outside the APE. (See Appendix C
• for the Concurrence Form).

6. Archaeology

No archeological surveys have been completed so far. A survey will be completed once
• the recommended alternative is selected.

C. Section 40)

• Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects the use of publicly owned parks,
• recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic properties. No Section 4(f) protected
properties will be impacted by this project.

D. Air Ouality Analysis

• The project is located in Chowan County, which has been determined to comply with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment area;

therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.

31

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

1. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)

Recently, concerns for air toxics impacts are more frequent on transportation projects •
during the NEPA process. Transportation agencies are increasingly expected by the public and •
other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their environmental documents as the science •
emerges. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis is a continuing area of research where,
while much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions
remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health •
impacts from MSATs are limited. These limitations impede FHWA's ability to evaluate how
mobile source health risks should factor into project-level decision-making under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Also, the EPA has not established regulatory concentration
targets for the six relevant MSAT emissions associated with transportation projects. While this •
research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to qualitatively address MSATs and •
their relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach (*US DOT Federal
Highway Administration memorandum, "Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents", February 3, 2006.) The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in
this emerging field. A qualitative analysis of MSATs for this project is available for review in •
the project Air Quality Analysis, located in Room 445, the Transportation Building, 1 South •
Wilmington Street, Raleigh. •

E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis

In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772), each Type I

highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. Type I projects are
proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway projects for construction of a highway on new location •
or improvements or improvements of an existing highway which significantly changes the •
horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity. Traffic noise impacts are
determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise found in Title 23 CFR 772, which also includes provisions for traffic noise
abatement measures. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of .
alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating these •
impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Highway Traffic
Noise / Construction Noise Analysis can be viewed in Room 445, the Transportation Building, 1
South Wilmington Street, Raleigh.

1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours

The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 6-8. The table includes those receptors •
expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA •
Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. •

32

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Table 6-8: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts b Alternative*

Alternative Traffic Noise Impacts
Residential Churches/Schools Businesses Total
Peanut Drive 0 0 1 1
Paradise Road 1 0 0 1
. Soundside Road 0 0 0 0
• *Per TNM 2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772

. The maximum extent of the 72- and 67-dBA noise level contours measured from the
• center of the proposed roadway is 37 feet and 47 feet, respectively.

2. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures

• Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all
. impacted receptors in each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures evaluated for
highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures,
buffer acquisition and noise barriers. For each of these measures, benefits versus costs,
engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability, land use issues, and other factors were
• included in the noise abatement considerations.

Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental factors.
Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement due to the
• negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway.
Costs to acquire buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT abatement
threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor, causing this abatement measure to be unreasonable.

• 3. Noise Barriers

Noise barriers include three basic types: vegetative barriers, earthen berms and noise
walls. These structures diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise. For this project, the
cost of acquiring additional right of way and planting sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed
• the NCDOT abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor. Also, for this project,
• earthen berms are not found a viable abatement measure because the additional right of way,
materials and construction costs are estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of
$35,000 per benefited receptor.

• This project will maintain uncontrolled right of way access, meaning that most
• commercial establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
project, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. Businesses, churches and other
related establishments require accessibility and high visibility. Noise barriers do not allow
• uncontrolled access, easy accessibility or high visibility, and would therefore not be acceptable
• abatement measures for this project. Based on the Traffic Noise Analysis, traffic noise

33

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

abatement is not recommended for this project because no impacted receptors meet the
reasonable and feasible criteria defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy;
therefore, no noise abatement measures are proposed.

4. Summary

Based on this preliminary study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and no noise
abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this •
project unless warranted by a significant change in the project scope, vehicle capacity or •
alignment. •

In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development •
for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public •
Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). For development occurring after this date, local governing bodies
are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility

F. Geodetic Markers •

This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers.

G. Hazardous Materials

The NCDOT GeoEnvironmental Unit investigated a Superfund site within the project
vicinity. The former facility of Pelikan, Inc was located on Hertford Road, originally included as
an alternative. According to the GeoEnvironmental Unit review, NCDENR was working with •
the responsible party to try to close the site and/or remove the site from the Superfund list. This •
site should not be a concern for the current alternatives. •

34

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

A. Physical Resources

• The project study area is comprised of an area approximately 2.6-miles long and 1.9-
miles wide, which encompasses approximately 2,350 acres.

The land uses within the project study area are mainly agriculture and forestry with some
scattered residential properties. Commercial development also occurs in the western portion of
• the study area. The majority of the physical and biological resources within the project study

area have been altered by agricultural practices and development.

1. Soils

• Chowan County is situated in the northeastern portion of the Coastal Plain phYsiographic
province of North Carolina. The geography of the county consists predominantly of broad,
gently sloping uplands and broad, level floodplains along most streams. The elevations in the
project study area range from approximately 4 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near the
. drainage ways, to approximately 6 feet MSL along ridgelines, as depicted on the Edenton, North
• Carolina, USGS topographic quadrangle map.

Soils located along the floodplain of Queen Anne Creek and its associated tributaries
consist of Chowan silt loam. On the adjacent stream terraces, soils are comprised of Altavista
• fine sandy loam, Dogue fine sandy loam, Augusta fine sandy loam, Dragston loamy fine sand,
Conetoe loamy sand, and State loamy fine sand. Other poorly drained soils in the project study
area are located on upland flats and consist of Roanoke silt loam, Tomotley loam, and
Portsmouth loam.

• The NRCS defines a hydric soil as one that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil. Such
soils usually support hydrophytic vegetation. Based on information obtained from the Chowan
County soil survey, Chowan, Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Tomotley soils are hydric. Augusta fine
• sandy loam and Dragston loamy fine sand are not classified as hydric but may contain hydric
• inclusions.

2. Water Resources

• a. Physical Characteristics

The project study area is situated in NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-01-04, and in Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 03010205, of the Chowan River drainage basin. Queen Anne Creek, three
unnamed tributaries (UTs) of Queen Anne Creek, and a pond represent the surface waters in the
• project study area. Queen Anne Creek and UT1 are perennial waters while UT2 and UT3 contain
both intermittent and perennial reaches. One pond is located within the southwest portion of the

project study area. The pond is jurisdictional and hydrologically connected to surface waters of

35

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

the U.S. The pond flows into Pembroke Creek, which flows into a series of impoundments that
eventually discharge into the Albemarle Sound. •

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classifies surface waters of the
state based on their intended best uses. This section of the Queen Anne Creek and its tributaries •
are classified as "C NSW" waters. NCDWQ defines class "C" as waters suitable for aquatic life •
propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and •
agriculture. Sources of water pollution that preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be in violation of water quality standards. "Nutrient
Sensitive Waters" (NSW) is a supplemental surface water classification intended for waters •
needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of •
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. •

Table 7-1: Stream Characteristics

NCDWQ Water Benthos NCDWQ USA CE
Stream Name Class.
Ind Score
ex ,Quality Present Ratin #
Queen Anne Creek 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 36 61 Perennial •
UT1 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 30 68 Perennial
Creek •
UT2 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 34 26 Intermittent
Creek (Upper Reach)
UT2 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 20 56 Perennial
Creek (Lower Reach)
UT3 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 22.5 29 Intermittent •
Creek (Upper Reach) •
UT3 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 33.5 56 Perennial
Creek (Lower Reach)
Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-11), or Outstanding
No High Quality Waters (HQW), •
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1 mile of the project study area. This section of Queen
Anne Creek is not listed on the DWQ 2006 Draft 303 (d) list of impaired waters.
The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) within the N.C. Department of •
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) carries out the state's Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). Chowan County is one of the 20 CAMA regulated counties.

Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) are the foundation of the DCM's permitting •
program for coastal development. The DCM classifies areas as AECs to protect them from •
uncontrolled development, which may cause irreversible damage to property, public health, or
the environment. •

36

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

According to the DCM, the project is likely in an AEC if it is among other criteria, in or
on navigable waters within the 20 CAMA regulated counties. Based on this information, Queen
Anne Creek and UT1 of Queen Anne Creek would likely be considered navigable waters and
therefore, impacts to either of these streams. Therefore it is likely that a CAMA Major

• Development Permit will be required for this project.

b. Point and Non-Point Source Discharges

. Point source discharges are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
. Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a permit.
Based upon NCDWQ's database (accessed 02/14/06), two NPDES permitted sites (both located
at the Edenton Wastewater Treatment plant) are located within one mile of the project study area.
However, both of these sites discharge into Filbert Creek, which flows into the Albemarle Sound
• and does not flow through the project study area.

Non-point source (NPS) discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater, snowmelt, or atmospheric deposition. Land use activities such as land development,
construction, mining operations, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems,
• landfills, roads, and parking lots are contributors of non-point source pollutants. The dominant
land uses surrounding and within the project study area are agriculture and forestry. The western
portion of the study area contains limited residential and commercial development. The town of
Edenton is located immediately west/southwest of the project study area.

• B. Biotic Resources

a. Terrestrial Communities

• The project study area is composed of five different vegetative communities: cypress-gum
• swamp (blackwater subtype); mesic mixed hardwood forest (Coastal Plain subtype); non-riverine
wet hardwood forest; agricultural-maintained-disturbed area; and pine plantation.

Table 7-2: Natural Communities

Community Type Acres Percentage of Study Area
Cypress-Gum Swamp 176 7%

Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 84 3%
Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 20 <1%

Agricultural-Maintained-Disturbed Area 1,800 76%
Pine Plantation 270 13%
• Total Acreage of Project Study Area 2,350 100%

37

U-3419 Environmental Assessment .

b. Terrestrial Wildlife •

The agricultural field edges provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the cypress-gum,
non-riverine wet hardwood and mesic mixed hardwood forests provide foraging and cover. •
Evidence of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray fox •
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and gray squirrel (Sciurus •
carolinensis) were observed during the site visit. Numerous tracks and scat were seen in and
adjacent to the cypress-gum swamp of Queen Anne Creek and its tributaries. A great blue heron •
(Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides striatus), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), •
common yellow throat (Geothlypis trichas), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), •
mockingbird (Mimus polygottos), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), woodcock (Scolopax minor), American crow (Corvus •

brachyrhynchos), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), and •
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) were also observed. .

Common mammals which could be expected to utilize the project study area habitat
include the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and various shrews, •
moles, bats, and mice.

Reptiles seen during field investigations included rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), Eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), yellow belly slider (Trachemys scripta), five-lined skink •
(Eumeces fasciatus), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), southern dusky .
salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus). Common •
reptiles and amphibians which could be expected to utilize the project area habitat include the
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), water snakes (Nerodia spp.), toads (Bufo
spp.), leopard frogs (Rana spp.), tree frogs (Hyla spp.), and salamanders (Ambystoma spp.). •
Other aquatic species likely to be found in the project vicinity include the snapping turtle .
(Chelydra serpentina), Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and the eastern painted •
turtle (Chrysemys picta). .

c. Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife

Queen Anne Creek and its associated tributaries provide aquatic habitat within the project
study area. The physical characteristics (size and water quality) of the stream, as well as the
adjacent terrestrial community, directly influence the faunal composition of this aquatic
community. The quality of aquatic habitat within the project study area is expected to be low to •
moderate due to the run-off associated with the agricultural, residential, and commercial •
development within the watershed. Woody debris located throughout the streams provides •
habitat, shade, and concealment pockets for several aquatic species. Aquatic invertebrates are a
major component of aquatic ecosystems, as primary and secondary consumers, as well as prey •
items for organisms higher in the food chain.

38

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Macro benthos were observed in Queen Anne Creek and its associated tributaries.
Aquatic insects observed include caddisflies (Trichoptera) and midges (Diptera). Other
macrobenthos observed include crayfish and freshwater shrimp (Decapoda).

• Fish species expected to occur within the project vicinity include bullhead catfish
(Ameiurus spp.), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), shiners (Notropis spp. and
Cyprinella spp.), bowfin (Amia calva) and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).

• Queen Anne Creek is utilized by anadromous fish species such as blueback herring
i (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) for spawning. Based on information
provided by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCRWC), Queen Anne Creek
supports warm water fish species such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pickerel (Esox niger),
and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus). Anadromous fish spend most of their adult lives in salt
• water, and migrate to freshwater rivers and lakes to reproduce.

d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts

Loss of wildlife is an unavoidable aspect of development. Temporary fluctuations in
populations of animal species that utilize these communities are anticipated during the course of
construction. Slow-moving, burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted
by construction activities, while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities.
Competitive forces in the adapted communities will result in a redefinition of population
• equilibrium.

Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment and
environmental impacts from construction activities may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include alterations to the substrate and
* impacts to adjacent streamside vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to
increased siltation, which can clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms,
fish, and amphibian species. Siltation may also cover benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive
amounts of sediment that inhibit their ability to obtain oxygen.

• The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction
enhances erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce
the impacts by supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic
compounds, trash, and other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a
• result, bars may form at and downstream of the site. Increased light penetration from the
• removal of streamside vegetation may increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less
oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen concentrations.

Impacts to soil and topography are anticipated to result from the proposed project. The
• topography within the project study area is gently sloping to level. The proposed road
improvements are likely to require the removal of soils and the placement of fill. No adverse
long-term impacts to soils and topography are expected from the proposed project.

39

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

The primary sources of water-quality degradation in rural areas are nonpoint-source
discharges and stormwater runoff. Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
sources in the project vicinity. Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to discharges and inputs
from construction. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid petroleum spillage and control •
runoff. Potential impacts associated with construction of the proposed project include: increased •
sedimentation resulting from the clearing of streams and in-stream construction activities, soil •
compaction, loss of shading due to vegetation removal, and fertilizers and pesticides used in re- •
vegetation.

Measures to minimize these potential impacts include formulation of an erosion and •
sedimentation control plan, provisions for waste material and storage, stormwater management
•
measures, and appropriate road-maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs-PSN) and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be
strictly enforced during the construction stages of the project. Limiting in-stream activities and •
revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce •
impacts. No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the
proposed project.
C. Jurisdictional Topics

1. Waters of the United States •

a. Requirements

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the
United States." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal
administrative agency of the Clean Water Act; however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has the responsibility for implementing, permitting, and enforcing provisions of the
Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. •

Wetlands, streams, and open waters are regulated by the USACE pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The NCDENR-DWQ also has regulatory input through Section 401 •
Water Quality Certification. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are •
inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). •

b. Jurisdictional Streams and Ponds •

Queen Anne Creek and three unnamed tributaries of Queen Anne Creek were identified
as perennial streams in the project study area. Four jurisdictional wetlands were identified and •
delineated within the project study area.

40

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

c. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams

• Impacts to wetlands, Queen Anne Creek, and its associated tributaries are anticipated for
• the proposed project. Table 7-3 describes the acreage of the wetlands, the linear footage of the
streams, and the acreage of open waters located within the project study area.

• Table 7-3: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streams, and Open Waters

Wetlands

Wetland Number Area within Project Stud Area
Wetland 1 182 acres
Wetland 2 233 acres
• Wetland 3 11 acres
• Wetland 4 19 acres
• Streams

. Stream Name Length within the Project Stud Area
Queen Anne Creek 9,810 linear feet
UT #1 to Queen Anne Creek 3,520 linear feet
1,720 linear feet intermittent
UT #2 to Queen Anne Creek 1,320 linear feet perennial
UT #3 to Queen Anne Creek 1,180 linear feet intermittent
4,360 linear feet perennial
• Pond_

• Pond Number Area within the Project Stud Area
Waters of the U.S. - Pond 1 1.9 acres

As per WRC, an anadromous fish moratorium would apply to in-water activities from
February 15th to June 15th to portions of Queen Anne Creek and UT's.

41

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

d. Impacts to Waters of the United States •

Wetland and stream impacts were calculated based on the current alternatives. Wetland
impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake plus an additional 25 feet outside of each •
limit as determined from the current functional design plans for each alternative studied. They
are rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre for wetlands and to the nearest 10 feet for streams. Bridges •
are recommended at several locations and impacts reflect these recommendations.

Table 7-4: Wetland and Stream Impacts

Wetland Length of USACE •
Wetland Wetland/ Area NC DWQ
Stream Rating Stream
Type # Stream ID Impacted Impacted (ft) g Score
(acres) •
UT1 0 30 68 •
Sw-For W IA A 1.6 82
Sw-For W1B 0.9 82
Paradise Sw-For WIC C 1.6 82
QA1 0 36 61 .
PSfw-For] W 1 D 1.9 82 •
UW2 0.1 -
UT3 370 22.5 29
Total 6.1 acres 370 feet
UT1 0 30 68
Sw-For W 1 B 0.9 82

Sw-For W 1 A 2.1 82
Sw-For WIC 1.3 82
Peanut Sw-For UW 1 A 0.1 82 •
SB 120 - -
QA2 0 36 61
Sw-For W 1 E 0.8 82
UW4 0.8 -
Total 6 acres 120 feet
68
UT1 t 0 V82
Sw-For W 1 A 1.9 Sw-For W 1 B 0.9 Soundside Sw-For W 1 C 1.1

Bot-HF W2 3.2 54
UW5A 0.1 -
UW5B 0.1 -

Total 7.3 acres 0 feet
Notes: Sw-For = Swamp forest; Bot-HF = Bottomland hardwood forest Wet-Fl = Wet flat

42

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

2. Permit Issues

a. Requirements

Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under the jurisdiction of the USACE.
Permits will be required for highway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and streams.

Since project impacts exceed the NWP 14 permit thresholds, an Individual Section 404 permit
will be required.

A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification will be required for any activity which
may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which an issuance of a federal
permit is required. The issuance of a required Section 401 certification is a prerequisite to the
issuance of a Section 404 permit. An Individual Section 404 and/or Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will be required since impacts exceed the thresholds.

Queen Anne Creek and UT1 of Queen Anne Creek are considered navigable waters by
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and regulated as Areas of
• Environmental Concern (AECs), therefore any impacts to these surface waters, or within 30 feet
• of the shoreline, may require a CAMA Major Permit for Development.

Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE, DWQ, and DCM. The
NCDOT will coordinate with the regulatory agencies after the completion of the final design to
• obtain the necessary permits.

Approval of a State Stormwater Permit will also be required for the project, and special
stormwater treatment measures may be required for approval.

• b. Mitigation

The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
mitigation policy that embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
• wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation must be considered in sequential order.

Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
• Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the USEPA and the USACE, "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable
impacts should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms
of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Total avoidance of
• wetlands and streams was not possible because of the extensive location of Queen Anne Creek

• and the tributaries within the study area.

43

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-
way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. The following other methods are suggested
to minimize adverse impacts to water resources. •

• Strictly enforce BMPs to control sedimentation during project construction
• Bridge high quality, linear wetland systems
• Minimize clearing and grubbing activity
• Decrease or eliminate discharges into streams •
• Re-establish vegetation on exposed areas •
• Minimize in-stream activity

Project specific minimization efforts include:

• Both Soundside and Paradise alternatives were shifted to reduce wetland impacts
• Bridges are recommended at two locations (UT1, and Queen Anne Creek) to minimize
wetland/stream impacts
• Equalizer pipes are recommended at several locations

Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters
of the United States have been avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for •
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has •
been completed. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of
Waters of the United States. Such action should be undertaken in areas adjacent to the discharge
site when feasible.

The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once a final decision has been rendered with regard to the location of the preferred
alternative. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). In •
accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of •
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District" (MOA), July 22, •
2003, the EEP will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water
Act compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.

44

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

3. Rare and Protected Species

a. Federally Protected Species

• Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. According to the November 5, 2007 USFWS county species
listing, there are no species listed for federal protection for Chowan County. On August 8, 2007,

the USFWS removed the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species protected
• under the ESA. The Bald Eagle is now protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (BGEPA).

b. Federal Species of Concern

There are four federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Chowan County,
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), Rafinesque's- big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii),
Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius), and Raven's seedbox (Ludwigia ravenii). Federal
• species of concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to
• any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. Federal species of concern are defined as species under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing as threatened or endangered. The
status of these species may be upgraded at any time, thus they are included here for
. consideration. According to NHP records, there is a known occurrence of Rafinesque's big-
eared bat just downstream of the project study area, along Queen Anne Creek. The documented
occurrence of Raven's seedbox is listed as a historic record.

In addition, species which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
. Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979. The NHP list of November 2005 included these species and identified an additional
five species receiving protection under state law. Protections afforded to species listed under
• state law are not applicable to this project. The federal status of these species may be upgraded
• in the future. Therefore, consideration should be given to potential occurrences within the
project study area.

Table 7-5 lists the federal species of concern, their state status, and the existence of
• suitable habitat within the project study area.

45

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Table 7-5: Federal Species of Concern listed for Chowan County
•
Common Name Scientific Name State Habitat Habitat
Status Present'
Warm brackish and freshwater yes •
American eel Anguilla rostrata
streams, estuaries, coastal rivers
Rafinesque's big- Corynorhinus T Roosts in old buildings, caves and yes
eared bat rafinesquii mines, usually near water •
Southeastern Myotis SR Roosts in buildings, hollow trees; yes w
myotis austroriparius forages near water
Savannas, swamps, marshes, wet yes
Raven's seedbox Ludwigia ravenii SR-T open places
Not listed on the North Carolina Protected Species List. T - Threatened. SR - Significantly
Rare. SR-T - Significantly Rare throughout Range.
D. Floodplain Management

Chowan County and the Town of Edenton are participants in the National Flood •
Insurance Regular Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency •
(FEMA). Attached are copies of the currently effective FEMA Chowan County Flood Insurance

Rate Map (FIRM) and the Town of Edenton Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM)
covering the project study area. Queen Anne Creek, through portions of the study area is .
included in the published detailed flood study for the Town of Edenton (effective July 3, 1985), •
having a regulated floodway with established base 100-year flood elevation. It is anticipated that
if the Peanut or Paradise corridors are selected, a floodway revision will be required and approval
of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) by FEMA, followed by approval of a Final
Letter of Map Revision after project acceptance. NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with •
local authorities and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the design phase of
the project to ensure compliance with the applicable floodplain management ordinances. It
should be noted that new flood studies are currently underway in the Chowan River Basin under
the NC Floodplain Mapping Program administered by NC Division of Emergency Management .
(NCEM) as a partnering agency with FEMA. The date for completion of these studies has not •
been released; however, published Basin Plans indicate that Queen Anne Creek north of the •
confluence of the Northeast and Northwest Tributaries of Queen Anne Creek are slated to be •
newly restudied by detailed methods. The schedule for completion of these studies is not known
at this time; however, if the Peanut Corridor is selected as the preferred alternative,
Unit will coordinate with NCEM in final dlr~emainder oflpotentially affected streamsi in the
completed. No new studies are slated for the •
study area. •

46

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

• VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

A. Comments Solicited

The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of
• this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
• asterisk

*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• *National Marine Fisheries Service
*N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
*N.C. Division of Coastal Management
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chowan County
• *Town of Edenton
*State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
• N.C. Department of Public Instruction
• *N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Division of Water Quality
*Division of Parks and Recreation
*N.C. Division of Forest Resources
• *N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation

These comments and related issues, included in Appendix C, have been addressed in this
document.

. B. NEPA/404 Merger Process Coordination

Merger 01 is a process to streamline the project development and permitting processes,
agreed to by the USACE, NCDENR, (DWQ), FHWA, and NCDOT and supported by other
• stakeholder agencies and local units of government. To this effect, the Merger 01 process
• provides a forum for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways
to facilitate meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during
the NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects.

• The Merger 01 process allows agency representatives to work more efficiently (quicker

and comprehensive evaluation and resolution of issues) by providing a common forum for them
to discuss and find ways to comply with key elements of their agency's mission. The merger
process helps to document how competing agency mandates are balanced during a shared
• decision-making process, which results in agency representatives reaching a "compromised based
• decision" to the regulatory and individual agency mandates.

47

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

March 14, 2001: On March 14, 2001, the Merger Team met and concurred on the Purpose and
Need of the project (Concurrence Point 1). The purpose and need of the project is to reduce
truck and through traffic and improve safety along existing NC 32 within Downtown Edenton.
•
A ril 17, 2002: On April 17, 2002, the Merger Team met to discuss alternatives to carry
p
forward for detailed studies (Concurrence Point 2). Of the total 13 alternatives presented •
(including no-build, alternate modes of transportation, and upgrade the existing network), the
team agreed to carry forward eight alternatives to the next meeting. These alternatives included
Paradise Road, Peanut Drive, Soundside Eastern and Soundside Western, both with and without •
service roads. No concurrence sheet was signed on this date. •
March 26, 2003: On March 26, 2003, the Merger Team met to discuss final alternatives to carry
forward for detailed studies (Concurrence Point 2, again). Of the eight alternatives carried
forward from the last merger meeting, the team agreed to drop the Soundside Eastern alternative •
from further consideration leaving six alternatives to carry forward. These alternatives included •
Paradise Road, Peanut Drive and Soundside Western, both with and without service roads. •

September 20, 2007: On September 20, 2007 the Merger Team met to discuss bridging options •
and to discuss final alternatives to carry forward for the Environmental Assessment (Concurrence .
Point 2A). Of the six alternatives carried forward from the last merger meeting, NCDOT
removed the "service road" option since access for large properties can now be provided without
them. Bridging options were agreed upon and final alternatives to carry forward include Paradise
Road, Peanut Drive and Soundside Western.

C. Public Involvement •

On July 24, 2001, NCDOT held an informational meeting at the Union Grove AME Zion
Church. Approximately 60-70 concerned residents attended. These residents mostly consisted of •
those who would be impacted by the proposed "Old Hertford Road" alternative. Feedback from
this meeting was significant in dropping this alternative from further consideration at the April
2002 merger meeting. •

On October 23, 2001, NCDOT held a Citizens' Informational Workshop at Edenton High •
School. The vast majority of comments received from this meeting were in opposition to the •
"Old Hertford Road" alternative. •
•
A presentation was made to the Edenton Rotary Club on August 11, 2005. This was an
informational meeting to provide a project update to members of the community. •

A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public
hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed project. The
public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the new •
roadway.

CRC/cc •

48

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
• U-3419

• Appendix A

• (Figures)
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

•
•

9

® i 1t~~`~ y-• ~ ~~U i
Legend

• - Soundside Corridor I END
PROJECT
• Paradise Corridor
• Peanut Corridor
• ` ~ ts~ I p" i I
s. xcS d
.5 i .4 I i'MAb
END ; I Y
I ~ I 4~l I _.G' Snf
J
I ~ I
PROJ
ECT
• I i
eM s a
B Rloa_ ,
I7 I aver` ' s i
•
' CaJ! y°' NRN63 -
• c~ ; 32 ~ ~ 0"`6 h 17 ~ ~ i
b 6 ,
It r
~ l3 ~ Z 1
dCh I I
I u ~ ~ vl
• :`-i j ^ D'~ F ~~Cy~"" 1 44lq ; :y _ ..9 x }J*I s / d r. 1
I
EDE
32
P.I,MA.:
F. i t . i .I I f ,l;~l a F - I+{ xc
'•~~j."-'~ r y P4
• _ ~F ~ - ~ - Y a --I
~ „3t1 ~ - -~i`~ s+•~ '.gem
• _ ~ ~ gbh qto~ ~ i i - _I`
BEGIN
• _ ' Y l 7 PROJECT 0 1,500 3,000 6,000
• - , . s Feet
• "°fl'" ~4A VICINITY MAP County: C
• ~Q~ NO TRANSPOORTATION TATIONPARTMENT NC 94 EXTENSION Figure
OF TRANSPORTATION
" U-3419
• Z DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FROM Div: 1 TIP#
4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND NC 32 TO US 17 BYPASS WBS: 34939.1.1
• Q~P ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
FA'
I, ToN CHOWAN COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3419 Date: MAY 2008
•

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Z V V w

r ~,a fit.: r. y 'r r Q L (D c_ n a r
a
O n m (D
1 i yl 4 F x - a t cn O (p O Q
e O
a4•r.,,, c~~ 3 cn
4
¦ J
r c ti ~ W
i
\lb

XK- { rt
3
i
F
I 4 ~rn
:
+ O ,f
F
J _
r
~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ "v, C /t J k "•ti ll~ ~ l ;t i~ru~~j ~ ~M~ x~.
.•R J
k ->f "is. - ll t i t1- r~" r r rr / v 4+ c r
4 r,
'rYVy,Kt 4r r w 1i'~..
r
F 1
4Z "q
i ,4 y`'a 4J d~ .h
J
.a%
i s
A
Pt V
41 A

It S _ .
k7!
Try 4b+, Wv:

s
n ~
-x -
77

p

~ k
i
v a
-n (D
4-o- Y-} ti• ~x~: ~~Y~ I w ,.a
k oil
ALTERNATIVES MAP
NC 94 EXTENSION
m -7 y ~ Z FROM NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT h~Of NOflTN ~yq~
- w OF TRANSPORTATION
N N co NC 32 TO US 17 BYPASS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o C T D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ;
O~ w ~4t Z CHOWAN COUNTY 9 ti?OFTFk ~
~ TIP PROJECT U-3419 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ~
N

i

. +~,j t•~ ' ~ it fir. ~ rT ~
t

L

~i' ~ p.. ..1~. a ~""•~~~n.~ tit

-
( rt'} ~ ~ ~ ~t dam''-~ ; "rt

. a
J'
b
i
e
y
.

ti

O, s

y+

s
® lu,.-
r

I +}I t y
is

; I } 2 T1 Ir ~ sip ,~7 Ai ,~t~`y~ f~^ ur ~w~

f

1 .
y< i
i
f
C
6:•
Aqk
v
r -
zf ~ i~. ~ + J A a a~ ~ yi< ..,„rK ~ Yf ' a.i:.. ~ +.X.. j, .
y is ! . E ; f~~ 3~ 2 L Z 0 -0 (A
y. v a$ .P { fj~ E ~F; O O fD m y O
e a`
r
,..;3.'~fii ~s c,_, r r "~e,•» • »yi / x ._n.« C N VJ (D
s. , . ik z: r o. m n a ~Q
a 0- o n (D ~D
a
74t , i cn o I*D
O a° d
i, v o a
0) :3 o
afDi
gyp, a.~ B cn v°,
rr ? (D
o o ALTERNATIVES MAP
_ cn NC 94 EXTENSION
m W.. n NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of LOar" 'e
w o FROM OF TRANSPORTATION
oN c~ NC 32 TO US 17 BYPASS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS z
D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
p 00 Z CHOWAN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
(o TIP PROJECT U-3419 "r~FTRP
N

TIP PROJECT U-3419
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION

150'- VAR. RIGHT OF WAY

ALL ALTERNATIVES

12' 8' 12' 12' 8' 30'

2' FDPS 2' FDPS

GRADE
POINT
VAR. SLOPE 3 j 0.02 0.02 _ 0.08
loc
A.A
4: ORIGINAL
GROUND
ORIGINAL 6:1
GROUND
GRADE TO THIS LINE 3 j
VAR. SLOPE
FIGURE 3

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
• U-3419
• Appendix B

(Merger Team Signature Sheets)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

•
•
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
•

• Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass,
Chowan County, TIP Project U-3419, State Project 8.2030301, Federal Aid
Project STP-1114(2)

• Concurrence Point No. 2A Bridging Decisions & Alignment Review
•
• Bridging Decisions:

•
. Site Description Alts. Bridging Solution
1 Unnamed Tributary to QAC #1 All minimum length bridge
• (140')
2 Unnamed Tributary to QAC #lA All 1 @ 10' x 6' RCBC w/ 48"
• equalizer pipes
• 3 Queen Anne's Creek Paradise minimum length bridge
(120')
• 4 Queen Anne's Creek Peanut 1 9'x 6' RCBC
•
• Alignment Reivew:

The project team has concurred with the bridging alternatives as described above.
In addition, the team concurs that the three alternatives, Paradise, Peanut, and Soundside,
will be carried forward to the public hearing.

NAME AGENCY DATE
•
NCDOT 9 ~z• 7

• USACE R l2b(o-7

• FHWA

• rig' ! i /..~i . NCDWQ
•
• !~1 - USEPA c1 2°~
USFWS
• --x--11
• NMF

• NCWRC

• NCDCM

SHPO

•

•
/2a01:~ 1.7: i.7 PE)EA - 0252'72e, er~H _ , , _ __-Z 13 p GI

•
Scaxon 404/NF-PA Interegcmcy Merger Agreeme-a
Cclmcurrermce Poirot No. 2 Detailed Study 41terna:ivtes CgarI.ed Fadr ar-d ~~S •

Project Title: LxtrMiorn of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Cbo%Van
Cou.t ry, UP Project 1-3-3419; SLalc: project 8 2030301, Federal Aid Projecr STP.11 4(%) .

Alternatives to be canned forward. The environmental documewc v;zll evaluate the prcposcd •
alternatives as described in meeting information provided by NCDC3T and agreed ,'o by the
project team at its me.atir<g held on ?March 26, 2003, In &ddition, the no-build ~d ~lt6:r~~te •
modes of t-ansparta;.ion al-terna.tives will be evaluated it the en'viron.,nenta.i do umc.m.

CNrt-ied As.l`teme-tive r Access C~tztr~l - •
Forward
X S urtss du lio; Lest rn (Purple) Paull Control user riic_ r ate. _ •
Sounds d o cl :rest rug (Purple) Full Control v"/ no seruicz ioads~- 1
Peanu'v ri e .o. (Red) cull control NAV /ser°r~ce roan
Peanut Dtive Jo. i
(Red) Tull control W/ no scr.~-tGe r: acl_s ! •
ParacLse Rof,d_l:?o. % (Light Blue) Full --l s r
Pr u;~ , Raad No. % {Light Blue) TTu11 control x no service roads -
The project teaza hRS concurred with the detailed study alternatives + arrlktil for v.;z-rd as
•
described above. All Ow altcmati..s selected, exctpl t4+e no-build edtema ,vz~ ,,rid ;'•tem.ate
:Hones of transportadon, n eet the purpose and need of the proposed prcyJect. •
NA.~E,, AGEING

NCDOT

FHWA
, USA.CE •
~ -
I r , L ~ to
USFWS
USEPA
g ~ .
NMFS
"'A ZA-Z AbL -.41
L D Ytl' Q
WRC
<_n n
fT0

DMF

DCM

•

•
•

• NOR-31-2003 1`1':,N 09' AN KEv:'IF F, G I T`r' FOX NO, 252 264 3723 R 0

::l' 4, rliic r t e71C}' TV.IOTCt.r AgTee-ment

y~ y.f
3~.'JNCiI fi~l~ri to VS 17 Lypr`L:G, L.1•:Ul:'a&,?1
1VOVI 011 1, 220-10'30 1, federal Aid Project r 111 4,~2)
• "
` J ! F ail r . ,irc rLnCtltal docluncm 'Ali 11 eVab,)U; C the pwpeS?''i
• r i - .l L.:. r. - s, i t. . i_! J1i11i11..'F: p1Ula:l.~ 1.i.~i .l~iC;lJrJ"(~ 3:1~^. ~L'ref.'t~ t.0 ~y 'L"zs:
e ~ •5 s ~r 11F ~1.C~I';]C1P..~ °ih~ TIl1-'~?L',:lr ?,Teti Flli(;irl'2F1tA°
l l! r ,z, „ . •11 tlur ~nuik _tFrlre:_t l co: Ll.~~]t.

a
• i ? f ~xyt!>X.-~\. --3 Flu comi i!1 ~i'ti o o t i1't! t 1 ~J. ..Y......
f i < I j ; ~ uf! ~.nr~t,TO! vvA€'+'4•i.~..C
u 1 y nt 1 w nc~ sus
1 '
s. - i ' . _lt Ysku~y ( Full control W/ 110 service roue j F
a no '::c ii WA t ii,E` deS,20d olll:iY %l.f.,rzar''ivics ..>..~.r_` -
• carried l o v and .
Lhc no-bLrild 3it2 rc~,ivr 1i1L~
• L:.' i.. ar'd of mo ;tJ ol}os:ca TprojcCT.
• -1-,y`-i -4`_ vii ti_,t ~

f ,

i
WRIC,

~ r'r

•
EF1 R4 ORC ID:404-562-9598 LIAR 16'01 9:31 Ne.001 P.02 •

•
•
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agrt MCM

ConcutTence feint- No, l; Purpose and Need •
•
EMjpA Titlo, Extension of NC 91 (Saundside Road) from NC 32 w US 17 BypaQC, •
Chow' = County, TIP 'Projcct U-3419, $tate Project 8.2030301, Federal Aid Project STP- •
113.4tz)
•
Purpose n r :_The purpose of the project is to reduce truck and •
through traf iio and improve safety Along existing NC 32 within downtown Edenton.
Supporting data for thA purpose and need,fbr this project is contained in information •
•
provided by NCDOT at the project team mWing.lield use M'awb 14, 2,001
The project team has concurred on this date of Mora 14, 2001 -oilb fhC purpose •
and np.M fnr the propnsed project ai described above. •
AGENCY i2lJTI~ •
•

Av.....-ol •
•
•
-6...~--
14--e f

I-VG ~~r( •

Vepo 7- 311 q

•
•

•
•
•
•

•

•
• OSi19/.2001 HON 08:28 FAX [phone] N)1FS,HCD,BE UFORT,NC 12002
Fax:[phone] May 3 'O1 1027 P. 05
• NrDOT/P&E BRANCH

•
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement

Concurrence Point No. I Purpose and Need
•
Projgct Tim: Extension of NC 94.(Sounds de•;Rosd) firm NC 32 to US 17 8ypass>
• Chowan County, TIP Project U-3419; State 1 rtoject 8.203030 1, Federal Aid Project SIP-
1114(2)
•
• Purpose and Neqd of ProoSed Py&q;.~The peirpose.of the project is to reduce truck &ad
through traffic and improve safety'aloitg existmg NC 32 within downtown Edenton.
• Supporting data for the purpose and neod for Ois•project is contained in information
• provided by NCDOT at the projedjeam meeting held on March 14, 2001.
• The project team has concurred on this,:dete of March 14, 2001 with the purpose
and need for the proposed project as• described above.

NAME AGENCY DA?E

• AIC klkC

• `l ms's- ' ZiX '6 " e : vile,

• , y'S~z~S ~1pr

• ~:~-r 1, r"V c, O er /"I

• Ale goi 31,g/a

• w tq-- 41 d

•

•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

•
Nf_DOT/nE BRANCH Fax ' 919-733-9794 Mar 29 '01 16:02 P. 02 •

Section 404INFYA interagency Agreement
•
I
Concurrence Point •NoA Purpose and Need •
Proj t Tile- Extcmion of NC 94 (5oua sade. Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, { •
Chowan County, TIP Project U-34 I Sial~ .Prqjed &.2030301, Federal Aid Project STP- ~ ~ •
1114(2)
I
j Purpose anti Need of Proceed Projcctt' The ptupo9s Qt`the project is to reduce truck said •
through traffic and improve ssfety:slong, eiiisting.NC 32 within downtown Edenton. •
Supporting data for the purpose, and need for this project is contained in .information •
provided by NC'DOT at the project t "M,mminj held--on March 14, 2001
The project team bas concurred pn:this daze of March 74,1001 with the purpose •
and need for the proposed project m described above. •

AGENCY DAB •

/Vie

! •
C)

C' r~c•~ 7 ; 91 •

S •
/o

I
•
£00/£00'~ 0£SZ# HsKrn 3~hsn 66£TSL6ZSZ T0:60 TOOZ,LT''ddd

•
•

•
•
•
•

• U-3419

• Appendix C
•
• (Agency Comments)
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
0

• ~Y\'d ~ S1A~ o

• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
. David L S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
• Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary
• Office of Archives and History
July 18, 2002
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug 1eremiah
• North Carolina Department of Transportation

PROM: David Brook

• SUBJECT: Extension of State Road 114, NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, U-3419, 8.020201,
• Chowan County, ER 00-7144

We have examined the map of alternatives for the above project and offer the following comments:

• Soundside Road Eastern: There are no recorded archaeological sites within the corridor.
However, the corridor crosses an eastern tributary of Queen Creek, immediately east of several
recorded prehistoric and historic period sites. The northern reach of the corridor, north of the
• tributary, is consider "low probability" for sites.

Soundside Road Western: As with the Eastern alternative, this route has a "low probability" to
the north, but crosses the same Queen Creek tributary to the south. In that area are two previously-
recorded sites (31Co47 and 31Co48). These sites have not been assessed for significance and will
require investigation prior to any construction activities.

Peanut Drive #1: This corridor crosses the northern end of Queen Creek and the aforementioned
• tributary. There are three known sites in or near the corridor (31 Co 45, 47 and 48). Each site will
• require evaluation prior to construction. Additional survey along the corridor also is warranted due
to the high probability for additional sites.

Paradise Road #2: This corridor, like Peanut Drive, crosses Queen Creek and it's tributary. There
are four known sites in or near the corridor, each of which will require evaluation prior to
construction. Additional survey is also recommended if the alternative is selected.

• In light of the above, the Soundside Road Eastern corridor appears to have the least potential for
• impacts to known or likely resources, followed by the Soundside Road Western. Peanut Drive and
Paradise Road appear to have similar potential. In either instance, we recommend that background
research be conducted to determine the potential for additional archaeological and historic resources
• within the corridor alternatives and, in consultation with the Office of State Archaeology, a field
plan developed for archaeological survey and evaluation.

Several archaeological reports have been prepared for projects in this area. Our files are available for
• Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
. Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] 9715-4801
. Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

Page 2
Doug Jeremiah
July 18, 2002 .

planning purposes. Please do not hesitate to visit the Office of State Archaeology to review the
archaeological site files and reports. An appointment can be arranged by telephoning 919/733-7342.

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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. •

cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT

Federa/ Aid 4 U-3419 TIP # Alternates 1-4 County: Chowan

• CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

• Project Description: New location for NC 94 from NC 32 to US 17

• On 10.1/0 , epresentatives of the

• g'North orth Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
ederal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
• ? Other.
. Reviewed the subject project at

• ? copingg meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
• ? Other
All parties present agreed

• ? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.

` ? There are rro properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
• project's area of potential effects.

• Ll t here are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as Properties 2, 6,
7, 8, 11, 15 and 16 are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is
• necessary. ***Properties 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 are outside the APE***
? There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.

• ? All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
• Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
? There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)

• Signed:
~ D i az
• Represe tiv CDOT Date

v 1 oz,
k", A a",
. FHWA, fort e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

. Representative, HPO Date

• State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form will be included.
•
•

•

•
SlAn •

•
North Carolina •

Department of Administration •
•
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary •
November 7, 2002

Mr. Doug Jeremiah
NC DOT, PDEA •
Transportation Building
1548 MSC •
Interoffice
•

•
Dear Mr. Jeremiah:
•
Subject: Scoping - Extension of NC 94 (Southside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in •
Edenton:TIP U-3419.
•
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This •
project has been assigned State Application Number 03-E-4220-0146. Please use this number with •
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
•
Review of this project should be completed on or before 01/14/2003. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone]. •

•
Sincerely, •

•
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
Alailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address: •
1302 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] 116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302 State Courier #t51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina •
e-mail. Chrys.Baggett@ncmail net
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer •
•

. P~~ENT OF ryF United States Department of the Interior m,

p P ,yT
• y o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
x Raleigh Field Office
• Post Office Box 337;6
PCH Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726 n
December 3, 2002 ~o a;

G Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe A Nt

Environmental Management Director

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
• 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Dear Dr. Thorpe:

• This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed extension of NC 94 (Soundside
Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in Chowan County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3419).
• Currently, four alternatives are being considered for providing a route around the east side of
Edenton. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
• Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
• 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
0 The Service has been participating in the Merger Process and has provided comments on this
project during meetings for concurrence points 1 and 2. At this time, the Service does not have a
• preferred alternative. The Service will defer on this issue until additional information on each
• alternative is provided and until the appropriate time in the Merger Process. However, the
Service does have major concerns with the Soundside Road Eastern alternative. It appears that
this route would have much greater impacts to wetlands and forest habitat. A relatively large

tract of mostly unbroken forest would also be fragmented. The indirect effects of forest
• fragmentation on wildlife can often far exceed the direct impacts of forest clearing within the
. project footprint. For many forest interior wildlife species, fragmented forest has much less
habitat value than does larger, unbroken forest tracts.
0
0 Another concern is the unresolved issue of fully controlled access versus partially controlled
• access alternatives, which was brought up at the April 17, 2002 Concurrence Meeting. The
• Service supports fully controlled access for the selected alternative to minimize future
cumulative and indirect impacts from secondary development. The Service may have additional
concerns for other alternatives as additional information is provided.
0
• For road improvement projects such as the proposed extension of NC 94, the Service
. recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts to fish and wildlife resources:

1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the •
watershed or region should be avoided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned

along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;

2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or •
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed; •

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. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by •
other means should be explored at the outset;

6. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with •
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;

7. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and •

8. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.

There is only one federally protected species in Chowan County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database does not indicate any •
known occurrences of this species near the project vicinity, and it is unlikely that this project
would effect this species. The Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus Plecotus)

rafinesquii), a federal species of concern, has been documented near the project area along Queen
Anne Creek. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the ESA and are not
• subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened. We mention this species to give you advance notification and to
request your assistance in protecting it if any are found in the vicinity of your project. The
Service may provide additional recommendations for avoidance and minimization of impacts to
this species at a later time.

We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the

public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
• environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
• facilitate a thorough review of the action: .

1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
w tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;

• 2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;

3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
• impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;

4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using

• the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;

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 secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;

• 6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
• minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat;

7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
• minimize impacts to waters of the US; and,

•
•

•
•
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. •
Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32). •

Sincerely, •
•

XA •

arland B". ardue, Ph.D. •
Ecological Services Supervisor
•
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC •
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
a
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

• _ OPt~tN Otiyf ,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
• ; `I sT4res of Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28~ 10-97 22
Decembe-13,2002

GreLwrv J. Thorpe, PhD
• E nvironnlental Managenient Director
• Project Development and
Luvil l7 .ill!GIILQI t!i{21I~'JIJ 131-&l'oh
W Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Attention: -DOLIU, Jeremiall

Dean Dr. Thorpe:

• 1 lie \4&on, ar'nc l isliei e~ (NO.-V,\ isttul,C'J) 1? i< r
c 1 t;',(1 , c' ie~'tl~e''1 yt;:Lt It( _i
letter UeStIll Inp!.lt on preparation of the environiental assessi.nent (EA', ,e0 the extension of NC 94 from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Edenton, Chowan Countv, Federal .did Pr:ll
. STP-1 14(2), State Project No. 8.2030301 Hertford County, T.I.T. No. U-4

NOA % Fisherles participated in a number of meetings on this project as a part c;1 the %l: rger _t
c()n("urre r1C.e process 'r fie four alternatives to be addressed in the EA will, to varyir.: c t!r! t res., tll :.ti
• Oueert iinCs Creek and its adJacenll wetlands. Queen Anl)e's Creek is a tributaiy of Fderwi ESa`.'
• and AIb4'rnarle Sound all(!. serve's as Spa-wnin,, and Pi11-SE1-y' habitat for anadrettn; u~
• species fir ;vllich NO-AA Fisheries has s.ewards'rip responsibilities Therefore. the F,N
provic ]'t~tilt::.1 I11~ ):hi3tiJn lc!s.aitl)i';! ri1 ?t' and tVi)~c o
to it t,t
the altr•i native hi`hwav ah4anrnenla. Soice wl understand that ear-.L of the ii!tll
ifil
• alig1111it'rlis being considered it cluies -ubstuirtial bridging of wetlands., !Ile t1))il cII,i t:
• bride-ing involved Nk'th each alternative should be described. -
Adverse impacts to fishery resources that utilize Queen Anne's Creek as habitat can be nlinimi .ed
by the selection of environnlentally acceptable bridge construction techniques and the al iihc;:!ti-r1
i of ii S(,, Sonal 1',:stnctl(?n oil vi1,orl: to sur+a':c vvaterS. The EA should include !nforl]il;
• prod",'o , i },r±. wotaici be constructed and include a coniniltl n ° I
. restriction:," in t 'aters aind U c i:iai)ds of (1t e..ti Arinc. Ct~:ek In 1Ii;s f'o. Sv 1 el l"!" ,s:!' i 1; ;!I
C (~!].itlll ,v ill) the Noittl Carohna Division i\/]tl; lIi I'1Sh(:i it;.`+ `t-,li2o btt', '~C' s
(leiE'; i"ntliC'•C'3S(li]iil b4itlr;, iE'Ctr1C.'tion ~ier)ooC all iiiCa... i li}alb" the-. C("i(tlll( i-{s' ;{!t~' i:, - .
• alai v,::tl be taken to offset the llria C,idable lo',' ~ rlE L.:atIC)Ii of v1 er!alld:-
~p r,.MOSq~

Z
Z
• ® Printed on Recycled Paper ~
`oF,AtMENT OF Gam''

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If 1 can be of further assistance, please •
contact one at the letterhead address or at 252-728-5090.

Sincerely,

Ronald S. Sechler S
Fishery Biologist

Ala

K~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9

Charles R. Full,; ood, Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

• TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
• NC Department of Environment and Natural' Resources

FROM: David McHenry, NE Coastal Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Section
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
4
• DATE: December 4, 2002
St'BJECT: Request for information from the NC Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed extension
of NC 94 from NC 32 to tIS 17 Bypass. Edenton, Chowan County.
TIP Project No. U-3419.

• OLIA No. 03-E-0146
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe of the
• NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts of the subject project on fish and wildlife
resources. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
• (NCWRC) reviewed the proposed project. 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).
The extension of NC 94 is being proposed to provide an eastern bypass of traffic
that currently utilizes the business district of Edenton. Four alternative sitmgs of the
bypass are being considered that all originate at the NC 94 and NC 32 intersection and
connect to US 17 at various points to the north or northwest. All the proposed bypass
alternatives traverse wetlands in the Queen Anne Creek watershed.

Queen Anne Creek and Edenton Bay downstream of the project area are
productive habitat for a variety of aquatic organisms. The lower portions of this
watershed are recognized as spawning habitat for river herring (Alosa sp.). In addition to
herring, a variety of gamefish including largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
• bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), and black crappie (Pomoxis nogromaculatus)
occur in these waters year-round. However, because of recent population declines, the
NC WRC is actively stocking largemouth bass and bluegill in several Albemarle Sound
tributaries to aid in their recovery. Good water quality is critical for aquatic organisms in
• area streams, particularly during their early life stages. Wetland impacts and erosion that
• Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
• Telephone: [phone] ext. 2S1 • Fax: (919) 715-7643

NCDOT-NC 94 extension Page 2 December 4, 2002

can occur from land disturbing activities similar to that proposed can adversely affect
water quality, and correspondingly affect fishery resources.

In addition to our specific concern mentioned above, 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: •
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program •
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
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 --cult in loss, degradation, or fragmentation
of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Methods of 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 that will result from
secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this project 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 [phone] ext 345.
cc: USFWS, Raleigh •
ec: NCWRC (Thomas, C. - District 1)

• Nonh C Lrolina
Department of Environment and r Nunh Carolina
• Natural Resources FOREST Division of Forest Resources
SERVICE

CDENR \Itcliacl F. Easley, Governor N r Stanford \1. ,dams, Director
\t illism G. Ross Jr., Secretary v
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
November 25, 2002

MEMORANDUM

• TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs

FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources

• SUBJECT: DOT Scoping for Improvements and New Location Construction to NC 94 at Edenton,
Chowan County
• PROJECT 03-0146 and TIP # U-3419

• The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document and
offers the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.

1.Impacts to forest resources may occur as a result of this project. To help us evaluate the loss of timber
• production the EA should list the total forest land acreage by type that is removed by right of way
construction. Efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the
• following order of priority:
• • Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands

• 2. The productivity of the forest soils affected by the proposed project as indicated by the soil series.
3. The EA should state the provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber
removed during construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the
wood products cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into
mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of
escaped fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.

4. If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open
0 burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Chowan County is classified as a
• high hazard county, and G.S. 113-60.23 requiring a special burning permit would apply. Only local
DFR rangers are authorized to issue this permit.

1616 Nail Service Center, Raleigh, Nonh Carolina 27699-1601
Phnne 919 - 7-,,-2162 \ FAX 919 - 733-01 ;S \ fnrttmet wvvw rl(r state nc us

5. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside the
right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy equipment.
Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill; .
exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area should be addressed. .

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on our
forestland be considered during the planning process.

cc: Mike Thompson

S

o
PERMITS I SPECIAL APPLICA710N PRO=URS or REQUIREN0- ;7 Nmsa! Prwrss 7rrm~
Qwwtnry Time Limr,
• 71 Permit m drill e==m:ory o@ or gas well File surety bond d SS= with DENR n fining 10 State of N.C. conditional that any 10 days
• well opened by dull operator shall, upon abandonmerrr be plugged according
to DENR rules and regutzlicm
11 Geophysical Exp= ion Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
•
! I by letter No standard application form I (N/A)
• State Lakes Consrrumon Per= I Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 - 20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. I (N/A)
I 401 Water Oualiry Cerdfization N/A 55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR deleelopment S250M fee must accompany application 60 days
! I I (130 days)
i ( CAMA Permit for MINOR development S50D0 fee must atmmparry application I 22 days
i (25 days)
• I Several geodetic monuments are located in or near theproject area ff any monument needs to b# moved or destroyed, please notKy.
N_C- Geodetic Survey,Boz 27687 Raleigh. N.C.27611
Abandonment gr anywelL if required must be in accordance withTrtle 1SA.Subdsapter 200100.
• i ] I Notification of the prcper regional office is requested if'orphan' underground storao^ mnks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.

Compa-ance with 15A NCAC 2N 1DDD (Coastal Stormwaner Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
• Omer commerrs l~ acn addamnal pages as nec_.ary. being cercain to crte comment aurhoriry)

i

• ~I

i

•

•

REGIONAL OFFICES

Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional Office ? Wiirnington Regional Office
i 59 Wooden Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
! Asheville, N.C-28801' Mooresville, N.C- 28115 W ilminoton, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone] [phone]-
!
• ? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Srreet.Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Wauohtown Street
! Fayettevlle,N.C. 2E301 - Raleich,N.C. 27611 Winston-Salem,N.C-27107
• (910) 48- 1541 [phone] (336) 77 1-4600 -
Washington Regional Office
• 3 Va'ashinQton Square Wall
W2Shlnaron, N.C 27829

State of North Carolina Reviewing Dffic:e:
NDER Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project
Number.
Ue Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
REVIEW--- PROJECT _ - _ - - _ ' d
COMMENTS - v
Afterreview ofthis - ' _ _
proles it has been determined that the DENR pemvt{s) ad/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in o mply with North Carorma Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the revert se of is Project .
Le
All appGQrtiorts, informartion and guidelines relative to these tans and reverse of this form
p permitsare available from the same Regional office
P:7 RM7S SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REDUIREMENTS
Normal Prot>ess Time
? Permit to mrutvtra & operate wastewater treatment (Sry Time Limt
Per=t sewer Application 9D days before begin construction or award of construction
system emensiom&seweT systems. contract On-site' conference
not discharging u= state surface waters inspection Post applimtion Technical conferrnce usual.
3D days
(90 days)
? NPD'3 Permit to disa arge into surface water an or
pemtitto operate and construct wastewater facilitiesd/ Application 180 days before begin activity. Orr-srte inspection preappiication
Perndischarging conference usual.Additionally,obtain Perm, to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
into sate surface waters faarrty-granted after NPDE& Rely time
of NPDES P me 3D days after receipt of plans or issue
permit-whichever is later. (N/A)
? Water Use Permit PreappGcationtechniml conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Pamii
?I
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a we1L 7 days •
(15 days)
? Dredge and Fill Permit - - •
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-srte inspection. PreapPlication conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days
to Fill from N.C. Department of Adminismtion and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. (90 days) •
? Permit to ConmLl & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
0.0100,20.03D0.2RD601u) N/A
60 days
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.19DD
Demolition or renovation..- :res mnaining .
asbtML s material must be a!r•Pfiance with
15 A NCAC2D.1110 (a) (1) whir, requires notification
and removal priorto demolition Contact Asbestos N/A 60 days
Control Group 91 ai.3-DE20, (90 days)
? Compit-c Source Perini required under 15 A NCAC
2D.08D0
7) I The 5edimenarion PollLmon Control Act of 1973 mL= be property addressed for any Land disturbin act'
I control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with pro
per Regional 9 Ofr^ rtY• An erosion &on) at l tar, 30
ys before becimninc activity- A fee of 540 for the firs, acre or an ce (Land Quality Se tiN at leas 3D 20 days
any part of an ave.
(30 days) •
I TneSedimerration Polluion Control Act of 1973 murbeaddressed with respect, tothe referenced Local Ordinance
? I 30 days
Mining Permit
Or-she inspection usual. Surety bond filed with D_NR Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land- Any are mined oreater than
one acre must be pernined. The appropriate bond must be received before 30 days .
the permit can be issued (60 days)
? North Carolina Bumpy permit •
On* m inspection by N.C Division of Fares, Resources if permit exce-cis 4 days
1 day •
(N/A)
Special Ground Cleamnca 5umino Fermi;-22 counties On-site inspection by N.CDrvision of Forest Resources required -if more than five
in coaml N.C-with organic soiis. acres of around clearing activibes are involved inspections should be requested
1 day •
at least ten days befog actual bum is planned' (N/A)
1] oil kefinino Faciiicies •
N/A 90 -120 days •
(N/A)
? Dam Safety Permit •
If permit required application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hire N-C quaffed engineerto- prepare plans, inspect construction, certify •
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control prooram,and a 404 permit from Corps of Enoineers. •
An inspection of site is necessary to verity Hazard Classification A minimum 30 days
fee of S200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee (60 days) •
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon compimion.
•

•
•

• NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

+'yak

. January 17, 2003

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
• C_;; ,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA `r8 r r `4.
North Carolina Department of Transportations.
1548 Mail Service Center
• Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
•
Dear Mr. Thorpe,

• SUBJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Edenton,
Chowan County, TIP U-3419
•
•
• I visited the above project alternatives included in your November 6, 2002 letter along
with Clay Willis, Division 1 DEO, in order to respond to your request to identify potential
• environmental impacts of the project and permits or approvals which may be required by our
agency.

The Paradise Rd. #2 and Peanut Dr. #1 alternatives cross Queen Anne Creek, portions of
• which are a Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Area of Environmental Concern and these
alternatives would require a CAMA Major Permit for Development. The Soundside Road
• Eastern and Western Alternatives would require a consistency determination by our agency.

• Thank you for coordinating with DCM for comments on TIP U-3419. Please contact me
• at 252-808-2808 if I can be of further assistance.

• Sincerely,

Bill Arrington
Field Rep for DOT Projects
•
•

151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza 11, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
• Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
• An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

•

•

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ° y
P.O. BOX 1890 ` •
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 31, 2003 r
k
Planning Services Section}' •
7.-

ern
•

l •
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Environmental Management, PDEA •
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center •
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Dear Dr. Thorpe:
•
This is in response to your letter of November 6, 2002, to Mr. Bill Biddlecome of i
our Washington Regulatory Field Office, requesting our preliminary comments on
Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Edenton,
Chowan County, Federal Aid Project STP-114(2), State Project No. 8.2030301, T.I.P.
U-3419" (Regulatory Division Action ID No. 199911289). •
•
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that •
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or •
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further •
assistance, please contact us.
•
Sincerely,

W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and •
Environmental Branch
•
Enclosure

•
•
•
•

•
•

•

•
•
January 31, 2003
Page 1 of 1

• U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
•
"Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Edenton,
• Chowan County, Federal Aid Project STP-114(2), State Project No. 8.2030301, T.I.P.
U-3419" (Regulatory Division Action ID No. 199911289)
•
• 1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Planning Services Section, at
• (910) 2514728

• Based on a review of several panels of the July 1985 Edenton Flood Boundary
• and Floodway Map, the central and western alternative alignments appear to cross the
• detailed study portion of Queen Anne Creek; with 100-year flood elevations determined
• and a foodway defined. The proposed improvements should be designed and
constructed to comply with requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and
all flood plain and other pertinent ordinances.

i 2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Bill Biddlecome, Washington Field
• Office, Regulatory Division, at [phone], Extension 31
•
Department of the Army (DA) 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 in waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with this
• project, including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will
depend on design of the project, extent of fill work within streams and wetland areas
(dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors. Under our
• mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will
then consider compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work in wetlands, our Regulatory
• Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for project-specific
• determinations of DA permit requirements.

• If you need additional information concerning U.S. Department of the Army
• permits, please contact Mr. Biddlecome.

•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

~CF W q TF9o Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
•
Q, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
I.r1 r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director •
Division of Water Quality
G ~

March 11, 2003

MEMORANDUM •

To: Melba McGee
From: John Hennessy /L /I=

Subject: Comments on the extension of NC 94 (Southside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in Edenton,
Chowan County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-114(2), State Project No. 8.2030301, TIP Project
No. U-3419, DENR Project Number 03-E-0146.

This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including •
wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the •
aforementioned document:

A) This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. The NCDWQ is a participating •
team member in that process. We will work with the Merger Team in the analysis and selection of a Least •
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). •

B) The project as proposed as the potential to have impacts to Queen Anne Creek and associated tributaries
and wetlands. Queen Anne Creek is classified by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) .
as Class C NSW waters. In addition, the project has the potential to impact an unnamed tributary to
Edenton Bay classified (by the EMC) as Class C NSW waters.

C) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and .
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
D) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be required •
for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In •
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) 1, the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. i
E) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize •
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where •
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable. .

NCDENR 0
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center R;' .;c`. NC 27699-1650 [phone] •
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748

• W A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
R William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
• ~O~ pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Cl) Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
p

F) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.

G) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
• H) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
I) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.

• J) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
• likely require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water
• Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory
protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are
lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and
written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on
appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical.
S, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
• The NCD` VQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Bill Biddlecombe, Corps of Engineers
• Gary Jordan, USFWS
• Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy

cAncdot\T1P U-3419\comments\U-3419 comments.doc

•

•

•
•
•

• N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center NC 27699-1650 [phone]
• Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748

•
!

•
•
!

•
! U-3419

• Appendix D
•
(Cultural Resource Documentation)

•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
!
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

•
0

Federa! Aid # U-3419 TIP # Alternates 1-4 County: Chowan

• CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
• THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: New location for NC 94 from NC 32 to US 17

On 10/1/0 , epresentatives of the

§~~North orth Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
ederal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
n Other
Reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
• Other
All parties present agreed

There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
• project's area of potential effects.

There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
. historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as Properties 2. 6,
7, 8, 11, 15 and 16 are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is
• necessary. ***Properties 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 are outside the APE***
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.

• All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.

There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed
Signed: D + /oz-

Represefativ,,1;4CDOT Date

d dZ
• FHWA, for t e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

Representative, HPO Date

State Historic Preservation Officer Date
• If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form will be included.

•

•
•
•

•
•
•

U-3419
•
• Appendix E

• (Noise Tables)
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
i

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

•
•
•
S Figure N 1
• Project Location & Ambient Measurements Sites
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension
• Chowan County, TIP #U-3419

•
•

• x Setup #6 yap'` -

r y.
w' Setup #3 y .

• r-
• Setup #5 Road
Alternate

A w~

• ~ ~ Peanut Drive
. t
• w Y' Alternate
• Setup #I
• A 4
i
• # fi j r Setup #4

Paradise Road
• Alternate
rr ~If
Setup #2 .
r

x Start of All
• a~'~'
Alternates
• > North Carolina Department of Transportation
• Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
• .
Traffic Noise and Air Quality Group
• Chowan County
• Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension
• TIP #U-3419
•

•
•

TABLE N3

AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (Leq)
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension

Chowan County, TIP # U-3419

NOISE

LOCATION DESCRIPTION LEVEL
SITE (dBA)
Grassy 59.7
I US 17 Business @ Earnhardt Baseball Field

Grassy 63.2
2 NC 32 Approximately 750 feet West of NC 94

Grass/Dirt 62.7
3 US 17 Business Approximately 850 ft. West of SR 1323 (Davenport Lane)

Dirt 55.2
4 SR 1105 (Old Hertford Road) South of US 17 Business

EG eii 52.6
5 Peanut Drive @ Jimbo's Jumbos
ssy55.8
6 SR 1319 (Paradise Road) North of US 17 Bypass

NOTE: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic.

••••••!•••••••••••!•••••••i•••••••!•••A••••

Page I
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension
Chowan County, TIP # U-3419
Peanut Drive Alternate
NOISE
NEAREST AMBIENT NEAREST LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTEDYOISE LEVELS
MAXIMUM INCREASE
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(tI)
Proposed NC 94 (Ai ort Road) Extension From NC 32 to US 17 Business 95.0 R 60.94 56.81 62 + 6
rn
1 Residence B NC 32 56 -L- 63 + 4
2 Residence B 5 " 9 " 100.0 L 60.45 59.90
59 " 120.0 L 58.79 48.77 59 + 11
3 Residence B 48 10.0 L - - R/W
19 Business C tJS 17 Bus 58 -L- -
R/W
19A Business C 57 175.0 L 55.51 63.72 -
R/W
53 110.0 L 59.55 59.88
10 19B Business C 0.0 R - - R/W
+ ~
19C Business C 59 205.0 R 54.16 63.O- 63 8
It 55
20 Residence B
94 Air ort Road) Extension From US 17 Business to US 17 Bypass 67 * + 1(1
used NC 8.82
Prop ( p 66.62 5
US 17 Bus 57 -L- 35.0 L + 8
15 Business C 110.0 R 57.15 63.58 64 01 56 + 8
16 Business C
17 Business C 55 195.0 R 52.19 63.03 63
60 + 10
-
75.0 R
50 -L-
9 Business C Peanut Drive - - _ 53 8
„ " 175.0 L
10 Business C 45 155.0 L - -
11 Business C 45 _ _ 59 + 10
12 Business 54 + 9
13 Business C „ 49 85.0 R - 54 + 9
+ 10
C
14 Business C „ 45 54 45.0 R - - 64 150.0 L _
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From US 17 Bypass to End of Project 54 + 6
7 Residence B SR 1319 48 _L_ 3 26011.0 .0 L L 5068.54 .72 5247.1.210 R/W
8 Residence B 47
SR 1 105 (Old Herttbrd Road) 45.0 L - - 6l + 4
4 Residence B SR 1105 57
+ 4
23 Residence B 54 60.0 L -
70.(1 L - - 57
24 Residence B 53 Sy + 4
" + 4
25 Residence B 55 55.0 L 80.0 R - - 56
26 Residence B 52
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

TABLE N4 Page 1
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension
Chowan Comity, TIP H U-3419
Soundside Road Alternate

NEAREST AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE

RECEPTOR EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
AXIMUM I[NCREASEE
IDH LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(f1) -L- -S'- M
INFORMATION Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From NC 32 to US 17 Business
Sed NC 94 (Aimort Road) Extension From NC 32 to US 17 Business
p _L_ 175.0 R 55.61 56.81 59
1 Residence B NC 32 56 + 3
_ R/W _
2 Residence B 59 99 10.0 L - - -
48 25.0 L - R/W
3 Residence B
US 17 Business From SR 1105 (Old Hertford Road) to US 17 Bypass Sy + 0
27 Residence B US 17 Bus 59 -L- 85.0 L -
60 80.0 L - - 60 + 0
28 Residence B 01 100.0 L - 58 + 1
29 Residence B 57

-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exicrior/interior (68/48).
*

TABLE N4 Page 1
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension
Chowan County, TIP # U-3419
Paradise Road Alternate

NOISE
NEAREST LAMBIEENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING E PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
_L_ _y_ MAXIMUM INCREASE
ID# CATEGORY ROADWAY L NAME CL DIST ft)
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From NC 32 to US 17 Business
I Residence B NC 32 56 -L- 115.0 R 59.26 56.81 61 + 5
+
2 Residence B " 59 70.0 L 64.05 59.90 65
48 95.0 L 61.04 48.77 61 + 13
3 Residence 5
B '4 Residence B SR 1105 57 195.0 R 54.69 61.13 62 + 5
110.0 L 59.65 63.03 64 M+5
5 Residence B US 17 Bus 55 240.0 L 52.80 63.58 63
11 6 Residence B 56
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From US 17 Bypass to End of Project 63 7 Resience B SR 13148 35.0 R
47 130.0 R 52
10 I

-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

TABLE N5

FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension, Chowan County, TIP # U-3419

MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
DESCRIPTION (dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
100ft 200ft
Peanut Drive Alternate SOft
0 0 0
1 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 65.2 59.4 53.9 <37.0 46.6 0 0
US 17 Business 37.0 <37.0 0 0 1 0 0
2 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 62.7 57.0 51.5 <
Business to US 17 Bypass <37.0 37.5 0 0 0 0 0
3 - Propsoed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Bypass 63.7 58.0 52.5
to End of Project 37.0 <37.0 0 0 0 0 0
4 - SR 1105 (Old Hertford Road) 59.1 53.2 47.5 <
TOTALS 0 0 1 0 0
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
dBA DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
DESCRIPTION (
Paradise Road Alternate 50ft 100ft 200ft 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
0 0 0 0 0
<37.0 E73
1 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 65.3 59.5 54.0
0
US 17 Business <37.0 0 1 0 0
2 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Business 59.7 54.0 48.5
to End of Project
TOTALS 0 1 0-70 0
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
DESCRIPTION (dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
Soundside Road Alternate 50ft 100ft 200ft 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
<37.0 46.6 0 0 0 0 0
1 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 763 2 59.4 53.9
US 17 Business 37.0 <37.0 0 0 0 0 0
2 - US 17 Business From SR 1105 (Old Hertford 1 57.3 51.8 <
Road) to US 17 Bypass
TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0
1. 50ft, 100ft, and 200ft distances are measured from the center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway.
•••0••!•••••00000

TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Extension, Chowan County, TIP U-3419
NC 94 (Airport Road) #

SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE TO BOTH
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE NCREASEL CRITERIA
DESCRIPTION "21~
<=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >=25 1Peanut Drive Alternate 1 0 0 p p 0
1 -Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 0 1 2
US 17 Business 5 4 0 0 0 1 0
2 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 0 0
Business to US 17 Bypass 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Bypass 0 0
to End of Project 0 p 0 0 0 0
4- SR 1105 (Old Hertford Road) 0 4 1 p 1 0
TOTALS 0 5 9 5 0 0
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE NCREASEL BOTH
CRITERIA
DESCRIPTION '211
<=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >=25 1Paradise Road Alternate 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 0 0 5
US 17 Business 1 0 1 0 p 1 0
2- Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Bypass 0 0
to End of Project 6 1 1 0 0 1 0
TOTALS 0 0
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION 25 "1" "2"
Soundside Road Alternate <=0 1-4 5-9 10- A 15-19 20-24
0 0 0 p
0
1 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 0 1 0 0
US 17 Business 0 0 p 0 0 0 0
2 - US 17 Business From SR 1105 (Old Hertford 2 1
Road) to US 17 Bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 2 2 0
"1" As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of TABLE N2).
"2" As defined by both criteria in TABLE N2.

•
•

•
•
•

•
•
• U-3419

• Appendix F
(Relocation Report)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

RELOCATION REPORT
• North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E. 1.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN

• PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY Chowan Alternate 3 - Peanut of 3 Alternate
• 1. D. NO.: U-3419 F.A. PROJECT STP-1114 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Airport Road), from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in
Edenton, Chowan Coun

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50 UP
• Residential 9 0 9 0 1 -3
Businesses .4 0 4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING ' DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
• Non-Profit 0-20K $ 0-150 170-1 $0-150
• ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040K 150-250 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70K 2 250-400 6 250-400
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100K 3 400-600 3 400-600
2. W ill schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 4 600 uP g 600 UP
• displacement? TOTAL 9 17
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond b Number
after project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
• indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4 - Colony Tire Training
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Seabrook Industries
. 6. Source for available housing (list). Tri County Forklift
• x 7. Will additional housing programs be J.J. Peanuts (Ingredient Building)
needed?
. X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
• x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
• families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 6 & 14 - Multiple Listing Service, newspaper, local realtor
11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 8 - as mandated by law
• 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
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12-18
•

•t*w 01-16-07tY>
Date Relocation Coo dinator Date
Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E

RELOCATION REPORT

North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM •
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR F1 DESIGN •

PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY Chowan Alternate 2 - Paradise of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3419 F.A. PROJECT STP-1114 2
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Airport Road), from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in
Edenton, Chowan Coun
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL

Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50 UP
Residential 5 0 5 0 1 17-
Businesses 3 0 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20K $ 0-150 0-20K $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40K 150-250 20-40K 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70K 1 250-400 40-70K 6 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100K 2 400-600 70-100K $ 400-600
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 2 600 uP 100 up g 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 5 17
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond 'b Number
after project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4 - ABC Store
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Mamasita's Restaurant
6. Source for available housing (list). Colony Tire
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 6 & 14 - Multiple Listing Service, newspaper, local realtor
11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 8 - as mandated by law
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
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 9 - 12

01-16-07 1~ JI rte ~1L r'
s`
Date Relocation Co' rdinator Date
Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E

RELOCATION REPORT

North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.1 s. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN

PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY Chowan Alternate 1 - Soundside of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3419 F.A. PROJECT STP-1114 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Airport Road), from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in
Edenton, Chowan County
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL

Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 0 . {
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20K $ 0-150 0-20K $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40K 150-250 20-40K 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70K 250-400 40-70K 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100K 400-600 70-100K 400-600
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 1 600 up 100 up 8 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 1 81 1
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond b Number
after project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 6 - Multiple Listing Service, newspaper, local realtor
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 8 - as mandated by law
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
• ' families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
. x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
• housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
NiA 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 9 - 12
•
•
01-16-07
Date Relocation oordinator Date
Right of Way Agent
• FRM15-E

•
RELOCATION REPORT •

•
North Carolina Department of Transportatio
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAOr
® E.1 s. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN REVISED •
PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY Chowan Alternate 3 - Peanut of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3419 F.A. PROJECT STP-1114 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Airport Road), from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in
Edenton, Chowan Coun

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL ----T Type of

Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50 UP
Residential 14 0 14 0 3 S 6
Businesses 10 0 10 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners . Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20K $ 0-150 0-20K $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40K 150-250 20-40K 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70K 2 250-400 40-70K 5 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100K 6 400-600 70-100K 4 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 6 600 up 100 up g 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 14 17
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond b Number
after project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4 - Colony Tire Training, ABC Board
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Seabrook Industries Edenton Construction
6. Source for available housing (list). Tri County Forklift Regulator
x 7. Will additional housing programs be J.J. Peanuts 2 vacant businesses
needed? Pert Laboraories
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 6 & 14 - Multiple Listing Service, newspaper, local realtor
11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 8 - as mandated by law
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
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12-18

02-06-07
Date Relo tion Coord' ator Date
Right of Way Agent
•

•
•

*IF-RELOCATION REPORT

• North Carolina Department of Transportation
• RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
• ® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN REVISED

PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY 1:howan Alternate 2 - Paradise of 3 Alternate
1. D. NO.: U-3419 F.A. PROJECT STP-1114 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Airport Road), from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in
Edenton, Chowan Coun
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL

Type of
• Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50 UP
Residential 6 0 6 0 Z 2 2
Businesses 3 0 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE

• Non-Profit 0-20K $ 0-150 0-20K $ 0-150
Farms [TOTAL wners Tenants For Sale For Rent
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40K 150-250 20-40K 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70K 1 250-400 40-70K 6 250-400
• X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 0-100K 2 400-600 70-100K 3 400-600
• x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 3 600 up 100 up g 600 up
displacement? 6 17
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond b Number
• after project?
• x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4 - ABC Store
• x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Mamasita's Restaurant
• 6. Source for available housing (list). Colony Tire
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
. needed?
• x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
. x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
• families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 6 & 14 - Multiple Listing Service, newspaper, local realtor
• 11. Is public housing available?
• X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 8 - as mandated by law
• 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
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
• RELOCATION? 9 - 12
•
•
• ti'1.-.ys ~-•b, 02-06-07
• Date Reloe tion Coo inator Date
Right of Way Agent
. FRM15-E

•

RELOCATION REPORT •
•
North Carolina Department of Transportatioe
~
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN REVISED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRA
PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY Chowan Alternate 1 - Soundside of 1 Alternat
1. D. NO.: U-3419 F.A. PROJECT STP-1114 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Extension of NC 94 (Airport Road), from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass in
Edenton, Chowan County

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15K 15-25K 25-35K 35-50K 50 UP
Residential 2 0 2 0 2
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20K $ 0-150 0-20K $ 0.150
ANSWER.ALL QUESTIONS 20-40K 150-250 20-40K 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70K 250-400 40-70K 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100K 400-600 70-100K 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 2 600 up 100 UP g 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 2 8
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond b Number
after project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 6 - Multiple Listing Service, newspaper, local realtor
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 8 - as mandated by law
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
N/A 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 6 - 12

02-06-07

Date Reloc tion Coordinator Date
Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
U-3419

• Appendix G
(Traffic Forecast Diagrams)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.)
o 11200
eo SR 1321
200 5,00 9600
NC 32 US 17 5800 700 ~
21 70 '~jp = 1300 ~Ta 0 5400
-100
~T T pM~~ ss _ 600 6200
300 `100 US 17 °00 ~T 6~`' t^y .(.1100
SR 1200 - se 1600 12500 8200 2500 aM o VS 67001300
2000 `o ~,~M 00-J 3400 55 1s 21 9700 21 55 600 5.2 10 loop \ NC 32 900 96p0 10001100
US 17 14600 _(Virgmia Rd.) 1100 T
7100 ss E ~3
aM 14500 0 200 ,.1,1000 SR 1105
Q.6 ) 0 60 g0 US 17 Bus 2100 (OLD HERTFORD RD.)
a
7800 1 ,2300 2800
2600
u 10100 3 SR 1132 S300 03
H (Coke Ave.)
0900 0
m 8 SR 1126
SR 1234 0 (Oakum St)
(Albemarle St.) PM 1000 T .0400
2600 ss 4 (z.1I 10 (E~~ 1400 2600 2300
800 J. 200 0500 1500
W. Church St. 300 2800 400 m 300 300 2300 600 P17pp 100 100
E_j 5000 y 4800 6800 y 7900 4100
1100 NC 32 100 J, '-1500 (Church St.) 200. 100 sa j4f 10 NC 32 N 40001' 200
9000
e U 4400
Estimated 2005 AADT Volumes N SR 1114
m j (Airport Rd.)
~
LEGEND 1100 _TM
XXX VPD-• VEHICLES PER DAY US 17 Bus o \1 Edenton Airport Rd.
00
OHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (W. Queen SL) 47~' m100m U of Ext., from NC 32 to
D DIRECTIO W(%) y
PM PM PEAK PERIOD ERIOD 5300 600
(DO) DUALS, rTST(%) ss f j4~1 ' 200 100 ".\a US 17 Bypass With
existing SR 1105
NOTE: DHV D County: Chowan Division: 1
4500
Inidicates the direction D TIP:U•3419 Date: March'06
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE ~WBS,34919.1.1

SR 1319
(Paradise Rd )
0 2000
eo SR 1 0 / 9900 19500/
600
f
NC 32 a~ 11600 1700
o US 17
1100 '~j0 2000--,C000
24200 11300
200 vM 55 900 10800
400 10 l ~pp BSS E J, 1400
;606 26200 15400 US 17 3900 S 1600
SR 1200 x2400 F2400 21 11300
3000 5400 19000
~ as 1200 - " (3600 188%1 1900
~o 3900 NC 32 1900 'C j600 1800
U~ 1Z 30100
SS (Virginia Rd.) t~
14500 aM 30000 1800 R 1105
13900 119U13 51'I Bus 500 2100 (OLD HERTFORD RD.)
~T
16100,1 .,,4000 ; 3500
i 4200 SR 1103
20100 3 SR 1132 500
(Coke Ave.)
20900
2
j2
m ° SR 1126
SR 1234 ° J (Oakum St.)
(Albemarle St.) PM 1800 3200
3900 55 F (2 1( 10 ~--j70 2000 4600
1300,E •C500 20200 3300
W. Church St. 70~T X5400 8600 800Tf 700 8400 700T `-1900 11600 1000T~ F ' 220012800 200 T T-9200 6900
1800 E-~ EE--'' E' es-' ` _ 32 400 ,6 500 (Ch ch SL) 3001 200 55 (4f PZ 10 NC 32 6200•(' 300
17000
I Wi
N 6600
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes SR 1114
(Airport Rd.)
m ov
LEGEND 2360
XXX VP0.-VEHICLES PER DAY Edenton Airport Rd. DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%) US (W. 17 Queen Bus
s 9700 T400 ~o_J I Ext., from NC 32 to St. g
vM 2000
PM PM PEAK PERIOD FLOW (Y.)
,1400 Y US 17 Bypass with
(0,0) DUALS, TTST 55 (4.2) 10 500 1, `C400
existing SR 1105
NOTE: DHV 0 D County: Chow an Division: 1
7800
'06
Inidicates the direction D TIP:U-3419 Dale: March
Reverse now direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBS#-34939.1.1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•00~~~~~•~~~000090•00~~~~~~

SR-1319 100 100
NC 11100
SR 1321 (Paradise s0Rd.) SOUNDSIDE -100 -100
P7„ 20o ALTERNATIVE 100A v11300
100 20~ 1300
300
,oo,oo
100 6700 8900
200 1600 1300
~~i00 -100
SR 12000 12500 600 2200 200 /300 011-9
0
US 17 10 H?, 2500'1500 100 9800
2000 9100 100 16 00
60013 p
10 (52) ~ 55 2000
7100 1700 2300 1300 900
3400
US 17 13900 3000
NC 32 600 200 7100
(Virginia Rd.) '
10100 7500 300 X300 1 1400 T 1400
\ 14000 1100 900 10000 1500 900 X1100
350)p_1'50 450 50
7100 saoo o' 1000 1100 E- X200 F
6900 5 a us 17 Bus. 200 looo ; 350 ~T soo ~
x'2300 1100 1500 ,10 os1050--j ~ 10'5 200 450
9200 2100 o i 21501 T2150
2600
j i
10000 I SR 1132 SR 1105 ~ 4300
o o
(Coke Ave.) (Old Hertford Rd.) 14300 N
i
SR 1234 2600 55 0 1000 400 1400 SR 1(Oakum126 6 N
(Albemarle St.)
800% '1200
9600 1500 2800 1500 0
W.Church St. 1100 300 ,1900 4100 40?_7 t-- 00 3900 500 1y2300 5700 400 21100 6400 130 X400 NC-32
1001 1500 200' X100 ss 3" 0 1600 200 4100
Estimated 2005 AADT Volumes
9000
LEGEND ~I Edenton Soundside
DHV VPD-VEHICLES Rd. Ext., from NC 32
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (Y.J 470
O DIRECTIONAL FLOW rXJ 5300 'j ~ 0 100 ci
EAK PERIOD 600 $ to US 17 Bypass
PM PM P
(0,0) DUALS, Trsr(Y.) 200 100 PM 1 100
NOTE: DHV 0- D 5511 1+21 w County: Chowan Division:,
Inidicafes the direction D 4500 TIP f U-3419 4400
Date: March'o6
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE NBSM 31939.1.1 Soundside Rd.

SR-1319
24200 (Paradise Rd.) SOUNDSIDE 200 L Tioo
NC 32 SR 1321 2000
ALTERNATIVE 100th"' 100
600 3000
200 ° 300
t 3100
600 12500 200 00
X400 18100
300 2400 30000
P 2 26200 1100 X300 300 1( o 100 -100 d-9
SR 1200 3.
° 50 1400
US 17 ° 3900-C'900 100 T(I 19500
2900 16300 200\ zo 3000
1300
j52~ 55 6400
14500 3 06 0 3800 2000 1400
5400
US 17 29400 5600
NC 32 900 600 1200
(Virginia Rd.) 13800 '
18700 1 1600 1 3200 T3200
\
281 i 18600 2100 i 2800 850 X2 250
1900 1600
50 00 150 E 700
13800 17600 (eai 1-1 1800 1900 i l
14300) US 17 Bus. 500 1800 1 --4 L 3800 3200 280 150 ° 1804 00 300700
1800
18100
~ T~ 4200 3700 a2oo~ Tg2oo
SR 1132 SR 1105 84,
18700 700 ° (Old Hertford Rd.) ;
N
(Coke Ave.) 8400
' 1800 2000 SR 1126
SR 1234 3900 55 a (2^^1) (Oakum St.)
(Albemarle St.) vl~
1300' '500
18000 3300 4800 2700 °
W. Church St. 1800 700 ,3200 6400 80~ T-700 6200 900 X3900 9200 700( X2000 10500 320 1600
NC-32
o 2500 X500 6900
400 2500 300 P200 55 0 (321
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes
17000
LEGEND
Edenton Soundside
X)O( VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(-/.) 9700 v ~ Rd. Ext., from NC 32
0 DIRECTIONAL FLOW 11400 T ° 400 ~
0o PM PEAK 2000 $ `k Tom' to US 17 Bypass
) DUALS, 5500% 400 2300
NOTE: DHV 0 D 55 ~ ~a1i 10 County: Chowan Division: 1
Inidicales the direction 0 7800 TIP M U-3419 Dale: March 'O6 6600
Reverse Now direction for AM peak Soundside Rd.
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBS4 34939.1,1
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1400 PEANUT DRIVE 1001 T100

NC 11100 7001 T700 ALTERNATIVE 10000 Az-/100
200 SR 1321 200
ttoo
° Px 500 L-1200
f1100 200 1300
-100 500 300
300 1100 Too ` 100 (.400 100
T 6700 C~ ' 8900
1600 100 eoo ~~900 1600 ; 1
100
-aooo
2000 200 Lq -100
SR 1200 12500 16001 1300 900
100 T 9800
US 17 Peanut Dr. 900 ..'.7400
1
9100 . 600 100
2000 700 1000,:: 100 100
600 300100 1400 T1400
1600 I 11600 400 X1300
y 900
7100 1700 2300 r 1400
US 17 1400 2800
13900 3200
~Q 300
NC 32 1400 X 5800 3700
(Virginia Rd.) 8800 9100 2700 0500
1
14000 1100), 700 9800 1 100
400 700

7100 9400 400 1700
F 200 1000 N
6900 ~2300 US 17 Bus.
°o
9200
2100 s 1100 f,
10000 2600 g SR 1132
° $ ; (Coke Ave.) I;
t SR 1126 SR1105 4300
SR 1234 2600 55 - 2M) 10 1000 400 1400 (Oakum St.) (Old Hertford Rd.)
(Albemarle St.) 800 'f'200
1500 eT~
9600 1500 2800
300 1900 500 2300 400 1100 1300 400
1100 j• L4 4100 400,M, 300 ~ t) -_T ~3
W. Church St. NC-32
100 1500 200' P100 3900 55 1~PM2, m 5700 6400 1600Ey 200 4100
Estimated 2005 AADT Volumes
LEGEND 900
Edenton Soundside
W VPD--VEHICLES PER DAY {
DNV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME 1`%) 4700
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW 5300 T_;1 00 ` ) Rd. Ext., from NC 32
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 600 to US 17 Bypass
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(-4) 200 X100 1100 r~
10 ss---;'" )o Coun : Chowan 4400
NOTE: DHV D 1 2) ry Divisional
Inidicates the direction D 4500 TIP M U-3419 Date: March •06 SOundside Rd.
Reverse now direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBSM 34939.1.7

2400 PEANUT DRIVE
24200 1200 1200 200 200
NC 32 SR 1321 ALTERNATIVE 100 x,100
600 500 " 100) ~
v , E
o ~1. 700 500 3000
E
200 .!.,Boo 600 30~ 3100
700 ~
600 00
1800 C 200 E 800 12500 01
1100 18100
2400 400 tzoo,,?io00 2700 ;
3000 3000
26200 300~~ -100 400
SR 1200 2700 3100
US 17 300 -.7800 100 19500
Peanut Dr. 11 0
16300 000
2900 140+ ~600: 200 200
1300 2500112500 so0 200 3200 T3200
800 \V 2200 1400
14500 3600 _ 3800 y 2400
US 17 29400 2400' 4800 7800
NC 32 5000 230 X500 12500
N N; (Virginia Rd.) 19100 r
20700 16900 5600 "800
28100 1800 1000 18800 500 2700 50 13800 17600'° 500 y 2500 900 2800 N
14300 3800 US 17 Bus. y
~Oo
18100
t
3700 3200 m7
18700 5200 SR 1132 s~
(Coke Ave.)
R 1234 3900 1800 2700 SR 1126 8 Old Hertford Rd. 8400
S 2000 (Oakum St.)
(Albemarle St.)
13001 'C500 °
j
18000 2700
3300 4800 °
1800 700,. ~y3200 6400 800,)-C, 700 900 " 3900 700 2000 3200 "1600
W. Church St. 9200 10500 '-1 ,C 6900 NC-32
400 2500 300' X200 6200 55 i„ 0 2500 500
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes
LEGEND 17000
)00( VPD•-VEHICLES PER DAY ~ Edenton Soundside
'.DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME 1`%) 9700 400 o= Rd. Ext. from NC 32
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (V.) 11460 Ej t
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 2000
to US 17 Bypass
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(•r.) 500 X400 2300
Division: 1 6600
NOTE: DHV - 0 D 55 i~ <Z~ 'c County: Chowan
Inidizates the direction D 7800 TIP r U-3419 Date: Marcn •os Soundside Rd.
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBSM 34939.1.1

Paradise Rd.
24200 1200T 11200 PARADISE ROAD 2001 T200
NC 32 SR 1321
b° 200 n;J 200 100
eM looo v1 ALTERNATIVE ~ 100
z, 600 600 t001~v-N3000

200 3
600 r~\2500 X800 c~ 3100
J
X400 1000 2700 200,00
12500
18100
3000 2400 1600 3000
too
.R 1200 ty~ 100 100
26200 oM 300~
° 1- '\3500 270 1400
US 17 T 100 19500
2900 16300 200 800 200 1-~v T(3000
1300 zoo
E5 ..,)2500,:
zoo 3200 T3200
14500 3600 3800 SR-1319 1400, - ;"\'600 1400
US 17 9400 (Paradise Rd.) 2200 \3300
3900
7800
NC 32 3900 11000
(Virginia Rd.) 7800 8800
900 e2600
28100 22100 90 12700 400
F .
~ 800 2800 20200 1' 6000. 00
3000
13800 17600 y 906 2800 8600 N
14300) x'3800 US 17 Bus. 500 3100 200
c~ X400
18100 600 X200 PoF+len
4200 3700 $ S°~
18700 ° ° SR 1132 SR 1105
(Coke Ave.) _ (Old Hertford) 8400
SR 1234 3900 55 4 t M 10 1800 700 2000 SR 1126 N;
(Oakum St.) 3200 U %
(Albemarle St.)
300
10500 im
180
00 3300 4800 2700 0
700, 3200 800T 700 700 2000 3200 1600
N. Church St. 1800 1 i 6400 C~ 6200 900 J X3900 9200 j t ?000 J, T, 6900
400 P2500 300 P200 55 4 ' t 10 2500 X500 NC-32
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes
17000
LEGEND
Edenton Soundside
XXX VPD--VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (Y.) 9700 4OO ° Rd. Ext., from NC 32
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW 11400
T-3
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 2000 to US 17 Bypass
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(i) 500 X400
2300
NOTE: DHV 0 D ss o County: Clwwan Division: 1
6600
Inidicates the direction D 7800 TIP N U-3419 Date: March'06 Soundside Rd.
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE west aesae.t.t

1400
11100 7001 T700 PARADISE ROAD 10°~ Tioo
NC 32 SR 1321 100I~ 100 -100 ,x_100
ALTERNATIVE 100~~ 1300
X
e+^ 200 600~, : _._300____...
zp
0
~ 13
-100 p........::........... 400 2 00
300 `1500 T
too

600 1600 6700 8900
)
X100 a 1300
1600
200 900 ~r l o0 100
12500 1600 2001 300 00
SR 1200 P~? 50 2100
,o (<?I~ too 9800
9100 US 17 X00 400 100 r" 1(141300
100
600 2000 ,FJ~ 00: 1400 T1400
100
7100 900
- 2300 800 T300
1700 SR 1319
00 0°
US 17 13900 NC 32 (Paradise Rd.) 12 2300, 2'02300 5800 3700
(Virginia Rd.) %4600 5000
2900 500 7100 900
~T 2 100
14000 11200 1 230 E1.``?P200
400 T 400 3000 1000
9400 0 431 500 1600 4400 N
7100
6900 US 17 Bus. 200 2000 100.
X2300 V '100
9200 °
200 '100
i 2600 2100
SR 1132
10000 0 o
(Coke Ave.,) SR 1105 4300
SR 1126 II (Old Hertford)
SR 1234 2600 55 ~-(ZM) ° 1000 x,400 1400
(Albemarle St.) (Oakum St.) 800 1100 im
' 'C200
9600 1500 2800 1500
300 1900 400j, T_) 400 1100 1300 400
W. Church St. 1100 FT 4100 ET 3900 500, 2..,2300 5700 ET t ~ 6400 4100
NC -32
100 1500 200 'C-)l 00 55 'z 1600 200
Estimated 2005 ADT Volumes
9000 _
LEGEND
DH V Edenton Soundside
V ESIGNNURLVOLUME(%) 4700 Rd. Ext., from NC 32
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (•=/.J 5300 FJ ° 100 600 $ ~'4F
to US 17 Bypass
PM PM PEAK PERIOD E~ r3
(o,oJ DUALS, Trsr (%J 2QQ 100 1100 "
County: Chowan Division: 1
NOTE: DHV ~ D ssE-,PM a Z 10 4400
'06
Inidicales the direction D 4500 TIP 0 U-1419 Date: March Soundside Rd.
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBSe 34939.1.1
0000000000000000000000000 0000000 000000000