Extension of NC 94 (3)

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 pORM C4*,
y~

• O =

• q'r P~PO
~FHrOF TRANS~O
•
•
APPROVED:

D to ~'vl "Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
• Project Development and Environmental An is Branch, NCDOT

Date c_hn 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:

•

-

-

Cty`: f`/ i •
O 4 ~ ,
• 3 0 32f0l
Charles R. Cox PE '~•;ii~r
;..GQ
• Project Engineer,
°`~,,:7n~ •s°~; ,v`6
~ f~• ae
•
•

• 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 Analysis Branch - Archaeology

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

r

. 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 VIIl
G. SPECIAL PERMITS REQUIRED VIII
. H. COORDINATION IX
• I. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Ix
1. 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. SIDEWALKS/BICYCLE FACILITIES 16
H. INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND TYPE OF CONTROL 16 •
1. RAILROADS •
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 17
A. COMMUNITY EFFECTS 17 •
1. Community Characteristics 17 •
a. Community Description 17 •
b. Population Characteristics 17
c. Ethnicity 18 •
d. Age 18
19 •
e. Income
f. Business and Employment Characteristics 21
21 •
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
a. Physical Characteristics 35
35 •
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. 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.

• C. Purpose and Need for Proiect

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

S
• 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 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. •
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
vi

•

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

E. Summary of Environmental Effects

Table S-1: Comparison of Current Alternatives

Impacted Resource Paradise Road Peanut Drive Soundside
! #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 Receptors Impacted 1 1 0
• Minority / Low Income Populations No No No
• (Adverse & Disproportionate 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
Mitigation Cost $539,400 $411,000 $428,500
• Total Project Cost $39,418,200 $63,616,100 520,849,900
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 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.

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]

• 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]

ix

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

1. 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.

r
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.

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 Project •

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).
S
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
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 i
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. Rail= •

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

•
• O. Bicycle Facilities

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

• 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

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 i
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
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 i

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 (Soundside Road), and SR 1103 (Hobbs •
Lane) east of downtown Edenton. The alternatives utilize the existing SR 1103 (Hobbs Lane) S
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

• 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
. 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.

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.

D. Alternatives Dropped From Consideration

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
impacts than other alternatives.

• 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
community. Several additional residences would be eliminated by this alternative. This
. alternative due to pedestrian safety, noise, and relocation impacts to the community, this
• alternative was eliminated.

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 •
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.
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
s •

•

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

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
S New Interchanges 1 1 0
• Railroad Crossings 1 1 0
Schools 0 0 0
r 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 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
• Mitigation 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

i
U-3419 Environmental Assessment

i
i
F. Capacity Analysis •

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

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).
i

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.

i

r
10

•
•
• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

•
Table 4-3: 2030 Paradise #2 Intersection Analysis
•
Weekday AM Peak Weekda PM Peak
• Intersection Traffic Control Delay LOS Delay'
LOS (sec) sec
• 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

•

U-3419 Environmental Assessment •

Table 4-4: 2030 Peanut #1 Intersection Analysis
•
Traffic
Intersection Control LOS Delay LOS •
Weekda AM Peak Weekd715.3
(see) (sec)
NC 32 at NC 94/Peanut Signalized D 45.0 D NC 32 at Perry Road
• Northbound Approach Unsignalized B 15.0 C • Southbound Approach B 15.0 C S

US 17 Business and Peanut Sig
nalized 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
Peanut Road Alternative Unsignalized C 17.3 C 16.7
Westbound Approach •
US 17 Bypass WB Ramps at
Peanut Road Alternative Unsignalized B 12.2 B 11.4
Westbound Approach
Peanut Road Alternative and
Existing Paradise Road, Unsignalized B 12.1 B 14.9
Eastbound Approach •

12

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Table 4-5: 2020 Soundside Western Intersection Analysis

Traffic Weekday AM Peak Weekday PM Peak
Intersection Control LOS Delay LOS Delay
S
~
NC 32 at NC 94/Southside (sec) see Signalized D 44.8 C 33.5
Road
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

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/ln) c/mi/In
Ramp A D 5.8 A 5.8 A
• 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 By ass Interchange)
~ PM
Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge DENSITY LOS DENSITY
(Design Designation) c/minn LOS
clmi/ln 0
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
r

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
(Design Designation) c/mi/in LOS •
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

• U-3419 Environmental Assessment

r
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.
r
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 1713usiness/ US 17 Bypass interchange. This alternative does
not require a new structure at this location.

15

U-3419 Environmental Assessment

Table 5-1: Proposed Drainage Structures •

ffite Alternative Location Structure •
Paradise, Peanut, Unnamed Tributary 1 to Queen Minimum Length Bridge,
Soundside Anne Creek approximately 140 ft
Paradise, Peanut, Unnamed Tributary IA 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

Parking is not being incorporated into this project. •

G. Sidewalks/Bicycle Facilities
Sidewalks and bicycle facilities are not currently proposed as part of this project. i

H. Intersection Treatment and Type 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 •
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

e 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 # "/a
Demographic Area 3,149 3,397 248 7.9
Edenton 5,268 5,394 126 4.6
Chowan Count 13,506 14,526 1,020 7.6
i 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
• 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 North Carolina • Race Area Coun

po % Po °l+ Po % Po °l®
White 1,786 52.6 2,283 42.3 8,703 r559.9 5,647,155 70.2 Blak or African 1,525 44.9 2,956 54.8 5,415 7.3 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 14,526 100 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 i
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. % Pop. %o Po % Po %
19 ears 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 4,389 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
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

Household Income Chan e
Area
1990 2000 # %
Demographic Area $20,776 $33,801 $13,025 62.7
i Edenton $17,140 $25,241 $8,101 47.3
Chowan Count $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

% Below Povert-v Chan e
Area 1990 2000 # %
Demographic Area 20.7 22.4 1.7 8.2
Edenton 23.0 21.9 -1.1 -4.8
Chowan County 17.3 16.7 -0.6 -3.5 •
North Carolina 12.5 11.9 -0.6 -4.8 .

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
i
Unem to ment Rate Change
Area 1990 2000 # %
Demographic 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

i
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 Em to meat Chan e
• 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 •

i
•
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 •
the police and county sheriff's departments are located in downtown Edenton on South Broad •
Street and Court Street, respectively. The Edenton Fire Department and the EMS Paramedic
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.

• 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
• 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.

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

S 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
S 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.

0
• 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
0 businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs.
0
0
0 23

0

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 •
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.

i 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 at
the interchange of Paradise Road and the US 17 Bypass, which is consistent for 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.
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 of existing
development may be generated along US 17 Business north and south of the potential
intersection. i

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
to other locations within the same •
project to improve the accessibility of certain sites relative
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

Drive alternative ties in closer to the industrial park locations of the •
The Peanut
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 •
inclusion of the railroad
roadway. The construction of this alternative
way Industrial Park bridge
and heavily
location of the railroad effectively cuts off access to •
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

e 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 S
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). •

L 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 i
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 W)

• 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 Quality 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

r
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 Superfimd 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

U.S. The pond flows into Pembroke Creek, which flows into a series of impoundments that •
the ~
eventually discharge into the Albemarle Sound.
ualit CDWQ) classifies surface waters of the
The North Carolina Division of Water Q Y ~ . Creek state based on their intended best uses. This section of the "QCueean Anne
rs suit bind its trib is life
fines class
are classified as "C NSW" waters. NCDWQ de recreation, and •
propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary
these uses on either ashort-term or
agriculture. Sources of water pollution that preclude any of •
tong-term basis shall be considered to be in violation of water quality inten andar ds f"N tri waters t •
Sensitive Waters" (NSW) is a supplemental surface water •
additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of
needing •
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
Table 7-1: Stream Characteristics USACE
NCDWQ Water Benthos NCDWQ Class. •
Stream Name
Index # Quati Present Ratin # Score Queen Anne Creek 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 36 61 Perennial
68 perennial
UT1 to Queen Anne 26_1-2 C NSW Yes 30
Creek
UT2 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 34 26 Intermittent •
Creek (Up per Reach)
UT2 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 20 56 Perennial
•
Creek (Lower Reach) 29 Intermittent •
UT3 to Queen Anne 26-1-2 C NSW Yes 22.5
Creek (Upper Reach) 56 perennial
UT3 to Queen Anne 26C NSW Yes 33.5 •
Creek (Lower Reach) •
No Hi Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding •
occur within 1 mile of the project study area. This section of Queen
Resource Waters (ORW)
•
Anne Creek is not listed on the DWQ 2006 Draft 303 (d) list of impaired waters.
within the N.C. Department of •
The Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
ronment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) carries out the state's Coastal Area Management •
Envi •
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 aAEpropertCs to
•
uncontrolled development, which may cause irreversible damage
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

i

• 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
i (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
• (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-PSW) 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 15`h 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 LTSACE
Wetland Wetland/ Area Stream NC DWQ Stream
Alt. Type # Stream ID Impacted mpacted (ft) Rating Score
I
(acres)
UT1 0 30 68 .
-§w--For W 1 A 1.6 82
Sw-For W 1 B 0.9 82
Paradise Sw-For W1 C 1.6 82
QA1 0 36 61 •
Sw-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 - -
A2 0 36 61
Sw-For W 1 E 0.8 82
UW4 0.8 -

Total 6 acres 120 feet
UT1 0 30 68
Sw-For W 1 A 1.9 82 •

Soundside Sw-For W 1 B 0.9 82 • Sw-For W 1 C 1.1 82
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-F1= 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 (UTI, 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

State Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat present
Warm brackish and freshwater yes
American eel Anguilla rostrata streams, estuaries, coastal rivers
Rafinesque's big- Corynorhinus I Roosts in old buildings, caves and yes
eared bat rafinesquii mines, usually near water •
Southeastern Myotis SR Roosts in buildings, hollow trees; yes
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 i
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, Hydraulics •
Unit will coordinate with NCEM in final design to determine if any flood studies have been •
completed. No new studies are slated for the remainder of potentially affected streams in 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.

April 17, 2002: On April 17, 2002, the Merger Team met to discuss alternatives to carry
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)
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

•
•
•
I o~~ i ~;do

~ j
pP~i

4w -
di~ _ • Legend :e t

- Soundside Corridor END
PROJECT
• - Paradise Corridor
• J 1 R
Peanut Corridor xiv I r
An ( j
!I I
•
• { END I I x sa!
x
da
PROJECT
eM 56-/ - ~ _ ~ lY
b- ~ xTa qop x35
• .4 17 `s Raiba'V . , .
awes 6 I j
caa EMU
32 e, p ~
• ~aPS ~ J J I ~ ~ I
01
• - t r s51 jtti -
Jof
-s-.=- ~ "a hex C afoFi r.,,cd. ~
j Y,
p ti
G q 1
e.,. •i
yl ,rte C~b
Tr%
w .
J F i t I
- T
• ~ T~~., R asTSc~°V-t{ { *t •a ~ys-{`'~ ~f- ~ I +y f ` \ N
~ a L C
_1.
32
d. ~
EDIDE(~TMi BEGIN ' a
SAY f 7 FPPROJECT 94 l 0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
• A~°F ~qn,°4~o VICINITY MAP County: CHOWAN
• y NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT NC 94 EXTENSION Figure
OF TRANSPORTATION Div: 1 TIP# U-3419 • DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FROM
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND NC 32 TO US 17 BYPASS WBS: 34939.1.1
ode ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
•"'aFrnA"5` CHOWAN COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3419 Date: MAY 2008
•

x s it 'rte •f~ ~e o~ '

oz w
CD 0) 0
.,1 s A k '.r~ ~ I ;a. i t 1'~~' yn ~'S Q- ( 7 3 n• = 1
'ri "y"~ y~ ~ m c a
m .sal .t rv ~+i ~'.5 '~F s+ C7 C (A
CL 0
(D (D
0 CL
I CL
cl) O O
3 cf)
k
J ~I

P

N
~r
® w
44- C _s ti f t '4 q
41
a ,
JJ •
\'4 .4 ii t it z z
Sys '
7 yyi 3 ~ f wrr' r vr't ..Y .,y,~e_t,n•.,.
\ J J f J Y V i.
l;r,~l r`,t~Y Sfi! "?}rf'r ahaa r
- iz
:1 ~ > f ~ 2. f~. J ~ , ~ fAE i1 •~T;-5. F~ .ifY uy h~, f r'7I ft'.
d rG" jy}'~' S °_F AIL-) i S~ v , S ~ f1Nfa F w ay~N} l
:
4..
All
r
f4, awl s
f

I f

,..J. w A . '~44 }

twD y

a „xr"", wy:c,:.t i~ '*'R ~i'r, pY ~ Ufa ,;,''.a
earl, r
A.
44
i
ro
ik
i
Lil-
5 O x A tx \ 4 t
y
0 ' 4K~,,,~-•A /r _ Icy
77
~ / ? 1 x.32 ~
tl~ '~w• ~ +?yst

a
O r
TI / b, ' wA r a y,.
taF;
ALTERNATIVES MAP
_ _ NC 94 EXTENSION NORIM
h w f Cq9~
m 9 w" C7~ Z NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
-7 FROM OF TRANSPORTATION
N r NC 32 TO US 17 BYPASS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
C) C~ D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND y e
19 O~ (D 00 z CHOWAN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH p FNrnrra~s~'~~
N TIP PROJECT U-3419

a x :

'R c. ~1y q F - .i. Y, t s. , 7 / f yr q~..

40
`.W a A1I ".,a 1? •,Ak t y~. ^1'. ,g,l~ b • 7 e,,, _

• • ,
44

f

(Jrl
O 4 fir. roYfr-.'y5~. P Y; n f TA. ( ~'~6- j 4 yr@.
.y

Y

t r'~
Yr^ ~ 1f ~ E r ~ iP I " gyp`

O

/ 5 ~ vi 1 .~eF .,.r1
5
W~
i h>) ,Rir ~1. ~i
_ ti~ w .qa ~p ~ erx ~4tz ea ati{ ~
t w k f~

r

~.t W'Z~ ~ ~ ~ 5 A rte; y t ;3:- 1+ ' 1 ( W
V„s' 4c .da4 11 r 44,,..$$.,ct (S ?J w -s 3y ,c~.
t rt
1
`'r:.. r c srR* hG. !
- ) r ' Lt P rF 6 •,k4'f`rFr 7V 1 ; 7

} J I
t I _ 3
r yy r V. `'lidtali '~C' 44 1l E J
i
Y LY tl ,
I `
a,
i ~p~,
, y
r
.s
11 4 n
b p `
c 0)
,xy .3~""r ~ ~ ~i 7~ R.c ` ~'~•"f' a C N ~ fn l/1 \Y
x.. ` 0 1 m n m a C4
I e) 1 vi
CL !R 0 CD
` 01 O 0
C*D
2) :3 CL
i
3 (A v n
N o o ALTERNATIVES MAP
o
NC 94 EXTENSION
m w n z NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT "O T"
m > W o " FROM OF TRANSPORTATION
C) c~ NC 32 TO US 17 BYPASS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
C) D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND S
0o w z CHOWAN COUNTY
C A ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
aT
~h TIP PROJECT U-3419 OF TA
N CD

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 o.os o.o? 0.02 _ 0.08
4;1 4. ORIGINAL
-7 GROUND
ORIGINAL 6:1
GROUND
GRADE TO THIS LINE VAR. SLOPE

FIGURE 3

•
•

•

•
•

•
• U-3419
• Appendix B

• (Merger Team Signature Sheets)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

i

•
•
•

•
• 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 #IA 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 canted forward to the public hearing.

• NAME AGENCY DATE
•

NCDOT 9 ~z• 7

• USACE R

• FHWA

f i~ NCDWQ
• T USEPA

Fl USFWS

NMF
•
• NCWRC

• NCDCM _ O

SHPO

•

O-/12-7/23e3 1.°7:2-7 FDC..,q R_25272eei2H-_ NO, -

•
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreeme:v •
•
Concur'-erbce Po t Ne. 2 Defailed Study Mterr a ivreg Camiled For-i,ar°d (DS A)
•
Project Ti.' leE t3siou of NC 44 (Soundside Road) frorn NC 32 to US l i Fypass, Ch, -w
County, TIP Project U-3419, SLate Project 8.2D3030I, Federal Aid Pro;ec STP.11 142j •
Alternatives to he carried forward: The environmental documea--,t VVill e ..Mate tht proposcd
alternatives as described in meeting information provided by NCDOT and aid to bit the •
project team at its m ,eti g held on ?/larch 26, 2003. In addition, the no-build ~d alts=rt~te •
modes of t -anspon ation ahernatives will be evaluated it the environmenta-< dac mczw.

j C~r~-ie tic ewe •
a 9S COartro3 •
Forward _ I
ple) _LI1t . eanfir_ oI _ _"oao-A ~._-r-- •
SaLlr~dst`o li.o,.~=i t est .rn
- _ (bur w/s~rv`pe~: ti'
Soundside Road "Vi7esTtria (Purple) Full control tR~/ no service roads 1 •
Peanut Drive No. (Red) ull control wlser'-': roa; _ •
Peanut Dy.ive No. It (k, e d) I'uI / DO r~wr r;aCZs - w__ S •
: control ~
Paraclise Road'NTo. % (Eight Blue) Fula cortroll c/servicc, loads ~ •
PaT adis. Aoad No. (Light Blue) ~ull canltcl u' no serVice roads
The project teaza has ;oacu ned with the detailed swdy al in-n-a:yives ca -.Ck- < a,rv?rr as •
described above_ Ali Ow Etl;ernati-cs selected, except f-he no-build i rrraa.irW rl s-st r_ to
modes of transpvr' don-, a'.eet the taiixpose and need of the proposed p±Y7jert. •
?Yde. AGE! ICY 13 1' •
NCDOT
FHWA
USACE

USFWS 4 •

c,.~~ USED.

f NMF S r _ - - •
DW'Q

fTO
•

DCM

•

•
•

rir~ cc: r r,~ O.,q 1 r(~ four

Yr)XTAc eQC ' A, iczeer A gee-lessi
c, -

• 7 ° ;ir Y,:9:'!rj~ kuU61 -v T, NC 32 to US i7 rDypa-:G, Cl• ow r,
t. 1. 3 < i Lt 2i)};)701, Federal Aid PrajeCC r` P-11142)

• 4 ? ` r.: p.-' ` i a Virc°]'Lrien(al aoct:m. cnt will eva? vic the proposed
• l r t.; _ s ) i_ErJ7iii;3L1:'Ft. p)-,5\ idti--d b NC DO f amd3med to by ep,
• : , ! 1 } ? l "s , tr 2003, in 1.ddillior, °he no-buil . ?xid aftc mate
sy. i v,. t !yl C` t.l.iYIIA, -Tl i}'1(' ~'11V15r1hT??t ~i~l u:ciit.

• { 3 LryL!ivi't J .I 1'lll.~ C.ol -ro(.,,vr,'onfice toad's~~ {
r t f i i Cx't[Y' IO 1 i»~1 CL3r.Y` !1 `?r`~ e i~ t,:i~`)l:^ }

- -
• i } u1l s Gl 1s 0+1 w/ no sci v ~Cr:~jv!~. -
i ;1L B;.,ae) ( ~i~1 CJ 1.1 1 Lb;~S~YNYCt 1~ ~
• Sa L 1 (L t _It 4~1~5 y ! k ull contl il t~ 1 G
_ 110 ervic- ro&
• ' :c'Li , ; 't i's,E' l~itailGt~ a"lt;:'i4 ~.f.fl} 11V> $ C.1!11c:~LTDr'•vard
`clec2+-.'1. v,: ''ql the no-guild ivc T)d alhernme
il0l P t;~ia of lJlo p_opoc:cd project* -
• ..:r(' 1•. ~ ,i.
NU k
1
1. Y { '`G

r I `;c

r

t ~r
1 y,s ~ i
r- c y L

• i r 11 j r r ii l~: i~ ~~`i f.-- {
5 ~ -
• - - ----•`>~--sr-ms's.. yu•...-:.,,. ru'- _
r ;
~r
•
•

•
EF P, R4 ORC ID:404-562-9598 MAR 16'01 9:31 No.001 F.02 •

•
•
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement

C..onculTence Toilet- No, l; Purpose and Deed
•
PMjopt Extension of NC; 91 (Saundside Rowl) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypan, •
Cho wan County, TIP Projwt U-3419,. $tateFroject 8.2030301, Federal Aid Projoct STP- •
111.4(2)

Ptarnaee and of purpose of the project is to reduce wack and •
1'lte
~
through traffio and improve safety Along existing NC.' 32 within doumtown Rdenton..
Supporting data for the, purpose and need fbr this.project is contained in information
provided by NCDOT at the project. team muting bold un Mawl! 14, 2001 •
The project team has concurred on this date of Marc,:lt 14, 2001 with the purpose, •
and 1Aeed for the proposed project al 6qoribed above.
AGENCY l2AT~
•

_

• i G

•
•

•

•
•

•
•

•
•

• 05'14/_2001 MON 08:28 FAX [phone] NMFS,HCD,BE UFORT,NC [x]002
• ~ P1a 3 ' O1 P. 05
Fax [phone]
• IVEDOT/P&E BRANCH 10~27
•
•
• Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
• Corzcurren a Point No. 1 Purpose and 'Need
• • ProjW Tim: Extension of NC 94 (-Sounds-de,;~koad) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass,

Chowaa County, M Project U-3419; •State Pro*t 8.203030 1, Federal Aid Project SIP-
1114(2)
• Purpose and N@ed of Proposed Prciiect;iThe purpose of the project is to reduce truck nad
• through traffic and improve safety.-along exist'itg NC 32 within downtown Edentoa.
• Supporting data for the ptiupose and need 4or Ois•project is contained in infonnation
• provided by NCDOT at the prgject:.team meiti4 held on March 14, 2001.

• The project team has concurred on ttus•dete of March 14, 2001 with the purpose
• and need for the proposed project as" dekAr d
above- NAME AGENCY D ATE

• IC A4/,e C

• '1 A; tit .r ~ r' l ~

•
• AJ )20 7- 3/1 y /01

•

•

•
•

•
•
•

•

•
•

NCDDTiP&E BRANCH Fax*919-733-9794 Mar 29 '01 16!02 P.02.

•

Section 404/NEPA interagency :agreement

Concurr+cace Point -No..1.Purpose and. Deed

Per ,ieot Ti l% Extcn3ion of NC 94 (Souadside, Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, + •
Chowan County, TIP Project U 3419,."SEetic Pipjec,:g.2030301, Federal Aid Project STP- ' ~ •
1'114(2} , I

Pumoae and Need ofPro}~,p~ed Projectt,'The purpose, Pfthe project is to reduce truck and
through traffic and improve safety ;sl,dn$ existing.l\TC 32 within downtown Edenton.
Supporting data for the purpose, and need for this project is contained in information
provided by NCDOT at the project t " m,rgming held,on March 14, 2001 •

The project team bas concurred on ,this date of March 14, 2001 with the purpose
and need for the proposed project as described above, •

AL AQENC DATE •

NC j?~2C I •

0- 6~~1229U SIC c ~v o •

L", us OE:~J

117-V •

i ~ •

£00/£00'3 0£SZ# HSVM afjKSn 66£TSL6ZSZ T0:60 TOOZ,LT'tidK

•
•
•

•
•
•

• U-3419

• Appendix C
•
• (Agency Comments)
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

• d SrAr[ 4

• 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 J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
July 18,2_002
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Jeremiah
• North Carolina Department of Transportation

FROM: David Brook Dat A 1 p
• 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

• Federal 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 , !Carolina resentatives of the

~IGoDepartment of Transportation (NCDOT)
• 0/ ederal Highway Administration (FHWA)
. North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other .

. Reviewed the subject project at
F~ coping meeting
• / Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other

. All parties present agreed

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

• Ltd' 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***
• F-I 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.

• Thel-e are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed
Signed:
• D
. R e p r e s e tiv C D 0 T Date

~ ~ I ~ 1 oz
• FHWA, fort the 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.

•
•

•

•
r STATt •
e o~
~P v ~nn
aS ~ ~ D
J r •
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 •

•

•
•
•
•

•
•

Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address: •
1302 Mail Service Center Pax [phone] 116 West Jones Street •
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail [e-mail] •
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmcdive Action Employer •
0

• ENT OF TyF United States Department of the Interior

• 0 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE`
H _ Raleigh Field Office
• = Post Office Box 337;6
• ACH 3Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
.
December 3, 2002 Z~
• ° 0
t
NTH sn I r j :
• Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe jot F .
• 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:
K
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).

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.

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.

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:

L 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.

S 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
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,
•
•
-1 a,^ /4
nor/ •
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 .

•

•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

""I OF CO

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1?a +W~~ NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
- JTn*cs Of Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
S Beaufort, North Carolina 285 1 0-97--
December 1'), 2002

Gre<torv J. Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Mana-enlent Director
• Project Development and
T- 1 -
• L.uVii-0,,iiicinal t--Wal 6ii) Briiiloil
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
• Raleigh, North Carolina-17699-1548
• Attention_Doug Jeremiah

Dear Dr. Thorne(

• i lie National Marine 1"isliet'es Ser'v'ice (NOA/\ 1'1`sh 1?a re-viewed
d'ou'r
• letter rl-questino 1111_W1. on preparation of the enVironnienta( asses-~;tnent (E./%,' o1 toe 1 ! .i1 r;
extension of NC t)4 from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass, Edenton, Chowan County, Federal Aid Pro),--c L
STP-1 14(2), State Project No. 8.2030301 Hertford County, T.I.P. No. U-341

• NOA % Fisheries participated in a number of meetings on this project as a part ~1 the
c011(101 elice process. The four alternatives to be addressed in the EA will,
to vanril) r (1k it°cs, 1(1;:1;,.
Queen -Anne's Creek and its adjaceni wetlands. Queen Anne's Creek is a tributaiv of F.derlon sa`.
• and Alb-inarle Sound all(!. Serves as spa-vvninL and nllrSely' ilal)itat f01" al7adrC'illc)lr~ 11 t1" tlt'.!T:1;-?. (i
• species fig=- %khich NMAA Fisheries has stevvards'rip reSnOnsib] lities Therefore the F A Siim.i;(j
pro\-1(r !7 till 11n+J t1Jn 1:':'a 1-fi:! 111..'. and t"'Y)eS is{'\A f'tl~'?r itlat
the altc'?llatr high%vav allt-anmen,7. S;l;ce ~-Vc Understand that ea~.l of the 10(ii
. all`rinit-n1S being considered includes -ubstuntlal bridging of'wetlands., !Tie ICj _ `ii <n(I ~Il~l !
bridging involved with each alternative should be described.
Adverse impacts to fishery resources that utilize Queen Anne's Creek as habitat can be niininlized
by the selection of er,vironnlentally acceptable bridge ;construction techniques and the al.)4ll10;l,691l
• of 21 S,:Llsona1 i Y tl1ctIC)n Oil Nw01"k in Sllrf K'.C %w3terS. 7 he EA should include lllf(?rll;al r,11 ;,iii h(:1 " ?h(°
• pr(l'1-vJti ' l b l -Nvould be consti-ucre d and in ;%litCI 1 cG"~r71i171 `t?
ent as 11..f.(le~ ~t "i,
• restncl.l0:7;; il`! l'.'arers c r;d v etlands cif 11t)4E';i Aiili( Clti%h In t1, S re g".
yr 1e~
Lii!7illil ,i,ill the )ilh Carolina Division ' ` 1rs11( Ks
dote -rnii.i e aso-nal Lti;)ris +Estricni E
rl periods lr t S; t
d._ alt < icCa ,,;a<., he _ r,, rl( s u; ,
• thaT V, id be ~a?;rtc taker? to offset the Unav'!"idable ]O E Or )t 'v1'('fl:illil`
• o AT o
• tM ~9 `sue
• ~ g
• Printed on Recycled Paper
Sq MEMOS

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

Sincerely,

Ronald S. Sechler
Fishery Biologist

•
•

f

Aw
e

• 9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9

• Charles R. Fullwood, 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 i ,
• Habitat Conservation Section
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• 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-
667/d).
• 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 sitings 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
NCWRC 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. 281 • 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)

• Noah C of i
Departmeent nt of Environment and ~ Nunli Carolina
Natural Resources FOREST DA isiun of Forest Resources
SERVICE

V CDENR \licliael F. Easley, Governor N~~ Stanford \1. Adonis, Director
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
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 scooing document and
offers the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.

• I .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
0 • Unique forest ecosystems
• • Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
is
• 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
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 Mail Service Center, Raleii.~h• North Carolina 27699-1 60 1
Phnne 919-7-,,-2162 \ FAX 91 9 - 733-01 i S \ lnt,tmet ww\v ri(r sr;ite 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 •

•
•

•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
i
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

• - I PERMrrS SPECAL APPUCA710N PROCEDURES or REQUIREM. 7S Normal Process Tm-,~
• I Cswwtory Time Limn,
• j~ Permit to drin ooiaraT y oil or gas well. File surety bond of SS= with DENR running to State of N.C conditional that any 10 days
well opened by dnll operator Shall, upon abandonmerr„ be plugged according
• w DENR rules and regulation v
• I Geophyziai Epinrauon Perms Application filed with DENR w least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application I 10 days
• by lenec No s~ndard apple pion form (N/A)
• State LaKfS Cons-rumon Permit I Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 - 2D days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. I (N/A)
I
• 407 Water Otnlit} Certification N/A 55 days
• ~ I (130 days)
CAMA Permitfo. MAJOR development s250-00 fie-- must accompany application I 60 days
• (130 days)
• I CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application I 22 days
RS days)
• Several geodetic: monuments are ioated in or near the projeCr area if any monumem needs to bd moved or destroyed, please notify.
Geodetic Survey,Bax 27687 Raleigh. N 027611
• I N r
• Abandonment a.` anywelis H required must be in accordance with Title 1 SASubchapter 2C.01 0D.
• I Notification of the prcpet regional office is requtrted if *orphan* underground storage anks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.

i
• I Compfrance writ) 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coaxal SlgrrnWater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
• Other mrnmerrs (z act) addaional pages as nec_.ary, being cerain to gate comment authority)
•
•

• I I ,
•
• r

•
•
•
REGIONAL OFFICES

Questions regarding these pe.-mits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
• 59 Wooden Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C-28801 Mooresville, N.C-28115 Wilmington, N-C.28405
(828) 25i A-203 [phone] [phone]-

? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
• 225 Green Streat,Suite 7.14 3800 Barrett Drive, P.0-Box 27687 585 Wauahtown Street
• Fayetteville, N.C.28301 - Raleigh, N.C- 276 i 1 Winson-Salem, N.C- 27107
• [phone] (919) 571-470D (:36) T/ 1-4600 -
• Washington Regional Office
• 3 V~'ashinoTon Square Mall
Washington„ N.C-278?9

•

061 IVA
State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Proje t NurT,ber
~ x--r---___
(r 6 •
, _ _ue Date r IL
NTFRGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW 'PROJECT COMMENTS
r -
After review of this _ an d/or _ •
proms it has been determined that the DENR pemvtfs) approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this proje_,
to comply with North Caroreta Law, Questions regarding these permiu should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form•
All appricaticrns` infonnation and guidelines relative to these
- plans and
permits are available from the same Regional Oflice.
PEtMflS •
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS_ . Normal
- Process Time
(Statutnry.Time Limit)
? Permit to conttrua & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
faditimsewer system eimmsions&sewersystems. contracts On-site
not discharging into state surface waters sign Pmt aPPliation technical conference usual 30 days
(90 days)
? NPDES-PLrmh to daaatge into surface water and/or Application IBD days before begin activity. On-srte Permit to operate andcxnsttuawastewaterfacilities conference tuteLAddrtionallY,obtain wste ;nertreaion_.
discharging ~statesurface watea facility-granted after NPD3 Reply time, 3D genre, day10 s after truct receipt ~ of plans t w or issue
or issue t 90 -120 days
of NPDES permit-whichever is later. (N/A)
? water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary • - - 30 days
(N/A)
?I Construction Perttdt
Well •
-
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well. 7 days •
(15 days) .
I~ Dredge and Fill Permit -Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian grope owner.
•
Orr-srte inspection_Preapplication conference usual. Ellin Filling may require Easement 55 days •
_ ro FiII from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (90 days)
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement •
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
0.01 DD, 20D3D0.2HZ6D i) N/A
60 days •
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 1,5 A NCAC 20.1900 •
Demolition or renovation- tres containing •
asbeam material must be ,-n fiance with
15 A NCAC2D.1110 (a) (1) wniT, requires notification N/A •
and removal priorto de-0molition. Conacr Asbestos 60 days
Control Group 919 T.s520. !90 days) •
1? Compi°xSource Perms r_cu"' undo; 75 A NCAC •
2D_08DO
The
Sedimentation Pollution Control Ac of 19T coos De property addressed for any land disturbin act •
I control
•
yspin will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (La d Quaff cation tion) sedi atla t les3D a 30 20 clays
before becinnincaaivay. Afee of S40 for the firs, acre or any part of an acre. nY Set
(3D days)
I Tne Sedimentation Follurion Control An of 1973 muc. i>-- addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance
30 days •
mit On sae i
nspecron usual. Surely bon
d filed with D_NR Bond amount varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before 3D days the permir an be issued (6D days)
FN.
na Bumcng p°._rmit On-sitr inspection by N_C Division of Forest Resources if perms exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A) nd Oearan~ Bumino Permit-22 counties Orrsite inspection by N_CDivision of Forest Resources required if more than five C-with organic soiis, acres of around clearing activities are involved Inspections should be requested 7 day
at least ten days before actual bum is planned.' (N/A) •
l] Oil Refrnino Facilities •
N/A 90 - 120 days •
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit if permit required application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant •
must hire N.C qualified engineerto- prepare plans, inspect construction, certify •
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Enoineers. •
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum 30 days
fee of S2D0.00 must accompanythe application. An additional processing fee
il !60 days) •
based on a percentage or the total project coswl be required upon compietion.
•

•
•

• 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

• January 17, 2003 F

-
JAN
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. "=p
• Environmental Management Director, PDEA r a
North Carolina Department of Transportation
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 DT Projects
•
•

151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza ll, 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 •
P.O. BOX 1890 a'
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890,. •
IN REPLY REFER TO January 31, 2003 t •

Planning Services Section

•

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 •
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 •
•
•

•
•
•

•

• A
•

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
[phone]

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.

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.

OF W A7- Michael F. Easley, Governor •
p William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources •
=i Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality •
G ~

March 11, 2003

MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee •

From: John Hennessy

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: y •

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 21-1.0506(b)(6)), 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 f 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) the Wetland Restoration •
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
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.

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

• Or W ATFR Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

1~ , pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
\0
• 00 -7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
r-
-4
• 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,
• the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
• The NCD`dvQ 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

• c:\ncdot\TIP U-3419\comments\U-3419 cornments.doc
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
• N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center 92 - NC 27699-1650
• [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748

•
•
•

•
•
•

U-3419

• Appendix D
•
• (Cultural Resource Documentation)
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

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

orth Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
• ederal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
• F-1 Other
Reviewed the subject project at
•
? Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
• n 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.

•
EL~ 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:
• Represe tiv CDOT Date
•

FHWA, forte Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

•
• v _ fit` flzfc,~?-~ l - 0 ~
0
• Representative, HPO Date

/ /c
• 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)

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

•
•

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

• k c" Fl Setup #6
-Air

• - Setup #3
Soundside
• #
f Road
• ; Setup #5 y Alternate

3
qv-
•
Peanut Drive
14 1~
t., Alternate
• s'~ l Setup #1
Setup #4
fit. ~ r. ~ ~ • ~ ~

•
Paradise Road
• s~ tt Alternate
4 d Z 5
i • Setup #2
• ice; ~ 1-- -
ter' ! * ~
`4: ~i4 •
00
Av~
hkC 11/ES CHEF - - 1
• , Start of All
a
• j Alternates
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
•s`
Lk; J 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 5 9.7
1 US 17 tsinesEa ardt Baseball Field

Grassy 63.2
2 NC 30 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 1] 05 (Old Hertford Road) South of US 17 Business

Paved 52.6
5 Peanut Drive @ Jimbo's Jumbos

Grassy 55.8
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.

000*000000000000000000000000000000000000000

TABLE N4 Page I
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension
Chowan County, TIP P U-3419
Peanut Drive Alternate

NEAREST AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
VELS LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LE
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(f3) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From NC 32 to US 17 Business + 6
I Residence B NC 32 56 -L- 95.0 R 60.94 56.81 62 + 4
2 Residence B 59 100.0 L 60.45 59.90 63
48 120.0 L 58.79 48.77 59 + 11
3 Residence B
19 Business C US 17 Bus 58 -L- 10 0 L - -
19A Business C 57 175.0 L 55.51. 63.72 R/W _
19B Business C 53 110.0 L 59.55 59 88 R/W _
59 0.0 R - R/W
19C Business C + 8
20 Residence B 55 205.0 R 54.16 63.03 63
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From US 17 Business to US 17 Bypass * + ltl
I S Business C US 17 Bus 57 -L- 35.0 L 66.62 58.82 67
16 Business C 56 110.0 R 57.15 63.58 64 + 8 17 Business C 55 195.0 R 52.19 63.03 63 + 8
R - - 60 + 1 U
9 Business C Peanut Drive 50 -L- 75.0 53 + 8
10 Business C 45 175.0 L - - 11
45 " 155.0 L - - 54 + 9
11 Business C 59 + 111
l2 Business C 49 85.0 R - -
13 Business C 45 150.0 L - - 54 + 9
54 45.0 R 64 + 9 10
- -
14 Business C
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From US 17 Bypass to End of Pro1ect 2 l U 54 + 6
52.10
7 Residence B SR 1319 48 -L- 260.0 L 50.54
8 Residence B " 47 30.0 L 68.72 47.21 R/W
SR 1 105 (Old Hertford Road) _ 61 + 4
4 Residence B SR 1105 57 -L- 45.0 L -
" .0 L - - 59 + 5
23 Residence B 54 60 _
24 Residence 57 B 53 70.0 L + 4
_ 59
25 Residence B 55 55.0 L -
80.0 R - - 56 + 4
52 to
26 Residence B
-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 County, TIP # U-3419
Soundside Road Alternate

NEAREST AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST01) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
ID#
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From NC 32 to US 17 Business 81 59 + 3
59 - - R/W
1 Reside<ce B NC 32 56 =Bypass 55.61 56. -
2 Residence B R/W -
3 Residence B 48 -
US 17 Business From SR 1105 (Old Hertford Road) to USq + 0
27 Residence B US 17 Bus 59 60 - - 60 + 0
28 Residence B 58 + 1
29 Residence B 57 100.0 L -

-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions tiom 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 County, TIP # U-3419
Paradise Road Alternate

NEAREST AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE

RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
AXIMUM INCREASE
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L-
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From NC 32 to US 17 Business 59.26 56.81 61 + 5
I Residence B NC 32 56 -L' 115. + 5
2 Residence B 11 59 70.0 L 64.05 59.90 65 + 6
01 48 95.0 L 61.04 48.77 61 13
3 Residence B 195.0 R 54.69 61.13 62 + 5
4 Residence B SR 1105 57
5 Residence B US 17 Bus 55 110.0 L 59.65 63.03 64 + 9
+ 7
56 " , 240.0 L 52.80 63.58 63
to 1 6 Residence B
Proposed NC 94 (Airport Road) Extension From US 17 Bypassao End of Pro ect 35.0 R - - 63 * + 15
SR 1319 48 + 5
7 Residence B 130.0 R - - 52
8 Residence B 47

_ Denot oadways s noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
-L proposed
Denotes r
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
Peanut Drive Alternate 50ft 100ft 200ft 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
53.9 <37.0 46.6 0 0 0 0 0
59.4
65.2
1 -Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to
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
3 - Propsoed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Bypass ;59. 58.0 52.5 <37.0 37.5 0 0 0 0 0
to End of Project <37.0 <37.0 0 0 0 0 0
4 - SR 1105 Old Hertford Road) 53.2 47.5 J- 1
TOTALS 0 0 1 0 0
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
DESCRIPTION (dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
Paradise Road Alternate 50ft 100ft 200ft 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
<37.0 47.3 0 0 0 0 0
I - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 65.3 59.5 54.0
US 17 Business <37.0 0 1 0 0 0
2 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Business L 59.7 54.0 48.5 <37.0
to End of Project
TOTALS 0 1 0 0 0
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
D (dBA) DISTANCES
IPTION
TITLE 23 CFR PART 772 SOft 100ft 200ft 72 dBA
ESCR
67 dBA A B C D E
Soundside Road Alternate
<37.0 46.6 0 0 0 0 0
1 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 65.2 59.4 53.9
US 17 Business <37.0 0 0 0 0 0
2 - US 17 Business From SR 1105 (Old Hertford 63.1 57.3 51.8 <37.0
--L L
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•••0••••••••

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

SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION INCREASE CRITERIA
F 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >=25 "2'f
Peanut Drive Alternate
1- Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
US 17 Business 0
2- Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 1
Business to US 17 Bypass_ 0 0
3- Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Bypass 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
to End of Project
4- SR 1105 Old Hertford Road) 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 5 9 5 0 0 0 1 0
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION INCREASE CRITERIA
Paradise Road Alternate <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >=25 "1" "2"
1- Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
US 17 Business 0
2- Proposed NC 94 Extension From US 17 Bypass 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
to End of Project
TOTALS 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 1 0
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
,RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION INCREASE CRITERIA
Soundside Road Alternate <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >=25 "i" 112"
1 - Proposed NC 94 Extension From NC 32 to 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
US 17 Business
2- US 17 Business From SR 1105 (Old Hertford 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Road) to US 17 Bypass
TOTALS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 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)
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
M

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

RELOCATION REPORT

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

M 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 County
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
Businesses .4 0 4 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 6 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100K 3 400-600 70-1o0K 3 400.600
. X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 4 600 up 100 UP $ 600 up
• displacement? TOTAL 9 17
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS Res and 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
+M 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
•
4
01-16-07
t-F 41
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 F] 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 i 7
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 $ 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 5 171 1
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

. o~ Js., 01-16-07
Date Relocation Co$rdinator Date
Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E

RELOCATION REPORT __JJ

• North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
®E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR F-1 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 l
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 600 up 1100 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?
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? 9 --12
01-16-07tti
Date - Relocation Coordinator Date
Right of Way Agent
• FRM15-E
•
•

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

PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY Chowan Alternate 3 - Peanut of 3 rnatp~l
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 14 0 14 0 3 5 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 14 171 - .L
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 S - 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

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

PROJECT: 34939.1.1 COUNTY Chowan 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 County

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 OSS 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 3 400-600
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 3 600 up 100 up 8 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 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
•
•
•
02-06-07 ~ C11 L , 2" ~ ~n
Date Reloe tion Coo inator Date
• Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E

RELOCATION REPORT •

North Carolina Department of Transportatio`
RELOCAT10N ASSISTANCE PROGRA~
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN REVISED
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 40000
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 2 600 up 100 UP g 600 UP
displacement? TOTAL 2 $
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS Res. .ond by. 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
FRM 15-E

U-3419
•
~r Appendix G

0 (Traffic Forecast Diagrams)
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
0

•
•
•
0

•
0
•

r
0
•

i
•
•
i

•
•
i

•
•
•

•
•
•

0

SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.)
0 11200
6~ SR 1321 9800 ~
200 5,00 N
NC 32 44, US 17 5800 700 E--~
\ 11100 0 200
_ -100 Pry ss 700 T T, 1300 600 1~a~ 0 6200 5400
300 ry100 US 17_--~~-~. J. 600 Bps 1100
SR 1200 5s1600 12500 8200 2500 9 N' 'Q V$ 1300
2000 15500 a 3400 55 le 21 9700 6700
~o h 21 600 _
- L2200 9600 1100
2000 NC 32 ,C 900 1000
1100 T
S]I- 14600 \,(Virginia Rd)
7100 ss PM 14500 0 x,.1,1000 SR 1105
Is a~ 10 6~0 g0 [351'1 gas 200 2100 (OLD HERTFORD RD.)
? a
7800 ,C2300 2800
2600
u 10100 SR 1132 5300 03
u (Coke Ave.) a
10900
m a SR 1126 I~
SR 1234 0 (Oakum St) o
(Albemarle St.) PM 1000 T '400 '
2600 55~ (2.1) 10 E-' ~-3 1400 2600 2300
8001 P200 0500 1500
W. Church SL 3110j .~P800 5000 40~ , 300 4800 300 T 'i300 6800 600m T 1.-j700 7900 100' 100 4100
'E~ E' ` -
1100
to(NC 32 E1 PM NC 32 F-,
100 .L y1500 (Church St.) 200 ,100 5` 14f 2j 10 4000200
i 9000
N N 4400
Estimated 2005 AADT Volumes H SR 1114
m e (Airport Rd.)
N~
LEGEND 1100
Edenton Airport Rd.
XXX VPD--VEHICLES PER DAY US 17 Bus
DOHV DESIGN HOULY IONALFLOW(UME(%) 4700T 10 ' '
(W. Queen St.
DIRECT ) E-' = Ext. from NC 32 to
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 5300 600 °7 (0,0) DUALS, TTST(%) 55 4 ,<'MI 10 2101-1 100 / 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#-34939.1.1

SR 1319
(Paradise RdJ
2000
Qa SR 1321 1950%
60 _ 990 - N
NC 32 US 17 11600 17002
- " -
1100 T jo _ 2000 - ~,C 000 11300
24200 Z2
\ PN 55 F 900 10800
600210 l
US 17 C I, 900 Al 0"5 F J.1400
6200 15400 3900 0 Pv, ~o u5 1600
SR 1200 552400 2400 (q 21 11300
300 % 5400 55 19000
~0 t 55 1200 - 3600 1890 ,1 900
NC 32 ,C 1600 - 1800
us ,L~3900 1900
30100 (Virginia Rd.)
14500 es ~
laq 30000 13900 1~9p0 s 500 .61800 SR 1105
11 eo 2100 (OLD HERTFORD RD.)
16100~L .4000 3500
4200 SR 1103
20100 SR 1132
W a (Coke Ave.) 500
N"20900 o
m o SR 1126
SR 1234 0 (Oakum St)
(Albemarle St.) PM 1800 700 N
s5 ~,~1 10 2000 4600 3200
3900 E ~ , ?
1300 y J. 500 20200 3300
W. Church St. 7007 X5400 8600 8001 700 8400 700 T '1900 11600 t000T 7220012600 20W ~j200 6900
1800 E' E~ -1 C'
400.6 1500 (Ch eh 32 St) 300 e200 554 to Z) 10 NC 32 6200 300
z 17000 e11~
ul3
N U 6600
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes SR 1114
m o (Airport Rd.)
LEGEND 2300
Edenton Airport Rd.
XXX VPD--VEHICLES PER DAY
US 17
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (W QueeBnSt.) 97007 00 of Ext., from NC 32 to
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW 2000
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 11400 PM US 17 Bypass with
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(%) 554 (q,z) i0 500 y X400"•;.o_r_,
existing SR 1105
NOTE: DHV D County: Chow an Division: 1
7800
Inidicates the direction D TIP:U•3419 Date: March'06
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBS#•34939.1.1
~I
~~~~~~~~•~•~~~••00 0 900 0000 9000 0 00000000000

000009.9009*0000000000000000000000000.00000

11100 SR-1319 100 Tioo
(Paradise Rd.) SOUNDSIDE
NC 32 SR 1321 1200 100 -100
200 ALTERNATIVE 100~~,1300
-100
300 20~ ~T~ 1300
1600 X100 6700 1~100
8900
200
~ 130(0
SR 1200 P3 12500 600 X200 200~~D~ T 100
° o1 1300 900
US 17 2500 '500 00, 9800
2000 9100 1001-) 11300
6004 p 100
10- 152) 55 2800
7100 1 00 2300 1300 900
US 17 13900 3400
NC 32 3000
(Virginia Rd.) 600 200 7100
7500
J; 14000 10100 300 .'300 i 1400 11400
10000 150
79100 9400 ° ? w 1100 X900 1000 1100 i E1--5-00 350 J~50 200 0 X50
6900 US 17 Bus. 200 1000 1
350 t~ -j
02300 1100 i 1500 100 ~ 1050'200 450
? 1 1050 900
1
o '
9200
2600 2100 2150 T2150
- 1
10000
SR 1132 SR 1105 i 431
8 8 (Old Hertford Rd.) ,4300 N
(Coke Ave.) N
3"1 ° SR 1126
SR 1234 2600 55 i U
1000 400 1400 (Oakum St.)
(Albemarle St.)
800' '200
1 v~
9600 1500 2800 1500
W. Church St. 1100 300 ,1900 4100 4001 X300 3900 500 T,2300 5700 400'T 1100 6400 130 X400
NC-32
100 1500 200" V100 55 r 132 0 1600 200 4100
Estimated 2005 AADT Volumes
9000
LEGEND
)OX VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY Edenton Soundside
y
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%J 4700 100
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW(-/) 5300 p
X u Rd. Ext., from NC 32
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 600 to US 17 Bypass
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(%)
200 100 1100 PM
NOTE: DHV D S5 ,n zl 10 County: Chowan Division: 1
Indicates the direction D TIP If U 3119 4400
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
4500 Date: Marc h'06 Soundside Rd.
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE N SO 34939.1.1

SR-1319
24200 (Paradise Rd.) SOUNDSIDE 200 T2oo 100
NC 32 SR 1321 2000
ALTERNATIVE 100dj,~,
600 100
, 3000
,o
200 300 X3100
600 ~T
2400 `400 12500 loo 18100
300 3000(
P 55 26200 1100 X300 300 1q. -100
SR 12000 (T 100 1400
US 17 `0) 3900 X900 100 19500
2900 16300 app y 713000
1300 soo
,o isil ss 6400
14500 3600 3800 1400
5400 2000
US 17 29400
5600
NC 32 600 1200
(Virginia Rd.) 900 i
13800
S 18700 x'600 3200 T3200
\ 28100 1900 1600 18600 2100 i 2100 1250
, (l 1 28°° as0~L2so -300 ° E boo
13800 17600 +o (A.31 -1 ~ ~ 1800 1900 ,
14300 US 17 Bus. 500 1800 i
3800 3200 1 2800 150 ° 180° 30070
1800 2100
18100 1 v;
4200 3700 8 4200, T4200
18700 T SR 1132 SR 1105 8400
j a o (Old Hertford Rd.) N
(Coke Ave.) i 8400
PM 1800 700 2000 SR 1126
SR 1234 3900 55 i21j ,U F (Oakum St.) I
(Albemarle St.)
1300 X500
s i
18000 3300 4800 2700
W. Church St. 1800 700 3200 6400 80~ '0700 6200 900 1y3900 9200 700 X2000 10500 32007 1600
NC-32
400 2500 300 X200 55 i'M1 2500 X500 6900
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes
17000
LEGEND
X10( VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY = 0-~~ Edenton Soundside
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%) 9700 Rd. Ext. from NC 32
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW 11400 "~-j 400 '
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 2000 $ to US 17 Bypass
(0,9) DUALS, rTST(v) 500 .C'400 2300
PM
NOTE: DHV O ss 4 i< z1 +0 County: Chowan Division: 1
indicates the direction D TIP N U•3119 Date: March'06 6666
Soundside Rd.
Reverse flow direction for AM peak 7800
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE SN ? t t
00009000090*0 0000000000000

1400 PEANUT DRIVE 100
11100 700 1 T7oo Ti o0
NC 32 ALTERNATIVE 100 v100
200 SR 1321 200. 100 ,
`"1100
o 5001~'•.,h~200
EE 2
-100 soo 1 100 300 1302y
~
300ET 1100 Sao 00 ~0 100~,
~~00 soa ..1.._.....soo..._......._.._ 6700 100
8900
1600 1600 1100
2000 12500 19D 200~,~~ T -100
SR 1200 1600 1300 900
PM `A
1900 9600
1 10 t ]1 \ \T
US 17 I x400 00
soo
Peanut Dr.
~ T~100
1
9100 1000•'% 100
2000 700 f, 100
a
100
600,
30\ ~ 1400, T1400
16001 11600 400 X1300
900
7100 1700 2300 r1400
US 17 1400 2800
13900 3200
NC 32 1400 x,300 3700
Ups 9100 5800
(Virginia Rd.) C
0
11100 8800 2700 500
14000 1100 2700 9800 400, 700
° M
-
0, N
7100 9400 10 000 40 1700
US 17 Bus. 200
6900
-7
x'2300
• %
0
U 9200
2100 $ 1100
10000 2600 $ SR 1132 - 0
° (Coke Ave.)
SR 1126 ° SR1105 4300
SR 1234 2600 SSa 1000 400 1400 t; (Oakum St.) (Old Hertford Rd.)
(Albemarle St.) -I °
800'' '200 t
°
9600 1500 al;
1500 2800 °
1100 300 1900 4100 400 T,300 500ET Cj 2300 400 1100 1300eT > 400
2
W. Church St. 4T 'C) 3900 55 PM o 5700 6400 Fy C~ 4100 NC-32
100 1500 2001 V1 121 1600 200
Estimated 2005 AADT Volumes 1
LEGEND 900I~
.3 c' Edenton Soundside
XXX VPD--VEHICLESPERDAY
OHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (Y.) 4700 m 100 Rd. Ext., from NC 32
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW 5300 E~ T-3
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 600 to US 17 Bypass
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(Y.)
200 100 1100
PM
NOTE: DHV D 55 4 14.21 10 County: Chowan Division: 1 4400
Indicates the direction D 4500 TIP N U3419 Date: March'o6 SOUndslde Rd.
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBSM 31939.1 .1

24200 1200 400 PEANUT DRIVE T
2001 200
SR 1321 1 T1200 ALTERNATIVE 100 100
NC 32
600 500 100) AZ-/
V1 %~N 3000
700 `~'•..h~ 500
200 f 7 0 1.800 600 30~ (J~ 1 3100
1800 U
600 ttoo 200 X800 12500 Otoo

400 tzo
118100
600
3000 2400 2700
?700 3000
too
26200 300~I -100
SR 1200 270 100 1400
50
300 / 800 100 3 19500
US 17
16300 Peanut Dr. 11Q0
1600:
290G 140 200 G r" (00000
1300 600 200

1 2500 32001 T3200
14500 3800 2500L 800 X2200 2400 1400
3600
US 17 29400 2400 4800 7800
NC 32 5000 2300 ,500 12500
~ (Virginia Rd.) 19100 r
20700 16900 5600800
28100 1800 X1000 18800 500 2700
13800 17600'0- E 900 12800
14300 US 17 Bus. 500" 2500 N
3800
'Oo
u 18100
L
3700 3200 `O7
18700 5200 $ SR 1132
° (Coke Ave.)
SR 1234 3900 1800 2700 $ SR 1126 Old Hertford Rd. 8400
2000 (Oakum St.)
°
(Albemarle St.)
1300 500
18000 2700
3300 4800 0
700 3200 900 3900 700 2000 3200 1600
W. Church St. 1800 T 6400 800E1 l 700 r?"~ <j
C F 6200 55'~ FM o 9200 10500 y 6900 NC-32
400 2500 300 X200 Uzi 2500 500
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes 1
LEGEND 17000
XXX VPD-VEHICLES PER DAY :`d wn t\ Edenton Soundside
OHV DESIGN HOURLYVOLUME(%) 9700 m 400 Rd. Ext. from NC 32
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW 1 140 E_ T g)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 2000
(0,0) DUALS, TTST(Y.) 500 X400 2300 A to US 17 Bypass
NOTE: OHV 0 D 55 laMzi - County: Chowan Division: 1 6600
Inidi,:ates the direction D 7800 TIP 0 U-3419 Date: March '06 Soundside Rd.
Reverse flow direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBSM 31939.1.1

Paradise Rd.
24200 1200, 1200 PARADISE ROAD 200 ( Tzoo 100 NC 32 SR 1321 200 X200 100
1000 ALTERNATIVE 1001)
600 ~~j ~ 600 %r\3000

200 X800 3 300
600 (2500 200,00
X400 1000 2700 12500
18100
3000 2400 1600 3 ioo -100,2
26200 300~I
R 1200 ? w3500 2700.: 3100 1400
US 17 100 ~ 19500
2900 16300 200 800 200 n 21003000
13004 2500:
0
S 320I T3200
200 1400
14500 600 3800 SR-1319 2200 14°0~~„' C ~0°0
3
US 17 9400 (Paradise Rd.) \3900 7800
NC 32 3900\,'.. 11000
(Virginia Rd.) 780 900 8800
ss 28100 22100 9o E 12700 400 2600
° f? 50 800 X800 20200 r' 6000 soo 3000
13800 17600 10 900 2800
8600 N
14300 US 17 Bus. 500 3100
e3800 200T X400
18100 600 X200 ryF+re~ .
4200 3700
SR 1132 a
118 700 8 8
Coke Ave. S1105 4 0
SR 1126 ( ) (Old Hertford) 8 °
SR 1234 3900 180T 700 2000 (Oakum St.) 3200 t
(Albemarle St.) 1300 'C500
18000 3300 4800 2700 °
700 3200 800,- 700 700 2000 3200 1600 6900
N. Church St. 1800 ~ 6400 F t- 6200 900c~ X3900 9200 FT 1y 10500 T T~
NC-32
400-1 2500 N 300 X200 55 1o 2500 500
Estimated 2030 AADT Volumes
17000
LEGEND a-~ av
XXX VPD--VEHICLESPERDAY Edenton Soundside
Rd. Ext., from NC 32
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (Y.) 9700 400
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (N) 11400
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 200(] to US 7 B7 Pa$$
tcy~`''
(019) DUALS, TTST 500 '0400 2300
NOTE: DHV - D 55 ~-+o County: Chowan Division: 1
6600
Inidicates the direction D 7800 TIP 0 U-3419 Date: March'06 Soundside Rd.
Reverse Row direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE WBSM 31939.1.1

1400
11100 7001 T700 PARADISE ROAD 1001 T100
NC 32 SR 1321 100 "100 -100 ,-100
PM `"300 ALTERNATIVE 100d~ 1300
200 600~ y:.

-100 7~ 2 ~ 1300
300 C `1500 X00
10010
6700 0
X100 600 1600)
8900
1600 '
200 1300
0
! 900 qo0 100 C
SR 1200 12500 1600 200 300 900
~ i
+o i w ``.,2100 4 100 980
US 17 '00 A00
9100 0
2000 100 V1300
600 rJ1500;. 14001 100
G T1400
7100 1 07 0 y 2300 800 100 900
`300
SR 1319
(Paradise Rd.) 1200 2000
US 17 13900 `.'`2300 3700
NC 32 2300\I'_., 4600 5800
(Virginia Rd.) 2900 X500 7100 500 100 900
1230
14000 M 400 T 400 11200 200
3000 1000
7100 9400 500 1600 4400
6900 ~ US 17 Bus. 200 2000 N
S'2300 ~.0 2100
9200 200 C'100..... ?F,ren i
2600 2100
I SR 1132
10000 8 o 1
(Coke Ave.) SR 1105
t; 4300
- SR 1126 I (Old Hertford)
SR 1234 2600 55 f z" 0 1000 2,400 1400 (Oakum St.) N
° ate
(Albemarle St.) 1100
800'-1, P200
9600 1500 2800 1500 a
300 1900 0 400 1100 1300 400
W.Church St. 1100 FT 1y 4100 40ET C,300 3900 500ET 2.,2300 5700 6400 -Y 4100
NC-32
100 X1500 200 -C-11 00 55 ( 2)) '0 1600 200
Estimated 2005 ADT Volumes
9000
LEGEND
an `°et Edenton Soundside
M VPD--VEHICLES PER DAY
Ig f~ Rd. Ext., from NC 32
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME 4700
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (V..) 5300 FT 2., 100
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 600 to US 17 Bypass
F~
(o,o) Duacs, rrsr(i) 200 100 1100
NOTE: DHV D 5s4 (27M~ +o County: Chowan Division: 1
4400
Inidicates the direction D 4500 TIP 0 U-3419 Date: March •oe Soundsi 0 Rd.
Reverse now direction for AM peak
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE W8SM 34939.1.1