20190230_Merger Process Documentation_20080815

e e. STAN °,y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
J'r S
'1Tr pti, J
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY LYNDO TII PKT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 8, 2008
Mr Bill Biddlecome, Transportation Project Manager
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr Biddlecome
SUBJECT SECTION 404 - N.E.P.A MERGER PROCESS Application for a
Department of the Army (DOA) Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act TO DISCHARGE DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONSTRUCT the
proposed US 158 widening from Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of
Winton, Northampton County WBS No 34472 1 1, T I P No R-2582/R-
2584
The following application, including separate attachments for (1) ENG Form 4345
and (2) mailing list (labels) is submitted for your consideration As you are aware, this
project was selected for treatment under the "Merger 01" process At this puncture, the
Merger Project Team has provided concurrence with Purpose and Need, with the
selection of Detailed Study Alternatives and with no bridging locations and lengths A
State Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared and signed on
February 29, 2008 A copy is attached
Please issue your public notice at the earliest opportunity so that we can jointly
proceed toward selecting the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative which meets the purpose and need of the project) following analysis of public
input Once the LEDPA is selected and approved, efforts will be undertaken to further
minimize impacts to wetlands and riparian buffers in the LEDPA corridor and to propose
suitable compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts
The following information is a summary of relevant project details and is being
provided to assist in the Section 404 regulatory review of the project Please note that
more detailed information is available in the State DEIS
MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
INTRODUCTION
The NCDOT proposes to widen US 158 in Northampton County from the
I-95/NC 46 Interchange to the Murfreesboro Bypass (in the Draft EIS) Alternatives
under consideration utilize the existing facility with some segments located along new
location The widening will convert the highway from its current configuration as a two-
lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided facility
The proposed facility will have 12-foot lanes, paved shoulders, and a 46-foot
grass median The total length of the project is approximately 32 miles
The design speed throughout the proposed project is 70 mph The project will
have full control of access on new locations sections and partial control on all widening
sections
Existing US 158 and NC 46 have no control of access through the project
corridor, with the exception of the I-95/NC 46 interchange, which has full control of
access
2

NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
Although this is a state-funded project, the proposed project is being developed
through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/404 Merger Process to ensure
systematic evaluation of the project plus avoidance and minimization of all potential
impacts Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose & Need) was signed by Merger Team members
on February 9, 2000 Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives for Detailed Study) was signed
on March 10, 2005 & August 16, 2005 Concurrence Point 2a (Bridging and Alignment
Review) was signed on June 19, 2007 Copies of the above forms are included in the
Draft EIS
PURPOSE AND NEED
Project Need
The need for the proposed transportation project results from the following areas
traffic flow and level of service (LOS), safety, and access
Efficient East-West routes are lacking in northeastern North Carolina US 158 is
a major intrastate highway traversing from west of Winston-Salem to the Outer Banks of
North Carolina US 158 is the principal east-west route from I-85 and I-95 to the coast in
the northern part of North Carolina It is currently a two-lane road for much of the route,
and passes through numerous small towns
US 158 has been designated as Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) No 37
Strategic Highway Corridors are a set of primarily existing highway corridors that
c\emplify the long-term potential to serve passenger and freight movement in a high-
,,peed manner These facilities, upon some level of improvement, will substantially
in(-rease the mobility and connectivity of travel to destinations within and just outside
North Carolina, while helping foster economic prosperity and promoting environmental
stc%? ardship The Board of Transportation adopted the SHC concept as part of the
Statewide Transportation Plan in September 2004
Similar to the SHC, US 158 is also part of the State's Intrastate System The
Intrastate System was established to provide high-speed, safe travel service throughout
the state It connects major population centers both inside and outside the State and
provides safe, convenient, through-travel for motorists The Intrastate System supports
statewide growth and development objectives and connects to major highways of
adjoining states
US 158 is on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) National Highway
System (NHS) In 1998, the FHWA published a National Strategic Plan, which sought to
preserve and enhance the infrastructure of Federal-aid highways with emphasis on the
NHS Objectives of the plan include reducing delay by 20 percent in 10 years reducing
the number of highway related fatalities and serious injuries by 20 percent in 10 years,
enhancing community and social benefits of highway transportation, increasing public
3
satisfaction with highway systems and highway projects as a beneficial part of their
community, and reducing on-road mobile source emissions by 20 percent in 10 years
For most of the project length, the highway has a speed limit of 55 mph The
speed limit is lower as US 158 passes through the towns of Garysburg, Jackson, and
Conway Various developed areas lining the highway also limit the permissible areas that
vehicles can safely pass Because of numerous slow moving vehicles, farm machinery,
the sections of US 158 passing through towns, and the limited opportunities to pass,
average operating speeds are generally lower than 55 mph
In 2005, traffic on US 158 ranged from 2300 vph to 10,000 vph By 2030, it is
estimated to range from 4000 vph to 17,500 vph (see Figure 6) If traffic levels increase
as projected and no improvements are made to US 158, the level of service on the west
end of US 158 is expected to deteriorate to LOS E by the year 2010 Other sections of
US 158 in Northampton County are expected to deteriorate to LOS D or E by the design
year (2030)
When the planning for this project began, US 158 had experienced a fatal accident
rate twice the average for roads in North Carolina of similar type. The rate has since gone
down and the overall collision rate for US 158 in Northampton County was 98 27
collisions/per million vehicle miles (coll/100mvm) from April 1, 2004 to March 31,
2007 This is lower than the statewide average of 193 9 coll/100mvm for rural U S
routes During this time period, there were no fatal crashes along this corridor From
July 1996 to July 1999, the fatal accident rate was 5 22 fatal coll/100mvm, which was
twice the statewide average for similar US routes
Traffic passing through the towns along US 158 results in inefficient through-
travel and deterioration of local vehicle and pedestrian operations. Existing US 158 in
Northampton County travels through the towns of Jackson and Conway, requiring
vehicles to slow down to meet a speed limit of 20 mph through the business districts and
35 mph within the town limits, and to operate among local business traffic and
pedestrians Both US 158 and NC 46 travel through the town of Garysburg Vehicles
traveling east on NC 46 must stop at the NC 301 intersection before proceeding south to
US 158 to continue east Two fatal accidents along US 158, one in 1998 and one in 1999,
involved pedestrians near the town of Garysburg
The improved transportation corridor will improve transportation service to
existing and potential future industry This directly affects both existing industries
utilizing this highway, as well as potential future industries looking to relocate in
Northampton County
US 158 is a mayor east-west thoroughfare in the northeastern section of North
Carolina The projected traffic and land use conditions in and around the small towns
along the route diminish this segment's ability to function as an intrastate corridor
4
Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to
Improve traffic flow and level of service (LOS) on this section of US 158. In a
"no-build" scenario, the projected traffic along several segments of US 158 would exceed
capacity, thus creating deficient levels of service along those segments This increases
the potential for accidents and contributes to the inefficient operation of motor vehicles
With the proposed improvements, traffic flow would be improved to a Level of Service A
(LOS A) Travel conditions would remain at LOS A through the design year
Improve safety along this section of US 158. The most prevalent types of
vehicle crashes along the project corridor were the rear end type collisions, or collisions
involving animals The additional travel lanes with median openings to allow left turn
movements will reduce the potential for rear end collisions
With bypasses of Jackson and Conway, through traffic and local traffic would be
separated Because the through traffic would not be as mixed with local traffic, the
variance of speeds among vehicles would decrease Bypasses of the towns would provide
for better through traffic from one side of the county to the other With less through
traffic within the town limits, the safety and operations of local vehicles and pedestrians
would improve
Improve access to existing and future industry. The NuCor facility in Hertford
County is one example of new industries that could locate to the area This plant employs
approximately 450 people and generates approximately 3500 truck trips per day As this
area of the state continues to attract industry such as the NuCor facility, the need for
adequate transportation facilities will increase
ALTERNATIVES
"No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative would forego any improvements to existing roads with
the exception of routine maintenance No new segment would be constructed, and no
roadway or intersection improvements would be performed
The "no-build" alternative would avoid all adverse impacts, in that no wetlands,
streams, historic properties, or other cultural and natural resources would be directly
impacted However, this alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need of this project
Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration
The "no-build" alternative does, however, provide a basis for comparison of other
alternatives
5
Transportation Systems Management Alternatives
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the
available capacity of the facility within the existing nght-of-way with minimum capital
expenditures and without reconstructing the facility Items such as the addition of turn
lanes, stnping, signing, signalization, and minor realignments are examples of TSM
physical improvements Traffic law enforcement, speed restnctions, control, and signal
timing changes are examples of TSM operational improvements These types of
improvements were considered, and some elements, such as access control measures, will
be incorporated into the recommendations However, TSM improvements alone would
not meet the stated purpose of the project Therefore, the TSM alternatives were not
considered a reasonable and feasible alternative and were eliminated from further
consideration
Mass Transit Alternatives
There is no existing mass transit in Northampton County due to lack of demand,
low-density development, and low population density The study area is pnmanly rural,
with the exception of downtown areas in the communities of Garysburg, Jackson, and
Conway In addition, US 158 camel a large portion of through traffic with relatively
high truck percentages, which is not conducive to local mass transit Based on these
factors, the Mass Transit Alternative was eliminated from consideration because it would
not effectively address the purpose and need of the project
Construction Alternatives
The project ongmally began in Weldon east of the existing US 158 one-way pair
The section that ties to I-95/NC 46, the current western tennmus, was added later In
developing alternatives, the project was divided to correspond with the four main
populated segments of the project Garysburg, Jackson, Faison's Old Tavern, and
Conway Both widening and new location alternatives have been developed Currently,
there are 0 alternatives created from 29 segments (A1-H1) Figures 2a through 211
(Appendix A) show these alternatives and segments
NCDOT is proposing a four-lane facility with a 46-foot wide grassy median for
the length of the project The median-divided typical section is consistent with the
existing Murfreesboro Bypass at the eastern end of the project NCDOT proposes full
control of access for any new location segments, with interchanges planned at most major
intersecting NC and US routes Partial access control is proposed for all of the widening
alternatives
6
Garysburg
The current Garysburg alternatives all begin at the junction of NC 46 and I-95
This is the project's western terminus, and involves re-designating US 158 onto existing
NC 46 at its intersection with 1-95, one exit north of the existing US 158 exit Figure 1
shows the study corridors for each of the Garysburg alternatives
Garysburg Northern Bypass (Segments A 1 BI) This bypass begins at the NC 46/ I-95
intersection and extends along existing NC 46 until its intersection with US 301 north of
town The bypass proceeds on new location around Garysburg until it rejoins US 158 east
of town A grade separation is proposed over US 301, and an interchange is proposed at
the reconnection of the bypass with existing US 158 east of town This alternative
involves two railroad crossings
Garysburg Southern Bypass 1 (Segments Al B2 B3) This bypass begins at the NC 46/
I-95 intersection and extends along existing NC 46 until just west of Garysburg The
bypass then proceeds on new location south of Garysburg, until it rejoins US 158 east of
town (at the same location as the proposed Northern Bypass) An interchange is proposed
at US 301 An intersection is proposed at the reconnection of the bypass with existing
US 158 east of town This alternative also involves two railroad crossings
Garysburg Southern Bypass 2 (Segments Al B2 B4) This bypass follows the same path
as Southern Bypass 1 alternative, but extends farther south after it crosses existing US
158/US 301 south of town This alternative reconnects with US 158 east of town at the
intersection of US 158 and Old Jackson Bypass Road (SR 1311) An interchange is
proposed at US 301 An intersection is proposed at the reconnection with existing US
158 east of town This alternative also involves two railroad crossings
Jackson
The Jackson section of the project extends from east of Garysburg (at the
intersection of US 158 and Old Jackson Bypass Road) to east of Jackson, the eastern end
of this section corresponds to the split between projects R-2582 and R-2584 Figure 1
shows the study corridors for the Jackson alternatives
Old Jackson Bypass (Segment DO This alternative widens the existing Old Jackson
Bypass Road (SR 1311) for use as a bypass Two sections of the existing road would be
straightened, thus creating some new location sections No interchanges are included in
this alternative
Extended Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments Cl, E1) This alternative follows US 158
on existing location, then proceeds on new location north of Jackson and reconnects with
US 158 east of Mt Carmel Road (SR 1333) The bypass would intersect NC 305 just
south of Pleasant Grove Road (SR 1314) An interchange is proposed at NC 305 while
the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections
7
Northern Jackson Bypass (Segments C1 E2 E3) This alternative follows existing US
158 until just west of Jackson and extends north of town on new location The bypass
reconnects with US 158 east of Mt Carmel Road (SR 1333) An interchange is proposed
at NC 305 while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections
Southern Jackson Bypass (Segments C1 E2 E4) This alternative follows existing US
158 until just west of Jackson and extends south of town on new location The bypass
reconnects with US 158 east of NC 305 Mt Carmel Road (SR 1333) An interchange is
proposed at NC 305 while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade
intersections
Faison's Old 'T'avern
The Faison's Old Tavern alternatives extend from east of Jackson through just
west of the town of Conway Figure 1 shows the study corridors for the Faison's Old
Tavern alternatives
Widen on Existing 1 (Segments F2, F5, F7) and 2 (Segments F4 F7) These alternatives
widen US 158 on its existing location from east of Jackson to just west of Conway No
interchanges are proposed with this alternative The connections with existing US 158
will be at-grade intersections The alternatives differ where they tie to Jackson
alternative
Faison's Old Tavern Northern Bypasses I (Segments F2 F6 F9) and 2 (Segments F2 F6
1`10 These alternatives proceed on new location from just east of Old Jackson Bypass
Road to west of Conway An interchange is proposed at Galatia Road (SR 1344) while
the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections
Faison's Old Tavern Southern Bypasses 1 (Segments F1, F8) and 2 (Segments F3 F8)
These alternatives extend on new location from west of the Old Jackson Bypass Road
intersection to west of Conway An interchange is proposed at NCHS East Road (SR
1505) while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade intersections
Conway
The Conway alternatives extend from west of town Oust east of Zion Church)
through to the east end of the project Included in each of these alternatives is a segment
of US 158 at the end of the project that will be widened on its existing location Figure 1
shows the study corridors for the Conway alternatives
Northern Conway Bypasses 1 (Segments G2, G6, G7, H1) and 2 (Segments G1 G6 G7
HI) This alternative begins on new location east of Zion Church Road (SR 1500) and
reconnects with existing US 158 east of Gilmer Ricks Road (SR 1543) An interchange is
proposed at NC 35 north of town while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-
grade intersections This alternative involves one railroad crossing
8
Southern Conway Bypass 1 (Segments G3 GS G7 H1) This alternative begins on new
location east of Zion Church Road (SR 1500) and, after passing south of town, curves
north to cross over the existing facility before reconnecting with US 158 east of Gilmer
Ricks Road (SR 1543) An interchange is proposed at NC 35 and a grade separation is
proposed over one section of existing US 158 The end connections with existing US 158
will be at-grade intersections There is one railroad crossing associated with this
alternative
Southern Conway Bypass 2 (Segments G3 G4 HI) This bypass follows most of the
same alignment as the other southern bypass alternative, however, it proceeds east to
reconnect with existing US 158 at Ashley's Grove Road (SR 1536) An interchange is
proposed at NC 35 while the connections with existing US 158 will be at-grade
intersections There is also one railroad crossing associated with this alternative
Alternatives Eliminated
Weldon-Widen on Existing US 158 This alternative begins east of Weldon and west of
the Roanoke River on US 158 It was dropped from consideration by the merger team on
8/18/2005 due to the impacts to the Weldon Historic District and the new crossing
required over the Roanoke River
Jackson-Widen on Existing This alternative involves only widening the existing
roadway It was dropped from consideration by the merger team on 3/10/2005 due to the
impacts to the Jackson Historic District
Conway-Widen on Existing This alternative would was dropped from further
consideration by the merger team on 3/10/2005 due to impacts to the Conway Historic
District
The tables below show both the current cost estimates and impacts for each
alternative The final recommendation for R-2582/R-2584 will be a combination of a
recommendation alternative from each of the four communities, i e, an alternative from
Garysburg, Jackson, Faisons Old Tavern, and Conway
9
Table 1-A Comparison of Garysburg Alternatives Resources and Impacts

Impacted Resource Garysburg
Northern
Bypass Garysburg
Southern
Bypass 1 Garysburg
Southern
Bypass 2
Segments Included Al B1 Al B2 B3 Al B2 B4
Length 50 54 5 5
Interchanges 1 2 2
Railroad Crossings 2 2 2
Schools 1 0 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0
Churches 1 1 1
Cemeteries 0 0 0
Mayor Utility Crossings 1 1 1
Histonc Properties (Eligible or listed on the
National Register)
5
5
4
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 0
NRCS-Potential Farmland Conversion Below Threshold Below Threshold Below Threshold
Residential Relocations 32 11 11
Business Relocations 5 2 2
Noise Receptors Irri acted 28 8 7
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5 11 10
Stream Impacts (feet) 1520 2040 3410
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 0
Minority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse &
Disproportionate Impacts)
Yes
No
No
Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0
Underground Storage Tank Sites 4 3 3
Construction Cost $48,500,000 $53,100,000 $57,500,000
Right of Way Cost $10,648,250 $13,548,750 $13,713,250
Utilities Cost $1,188,686 $1,015,868 $953,060
Total Cost $60,336,936 $67,664,618 $72,166,310
Note 1 Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is
selected
10
Table 1-B Comparison of Jackson Alternatives Resources and Impacts

Impacted Resource
Old Jackson
Bypass Extended
Northern
Jackson

Bypass Northern

Jackson
Bypass Southern

Jackson
Bypass
Segments Included DI C l El C1 E2 E3 C l E2 E4
Length 88 11 9 13 1 105
Interchanges 0 0 1 0
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 1 0 1
Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 1 1
Churches 1 1 0 0
Cemeteries 0 1 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 1 1 1 1
Historic Properties (Eligible or listed on the
National Register) 4 4 10 10
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 0 0
CS-Potential Farmland Conversion Moderate
Concern Below
Threshold Below
Threshold Below
Threshold
Residential Relocations 6 5 11 25
Business Relocations 0 0 0 0
Noise Receptors Impacted 11 0 52 4
Wetland Impacts (acres) 40 42 15 33
Stream Impacts (feet) 1620 860 1770 2110
ater Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 0 0
ildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 0 0
mority/ Low Income Populations (Adverse
Disproportionate Impacts) No No No No
Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0
Underground Storage Tank Sites 0 2 2 2
Construction Cost $40,200,000 $53,900,000 $71,300,000 $68,000,000
Right of Way Cost $3,900,500 $4,213,500 $6,383,500 $9,444,000
Utilities Cost $1,144,221 $919,947 $1,054,723 $1,452,850
IlTotal Cost $45,244,721 $59,033,447 $78,738,223 $78,896,850
Note 1 Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is
selected
11
Table 1-C Comparison of Faison's Old Tavern Alternatives Resources and Impacts
Faison's Faison's Faison's Faison's Faison's Faison's
Impacted Resources Widen on Widen on Northern Northern Southern Southern
Existing 1 Existing 2 Bypass 1 Bypass 2 Bypass 1 Bypass 2
Segments Included F2 F5 F7 F4 F7 F2 F6 F9 F2 F6 F10 F1 F8 F3 F8
Length 80 75 86 83 80 77
Interchanges 0 0 1 1 1 1
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 0 0 0 1 1
Recreational Areas and

Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cemeteries 5 5 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Historic Properties
(Eligible or listed on the 1 1 1 0 0 1
National Register)
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federally Listed Species

within Corridors 0 0 0 0 0 0
CS-Potential Farmland Below Below Below Moderate Higher Higher
Conversion Threshold Threshold Threshold Concern Concern Concern
Residential Relocations 36 39 2 2 5 5
Business Relocations 2 2 2 1 1 0
Noise Receptors Impacted 2 2 11 11 0 0
Wetland Impacts (acres) 4 1 23 21 10 9
Stream Impacts (feet) 400 0 3000 2770 490 550
Water Supply Watershed

Protected Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and

Game Lands 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minority/ Low Income
Populations (Adverse & Potential Potential No No No No
Disproportionate Impacts)
Hazardous Material /

Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0
Underground Storage

Tank Sites 12 11 1 1 2
1
Construction Cost $33,400,000 $31,200,000 $51,200,000 $49,100,000 $43,300,000 $44,400,00
Right of Way Cost $12,684,000 $13,688,000 $6,343,500 $5,985,500 $6,069,500 $5,790,000
tilities Cost $1,290,430 $1,155,899 $423,593 $395,593 $318,493 $267,539
[Total Cost $47,374,430, $46,043,899, $57,967,093, $55,481,093, $L,687 993 L$50 457.5391
Note 1 Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is
selected
12
Table 1-D Comparison of Conway Alternatives Resources and Impacts

Impacted Resource Conway
Northern
Bypass 1 Conway
Northern
Bypass 2 Conway
Southern
Bypass 1 Conway
Southern
Bypass 2
Segments Included G2 G6 G7 H1 Gl G6 G7 Hl G3 G5 G7 H1 G3 G4 H1
Length 7 8 78 8 8 80
Interchanges 1 1 1 1
Railroad Crossings 1 1 1 I
Schools 1 1 0 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 0 0
Churches 1 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 1 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0
istonc Properties (Eligible or listed
on the National Register) 5 6 5 5
Archaeological Sites Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Federally Listed Species within
Corridors 0 0 0 0
CS-Potential Farmland Conversion Higher
Concern Higher
Concern Higher
Concern Higher
Concern
Residential Relocations 19 15 22 15
Business Relocations 1 1 0 1
Noise Receptors Impacted 2 2 0 0
Wetland Impacts (acres) 13 13 35 42
Stream Impacts (feet) 2280 2020 2070 2840
Water Supply Watershed Protected
Areas 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 0 0
Minority/ Low Income Populations
(Adverse & Disproportionate Impacts) No No No No
Hazardous Material / Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0
Underground Storage Tank Sites 1 0 0 0
Construction Cost $72,600,000 $64,000,000 $60,600,000 $66200,000
Right of Way Cost $8,832,500 $8 570 500 $8,916,500 $7,177500
Utilities Cost $1 477,696 $1,383,772 $1,296,080 $638,257
Total Cost $82,910,196 $73,954,272 $70,812,580 $74,015,757
Note I Archeological sites will be evaluated once a recommended alternative is
selected
1 3
COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULE
These projects are included in the approved 2007-2013 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) and the Draft 2008-2015 STIP R-2582 and R-2584 are
being addressed in one environmental planning document to more appropriately address
logical termini The total cost in the STIP is $169,125,000 which includes $18,925,000
for right of way and $150,200,000 for construction The current estimated cost vanes
depending on the segments selected Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
State Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 and construction is currently in an "unfunded" status-
Table 2 TIP Project Cost
TIP Number Project Section Right of Way Cost Construction Cost
R-2582 A $5,625,000 $23,300,000
B $3,000,000 $24,900,000
A $5,770,000 $ 51,000,000
R-2584 B $2,160,000 $30,600,000
C $2,370,000 $20,400,000
$18,925,000 $1505200,000
Total Cost - $169,125,000
14
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Water Resources
a) Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
There are ten named stream systems (on United States Geological Survey (USGS)
maps) within the project study area and they are summarized in the following text
Arthur's Creek (HUC 03010107) and four of its unnamed tributaries are located
within the project study area Arthur's Creek is a perennial stream with a bankfull width
of 30 feet and a bank height of 6 feet The stream segment within the project study area is
immediately downstream of extensive gravel pits Arthur's Creek has moderate sinuosity
and a variety of fish, amphibians, and benthic macromvertebrates were observed
However, this stream has evidence of impacts from agriculture and timber production in
addition to some bank failures and channel widening
Two segments of Trouble Field Creek (HUC 03010107) and six of its unnamed
tributaries are found within the project study area Trouble Field Creek is a perennial
stream with a bankfull width of 6 to 12 feet and a bank height of 6 feet The upstream
portion of Trouble Field Creek within the project study area exhibits moderate stream
geomorphology with the characteristics becoming strong in the downstream portion This
stream is very sinuous with a moderate slope There are small wetland areas along both
portions of the stream with only minor impacts from agriculture or timber production
Both segments of Occoneechee Creel. (HUC 03010107) within the project study
area are in proposed widening areas In addition to the main channel, there are three
unnamed tributaries within the project study area The upstream segment is located along
the Old Jackson Bypass (SR 1311) and has a braided channel flowing through a coastal
plain small stream swamp The downstream segment intersects US 158 west of Jackson
and is a single channel flowing through a bottomland hardwood community The bankfull
width ranges from 4 to 8 feet upstream to 15 to 20 feet in the downstream segment and a
bank height of 1 to 3 feet upstream and 3 to 4 feet downstream Both reaches are stable
with little evidence of erosion or impacts from agriculture or timber production
The project study area intersects Gumberry Swamp (HUC 03010107) at three
different locations In addition, there are six unnamed tributaries to Gumberry Swamp in
the project study area The upstream location of Gumberry Swamp intersects the Jackson
Bypass This stream is located within a bottomland hardwood wetland and was over its
banks at the time of the investigation There was little evidence of disturbance and good
wildlife habitat was present The middle crossing of Gumberry Swamp is located
northeast of Jackson where the stream is a braided channel within a beaver impounded
area Therefore, bankfull width ranged from 20 to 50 feet and bank heights were from 2 to
5 feet To the east of this stream segment, land that was historically used for crop
production has been converted to the production of pine (estimated age 5 years) The
downstream segment of Gumberry Swamp is along the proposed widening of US 158 to
15
the southwest of Jackson at the discharge to Boones Millpond This stream segment has a
bankfull width of 30 to 35 feet and a bank height of 5 to 6 feet There is nprap on the
stream banks and slight erosion downstream of US 158 A bottomland hardwood wetland
community is located to the east of the stream and a young mesic hardwood community is
located to the west of the stream
The main channel of Ramsey Creel. (HUC 03010203) is crossed by the project
study area at four different locations SR 1311 (Jackson Bypass Road) and all three
alternatives around the town of Jackson The SR 1311 location is the only area where
there is a defined stream channel The defined channel is approximately 100 feet in
length The stream discharges from a beaver dam and flows through a set of culverts
under SR 1311 (Jackson Bypass Road) This stream segment has a bankfull width of 12
to 20 feet and a bank height of 1 to 3 feet The remaining portions of Ramsey Creek are
encompassed in bottomland hardwood wetland communities delineated as WB29, W1325,
and WB54, respectively There are four unnamed tributaries draining into Ramsey Creek
within the project study area
The upstream portion of Wiccacanee Swamp (HUC 03010203) is crossed by the
project study area along the proposed widening of SR 1311 and the downstream portion
is crossed east of Jackson along US 158 The upstream segment is located within a
bottomland hardwood wetland community and has a bankfull width 12 to 15 feet and
bank height of 3 to 5 feet Downstream of SR 1311, the Wiccacanee Swamp has erosion
due to cows accessing the stream from adjacent pasture land The downstream segment
of Wiccacanee Swamp is also within a bottomland hardwood wetland community and has
braided channels, a bankfull width of 2 to 5 feet, and bank height of 1 to 3 feet This
downstream segment of Wiccacanee Swamp is characterized by a wide riparian zone
providing canopy coverage and stable stream conditions There are no tributaries to
Wiccacanee Swamp in the project study area
Wildcat Swamp (HUC 03010203) begins near the center of the project study area
where SR 1331 (Jackson Bypass Road) intersects US 158 It flows in an eastwardly
direction between the proposed widening of US 158 and the proposed new southern
alignment until it turns south and intersects the project study area west of SR 1505
Upstream of US 158, two tributaries join to form braided Wildcat Swamp within a
bottomland hardwood wetland community with a bankfull width up to 25 feet A single
channel is formed as Wildcat Swamp crosses US 158 and has a bankfull width of 6 to 8
feet and bank height of 2 feet There is no defined stream channel where the project study
corridor crosses Wildcat Swamp at the downstream location This area is delineated as
bottomland hardwood wetland community WB60 and has standing surface water
throughout There are five unnamed tnbutanes to Wildcat Swamp in the project study
area
Corduroy Swamp (HUC 03010203) is located along the north side of the project
study area that is proposed as new alignment between Jackson and Conway north of US
158 The main channel of Corduroy Swamp is not within the project study area However,
16
there are 18 unnamed tributaries to Corduroy Swamp as well as bottomland hardwood
wetlands defined as Corduroy Swamp within the project study area
The main channel of Kirbys Creek (HUC 03010203) is located northeast of
Conway in the proposed new alignment portion of the project study area Approximately
0 4 miles upstream of the study area, Kirby's Creek discharges from a 40-acre pond at NC
35 and flows through a bottomland hardwood wetland community lacking a defined
channel Approximately 1,000 feet of channel was delineated within the wetland The
channel has frequent meanders and stable banks with tannic waters characteristic of
swamps The stream channel has a bankfull width of 10 feet and bank height of 3 feet
Macroinvertebrates from the Diptera family were observed in leaf pack habitat There are
10 unnamed tributaries to Kirbys Creek within the project study area The southern
boundary of this stream and wetland system is bounded by relatively steep slopes
uncharacteristic of the project study area
Reedy Branch (HUC 03010203) is located in the eastern portion of the project
study area where the northern and southern alternatives around Conway meet the existing
US 158 Reedy Branch flows north into Kirbys Creek approximately 1 mile north of the
study area Reedy Branch has a bankfull width of 8 feet and bank height of 3 feet with
frequent meanders and stable banks Several elliptio mussels were observed in the
upstream portion of Reedy Branch However, recent timber harvesting on adjacent land
upstream of US 158 has the potential to degrade the stream There are three unnamed
tributaries to Reedy Branch in the project study area
b) Water Quality
Best usage classification for surface waters is determined by North Carolina
Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) All of the waters in the Roanoke River Basin
portion of the project study area are classified as Class C waters All of the waters in the
Chowan River Basin portion of the project study area are classified as Class C, Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) except for Paddys Delight Creek It is classified as Class B,
NSW from its source to the dam at Doolittle Millpond Class C denotes waters that are
suitable for aquatic life propagation, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture Class
B denotes waters that are for primary recreation including frequent use for organized
swimming Nutrient sensitive waters are waters subject to growths of vegetation requiring
limitations on nutrient inputs Unnamed tributaries (UTs) receive the same best usage
classification as the named streams into which they flow No Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supply Waters (WS) occur
within the project study area Neither the Roanoke River nor the Chowan River Basins
are subject to vegetated riparian buffer requirements by the state
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of water quality monitoring
stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data
to help determine a waterbody's classification and corresponding water quality standards
The AMS determines how well a waterbody supports its designated uses Since none of
the streams within the project study area are monitored by NCDWQ, they are not rated
17
There are ambient monitoring stations on the Roanoke River at NC 46 (approximately 2 5
miles upstream of the project study area) and at US 258 (approximately 4 miles
downstream of the project study area) This section is currently rated as supporting
aquatic life based on the ambient monitoring at these sites
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waters The list includes waters
impaired by pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria, and by
pollution, such as hydromodification and habitat degradation The source of impairment
might be from point sources, nonpomt sources, or atmospheric deposition The Roanoke
River, from the Roanoke Rapids dam to the Albemarle Sound, is listed on the draft North
Carolina 303(d) List as impaired because of fish consumption advisories (NCDWQ
2006b) The impairment is due to high mercury levels, likely resulting from atmospheric
deposition (NCDWQ 2005b)
c) Biological Data
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling within the NCDWQ Subbasin 03-02-08
consists of seven sites One monitoring station is located on the Roanoke River at
Halifax, approximately 8 miles downstream of the project study area This site was not
sampled in 2005 due to high flow conditions, but received a rating of Good in 1999
Another sampling point is located on Occoneechee Creek approximately 3 miles
downstream of the project study area Occoneechee Creek is a swampy stream and was
rated as Natural with a total taxa richness of 22 and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Tnchoptera (EPT) taxa richness of 4 Swampy streams are characterized by low
velocities, lower dissolved oxygen, lower pH, and sometimes complex braided channels
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling within the NCDWQ Subbasm 03-01-02
consists of five sites, with two of these sites downstream of the project study area One
sampling point is located on Kirbys Creek at SR 1362 and is approximately 3 miles
downstream of the project study area Another monitoring station is located on Potecasi
Creek at SR 1504 near Creeksville and is approximately 2 5 miles downstream of the
project study area Kirbys Creek is a swamp stream benthic reference site This stream
rated Moderate in 2005 after rating Natural in 1997 and 2000 The decline is due to a
lower habitat score and a decrease in the number of EPT taxa, however, it continues to
support a healthy and pollution intolerant aquatic community The Potecasi Creek
monitoring station is approximately 2 5 miles downstream from the confluence of
Wiccacanee Swamp and Ramsey Creek This stream site rated Moderate in 2005 This
site had the second highest habitat score in the Chowan basin, but only one EPT species
was collected
18
Fish tissue surveys consisting of two sites on the Roanoke River, in NCDWQ
subbasin 03-02-08, were conducted through 1999 One of these sites was located
approximately 2 miles south of the project study area, near the town of Weldon These
surveys were conducted as part of special mercury contamination assessments in the
eastern part of the state and during routine basinwide assessments Six bowfin samples
from the site near Weldon had mercury concentrations greater than the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) screening value, however, metal concentrations in 21 samples
of other fish species were less than federal and state thresholds for fish consumption
There are no fish community sampling sites in NCDWQ subbasm 03-02-08 The
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) has designated the Roanoke
River from the Roanoke River Dam to US 258 as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) (15
NCAC IOC 0503) This 35-mile reach of the river has been designated as the spawning
reach for the striped bass
d) Essential Fish Habitats
Essential fish habitat is defined by the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (NMFS
1999) A draft list of counties in North Carolina containing Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
as well as a draft list of water bodies within the listed counties has been produced by the
Beaufort, North Carolina, office of the NMFS Northampton County is not included on
the draft list, therefore this project is not anticipated to impact EFH
e) NPDES Discharges
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are regulated through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program Dischargers are
required by law to register for a permit There are 10 permitted NPDES dischargers in
DWQ Subbasin 03-02-08 (NCDENR 2006) None of the permitted NPDES dischargers
are within a half-mile of the project study area Information concerning the dischargers in
this subbasm is included in Table 3 There are no NPDES facilities in the 03-01-02
subbasm (NCDENR 2006)
19
Table 3- NPDES Dischargers within Subbasin 03-02-08 Northampton County
NPDES Permit # Facility Permit Type Water Body
NCO025721 Town of Weldon WWTP Major, Municipal Roanoke River
NC0024201 Roanoke Rapids, WWTP Mayor, Municipal Chockoytte Creek
NC0025437 Town o?c
hSquare, Minor, Municipal Bridgers Creek
r
NC0028835 Perdue Farms, Inc Minor, Industrial & Roanoke River
(Lewiston) Commercial
Virginia Electric and

NC0079014
Power Company Minor Industrial &
Chockoytte Creek
(Rosemary Power Station) Commercial
NC0066192 Town of Halifax WWTP Minor, Municipal Quankey Creek
Halifax County (Bakers

NC0038636
Elementary School Minor, 100%
UT Kehukee Swamp
WWTP Domestic
NCDOC-Odom

NC0027642
Correctional Facility Minor, 100%
Roanoke River
WWTP Domestic
NC0027626 NCDOC-Caledonia Minor, Industrial &
Roanoke Rover
Correctional WWTP Commercial
International Paper Mayor
Industrial' &
NC 0000752 Company (Roanoke ,
Commercial Roanoke River
Rapids Mill)
\l \\,TP - Waste Water Treatment Plant
20
f) Rater Resource Impacts
Construction of the proposed project may impact water resources by one or more
of the following processes
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction,
and toxic spills, and increased vehicular use
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be
minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and use of best
management practices The contractor will be required to follow contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control measures (as outlined in 23 CFR 650, Subpart B and Article
107-13) entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for
Roads and Structures) These measures are outlined in the following list,
• Use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff
during construction Regular maintenance and inspection of these structures to
insure effectiveness
• Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams and
tributaries to help reduce the potential for petroleum contamination or discharges
of other hazardous materials into receiving waters
• Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites to help alleviate sediment loadings and reduce
runoff Partial mitigation of increased runoff from new highway surfaces by
providing grassed road shoulders and limited use of ditching
• Careful management and use of herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds, or
other chemical constituents to minimize potential negative impacts on water
quality Roadside maintenance crews are well-versed in the use of these
chemicals
• Avoidance of direct discharges into streams whenever feasible Filtering runoff
effluent through roadside vegetation in order to remove contaminants and to
minimize runoff velocities
21
g) Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands, for the purposes of the CWA, are defined as those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR 328 3) Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the
USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) One-hundred forty-six (146)
jurisdictional wetlands comprising 858 3 acres were delineated during field
investigations A complete list of each wetland, NCDWQ quality rating, acreage, and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification is available in the
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) document Table 4 lists the eleven USFWS
wetlands types that were identified within the project study area
Table 4: USFWS Wetland Types Found within the Protect Study Area
USFWS Description
PEM 1 F Palustrine, emergent, non persistent, sewn- ermanently flooded
PF01/2C Palustnne, forested, broad-] eaved/needle-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
PFO1/2F Palustnne, forested, broad-leaved/needle-leaved deciduous, semi-permanently flooded
PF01/4A Palustrine, forested, broad-leavened/needle-leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded
PFO1 /4C Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved/needle-leaved evergreen, seasonally flooded
PFO1 A Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
PFO1 C Palustnne, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
PFO1F Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, semi-permanently flooded
PF04A Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded
PSS1A Palustnne, scrub shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
PUBHh Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, pennanently flooded, impounded
NCDWQ rates the value of wetlands based on water storage, bank/shoreline
stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and
recreation/education opportunities Each wetland was given a numerical rating on a 0-100
scale with an associated rating of high (100-66), medium (65-33), or low (32-0) Table 5
summarizes the amount of high, medium, and low quality wetlands within the project
study area
Table 5• Summary of Wetland Quality within the Project Study Area
Rating Count Acres
High 39 463
Medium 58 171
Low 49 226
Total 146 860
4 -
22
h) Jurisdictional Streams
The NCDWQ is the principal administrative agency of Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act in North Carolina NCDWQ has created definitions for the identification of
junsdictional streams (NCDWQ 2005a) A perennial stream has a clearly defined channel
that contains water year-round during a year of normal rainfall with the aquatic bed
located below the water table for most of the year (15A NCAC 02B 0233[2][1]) An
intermittent stream has a well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the
year, typically during the winter and spnng when the aquatic bed 1s below the water table
(15 A NCAC 0213 0233[2][g])
Of the 84 stream segments identified within the project study area, 37 of these
streams comprising 7 2 miles were classified as intermittent and 47 streams comprising
4 5 miles were identified as perennial streams All impacts to perennial streams typically
require compensatory mitigation Final determination of mitigation requirements for
impacts to intermittent streams 1s left to the discretion of the USACE and will be
determined during the permitting stage of the project
i) Isolated Wetlands/Ponds/Manmade Wetlands
Isolated Wetlands
Isolated wetlands are "Waters of the United States" that have been determined by
the USACE to meet the functions of a wetland but are not used for interstate commerce or
are not connected to a navigable water body Isolated wetlands are regulated by NCDWQ
and Section 401 regulations, but are not regulated by the USACE and Section 404
regulations Five isolated wetlands are located within the project study area
Table 6. Isolated Wetlands within the Protect Study Area
ID Number DWQ Rating DWQ Quali USFWS Acres
WB43 6 Low PFO 1 /2F 01
WA08 25 Low PEM211 07
WA09 11 Low PEM2H 03
WB714solated 33 Low PFO 1 C 1 1
WB96 14 Low PFO 1 /2F 02
WB43 1s a depresslonal wetland within a planted pine forest and 1s surrounded by
upland Precipitation 1s the hydrologic input to the wetland and groundwater 1s the
output This community 1s dominated by a sparse canopy of red maple, sweet gum, and
black gum trees with a dense herbaceous layer of soft rush and wool grass This wetland
was delineated in January 2006 and soil was saturated within 1 inch of the surface
23
WA08 and WA09 are old gravel pits located north and south of NC 46 in the
western portion of the project study area These wetlands have a permanent pool of water
and support hydrophytic vegetation The delineation of these wetlands occurred in
September 2005 and was verified by the USACE and NCDWQ in May 2006 Aerial
photography and USGS show both areas as having surface water Hydrologic input is
precipitation and overland flow from the road and output is through groundwater These
wetlands are located upslope from Arthur's Creek, but no hydrologic connection was
found
WB71 is a depressional wetland located 300 feet west of a nverme wetland
system It was delineated in May 2006 and verified by the USACE and NCDWQ several
weeks later A scrub-shrub vegetative community exists due to disturbance in the last 5
years The dominate trees include sweet gum, black gum, red maple, and water oak There
was a low diversity of herbaceous vegetation consisting mainly of wool grass and giant
cane The past disturbance has left tire ruts 1 to 2 feet deep The source of water to the
wetland is precipitation and overland flow with groundwater as the outlet
WB96 is a depressional wetland located within a planted sweet gum plantation
Therefore, the canopy is made of sweet gum trees planted in bedded rows 10 feet apart
Intermixed with the sweet gum are red maple, loblolly pine, soft rush, wool grass, and
poison-ivy vines This wetland was delineated in May 2006 and had surface water of 1 to
3 inches throughout the wetland, oxidized root channels, and water stained leaves
Ponds
There are 18 surface water bodies or ponds within the project study area
comprising 7 3 acres Fourteen of the ponds are less than 1 acre in size and are generally
located within agricultural or residential land either at the beginning of streams or as
depressions within uplands The size of each pond is listed in Table 7 Three larger ponds
located within the project study area are described as follows
Pond P2 is part of a series of ponds that were created when sand was removed
from these areas This pond is located northeast of the intersection of Jackson Bypass
Road (SR 1311) and SR 1301 Pond P5 was formed as the result of a borrow pit and is
located along US 158 at SRI 312 west of Occoneechee Creek Pond P7 is Boone's
Millpond located along US 158 southwest of Jackson
24
Table 7 List of Ponds within the Proiect Studv Area
ID Surface Area (Acres) Ty e/Land Use
P1 04 Forested
P2 08 Sand Pit
P3 03 Residential
P4 03 Forested
P5 08 Borrow Pit
P6 01 Forested
P7 1 3 Millpond
P8 06 Residential
P9 04 Hog Lagoon
P10 01 Residential
PH 03 Residential
P12 02 Forested
P13 01 Forested
P14 04 Agricultural
P15 01 Forested
P16 08 Forested
P17 01 Forested
P18 01 Agricultural
P19 01 Residential
Manmade Linear Wetlands
Manmade linear wetlands meet the same criteria as jurisdictional wetlands
SeLtloil 404 and 401 permits are required for impacts to these wetlands, but often
mitigation is not required Four linear manmade wetlands were identified within the
hroject study area These wetlands are connected to jurisdictional wetlands but extend
into adjacent uplands as ditches within agriculture fields These wetlands are identified as
W B97, WB65, WB63 and W A28 (see Table 8) The USACE Wetland Data Forms and
NCDWQ Wetland Rating Forms for these wetlands are located in the NRTR
j) Calculated Impacts
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'
outside of each limit as determined from the current functional design plans for each
alternative studied The totals are rounded to the nearest acre for wetlands and to the
nearest 10 feet for streams
25
Table 8: Wetland and Stream Impacts for Alternatives
Segment Wetland Tvpe Wetland/ Stream
Identification Wetland Impact
(Acres) Stream Impact
(Feet)
Al SA 01 129
SA 02 192
Palustrme, Forested WA 01 04
Palustrme Forested WA 03 0 1
Palustrme, Forested WA 04 01
Palustnne, Forested WA 05 00
Palustrme, Forested WA 06 00
Palustnne, Forested WA 09 02

Total lmpa?t*
?1 acre _
320 feet
B1 SA 04 27
SB 02 395
SB 05 270
SB 07 507
Palustrme, Forested WA 07 1 1
Palustrme, Forested WA 11 07
Palustrme, Forested WA 08 2 5
t nalIrnpact* 4 acres" 1200 feet
B2 SA 04 156
SB 02 261
Palustrme, Forested WA 07 2 1
Palustrme, Forested WB 02 0 1
w=TotalIm act# acres >420 feet'
B3 SB 01 1075
SB 05 228
Palustrme, Emergent WB 06 1 1
Palustrme, Forested WB 02 23
Palustnne, Forested WB 03 1 0
Palustnne, Forested WB 04 3 3
Palustrme Forested WB 08 07
-"Toal?Irnacts# 8cies,> '1 ?% 1300,feet"
B4 SA 05 244
SA 91 319
SB 01 1075
SB 08 520
SB 09 509
Palustnne, Forested WB 02 23
Palustnne, Forested WB 03 1 0
Palustrme, Forested WB 04 3 3
Palustrme, Forested WB 10 01
Total Impacts*T' ? acres ? ? 2F'i0 feeta
x
Note * totals for streams are rounded to 10 feet, total for Hetlands are rounded to the nearest acre
26
Table 8. Wetland and Stream Im acts for Alternatives (Cont.)
Segment Wetland Type Wetland/ Stream
Identification Wetland Impact
(Acres) Stream Impact
(Feet)
Cl SB 11 222
Palustrtne, Forested WB 11 1 1
Palustrtne, Forested WB 12 00
Palustrtne, Forested WB 13 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WB 17 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WB 18 22
ro ~Total Im a?t* ` 4 acre:, ""1'120, feet
D1 SA 06 129
SA 07 298
SA 08 207
SA 09 207
SA 10 225
SA 11 56
SA 14 260
SA 18 44
SA 22 194
Palustrtne, Forested WA 14 6 7
Palustrtne, Forested WA 15 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WA 16 02
Palustrtne, Forested WA 16 1 2
Palustrtne, Forested WA 18 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WA 19 124
Palustrtne, Forested WA 23 0 5
Palustrtne, Forested WA 24 1 1
Palustrtne, Forested WA 25 1 2
Palustnne, Forested WA 26 08
Palustrtne, Forested WA 30 100
Palustrtne, Forested WA 32 05
Palustrtne, Forested WA 33 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WA 34 29
Palustrtne, Forested WA 35 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WA 36 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WA 39 0 1
Palustrtne, Forested WA 40 03
Palustrtne, Forested WB 22 1 0
Palustrtne, Forested WB 35 01
Palustrtne, Forested WB 93 02
; ' ? L Total"Im act# 40 acres 3 t f u , < 1620 feet fl
Note * totals for streams are rounded to 10 feet, total for wetlands are rounded to the nearest acre
27
Table 8 Wetland and Stream Impacts for Alternatives (Cont 1
Segment Wetland Type Wetland/ Stream
Identification Wetland Impact
(Acres) Stream Impact
(Feet)
E1 SB 20 93
SB 21 273
SB 23 268
Palustnne, Emergent WA 22 0 1
Palustrme, Emergent WB 32-36 6 1
Palustrme, Forested WA 20 05
Palustnne, Forested WA 21 08
Palustrme, Forested WA 85 42
Palustnne, Forested WA 94 1 0
Palustrme, Forested WB 29-31 62
Palustrme, Forested WB 37 3 5
Palustrine, Forested WB 38 23
Palustnne, Forested WB 39 0 1
Palustrine, Forested WB 40 04
Palustrine, Forested WB 41 3 8
Palustnne, Forested WB 43 00
Palustrine, Forested WB 44 3 8
Palustrme, Forested WB 46 52
Palustnne, Forested WB 94 03
Palustnne, Forested WB 96 02
_
„??Total`=Im act* ?? = 39?acr`es`" ?'r r,i?M??630sfeet
E2 SB 15 196
SB 16 1149
Palustrme, Forested WA 20 02
Palustrme, Forested WA 21 08
Palustrme, Forested WB 19 0 1
Palustnne, Forested WB 20 0 1
Palustnne, Forested WB 21 01
Palustrme, Forested WB 92 1 4
Palustnne, Forested WB 95 09
Tcital.Tui a t* -4 acres "' 81350 feet;sr, 'r-
E3 SB 19 201
Palustnne, Forested WA 94 1 1
Palustrme, Forested WB 25-27 62
Palustrme, Forested WB 92 02
Palustnne, Forested WB 94 03
Cotal Im act ?° $ acres - 200 zfeet
Note * totals for streams are rounded to 10 feet, total for wetlands are rounded to the nearest acre
28
Table 8• Wetland and Stream Impacts for Alternatives (Cont.)
Segment Wetland Type Wetland/ Stream
Identification Wetland Impact
(Acres) Stream Impact
(Feet)
E4 SB 24 238
SB 26A 302
Palustrme, Forested WA 94 02
Palustrme, Forested WB 47-48 22
Palustrme, Forested WB 49-50 102
Palustrme, Forested WB 52-53 97
Palustrme, Forested WB 54-55 33
Palustrme, Forested WB 86 03
TotalImpact 26 acres- ` X40 feet
F1 SA 90 208
Palustrme, Forested WA 48-49 14
Palustrme, Forested WA 52 08
Palustrme, Forested WA 92 1 8
Palustrme, Forested WA 93 0 1
`? Total4I i? aet# 4 acre:: 2,I O,feet
F2 SA 25 175
SA 90 221
Palustrme, Forested WA 47 02
Palustrme, Forested WA 92 1 8
Palustrme Forested WA 93 08
Palustrme, Scrub-shrub WA 46 05
Totam act* n3acre? 4041eet
F3 SA 31 263
Palustrme, Forested WA 48-49 1 7
Palustrme, Forested WA 52 08
Palustrme, Scrub-shrub WA 46 0 50
Totaf$hpact* 3 acres ?, : , ?6U feet, 3 n
F4 NO'Ri act 3
FS Nb act ...
F6 SA 29 238
SA 30 236
SA 35 222
SA 36 345
SA 37 238
Palustrme, Forested WA 42 l 4
Palustrme Forested WA 43 03
Palustrme, Forested WA 53 14
Palustrme Forested WA 54 67
Palustrme, Forested WA 55 06
Palustrme, Forested WA 56 03
u a?
T,, aMl;Impaci* '
1,1 acres d v
i28b feet,
Note * totals for streams are rounded to 10 feet, total for wetlands are rounded to the nearest acre
29
Table 8 Wetland and Stream Impacts for Alternatives (Cont_)
Segment Wetland Type Wetland/ Stream
Identification Wetland Impact
(Acres) Stream Impact
(Feet)
F7 Palustnne, Forested WA 71 0 1
Palustrme, Forested WB 67 0 1
Palustnne, Forested WA 90 02
Palustrme, Forested WA 91 04
$ ,Las
.11,64al`Impaet* u Can 45s'?i ID 5
1 acre,-'°? `?0 feet
F
F8 SB 40 283
Palustnne, Forested WB 56 02
Palustrme, Forested WB 57 02
Palustnne, Forested WB 60-61 47
Palustrme, Forested WB 64-66 09
Palustrine, Forested WB 67 01
Palustrme, Forested WB 97 0 1
Total; ac% 6 acresr 280 feel
F9 SA 39 217
SA 41 239
SA 42 20
SA 43 242
SA 44 505
SA 45 106
Palustrine, Forested WA 57 20
Palustrine, Forested WA 58 07
Palustrne, Forested WA 59 64
'; Tot l mPa60, 9 acres ` -`330;feel
F10 SA 39 217
SA 41 272
SA 42 32
SA 46 283
SA 59 290
Palustrine, Forested WA 57 20
Palustrne, Forested WA 58 07
Palustrne, Forested WA 59 46
Palustrme, Forested WA 60 01
?sTotaljlImpact* 7--acres 1100 feet ??_?<<
G1 SA 50 330
SA 52 279
SA 53 308
Palustrine, Forested WA 61-62 05
Palustrne, Forested WA 63 09
Palustnne, Forested WA 65 02
Palustnne, Forested WA 67 0 1
Palustnne, Forested WA 68 2 9
Palustrme, Forested WA 70-72-73 54
?Total;Inipact a 1?0acies ° ? ' 926'feet
Note * totals for streams are rounded to 10 feet, total for wetlands are rounded to the nearest acre
30
Table 8: Wetland and Stream Impacts for Alternatives (Cont.)
Segment Wetland Type Wetland/ Stream
Identification Wetland Impact
(Acres) Stream Impact
(Feet)
G2 SA 49 148
SA 50 341
SA 52 349
SA 53 335
Palustrme, Forested WA 65 0 1
Palustrme, Forested WA 67 0 1
Palustnne, Forested WA 68 29
Palustnne, Forested WA 70-72-73 5 8
Palustrme, Forested WB 88 10
?<'?"Tota.l?Iin' act7? ? ? "";???x 1`0`acr'es;'' ` 11'7I1?tett
G3 SB 32 432
SB 33 1014
SB 34 371
Palustrme, Forested WB 68 00
Palustrme Forested WB 71 74
Palustrme, Forested WB 73 13 7
Palustnne, Forested WB 74 4 8
Palustnne, Forested WB 78-79-81 54
WB 71 Isolated 0 1
i?TotalIm acf' 3tlacies 1.9N, el
G4 SB 36 _ 308
SB 63 691
SB 64 24
Palustrme, Forested WB 75 14
Palustnne, Forested WB 77,WA 78-79 2 7
Palustrne, Forested WB 78-79-81 34
Palustrme, Forested WB 80 2 8
Palustrme, Scrub-shrub WB 82 0 1
Total=lm`act* 10 a"rese 5102 feet'
cj; Palustrme, Forested WB 78-79-81 30
-1lotal fie fact
,*

3V'6' es

, , 0,feet,
C;6 SA 54 321
SA 56 51
SA 57 43
SA 58 281
SA 60 42
SA 61 113
Palustrme, Forested WA 75-76 08
Palustrme, Forested WA 77 (1-24) 1 3
Palustrme, Forested WA 77 (25-56) 1 0
?otal;Iin act 3racres - :`?? RS(i Feet
Note * totals for streams are rounded to 10 feet, total for wetlands are rounded to the nearest acre
31
Table 8• Wetland and Stream Im acts for Alternatives (Cont )
Segment Wetland Type Wetland/ Stream
Identification Wetland Impact
(Acres) Stream Impact
(Feet)
G7 SB 35 181
SB 64 74
Palustrme, Forested WB 75 0 1
Palustrme, Forested WB 76 0 1
Palustrme, Forested WB 83 0 1
Palustrme, Scrub-shrub WB 82 0 1
Total%GI act ,P w 1 acre ,260ifeet, y
H1 Palustrme, Forested WB 85 00
Palustrme,
Unconsolidated Bottom WB 84 01
z 4 Total °Iim? act a x l acre , r 0 feet 3

Note * totals for streams are rounded to 10 feet, total for wetlands are rounded to the nearest acre
MITIGATION EVALUATION
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical,
and biological integrity of "Waters of the United States," specifically wetlands
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) Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in sequential order
a) Avoidance
Through the process of avoidance, all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States are examined According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USEPA and the USACE, "appropnate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology,
and logistics in light of overall project purposes
In the development of alternatives, several wetland areas were avoided by shifting
alignments Impacts to the Roanoke River were avoided by eliminating the "Garysburg -
Widen Existing" option between Weldon and Garysburg
b) Minimization
The process of minimization includes the examination of appropnate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to waters of the United States
32
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 where practicable The following other methods will minimize
adverse impacts to water resources
• Strict enforcement of BMPs to control sedimentation during project construction
• Bridge high quality, linear wetland systems
• Minimize clearing and grubbing activity
• Decrease or eliminate discharges into streams
• Re-establish vegetation on exposed areas
• Minimize in-stream activity
Project specific minimization efforts that have been incorporated into this project include
• Shifting alternatives D1, F9, G1, E1 and E4 to reduce wetland impacts
• Longer Bridges are recommended at several locations (D1, G1, E2, E3, El, E4) to
further minimize wetland/stream impacts
• Equalizer pipes are recommended at several locations
c) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
waters of the United States have been avoided or minimized to the maximum extent
practicable 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 Resources 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
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal law [under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),
as amended] requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as
33
Federally protected be subject to review by the USFWS Other species may receive
limited additional protection under separate state laws
a) Federally-Protected Species
As of April 2006, the USFWS had identified two species that could potentially
occur in Northampton County These include one endangered species, the red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis), and one species that was considered threatened
but has since been delisted, the bald eagle (Hahaeetus leucocephalus) The biological
conclusion for the RCW is no effect As of June 28, 2007, the bald eagle was removed
from the Endangered Species Act list However, this raptor will still be protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGEPA)
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Under provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, if a federal action
compromises the designation of a Wild and Scenic River or forecloses the possibility of
future designation, the implementation of the federal action must be coordinated with the
U S Department of the Interior (DOI)
There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project, therefore, the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act does not apply
CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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 in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings
a) Historic Architecture
During the review of historic properties within the study corridors, thirty-five
properties were identified as possible impacts The extent and details of the impacts are
noted in Table 6-8 These properties are either listed on the National Register, are
eligible for listing on the Register or are listed on the State Study list NCDOT, in
consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on
November, 2007 determined that out of thirty-five properties listed in the table, only
seven have been identified as having potential adverse effects and three no adverse
effects, based on current designs
34
Evolution of the project design has placed fifteen properties outside the Area of
Potential Effects (APE) Each of the remaining twenty properties are located and
delineated on Figures 2a through 211 of the DEIS NCDOT is still working on the final
concurrence form with the USACE for effects The information will be included in the
Final EIS
b) Archaeology
One potential site is a roadside picnic area located on the north side of US 158
between Garysburg and Jackson The picnic area, which overlooks a former millpond, is
accessed by a dead-end section of roadway that parallels US 158 to the north A state
historical marker reads, "Boon's Mill Here on July 28, 1863, a Confederate force
repulsed a Union march on the vital Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Breastworks 50
yds S W "
The picnic area is within the US 158 right of way Tax records indicate that
adjacent properties are under private ownership The Boone's Mill site maybe eligible
for listing in the National Register (Note Boone's Mill was histoncall y spelled "Boon's
Mill," as noted on the historical marker, while the contemporary spelling is "Boone's
Mill ") This will be studied further if the alternative selected impacts the site
A detailed archeological study will be completed after the recommended
alternative is selected
35
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No hazardous waste sites or landfills were identified within the project limits
Nineteen possible sites presently or formerly containing petroleum underground storage
tanks (USTs) were identified within the project limits (see Table 10)
Table 10. Known and Potential GeoEnvitonmental Impact Sites
Property Location
I
F Property Owner
UST Owner
Facility ID #
New Dixie Oil 517
I-95 Exit 176 & NC 46 New Dixie Oil Corp New Dixie Oil Corp 0-022615
Gaston, NC 27832
This former Texaco gas station and convenience store (fdba Sunnyside Market) is located on the southeast
quadrant of the I-95 Exit 176 Bottoms Interstate Shell also operated at this location prior to the Texaco
operation, and a ground water incident was reported in that time period Three USTs are located 80 feet
South of the store and are listed on the UST Section registry No monitoring wells were noted at the site,
and there is no evidence of USTs or UST removal This site will have a low impact to this project
Property Location

Property Owner
E
-I

UST Owner I
F-

L Facility ID #
Former Truck Stop of
America
1-95 Exit 176 & NC 46 Rena Development LLC Rena Development LLC N/A
Gaston, NC 27832
This former truck stop and fueling station site is located on the northeast quadrant of the 1-95 Exit 176 The
store, scales, and fueling area were torn down but the foundation footprints are still visible The pump island
area is 200 feet from the NC 46 median A ground water incident was listed for this operation, but no longer
appears on the DENR Groundwater Incident database This site does not appear on the UST Section
registry No monitoring wells were noted at the site, and there is no other evidence of USTs or UST
removal This site will have a negligible impact to this protect
-1E Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
M C Dunlow Farm
Supply
8026 NC 46 Viola Dunlow Viola Dunlow N/A
Gaston, NC 27832
This former farm supply and Sinclair gas station is located on the south side of NC 46 A pump island is 75
feet from the highway centerline Two ASTs are located on the East side of the building There is no UST
Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no evidence of USTs or UST removal on site This site will have a
low impact to this project.
36
Table 10 Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Imnart SitPC (Cnnr'ch
Property Location F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Vassor's Garysburg Mini
Mart

103 US 301 William T Vassor William T Vassor 0-022407
Garysburg, NC 27831
This active America Gas gas station and convenience store is located on the south side of NC 46 Three
USTs are situated at the northwest corner of the store, and two USTs at the northeast corner All are set back
85 feet from the NC 46 median No monitoring wells were noted at the site, and there is no other evidence
of USTs or UST removal This site will have a low impact to this project
Property Location 1E Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Cuz' Mini Mart
100 US 301 Thorton & Doris Majette New Dixie Oil Corp 0-022398
Garysbur , NC 27831
This active America Gas gas station and convenience store (aka Majettes Grocery) is located on the
nort hwest corner of the US 301 and NC 46 intersection Four (4) USTs are located 100 feet from the NC 46
centerline No monitoring wells were noted at the site, and there is no other evidence of USTs or UST
removal This site will have a low impact to this project
Property Location ] Property Owner ?] F- UST Owner Facility ID #
Former store & gas
station
999 US 158
Jessica Karnbach
Jessica Kambach
N/A
Garysburg, NC 27831
This former gas station & store (aka R O Harris Station) is located on the North corner of the SR 1301
(Cornwallis Road) and US 158 intersection There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no
evidence of USTs or UST removal on site A cursory Schonstedt survey did not pick up any large magnetic
anomalies This site will have a low impact to this project
F Property Location I F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Davis Store Janet Davis c/o Teddie Janet Davis c/o Teddie
1859 US 158
N/A
Boone Boone
Garysbur , NC 27831
This former store and possible gas station is located on the South side of US 158 The store from is 65 feet
from the US 158 median There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no evidence of USTs or
UST removal on site A cursory Schonstedt survey did not pick up any large magnetic anomalies This site
will have a low impact to this project.
37
Table 10: Known and Potential GeoEnviron mental Impact C1tPS Wnnt'ril
Property Location
F Property Owner UST Owner 11 Facihty ID #
Ray's Place
6530 US 158 Joseph & Annie Epps Joseph & Annie Epps N/A
Jackson, NC 27845
This active sore may also be a former gas station The present management could not recount the parcel
history The store front is 75 feet from the US 158 median There is no apparent record of this business on
the UST Section registry No monitory wells were noted at the site, and there is no evidence of USTs or
UST removal This site will have a low impact to this project
Property Location
1

Property Owner -I
17

F7-uST Owner 11 Facility ID #
Former store & gas station
US 158 Oscar & Judy Barnes Oscar & Judy Barnes N/A
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former gas station & store is located on the south side of US 158 in the 7900 block The wood structure
is 50 feet from the lughway median There is no apparent UST Section Facility ID for this business
However, at least two (2) monitoring wells are located in front of the building and 28 feet from the US 158
median The wells were installed in 1997 A cursory Schonstedt survey did not indicate any large magnetic
anoynalies This site will have a low impact to this project
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner I L Facility ID #
Popes garage
8335 US 158 Alton & Margaret Pope Alton & Margaret Pope N/A
Conway, NC 27820
This former garage is located on the north side of US 158 The wood structure is set back 50 feet from the
US 158 centerline Tires, automotive parts, oil filters in water filler drums, and vehicles are located on the
east and north sides of tlus parcel There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no evidence of
USTs or UST removal on site This site will have a low impact to this protect.
Property Location :] Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Taylor's Gas & Grocery
8715 US 158 Joyce Taylor Joyce Taylor 0-029087
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former gas station and convenience store is located on the north side of US 158 The UST registry
shows that four (4) USTs were removed from the property in 1999 A cursory Schonstedt survey did not
locate any large magnetic anomalies The pump island is located 60 feet from the US 158 median No
monitoring wells were noted at this site, and there is no other evidence of USTs or UST removal This site
will have a low impact to this project
38
Table 10: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Rites (C nnt'rll
Property Location Property Owner 1 UST Owner Facihty ID #
Craven Davis Store
8761 US 158 Marion Davis Eastern Fuels, Inc 0-033724
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former gas station and convenience store is located on the North side of US 158, and West of the SR
1505 (NCHS East Road) intersection One (1) UST was removed in 1994 A vent line is still located at the
southeastern corner of the building The storefront and pump island, are set back 52 feet and 50 feet
respectively, from the highway median Although a groundwater incident associated with this site, no
monitoring wells were observed There is no other evidence of USTs or UST removal This site will have a
low impact to this project.

Property Location
Property Owner
-I
UST Owner Facility ID #
F-
Pope's Auto Sales
8775-9 US 158 W N Taylor est W N Taylor est N/A
Seaboard, NC 27876
This active used car lot is located on the North side of US 158, and West of the SR 1505 (NCHS East Road)
intersection There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no evidence of UST's or UST removal
on site This site will have a low impact to this protect
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner

Facility ID #
IF
Faison Old Tavern
8785 US 158 Elmo Fletcher Cordle Elmo Fletcher Cordle N/A
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former tavern is located at the intersection of the US 158 and SR 1505 (NCHS East Road) There is no
apparent record of this business on the UST Section registry No monitoring wells were noted at the site,
there is no evidence of the UST's or UST removal This site will have a low impact to this protect
Property Location
I

Property Owner
E -

UST Owner Facility ID #
Old Tavern Flea Market
8799 US 158 Lafayette Majette Lafayette Majette 0-026625
Seaboard, NC 27876
This former gas station and convenience store is located on the northwest corner of US 158 and SR 1344
(Galatia Church Road) intersection The business has apparently operated under several names, including
Ram 4, Red Apple Market #4, and Red Apple Market #46 Two groundwater incident numbers are
associated with this property The UST section registry indicates that six (6) USTs were removed m March
1993 Two (2) vent lines are still located near the front entrance The storefront and pump island, are set
back 80 feet and 60 feet respectively, from the highway median Although groundwater incidents are
associated with this site, no monitoring wells were observed There is no other evidence of USTs or UST
removal This site will have a low impact to this project.
19
Table 10. Known and Potentm] i..,---+ C_4 tt--qa,-

Property Location
J

Property Owner
L

F UST Owner

Facility ID #
IF
Tractor Trailer Repair
Yard

8979 US 158 Felicia Ramsey-Green ET Eight, Inc N/A
Conway, NC 27820
This active truck repair and junkyard is located on the north side of NC 158 and intersection with Cumbo
Road (private) Several tractor rigs and trailers are scattered over the property The shop building is located
near the rear of the property and oil staining was noted in the soil There is no UST Section Facility ID for
this parcel, and no evidence of USTs or UST removal on site This will have a low impact to this protect
F Property Location F Property Owner UST Owner Facihty ID #
Northeastern Home Care
9181 US 158 James Titus Deloath James Titus Deloath N/A
Conway, NC 27820
This active health care clinic is located on the north side of US 158 A pump island was noted at the front
entrance and 78 feet from the highway median The clinic manager indicated that a gas station operated this
location in the 1970's An earlier survey showed two (2) UST fill ports and vent lines on the west side of the
building in 2002 There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no present evidence of USTs or
UST removal on site This site will have a low impact to this project
Property Location

Property Owner
L_ ?]

UST Owner
F

Facihty ID #
E
Former W F Davis Store
9454 US 158 Jean Davis Watson Eastern Fuels, Inc 0-034221
Conway, NC 27820
This former gas station and convenience store is located on the south side of US 158 The UST registry
shows that three (3) USTs were removed from the property in December 1993 The property owner
confirmed the removal, and former location of the USTs The wood structure, with asbestos siding, is set
back 75 feet from the US 158 median At least three (3) monitoring wells are located adjacent to the west
side of the building, and surrounding the old tank bed There is no other evidence of USTs or UST removal
This site will have low impact to this project
Property Location I L_ Property Owner ?J F7 UST Owner I FFacihty ID #
Davis Farm Supply
10505 US 158 Susan D Pope Susan D Pope N/A
Conway, NC 27820
This active farm supply and pesticide business is located across from the US 158 and SR 1500 (Zion Church
Road) intersection The storeowner indicated that no gas station operated on this location No monitoring
wells were noted at the site, and there is no evidence of USTs or UST removal This site will have a low
impact to this project.
40

T
1 av,C iv i1nuwn anu rutentiai "eor.nvironmentai impact sites (L:ont'd)
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
__ F
Residence (fmr store &
gas station?) George Thurman Majette George Thurman Majette N/A
10793 US 158
Conwav. NC 27820
This residence is located on the north side of US 158 The Building has the appearance of a former store and
is 45 feet from the highway median There is no UST Section Facility ID for this parcel, and no magnetic
anomalies This site will have a low impact to this protect.
LOGICAL TERMINI / INDEPENDENT UTILITY
Federal Highway Authority (FHWA) regulations [23 CFR 771 111(0] outline
three general principals to determine project limits The regulations state
In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid
commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the
action evaluated in each EIS or FONSI shall
• Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental
matters on a broad scope,
• Have independent utility or inter dependent significance, i e , be usable and be
a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation imps ovements
in the area are made, and,
• Not resh ict consideration of alternatives for other i easonably foreseeable
transportation improvements
The project's termim and other elements meet the FHWA's criteria for logical
termini The project would provide additional capacity at the intersection of US 64 and
NC 345 between The Town of Manteo and the Outer Banks
The project is of sufficient length (32 miles) to address environmental matteis on
a broad scope The potential for segmentation was avoided during the planning for this
project by evaluating environmental impacts for the entire length of the proposed project
The project would have independent utility, even if no additional transportation
improvements were made in the area The proposed project would not restnct
consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation
improvements in the area
41
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG Form 4345 and mailing labels This
submittal is in accordance with Step 4 of the guidelines for integrating project review
under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
This letter, along with the previously distributed DEIS, should provide sufficient
information for the issuance of a Public Notice for the project The public hearings are
scheduled for September 22na, 25`h, and 30`h, 2008 If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Matthew Potter at [phone] extension 227
Sincerely,
Analysis
CC Mr Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr David Wainwright, NCDWQ (7 copies)
Mr Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mr Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr Jay Bennett, P E , Roadway Design
Mr Phil Hams, P E, Natural Environment Unit
Mr Ed Lewis, Human Environment Unit
Mr Mated Al-Ghandour, P E, Programming and TIP
Mr Art McMillian, P E, Highway Design
Mr David Chang, P E, Hydraulics
Mr Greg Perfetti, P E , Structure Design
Mr Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr Jerry Jennings, P E, Division 1 Engineer
Mr Clay Willis, DEO Division 1
42
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO 0710-003
(33 CFR 325)
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should
require 5 hours or less This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503 Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction
over the location of the proposed activity
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403 Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344, Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103 Principal Purpose Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Routine
Uses This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies Submission of
requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity An application that is not completed in full will be returned
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE ILLED BY THE CORPS
1 APPLICATION NO 2 FIELD OFFICE CODE 3 DATE RECEIVED 4 DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
ITEMS BELOW TO BE F LLED BYAPPLICAN
5 APPLICANT'S NAME 8 AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
6 APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9 AGENT'S ADDRESS
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
7 APPLICANTS PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE 10 AGENTS PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE
a Residence a Residence
b Business 919-733-3141 b Business
11 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish upon
request supplemental information in support of this permit application
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12 PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
TIP R-2582 &. R-2584 US 158 from the I-95 / NC 46
Interchange West of Garysburg to the Murfreesboro Bypass, I
Northampton County, North Carolina
13 NAME OF WATERBODY IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Arthurs's Creek, Trouble Field Creek, Occoneechee Creek,
Gunberry Swamp Ramsey Creek, Wiccacanee Swamp, Wildcat Swamp
Corduroy Swamp, Kirbys Creek Reedy Branch
15 LOCATION OF PROJECT
Northampton NC
COUNTY STATE
16 OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section Township Range Laut_on and/or Accessors s Parcel Number for example
17 DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Please see attached vicinity map and cover letter
ENG FORM 4345 Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent CECW OR)
The NCDOT proposes to widen US 158 in Northampton County from the I-95/NC 46 Interchange to the Murfreesboro Bvpass (See Draft
EIS) Alternatives under consideration utilize the existing facility with some segments located along neA location The widening will
convert the highway from its current configuration as a two-lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided facility
The proposed facility will have 12-foot lanes, paved shoulders and a 46-foot grass median The total length of the project is approxunateIN
32 miles
The design speed throughout the proposed project is 70 mph The project will have full control of access on new locations sections, and
partial control on all widening sections
Existing US 158 and NC 46 have no control of access through the project corridor, with the exception of the I-95/NC 96 interchange,
which has full control of access
1a hToject Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the protect see instructions)
The purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow level of service (LOS), safety, and access along US 158
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
lu Heason(s) for Discharge
The Improvements will result in roadway fill in wetlands
21 Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Fill from roadway
22 Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Please see Merger Permit Application Letter
23 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No X IF YES DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24 Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners Lessees Etc Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here please attach a supplemental i st)
25 List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning building and flood plain permits
26 Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work descnbed herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant
V O
SI R F APPLICA D 7Es'r SIGNA TURE OF AGENT DATE
The a i ti must be signed by the person whes to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent the tatement in block 11 has been filled out and signed
18 U S C Section 1001 provides that Whoever in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies conceals or covers up any trick scheme or disguises a material fact or makes any false fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry shall
be fined not more than $10 000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both
ENG FORM 4345 Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent CECW OR)