20160787_Environmental Assessment_20090521

NC 12>
Williamston Bypass
From SR 1182 (East College Read) Southwest of Williamston
to NC' 12? northwest ot'Williamston
Martin County
Federal-Aid Project STP-125( 1 1
State Project 8.109[)501
WBS Elcmcnt 345','). 1.1
TIP Project R-3826
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Hiehwavs
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 432(2)(C)
APPROVED:
Date John F. Sullivan 111, PE
f Division Administrator, FHVvA
Z 27
Datcrax4z-Gregory J. Thor-pe. Ph.D.
G.
lo?
>4?
Manager. :'<>'?'y.' `Up ?.f
Project Development and Lrivrrunmental Analysis Branch. NC DO I
NC 125
Williamston Bypass
From SR 1182 (East College Road) southwest of Williamston
to NC 125 northwest of Williamston
Martin County
Federal-Aid Project STP-125(1)
State Project 8.1090501
WBS Element 34553.1.1
TIP Project R-3826
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Ja es A. McInnis Jr., PE
Project Engineer a?r?O ?FE$$IONq 9
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch a? $EAl l
s
_ 20701
A
?/ Zy/a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRO JECT COMMITMENTS ...................................................................................... ........................... i
SUM MARY ................................................................................................................. .......................... ii
I . Type of Action .................................................................................. ........................ ii
2. Description of Action ........................................................................ ........................ ii
3. Summary of Purpose and Need ......................................................... ........................ ii
4. Alternatives Considered .................................................................... ........................ ii
5. Summary of Environmental Effects .................................................. ....................... iii
6. Permits Required ............................................................................... ....................... iv
7. Coordination ..................................................................................... ....................... IV
8. Contact Information .......................................................................... ....................... iv
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................ .......................... 1
A. General Description .......................................................................... ........................ 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ............................................... ........................ I
C. Cost Estimates ................................................................................... ........................ 2
11. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................. .......................... 4
A. Project Purpose ................................................................................. ........................ 4
B. Need for Project ................................................................................ ........................ 4
1. Description of Existing Conditions ................................................... ........................ 4
a. Route Classification ...................................................................... ........................ 4
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility ...................................... ........................ 4
(1) Roadway Typical Section ..................................................... ........................ 4
(2) Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ....................................... ........................ 6
(3) Right of Way and Access Control ......................................... ........................ 6
(4) Speed Limit ........................................................................... ........................ 6
(5) Intersections .......................................................................... ........................6
(6) Railroad Crossings ................................................................. ....................... 6
(7) Structures .....................................................................:........ ........................ 6
(8) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways ....................... ........................ 6
(9) Utilities ................................................................................... .......................6
C. School Bus Data ............................................................................ ........................ 7
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity .............................................................. ....................... 7
(1) Traffic Volumes Without Project ........................................... .......................7
(2) Levels of Service Without Project ......................................... ....................... 7
e.. Accident Data ................................................................................. ....................... 7
f Airports .......................................................................................... ....................... 8
g. Other Highway Projects in the Area .............................................. ....................... 8
' 2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ................................................... ....................... 8
a. Local Thoroughfare Plans .............................................................. ....................... 8
b. Land Use Plans ............................................................................... ....................... 8
C. Benefits of Proposed Project .............................................................. ....................... 9
1. Traffic Volumes With Project ............................................................ ....................... 9
2. Levels of Service With Project .......................................................... ....................... 9
3. Safety ................................................................................................. ....................... 9
111. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED... .................................................. .. . . ... . . .............. a ....... 10
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives .......................................................... ..................... 10
I . Alternate Modes of Transportation .................................................... ..................... 10
2. Transportation Systems Management ................................................ ..................... 10
3. Improve Existing Facilities ................................................................ ..................... 10
4. No-Build Alternative ......................................................................... ..................... 11
5. Preliminary Bypass Alternatives ........................................................ ..................... 1 1
a. Initial Bypass Alternatives ............................................................. ..................... 11
b. Detailed Study Alternatives ........................................................... ..................... 14
B. Current Study Alternatives ................................................................. ..................... 16
1. Alternative 1 ....................................................................................... ..................... 17
2. Alternative 2N .................................................................................... ..................... 18
3. Alternative 4 ....................................................................................... ..................... 18
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................ .......................21
A. Roadway Cross-section and Alignment ............................................. ..................... 21
B. Right of Way and Access Control ...................................................... ..................... 21
C. Speed Limit ........................................................................................ ..................... 21
D. Design Speed ..................................................................................... ..................... 21
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions .......................................................... ..................... 21
F. Intersections/] nterchanges .................................................................. ..................... 21
G. Service Roads ..................................................................................... ..................... 22
' H. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................. ..................... 22
1. Structures ........................................................................................... ..................... 23
J. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways ..................................... ..................... 23
K. Utilities ............................................................................................... .....................23
L. Landscaping ....................................................................................... .....................23
M. Noise Barriers .................................................................................... ..................... 23
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .............................. ....................... 24
A. Natural Resources .............................................................................. ..................... 24
1. Biotic Resources ................................................................................ ..................... 24
a. Terrestrial Communities ................................................................ ..................... 24
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects .................................................... ..................... 29
2. Waters of the United States ................................................................ ..................... 30
a. Streams, Rivers and Impoundments ............................................... ..................... 30
b. Water Quality Monitoring Data ..................................................... ..................... 31
C. Point and Non-point Source Dischargers ....................................... ..................... 32
d. Wetlands ........................................................................................ ..................... 32
e. Summary of Anticipated Effects .................................................... ..................... 34
f. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ...................................... ..................... 36
` g. Anticipated Permit Requirements .................................................. ..................... 37
3. Rare and Protected Species ................................................................ ..................... 37
a. Federally-Protected Species ........................................................... ..................... 37
b. Federal Species of Concern/State Protected Species ..................... ..................... 37
4. Soils ................................................................................................... ..................... 38
B. Cultural Resources ............................................................................. ..................... 39
1. Historic Architectural Resources ....................................................... ..................... 9.
2. Archaeological Resources .................................................................. ..................... 39
C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources ................................................................ ..................... 40
D. Farmland ................................................................................... .............................. 40
E. Social Effects ............................................................................ .............................. 41
1. Neighborhoods/Communities ................................................... ..............................41
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ................................. .............................. 41
3. Minority/Low-Income Populations ........................................... .............................. 42
4. Public Facilities ......................................................................... .............................. 42
F. Economic Effects ...................................................................... .............................. 42
G. Land Use ................................................................................... .............................. 43
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning .................................................. .............................. 43
2. Future Land Use ........................................................................ ............................. 43
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans .................................... .............................. 43
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ............................................... .............................. 43
1. Flood Hazard Evaluation .......................................................... .............................. 44
J. Traffic Noise Analysis .............................................................. .............................. 44
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ............................... .............................. 44
I 2. Noise Abatement Alternatives .................................................. .............................. 45
3. Summary ..................................................................................: ..............................46
K. Air Quality Analysis ................................................................. .............................. 46
1. Project Air Quality Effects ........................................................ .............................. 46
I
2.
Mobile Source Air Toxics .........................................................
.............................. 46
3. Construction Air Quality Effects .............................................. .............................. 47
L. Hazardous Materials ................................................................. .............................. 48
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................................... ................................. 49
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ............................................. .............................. 49
B. Public Hearing .......................................................................... .............................. 49
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process ....................................................... .............................. 49
D. Other Agency Coordination ...................................................... .............................. 50.
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure S-1
Figure 1-1
Figure II-1
Figure III-1
Figure III-2
Figure III-3
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3A
Figure 3B
Figure 3C
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Current Study Alternatives
Portion of 1930 North Carolina Highway Map showing NC 125
NC 125 is routed along a one-way pair in downtown Williamston
Bypass Alternatives Presented at Citizens Informational Workshop
Detailed Study Alternatives
Current Study Alternatives
Project Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph of Project
2009/2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Without Project)
2009/2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
(With Alternatives I and 2N)
2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
(With Alternative 4)
Proposed Typical Sections
Environmental Features in Project Area
Williamston Thoroughfare Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table Sl - Alternative Comparisons ...................................... ....... iii
' Table 1 - Project Cost Estimates ........................................ ........ 3
Table 2 - Accident Rate Comparison ................................... ........ 8
Table 3 - Preliminary Bypass Alternatives ............................. ....... 1 I
Table 4 - Detailed Study Alternatives .................................. ........ 14
Table 5 - Current Study Alternatives .................................... ....... 17
Table 6 - Project Effects on Terrestrial Biotic Communities ........ ........ 29
Table 7 - Streams Within Project Area ................................. ......... 31
Table 8 - Jurisdictional Wetlands Within Project Area ............... ........ 33
Table 9 - Project Effects on Streams .................................... ........ 35
Table 10 - Project Effects on Wetlands .................................. ........ 36
Table 1 I - Federal Species of Concern in Martin County ............. ........ 38
Table 12 - Soils in Project Area ........................................... ........ 39
Table 13 - Project Effects on Farmland .................................. ........ 41
Table 14 - Homes and Businesses to be Relocated ..................... ......... 41
Table 15 - Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative ............ .........44
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comments Received
Appendix B - Relocation Reports
Appendix C - Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms
Appendix D - NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process Concurrence Forms
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 125
Williamston Bypass
From SR 1182 (East College Road) southwest of Williamston
to NC 125 northwest of Williamston
Martin County
Federal Aid Project STP-125(1),
State Project 8.1090501
WBS Element 34553.1.1
TIP Project R-3826
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch-Human Environment Unit
An intensive archaeological survey will be conducted for the project from north of the CSX
rail line to existing NC 125 northwest of Williamston following selection of the preferred
alternative and prior to completion of the final environmental document.
NCDOT Rail Division
Formal approval for the at-grade rail crossing for the proposed bypass will be
obtained from CSX Transportation prior to construction of this project. The Slade Street and
SR 1410 (Cullipher Road) crossings must be closed prior to CSX Transportation granting
formal approval for the proposed at-grade crossing for the bypass.
Environmental Assessment - R-3826 Paae I of 1
April 2009
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Tvpe of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Action
This project involves widening existing NC 125 between SR 1182 (East College
Road) and US 64 Alternate to three lanes and constructing a NC 125 bypass of Williamston
from US 64 Alternate to existing NC 125 northwest of Williamston, mostly on new location.
The proposed project is approximately 2.5 miles long, depending on the alternative chosen.
A two-lane roadway on multi-lane right of way is proposed for portions of the bypass
on new location. Approximately 100 feet of right of way will be required for portions of this
project along existing roadways and 175 feet of right of way will be required for portions on
new location. Partial control of access (one access per parcel for properties with no other
access) will be obtained along sections of the project constructed on new location.
3. Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to reduce truck traffic and improve safety on existing
NC 125 through downtown Williamston.
The proposed project is intended to address the following deficiencies:
Portions of existing NC 125 in Williamston will operate above capacity in the design
year (2030) (see Section II-B-d).
• Truck traffic within Williamston is incompatible with existing residential and
commercial development.
4. Alternatives Considered
Preliminary alternatives investigated for the proposed project included the "No-build"
alternative, alternate modes of transportation, improve existing NC 125, reroute NC 125 onto
existing roads and constructing a bypass of Williamston (see Section III). Of these
preliminary alternatives, only constructing a bypass was studied in detail.
A total of nine bypass alternatives have been studied for the project. Study corridors
450 feet wide were examined for each bypass alternative. Detailed environmental surveys
were performed for six of these alternatives.
Currently, three alternative corridors are under consideration for the project. These
alternatives are presented in Table S1 and Figure S-1 below.
5. Summary of Environmental Effects
Table S1 presents a comparison of the current project alternatives.
TABLE SI
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS
Alternative
1 2N 4
Residential Relocatees 9 11 15
Business Relocatees (Total Employees) 1 (10) 1 (10) 2(22)
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 1.59 3.15 3.28
Streams Affected (Feet) 395 771 0
Open Water Impacts (Acres) 0 0 0
Protected Species Habitat? No No No
Effect Protected Species? No No No
Effect Historic Properties? No No No
Involve Section 4(F)? No No No
Receptors Impacted By Traffic Noise 2 3 8
Forested Areas Affected (Acres) 39.2 34.7 33.6
Farmland Affected (Acres) 45.4 43.6 47.5
Length New Location (Miles) 2.00 1.75 2.08
Total Length (Miles) 2.67 2.62 3.51
Total Cost
Millions)
$15.1
$15.3
$20.1
Impacts computed based on approximate width required for future
four-lane typical section for the project.
Shaded cells in table indicate highest impact or most
unfavorable response.
iii
6. Permits Required
Based on anticipated impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands, the project
will likely require an Individual Section 404 Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Additionally, a North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Individual Section 401
Water Quality Certification will be required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
7. Coordination
The following federal, state and local officials were consulted regarding this project.
Agencies participating on the NEPA/404 merger team for the project (see Section VI-C) are
listed in italics:
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources - DENR
DENR - NC Division of Water Quality
DENR - NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mid-east Rural Planning Organization
Martin County
Town of Williamston
8. Contact Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
John F. Sullivan III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
iv
NC 125
Williamston Bypass
From SR 1182 (East College Road) southwest of Williamston
to NC 125 northwest of Williamston
Martin County
Federal-Aid Project STP-125(1)
State Project 8.1090501
WBS Element 34553. 1.1
TIP Project R-3826
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
This project involves constructing a NC 125 bypass of Williamston, mostly on new
location, from SR 1182 (East College Road) to existing NC 125 northwest of Williamston.
The proposed project is approximately 2.5 miles long.
A three-lane roadway is proposed from SR 1182 to the CSX Transportation rail line
north of US 64 Alternate. A two-lane roadway on multi-lane right of way is proposed for
portions of the bypass north of the rail line. It is anticipated approximately 100 feet of right
of way will be required between SR 1182 and the rail line and 175 feet of right of way will be
required north of the rail line. Partial control of access (one access per parcel for properties
with no other access) will be obtained between US 64 Alternate and existing NC 125
northwest of Williamston.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
NC 125 has been a part of the State Highway System since at least 1930 (see
Figure 1-1 below). The 1995 Town of Williamston Thoroughfare Plan recommended a
NC 125 bypass of Williamston. TIP Project R-3826 was programmed in the 1998-2004
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for a feasibility study. The
feasibility study was completed in February 1998. The project was first funded for right of
way acquisition in the 2000-2006 TIP. Project Development studies for the project began in
2001.
The project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The project is scheduled in the 2009-2015
STIP for right of way acquisition and construction in federal fiscal years 2012 and 2014,
respectively.
C. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate for the project included in the 2009-2015 TIP is $19,698,000. Of
this total, $4,200,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition, $498,000 is estimated for
wetland and stream mitigation and $15,000,000 is estimated for construction. The latest cost
estimates for the three alternatives under consideration for the project are presented below.
Figure I-1 - Portion of 1930 North Carolina Highway Map showing NC 125
TABLE I
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Alt. I Alt. 2N Alt 4
Right of Way Acquisition
(Including Utility Relocation) $3,325,695 $3,707,772 $6,471,720
Construction $11,400,000 $10,800,000 $13,300,000
Wetland/Stream Mitigation $393,000 $816,000- . $318,000
Total $15,118,695 $15,323,772 $20,089,720
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to reduce truck traffic and improve safety on existing
NC 125 through downtown Williamston. _
B. Need for Proiect
Description of Existing Conditions
The Town of Williamston is served by US 13 and US 64, which run east-west and
US 17 and NC 125, which run north-south.
NC 125 extends from just south of US 13-64 in Martin County to NC 48 in Roanoke
Rapids. In the project area, NC 125 passes through the Town of Williamston. In downtown
Williamston, NC 125 is routed along a one-way pair. Traffic following southbound NC 125
has to make two ninety degree turns, a right followed by a left, to travel through downtown
Williamston (see Figure II-1 below). The right turn can be difficult for trucks to make.
a. Route Classification
NC 125 is classified as a rural major collector outside of Williamston and an urban
collector inside Williamston in the North Carolina Functional Classification System.
Existing NC 125 through Williamston is classified as a Major Thoroughfare on the
1995 Williamston Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 6).
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility
(1) Roadway Typical Section
NC 125 south of the proposed project, from just south of US 13-64 to SR 1182, is a
three-lane roadway, with one through lane in each direction and a center turn lane. From
SR 1182 to US 64 Alternate, NC 125 is a two-lane road, with 10-foot lanes and six-foot
grassed shoulders. NC 125 runs concurrently with US 64 Alternate to US 17 Business.
Portions of US 64A-NC 125 are four lanes with a median.
North of US 17 Business, NC 125 runs concurrently with US 17 Business and is
routed along Washington Street, which is a four-lane undivided roadway with curb and
gutter. North of Elm Street, Washington Street becomes one-way, with two northbound
lanes. One block north of Elm Street, Washington Street becomes Haughton Street and
continues as a two-lane one-way street to Main Street. North of Main Street, Haughton Street
is a three-lane roadway with two-way traffic and carries both northbound and southbound
NC 125. Haughton Street is three lanes to Mulberry Street. North of Mulberry Street,
NC 125 is two lanes.
Southbound NC 125 traffic on Haughton Street must make a right turn onto Main
Street, which is a three-lane roadway carrying two-way traffic. Southbound traffic must then
make a left turn at a signal onto Elm Street, which is a two-lane roadway carrying one-way
traffic. Southbound traffic must then make a right turn onto Washington Street, which carries
both northbound and southbound NC 125 traffic.
Figure 11-1 - NC 125 is routed along a one-way pair in downtown Williamston
Northwest of Williamston, NC 125 is a two-lane roadway with 11-foot lanes and
8-foot grassed shoulders.
(2) Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal and vertical alignment of existing NC 125 in the project area is generally
acceptable.
(3) Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way on existing NC 125 in the project area varies from 60 feet
through Williamston to 100 feet north of Williamston. No control of access exists along
NC 125 in the project area.
(4) Speed Limit
The existing posted speed limit on NC 125 outside the Williamston town limits is 55
MPH. The speed limit within Williamston varies between 25 MPH to 45 MPH.
(5) Intersections
All intersections along existing NC 125 are at-grade. Seven of the intersections along
existing NC 125 in the project area are signalized. The remaining intersections are stop sign
controlled.
(6) Railroad Crossings
One railroad crossing exists along NC 125 in the project area. Southbound NC 125
(Elm Street) crosses a rail line owned by CSX Transportation in downtown Williamston.
This track is a spur line, used only once or twice a month.
(7) Structures
No major structures exist along NC 125 within the project study area. All existing
hydraulic structures along NC 125 are less than 72 inches in diameter.
(8) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
There are no existing sidewalks or special bicycle provisions along NC 125 outside of
Williamston. Sidewalks do exist along portions of NC 125 within Williamston. No special
bicycle provisions occur along any of the roads within the project limits.
(9) Utilities
Underground telephone lines run along both sides of existing NC 125 at various
locations in the project area. Water and sewer lines are also present along the existing road.
Aboveground power, telephone and television cables run along the existing road, as well.
c. School Bus Data
Six school buses travel existing NC 125 in the project area twice daily.
d. Traffic Carryina Capacity
(1) Traffic Volumes Without Project
Current (2008) traffic volumes along existing NC 125 in the project area vary from
9,000 to 17,700 vehicles per day (see Figure 3A). In the year 2030, without the proposed
project, it is expected that traffic volumes along existing NC 125 in the project area will
range from 16,100 to 24,300 vehicles per day (see Figure 3A).
Currently, approximately 480 to 530 trucks a day travel along existing NC 125 within
downtown Williamston. By the.year 2030, it is expected that 728 to 850 trucks a day will
travel along existing NC 125 within downtown.
(2) Levels of Service Without Project
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terms of level
of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of a facility
to carry traffic and how individual users perceive traffic conditions. It is based on factors of
speed, travel time, comfort, maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and safety. Levels
of Service range from "A" to "F", with "A" representing free flow (ideal conditions), and "F"
representing forced or breakdown flow (undesirable condition).
A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity when it is just able
to accommodate the traffic demand. Once the traffic demand exceeds the facility's capacity
(LOS E), excessive delays occur.
Portions of existing NC 125 within Williamston will operate at levels of service E or
F in the year 2030.
e. Accident Data
Accident rates for NC 125 were obtained for the time period between April 1, 2005
and March 31, 2008. Table 2 below compares the accident rates for NC 125 with the
2005-2007 statewide accident rates for two-lane NC routes and the critical rate.
TABLE 2
ACCIDENT RATE COMPARISON
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
ACC/IOOMVM ACC/100MVM
NC 125 4/05 to3/08 123.85 0.00
2005-2007 Statewide
Average Two-Lane 175.41 2.14
NC Routes
Critical Rate* 207.74 6.63
ACC/100MVM - Accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
* The critical rate is a statistically derived number that can be used to identify
high accident roadway segments.
During the study period, 60 accidents occurred along NC 125 in the project
area. None of these accidents involved fatalities. Thirty eight people were injured in
accidents during the study period and $214,635 in property damage occurred. The most
common types of accidents were frontal impact crashes (33%), lane departure crashes (25%)
rear end collisions (23%) and accidents involving animals (13%).
f. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities exist in the vicinity of the project.
g. Other Highway Projects in the Area
There are several bridge projects within Martin County and TIP Project R-2511
involves widening existing US 17 south of Williamston, but there are no highway projects in
the vicinity of Williamston other than the proposed NC 125 Bypass.
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans
a. Local Thoroughfare Plans
The proposed NC 125 bypass is shown on the 1995 Williamston Thoroughfare Plan
(see Figure 6).
b. Land Use Plans
Williamston's policies on future development, land use, and growth can be found in
the town's Vision 2020 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The town's goal regarding economic and
industrial development is to encourage local expansion of existing industry and the location
of new industry to broaden the tax base and increase employment opportunities.
The project study area is primarily zoned for residential and agricultural purposes.
There are pockets of manufacturing along McCaskey Road and the railroad and commercially
zoned areas along US 64A. Other zoning classifications in the study area include office and
institutional (Martin Community College).
A portion of the study area is outside of the town's planning jurisdiction. Martin
County has no zoning ordinance or land use plan.
C. Benefits of Proposed Proiect
1. Traffic Volumes With Proiect
Projected traffic volumes for the years 2008 and 2030 along existing NC 125 with
construction of the various bypass alternatives are presented on Figures 4B and 4C. As these
figures show, all of the bypass alternatives under consideration will reduce traffic along
existing NC 125. With construction of the proposed bypass, truck traffic along existing
NC 125 within downtown Williamston will be reduced by approximately 20 percent.
2. Levels of Service With Proiect
Even with construction of the proposed bypass, several intersections along the
existing roadway within Williamston will operate at level of service E or F in the year 2030.
However, total delay at these intersections will be reduced by as much as forty percent, in
some cases. These intersections are along portions of existing NC 125 which also carry other
routes, such as US 64A and US 17 Business.
It is anticipated the proposed two-lane NC 125 Bypass will operate at level of service
C in 2008 and level of service D in 2030. The proposed signalized intersection of the bypass
with SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) with Alternatives 1 and 2N will operate at level of service E
in 2030. All other signalized intersections along the proposed bypass will operate at level of
service D in 2030 with any of the bypass alternatives.
3. Safe
The proposed bypass may potentially reduce certain types of crashes, such as rear end
collisions and frontal impact crashes by providing a less congested, more free flowing
alternative to the current facility. The reduced traffic volumes on the existing facility will
reduce congestion and may reduce the incidence of certain types of crashes. The wider lanes
and shoulders of the proposed bypass will reduce the likelihood of lane departure crashes.
111. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
1. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Martin County Transit (MCT) provides transportation services to the residents of
Martin County. Riders can schedule transportation 48 hours in advance to any location
within the county. The MCT operates approximately 12 vans and buses. Greyhound Lines
provides intercity bus service to Williamston.
Additional transit services would not address the project's purpose of reducing truck
traffic along existing NC 125 in downtown Williamston.
2. Transportation Systems Management
Transportation systems management activities, such as intersection improvements,
signing or traffic signalization improvements would. potentially improve safety along
existing NC 125. However, such improvements would not meet the project purpose of
reducing truck traffic on existing NC. 125 through Williamston.
3. Improve Existing Facilities
Several alternatives for improving existing facilities were examined.
Widen Existing NC 125
Widening existing NC 125 through downtown Williamston would reduce congestion
and improve turning movements for trucks, but would not reduce the amount of truck traffic
within downtown. This alternative was dismissed because it would not meet the intended
purpose of the project and would affect a large number of businesses and residential
properties.
One-Way Pair Extension
Extending the existing one way portion of NC 125 northward from Elm street to
Grace street was examined and dismissed as an alternative. This alternative would not
reduce the amount of trucks in downtown Williamston.
Reroute NC 125
Rerouting NC 125 onto SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) or onto US 17 Bypass between
Washington Street and Sycamore Street (US 64) were examined and dismissed as
alternatives. It is unlikely that rerouting NC 125 would reduce truck traffic through
downtown Williamston.
10
4. No-Build Alternative
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts anticipated to occur as a
result of the proposed project, but would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
5. Preliminary Bypass Alternatives
a. Initial Bypass Alternatives
Constructing a NC 125 Bypass of Williamston on new location will serve the purpose
and need of the project. A bypass would reduce truck traffic and improve safety within
Williamston. A two-lane roadway on multi-lane right of way for all the bypass alternatives is
proposed with partial control of access.
Six bypass alternatives were presented to the public at a citizens informational
workshop held in Williamston on January 9, 2003. Following the workshop, a seventh
alternative was suggested by the public. Table 3 presents a comparison of these alternatives.
These preliminary alternatives are shown on Figure III-1.
TABLE 3
PRELIMINARY BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
1 2N 2S 4 ,_5 ..• -; `6-
Residential Relocatees 2 3 2 9 `. 6 5 '3":
Business Relocatees 2 3 2 31,p 3 1. '2',
Wetlands Affected (Acres) (NWI) 0 0 0 01_ 0 0 0
Streams Affected (Feet) 661 791 788 471, 1,021 1;010, 922:.
Wooded Areas Affected (Acres)* 15.6 17 25.9 &37 7.7 10 5 5 '2I:1'
Length New Location (Miles) ] 5 1.8 2.2-
- :26
Total Length (Miles) ! L L 4___ 3.1 11
. '2 .
, '3:4 ,
*Early in project study, wooded areas were presented as indicators of potential wetland
impacts because National Wetland Inventory data indicated no wetland impacts for any of
the preliminary alternatives.
Impacts computed based on approximate width required for future four-lane typical section
for the project.
Shaded cells in table indicate alternatives dropped from consideration following the citizens
informational workshop.
•
d ? \ NC lt5
110 ALT. 3 Al
ALT.4
' ALT. 2N
w 4 \ •
o I
W V • /•?
0 1 • •
Y ? •
o ALT.1 J •

\ Op
\ ?4 •
ALT.6
1 0
•
\ O
\ O
um uocnT no. \
'ge
•
® ALTERNATIVES DROPPED FROM CONSIDERATION
AFTER CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
iiiiiiiii ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL
1e 1000 x000 1
FEET
Figure 111-1 Bypass Alternatives Presented at Citizens Informational Workshop
Following the informational workshop, the NEPA/404 merger team agreed to drop
three of the preliminary bypass alternatives and suggested two additional alternatives. The
preliminary alternatives dropped from consideration are described below.

•
• 1
' • ALT .2S \
•
•
L.....•••__ \ • VALLIAMSTON
U9O~ 1.
1
?•T
12
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would follow the alignment of existing NC 125 between SR 1182 (East
College Road) to US 64A. North of US 64A, Alternative 3 would follow the alignment of
the existing industrial park access road to the CSX rail line. North of the railroad tracks,
Alternative 3 would extend northward and then northwesterly on new location, tying into
SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) near Corey Drive. Alternative 3 would then follow the alignment
of SR 1420 from near Corey Drive to approximately 1,300 feet east of SR 1423 (Bonnie Best
Road). Alternative 3 would then continue on new location to the northwest, ending at
existing NC 125 approximately 1,500 feet west of SR 1420 (Hopkins Road)..
Alternative 3 was dropped from consideration because it would relocate the most
homes of any of the alternatives. A variation of Alternative 3, Alternative 3A, was developed
following the citizens informational workshop and studied in detail. Alternative 3A is
described in Section III-A-5-b.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 3 from SR 1182 (East
College Road) to SR 1420 (McCaskey Road). Alternative 5 would follow the alignment of
SR 1420 from near Corey Drive to Landfill Road. Alternative 5 would then extend on new
location northward, ending at existing NC 125 approximately 1,700 feet east of SR 1421
(View Nicholson Road).
Altemative 5 was dropped from consideration because it would affect the Martin
County Construction Debris Landfill. This construction debris landfill is located on the site
of the closed Martin County Landfill (see Section V-L).
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 would follow the alignment of existing NC 125 from SR 1182 (East
College Road) to US 64A. North of US 64A, Altemative 6 would extend on new location in
a north-northwesterly direction, crossing the CSX rail line west of the industrial access road.
Approximately 2,200 feet north of the railroad tracks, Alternative 6 would curve to the
northwest and parallel SR 1420 (McCaskey Road). Alternative 6 would then curve to the
north, crossing SR 1420 approximately 3,800 feet east of SR 1423 (Bonnie Best Road).
North of SR 1420, Alternative 6 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 4, ending at
existing NC 125 near SR 1421 (View Nicholson Road).
Alternative 6 was suggested by citizens at a small group meeting held following the
citizens informational workshop for the project (see Section VI-A).
Alternative 6 was dropped from consideration because it would involve the most
construction on new location and was expected to have the second highest wetland impacts
(based on wooded area impacts).
13
b. Detailed Study Alternatives
Six alternatives were selected by the NEPA/404 merger team for detailed study.
Table 4.presents the alternatives studied in detail. These alternatives are shown on
Figure III-2.
TABLE 4
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
I 2N 2S w2M , 3A > 4

Residential Relocatees 5 7 6 6; 20,5 14

Business Relocatees 1 1 1 a1} I> 2

Wetlands Affected (Acres)
1.3
3.0
40
4:1
34
2.6
Delineated $. , r
Streams Affected (Feet) 541 657 793 583 i 9I3=`: 195

Open Water Impacts (Acres) 0 0 ws0 0 OF , 0

Protected Species Habitat? No No : No 'HNo No'' No

Effect Protected Species? No No ; Not' ; No No? No

Effect Historic Properties? No No : Nok No'r Nod No

Involve Section 4(F)? No No No'. No 1 No`' No

Farmland Affected (Acres) 45.4 43.6 X39 5 42A; l48 5 47.5

Length New Location (Miles) 2.0 1.8 , 2 4' ??23 344 2.1

Total Length (Miles) 2.7 2.6 , 2 5 25 1:1.9 s; 3.5

Impacts computed based on approximate width required for future
four-lane typical section for the project.
Shaded cells in table indicate alternatives dropped from consideration
following detailed environmental surveys.
14

o
0
0
0
00 ALT. 1A ¦

1 , NC 125
ALT.4 ?
ALT. 2N '? __
? pp

' p • ALT. 2M
ALT.1 J © /
7 ? 1
:1s1. M LALE.2E?
?? 0
csxN+;`; : •: ••
® ALTERNATIVES DROPPED FROM CONSIDERATION
FOLLOWING DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS
ALTERNATIVES STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION
\ WILLIAMSTON
1 \
o ,ooo xooo \
FEEL
Figure 111-2 Detailed Study Alternatives
Following detailed environmental studies, the NEPA/404 merger team agreed to drop
Alternatives 2S, 2M and 3A from further consideration. These alternatives are described
below.
Alternative 2S
Alternative 2S would follow the alignment of existing NC 125 between SR 1182
(East College Road) to US 64A. North of US 64A, Alternative 2S would follow the
15
alignment of the existing industrial park access road to the CSX rail line. North of the
railroad tracks, Alternative 2S would extend northward and then northeasterly on new
location, crossing SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) approximately 2,000 feet north of the
McCaskey Road railroad crossing. North of McCaskey Road, the alternative continues to the
northeast, tying into existing NC 125 approximately 2,000 feet northwest of Skewakee Gut.
Alternative 2S was dropped from further consideration because of its relatively high
wetland and stream impacts.
Alternative 2M
Alternative 2M would follow the same alignment as Alternative 2S between SR 1182
and SR 1420. North of SR 1420, Alternative 2M runs west of Alternative 2S, tying into
existing NC 125 approximately 2,500 feet northwest of Skewakee Gut.
Alternative 2M was dropped from further consideration because it has the highest
wetland impacts of any of the detailed study alternatives.
Alternative 3A
Alternative 3A would follow the alignment of existing NC 125 between SR 1182
(East College Road) to US 64A. North of US 64A, Alternative 3A would follow the
alignment of the existing industrial park access road to the CSX rail line. North of the
railroad tracks, Alternative 3A would extend northward and then northwesterly on new
location, tying into SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) near Corey Drive. Alternative 3 would then
follow the alignment of SR 1420 from near Corey Drive to approximately 1,300 feet east of
SR 1423 (Bonnie Best Road). Alternative 3A would then continue on new location to the
northwest, tying into existing NC 125 approximately 2,000 feet west of SR 1420 (Hopkins
Road). .
Alternative 3A was dropped from consideration because it would relocate the most
homes of any of the detailed study alternatives.
B. Current Study Alternatives
The three alternatives currently under consideration for the project are discussed
below. These three alternatives will be presented at a public hearing for citizen comment. A
preferred corridor will be selected following the public hearing. Table 5 presents a
comparison of the three alternatives and the alternatives are described individually below.
These alternatives are shown on Figure III-3 and Figure 2.
16
TABLE 5
CURRENT STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
1 2N 4
Residential Relocatees 9 11 -:.15.1''
Business Relocatees (Total Employees) 1(10) 1(10) 2"(22)
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 1.59 3.15 :3.28,
Streams Affected (Feet) 395 '771 0
Open Water Impacts (Acres) 0 0 0
Protected Species Habitat? No No No
Effect Protected Species? No No No
Effect Historic Properties? No No No
Involve Section 4(F)? No' No No
Receptors Impacted By Traffic Noise 2 3
Forested Areas Affected (Acres) '39.-2-7' 34.7 33.6
Farmland Affected (Acres) 45.4 43.6 47.5
Length New Location (Miles) 2.00 1.75 2.08
Total Length (Miles) 2.67 2.62 3.51
Total Cost
(Millions) $15.1
I $15.3
Impacts computed based on approximate width required for future four-lane
typical section for the project.
Shaded cells in table indicate highest impact or most unfavorable response.
1. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would follow the alignment of existing NC 125 between SR 1182 (East
College Road) to US 64A. North of US 64A, Alternative 1 would follow the alignment of
the existing industrial park access road to the CSX rail line. North of the railroad tracks,
Alternative 1 would extend northward and then northeasterly on new location, crossing
SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) approximately 1,300 feet east of Corey Drive. Alternative 1
would then continue in a northeasterly direction, tying into existing NC 125 approximately
2,500 feet northwest of Skewakee Gut.
17
2. Alternative 2N
Alternative 2N would follow the alignment of existing NC 125 between SR 1182
(East College Road) to US 64A. North of US 64A, Alternative 2N would follow the
alignment of the existing industrial park access road to the CSX rail line. North of the
railroad tracks, Alternative 2N would extend northeasterly on new location, crossing SR 1420
(McCaskey Road) approximately 2,300 feet east of Corey Drive. Alternative 2N would then
continue in a north and northeasterly direction, tying into existing NC 125 approximately
2,500 feet northwest of Skewakee Gut.
3. Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would follow the alignment of existing NC 125 between SR 1182 (East
College Road) to US 64A. North of US 64A, Alternative 4 would follow the alignment of
the existing industrial park access road to the CSX rail line. North of the railroad tracks,
Alternative 4 would extend northward and then northwesterly on new location, tying into
SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) near Corey Drive. Alternative 4 would then follow the alignment
of SR 1420 from near Corey Drive to approximately 1,300 feet west of SR 1441 (Landfill
Road). Alternative 4 would then continue on new location to the north-northwest, tying into
existing NC 125 near SR 1421 (View Nichols Road).
18
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-section and Alignment
A three-lane typical section (two through lanes and a center turn lane) is proposed
from SR 1182 (East College Road) to the CSX rail line. North of the railroad, a two-lane
typical section is proposed. Twelve-foot lanes and eight-foot grassed shoulders (four-foot
paved) will be provided. Proposed typical sections are shown on Figure 4. Sufficient right of
way is being acquired for a future four-lane roadway with a 23-foot median.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
Approximately 100 feet of right of way will be required for portions of this project
along existing roadways and 150 feet of right of way will be required for portions on new
location. Partial control of access (one access per parcel for properties with no other access)
will be obtained along sections of the project constructed on new location.
C. Speed Limit
Portions of the proposed bypass between SR 1182 and the CSX rail line will likely be
signed 45 MPH. Portions of the bypass north of the rail line will likely be signed 55 MPH.
The actual speed limit(s) for the project will be determined during final design.
D. Design Speed
A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for the project. This is consistent with the
anticipated 55 MPH speed limit for portions of the project north of the railroad.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for the project.
F. Intersections/Interchanges
All intersections with the proposed bypass will be at-grade. No interchanges or grade
separations are proposed for the project.
A traffic signal is proposed for the intersection of the proposed bypass with US 64A.
All other intersections will be stop sign-controlled.
21
G. Service Roads
It is not expected service roads will be required for the project. Partial control of
access will be obtained along the project from the CSX rail line to existing NC 125 northwest
of Williamston. One access point will be provided onto the proposed bypass for properties
with no other access.
H. Railroad Crossings
The proposed NC 125 bypass will cross tracks owned by CSX Transportation. This
rail line connects Rocky Mount with Plymouth. Two trains per day use this rail line at a
maximum speed of 40 mph. The exposure index for railroad crossings is the product of the
number of trains per day and the projected average daily traffic in the design year. The
exposure index for this crossing in the year 2030 will be 15,600 with Alternative 4 and
27,600 with Alternatives 1 or 2N. An at-grade crossing, with signals and four quadrant gates
will be constructed for the bypass.
Grade separations are considered in rural areas when the exposure index is 15.000 or
more and in urban areas when the exposure index is 30,000 or more. A grade separation was
considered for this rail crossing, but was dropped from consideration due to the effect a grade
separation would have on the Roberson Business Park and cost. The Roberson Business Park
is a town-owned industrial park adjacent to the railroad.
The proposed bypass will be constructed through the center of the industrial park
along an existing access road. A 100-foot right of way has been reserved for the bypass. A
grade separation would eliminate access to several parcels within the park and require right of
way outside of the reserved area. A grade separation would also cost approximately 2.8
million dollars more than the proposed at-grade crossing with four-quadrant gates.
CSX Transportation requires three existing at-grade rail crossings be closed for every
new at-grade rail crossing proposed. The NCDOT Rail Division recently conducted a rail
corridor study for the Williamston area to identify at-grade rail crossings with potential safety
issues which could be closed or which require improvements. The study recommended two
existing crossings be closed. The two existing crossings recommended for closure and a
previously closed crossing will count towards the three closures required by CSX.
One of the crossings to be closed is on Slade Street, a Town street. The other
crossing is on SR 1410 (Cullipher Road), a state-maintained road west of Williamston off of
US 64A. Both the Town of Williamston and NCDOT have held public hearings regarding
the proposed closings. The Town Council has approved closing the Slade Street crossing and
the NCDOT Board of Transportation has approved closing the SR 1410 crossing.
The actual closing of these crossings and implementation of the other
recommendations of the rail corridor study will take place as a Rail Division project. Formal
22
approval for the at-grade rail crossing for the proposed bypass will be obtained from CSX
Transportation prior to construction of this project.
1. Structures
No bridge structures are proposed to be constructed as a part of the project. Only one
hydraulic structure over 72 inches is proposed. A one barrel, 10-foot by 5-foot reinforced
concrete box culvert will carry unnamed tributary 10 under Alternative 4. Alternatives I and
2N do not cross this stream.
I Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
No special pedestrian or bicycle accommodations are proposed to be constructed as
part of this project. None of the alternatives being considered for the project will affect an
existing or planned greenway.
K. Utilities
The project is expected to have a medium to low level of utility impacts. Utilities
along the project will be relocated prior to construction. Care will be taken to prevent
damage to water lines and fiber, optic cables in the area.
L. Landscaping
No special landscaping is proposed as a part of the project. Disturbed areas along the
project will be reseeded with grass.
M. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed along the project (see Section V-I-3).
l3
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. In
addition to site-specific evidence of fauna, representative animal species likely to occur in
these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also described.
a. Terrestrial Communities
There are 12 distinct terrestrial communities located in the study area. Due to the
disturbed nature of much of this area, the terrestrial communities only correspond to the
classifications described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) in two areas.
Disturbed Urban and Residential Areas
These areas are located throughout the study area and do not approximate any natural
community due to previous disturbance. Common canopy species present include white oak,
loblolly pine, willow oak and sweetgum. Understories are generally absent and herb layers
consist of typical lawn grasses.
Agricultural Areas
Much of the study area is maintained as agricultural fields and pastures. Crops
include cotton, tobacco, peanuts, corn and soybeans. Many of these areas are bordered by
hedgerows or wooded strips. These agricultural areas provide some foraging habitat and
shelter for small mammals and various species of birds, but are not likely to provide
significant permanent habitat.
Loblolly Pine Plantations
An area of loblolly pine plantation is present south of US 64 Alternate within the
study area. This area lacks shrub and herb layers. Wildlife habitat is limited in this
community due to the lack of diversity of the vegetation and periodic disturbance. Few food
sources are available for wildlife. This area could be used as temporary shelter for wildlife or
possible nesting areas for birds.
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest
Mixed pine and hardwood forests are present throughout the study area. These areas
are disturbed from previous and current silviculture activities. Here, the canopy is dominated
24
by loblolly pine; but sweetgum, oak, tulip poplar and red maple are also present. American
beech is present along the side slopes that grade down to the wetland areas. The subcanopy
contains black gum, sweetgum, sourwood, American holly, flowering dogwood and, tulip
poplar. The shrub layer is fairly open, with horse sugar, Hercules club, beautyberry, possum-
haw and blueberry. The herb layer is sparse, with heartleaf and partridgeberry present. A
diverse vine layer was observed, with Virginia creeper, poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle,
pepper-vine and muscadine.
The uplands adjacent to headwater wetlands and agricultural fields have similar
species composition and can be characterized as mixed pine and hardwood forest, although
these areas exhibit more evidence of disturbance.
These forested areas provide adequate habitat for various species of wildlife including
opossum, woodchuck, eastern mole, red bat, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, pine vole and
white-tailed deer, among others. Birds noted within these communities include wood thrush,
eastern bluebird, cardinal and warbler.
Mixed Hardwood Forest
This area is similar to the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, but previous disturbance
has influenced the species composition. Tulip poplar, sycamore and American beech
comprise the canopy. Umbrella magnolia, sourwood and American holly make up the
subcanopy. Shrubs present include spicebush, beautyberry, Chinese privet and Hercules club.
The herb layer is dominated by Japanese grass with broad beech fern also present.
Muscadine vine dominates the vine layer. Wildlife species within this community would
likely be similar to those of the mixed pine and hardwood forest. While this forested corridor
is narrow, it does provide wildlife habitat connection to other, larger areas of forest.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
This upland community is south of NC 125 and east of Bonney Best Road. The
canopy consists of tulip poplar, American beech, white oak, black oak and sweetgum. The
subcanopy is dominated by American holly and ironwood with umbrella magnolia, flowering
dogwood, red mulberry and young hardwood canopy species also present. Shrubs present
include horse sugar, dwarf pawpaw and beautyberry. Herbs found include cranefly orchid
trillium, black cohosh and partridgeberry. In addition, Christmas fern and ebony spleenworts
are present. A diverse vine layer was also identified. Wildlife species within this community
would likely be similar to those of the mixed pine and hardwood forest.
Disturbed Scrub-Shrub Areas
North of the railroad right of way and west of McCaskey Road, a recently disturbed
area of scrub-shrub vegetation is present. This successional community is the result of past
silviculture activities and includes both upland and wetland areas. A very dense growth of
young loblolly pines and hardwoods, shrubs and herbs includes red maple, sweetgum, horse
sugar, giant cane, dog-fennel, winged sumac, pokeweed, greenbrier and netted chain fem.
25
The area exhibits three distinct successional stages. The northeast edge of the wetland area is
defined by a small pond and ditch, which have drained the area to the north. The upland
areas to the west and north have similar vegetation and can be differentiated from the
wetlands primarily by soils.
This dense scrub-shrub vegetation provides important cover for wildlife. As the area
matures and succession occurs, additional food sources will be present. Wildlife encountered
in this community may include opossum, southern short-tailed shrew, star-nosed mole,
eastern cottontail, eastern harvest mouse, white-footed mouse, cotton mouse, house mouse,
long-tailed weasel and white-tailed deer.
Disturbed Forested Wetland and Surrounding Area
This small wetland area is located just north of NC 125 in the northeast portion of the
study area along an abandoned roadway. It was likely formed from the roadside ditch after
the roadway was abandoned. Agricultural and residential areas surround the area. Small
trees comprise the canopy. These include water oak, loblolly pine, tulip poplar, post oak, red
maple, sweetgum and wild cherry. The subcanopy contains flowering dogwood, black gum,
tag alder, American elm and sassafras. Giant cane, Chinese privet, blueberry, multiflora rose
and possum-haw comprise the shrub layer. Herbs present are primarily fems, with royal fern,
cinnamon fern and ebony spleenworts. This disturbed area also exhibits a diverse vine layer.
Wetland characteristics include saturated, chroma 1 soils and red maples with multiple
trunks. Drainage patterns are also evident.
Due to its extremely small size and isolation from other habitats, no significant
wildlife population is expected to inhabit this area. Birds may forage and find shelter here,
but because agricultural areas surround this wetland, it is not likely to provide permanent
habitat.
Floodplain Forest Wetlands
These wetlands are generally located in small depressions within the upland
floodplains of the larger perennial streams, such as Skewakee Gut. Wetlands of this type
within the study area are dominated by a canopy of white oak, box elder, loblolly pine,
willow oak, sweetgum, black willow, red maple, sycamore and American elm. The
subcanopy also includes mimosa, river birch and ironwood. Within most of these areas, the
shrub and herb layers are very diverse. However, some areas are semi-permanently to
permanently inundated, and have little to no shrub and herb layers. Common species include
Chinese privet, witch hazel and tag alder. The herb layer consists of netted chain fern,
southern lady fern, lizard tail, Japanese grass, ragweed and goldenrod. Vines present include
those typical of the study area, including kudzu and wisteria. Characteristics of these
wetlands include saturated soils, water-stained leaves, and low chroma soils. In areas where
soils are not saturated to the surface, mottling is present.
An eastern box turtle was observed in this area. Other wildlife expected to inhabit
these wetlands include southeastern shrew, marsh rabbit, gray squirrel. beaver, cotton mouse,
26
gray fox, raccoon and white-tailed deer. Wildlife from surrounding upland forest habitats
may also use these areas.
Headwater Forest Wetlands
These wetlands are present throughout the study area along intermittent and small
perennial streams. The largest area is between NC 125 and McCaskey Road within the
Skewakee Gut watershed. Canopy species include sycamore, green ash, river birch,
sweetgum and red maple. Smaller individuals of these species form a subcanopy. A diverse
shrub layer is present throughout much of these wetlands and includes sweet-pepperbush,
southern wild raisin, giant cane, Hercules club, Chinese privet, elderberry and spicebush.
The most common herb species include netted chain fern, Japanese grass, false nettle and
lizard tail. Other fern species are often present, including Christmas fern, southern lady fern,
cinnamon fern, New York fern, resurrection fern, sensitive fern and ebony spleenworts.
These wetlands exhibit saturated soils, water-stained leaves, drift lines, and low chroma soils.
In areas where soils are not saturated to the surface, mottling is present.
A ribbon snake was observed in this community. Mammalian species anticipated in
this community would be similar to those of the floodplain forest wetlands.
Riparian Hardwood Forested Wetlands
This wetland community occurs adjacent to the larger perennial streams within the
study area. The community is generally found in the floodplains of the perennial streams
where the convergence of several streams, along with ground water, provide prolonged
inundation. Common canopy species include red maple, sycamore, green ash and black
willow. The subcanopy also includes sweetbay, American holly, tag alder and red maple.
The diverse shrub layer is similar to that found in the headwater wetland areas previously
described. The herb layer is dominated by netted chain fern, Japanese grass, lizard tail and
orange jewelweed. Other herbs and vines include cinnamon fern, southern lady fern, New
York fern, and jack-in-the-pulpit. As with other communities, a diverse vine layer is present.
Wildlife species inhabiting this community may include the species listed for the
aforementioned wetland areas, as well as the southern flying squirrel.
Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
Located just south of NC 125 in the northwestern comer of the study area, this
distinct community is dominated by bald cypress. Water tupelo, red maple and umbrella
magnolia are also present. The shrub layer is absent. The herb layer is thin, with lizard tail,
jack-in-the-pulpit, netted chain fern and southern lady fern present. Carolina supplejack and
climbing hydrangea comprise the vine layer. Wildlife species in this community are similar
to the bottomland hardwood forests, but increased likelihood of beaver, raccoon and marsh
rabbit may occur due to the prolonged inundation in the area. A hairy, woodpecker was
observed foraging in this swamp. Because of the prolonged inundation of the area. limited
food sources may be available for wildlife.
27
Aquatic Communities
There are four primary aquatic resources within the study area: Skewakee Gut and
three perennial tributaries to Skewakee Gut, Mill Branch and Beaverdam Creek. There are
also several intermittent and small perennial streams within the study area that discharge to
these streams, but are not described separately because they lack significant aquatic
communities. These streams are shown on Figure 5.
Skewakee Gut
Macroinvertebrate sampling in this community did not yield any individuals. This
may be due, in part, to the summer season. Another factor is the sand substrate. In addition,
little riparian buffer was present to provide shade for the stream in proximity to NC 125.
Fish observed within this community include mosquitofish, creek chubsucker, pirate
perch, tessellated darter, bowfin, green sunfish and American eel. Of these, mosquitofish
were dominant.
Unnamed Tributary to Skewakee Gut (UT #3)
This perennial stream forms from the convergence of several intermittent streams. No
fish habitat is present. Macrobenthos in the stream include aquatic sow bugs, crayfish and
water pennies. The channel is often braided through the forested floodplain wetlands.
Unnamed Tributary to Mill Branch (UT #1)
This stream is formed from a ditch within the study area, which transitions in to a
perennial stream and wetland. Macroinvertebrate sampling south of NC 125 yielded
mayflies, aquatic sow bugs, crayfish, water pennies and water mites. Vegetation was present
within the channel in some areas. A riparian buffer also provided shade along portions of the
stream.
Unnamed Tributary to Beaverdam Creek (UT #15)
This perennial stream includes the Cypress-Gum Swamp previously described, as
well as a pond. These areas were not sampled for macrobenthos or fish due to their depth.
However, the pond likely provides aquatic habitat for fish.
Other aquatic animals observed throughout the study area include various frogs such
as southern leopard frog, green treefrog and bullfrog. Crayfish mounds were abundant
throughout wetlands and stream banks within the study area.
A review of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission database showed no occurrence
of Significant Aquatic Endangered Habitat within one mile of the study area. Anadromous
fish habitat is designated in the Roanoke River and Conoho Creek, where these water
28
resources discharge. While the American eel was found, Skewakee Creek is not designated
as anadromous fish habitat at this time.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
in the project area. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions.
Terrestrial Effects
The communities likely to be affected by the project alternatives are presented in
Table 6.
TABLE 6
PROJECT EFFECTS ON TERRESTRIAL
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Effects of Alternative
Acres
Community 1 2N 4
Loblolly Pin
Plantations 10.3 10.5 4.6
Mixed Pine &
Hardwood Forests 17.4 14.1 14.1
Mixed Hardwood
Forests 0 0 3.6
Disturbed Scrub
Shrub Areas 11.3 9.9 113
Disturbed
Forested Area 0.2 0.2 0
Totals 39.2 34.7 33.6
Impacts are based on one third of the corridor width.
Table does not include project effects on disturbed areas,
such as residential yards or agricultural fields.
In general, the project would likely cause the following impacts to terrestrial
communities:
• Direct loss of terrestrial habitats through land clearing, excavation, or fill.
• Wildlife habitat fragmentation.
• Riparian zone and stream buffer reductions/habitat corridor loss.
• Loss of food sources.
29
Effects on Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic communities are likely to result from the physical disturbance
of aquatic habitats (e.g., substrate and water quality) and watersheds. These impacts are
likely to be greatest at stream crossings. Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental
effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall
quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures or filter feeding organisms and gills of fish.
• Burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations, which deplete
dissolved oxygen supplies.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased
sediment load.
• Increased water temperatures due to removal of riparian canopy.
Table 9 summarizes the anticipated effect of each project alternative on streams.
2. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States", as defined in Section 33 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under
the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
a. Streams, Rivers and Impoundments
Water resources within the study area are located in the Lower Roanoke River Basin
(USGS Hydrologic Unit 03010107, NCDWQ Subbasin 03-02-09). Several water resources
are present in the study area. Only one of these streams, Skewakee Gut, is named. Other
streams in the project area are unnamed perennial and intermittent tributaries of Skewakee
Gut, Beaverdam Creek and Mill Branch. Two ponds are also present within the study area.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NC Division of Water
Quality that reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unclassified
tributaries carry the same best usage classification as the classified stream to which they are
tributaries. The classification for Skewakee Gut (NCDWQ Index No. 23-49.5. 09/01/74) is
Class C from its source to Conoho Creek. Mill Branch (NCDWQ Index No. 21-49-3,
09/01/74) and Beaverdam Creek (NCDWQ Index No. 23-49-2, 09/01/57) are also Class C
waters.
-1) 0
Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival. agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. No
High Quality Waters (HQW) are present within one mile of the study area.
TABLE 7
STREAMS WITHIN PROJECT AREA

Stream Avg.
Width
It Avg.
Depth
ft
Cowardin
Classification

Perennial/ Intermittent/ Ditch
Skewakee Gut 25 4 to 6 R3 Perennial
UT 1 4.0 3 R3 Perennial
UT 2 2.0 1.5 R3 Perennial
UT 3 4 to 5 2.0 R3 Perennial
UT 4 3.0 2.0 R41R3 Intermittent/Perennial
UT 5a 5.0 2.0 R4 Intermittent
UT 5b 3.5 2.0 R4 Intermittent
UT 6 4.0 2.0 R4/R3 Intermittent/Perennial
UT 7 4.0 2.0 R4/R3 Intermittent/Perennial
UT 8 2.0 0.5 R4 Intermittent
UT 9 2.0 1.0 R4 Intermittent
UT 10 2.0 2.0 R4 Ditch
UT 11 4.0 1.5 R3 Perennial
UT 12 2.0 1.0 R4 Intermittent
UT 13 1.5 1.0 R4 Intermittent
UT 14 5.0 0.5 R3 Perennial
UT 15 5.0 1.5 R3 Perennial
UT 16 2.0 0.75 R4 Intermittent
UT 17 2.0 1.5 R3 Perennial
UT 18 1.5 0.5 R4 Intermittent
UT 19 2.0 1.5 R4 Intermittent
UT 20 2.0 1.0 R4 Intermittent
UT 21 4.0 1.0 R4 Intermittent
Unnamed - - Roadside Ditch
b. Water Quality Monitoring Data
The NC Division of Water Quality Basinwide Monitoring Program is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water
quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive to water quality conditions.
There are no benthic monitoring stations on Skewakee Gut. Mill Branch, or
Beaverdam Creek. Although there is a monitoring station on Conoho Creek, this site was
sampled but not rated in 1999. The stream was not rated due to its coastal swamp nature.
31
Based on benthic data, the overall biological community in the Lower Roanoke River
subbasin has been assigned a classification of Good-Fair (NCDENR, 2001).
The Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan does not designate support ratings
for Skewakee Gut, Mill Branch, Beaverdam Creek, or Conoho Creek (NCDENR, 2001). In
addition, these streams are not listed on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as
impaired waters. A mercury advisory has been issued for fish caught in the Roanoke River
east of the US 17 bridge.
C. Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
There are no permitted National Pollution Discharge Elimination System discharges
to streams in the project area. Agriculture is the primary potential source for non-point
source pollution within the study area. Large agricultural areas may introduce nutrients,
herbicides or pesticides. In several areas, agricultural drainage ditches drain directly into
headwater wetlands and intermittent streams. Erosion from these fields also contributes
sediment to the water resources. Current logging activity in the Skewakee Gut drainage area
has the potential to introduce additional sediment load to the streams. To a smaller extent,
residential runoff through the roadside drainage ditches or lawn management may also
introduce pollutants.
d. Wetlands
There are several wetland areas within the study area. Wetlands in the study area are
shown on Figure 5. Wetland areas are described in Table 8 below.
32
TABLE 8
:z maci\anTi/IN Al w1w-ri. iNM WITHIN PROJECT AREA
J V AIJ

Wetland IJa I. a avi.v+u .
Cowardin
Classification* - - ----
Wetland
Classification
Wetland
Rating
WA pFp Flood lain 28
WB ppp Riparian Hardwood 72
WC PSS Disturbed Forest 19
WD pFp Headwater 64
WE pFp Riparian Hardwood 72
WF PFO Headwater and Riparian
Hardwood 70
WG pFp Headwater 64
WH pFp Headwater 64
pFp Ri arian Hardwood 70
r PFO Headwater and Riparian
Hardwood 70
PFO Headwater and Riparian
Hardwood 70
WL pFp Headwater 43

WM PSS Disturbed
Scrub Shrub 19
W[v PFO Headwater 43
WP PFO Headwater 43
WQ
WR PFO
pFp Headwater
Headwater 43
43
WS
WT pFp
pFp Headwater
Headwater 43
43
WLJ
WV PFO
PFO Headwater 43
43
?vW PFO 43
WX PFO L
I] 65

Wy
WZ
PFO
ppp d
R-iiparian d
72
56
rub
*PFO-Palustrine Forested, PSS-Pafustnne Scrub Sn
Headwater Forest Wetlands
The majority of the wetlands within the study area are this type. Headwater wetlands
generally begin as depressions adjacent to uplands that collect surface water. Many of these
areas begin at the discharge point of agricultural drainage ditches. Stream channels form
within them, beginning as intermittent channels and developing into perennial streams.
Headwater wetlands are infrequently flooded and often exhibit a dense herb layer. These
wetlands are saturated to seasonally flooded and can be classified as palustrine, forested
wetlands with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation.
„
Riparian Hardwood Forest Wetlands
As the streams become larger, the headwater forest wetlands transition into
bottomland hardwood forest wetlands with similar species composition. These areas are
generally medium quality wetlands with increased functions as they become larger. These
wetlands are saturated to seasonally flooded and can be classified as palustrine, forested
wetlands with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation.
Fooodplain Forest Wetlands
Several wetlands occur in depressions within upland floodplain areas along Skewakee
Gut at NC 125. These small wetland pockets are separated from Skewakee Gut by levees and
provide flood storage capacity. The vegetation in these pockets has been disturbed, with very
sparse vegetation in the wetland north of NC 125. Due to their small size, these areas do not
supply significant wetland functions. These wetland pockets experience temporary flooding
and can be classified as palustrine, forested and scrub-shrub wetlands, depending on the
amount of disturbance, with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation.
Disturbed Forested Wetland
The disturbed forested wetland within the study area exhibits the jurisdictional
characteristics of hydric soils and vegetation and hydrology. This small area is most likely an
old roadbed ditch from an abandoned roadway alignment. Multi-trunked red maple and tag
alder are present. While this wetland is jurisdictional, it does not provide any strong wetland
functions and is considered a low quality wetland. Its only connection to other Waters of the
United States is through a roadside ditch. This palustrine, forested wetland exhibits broad-
leaved deciduous vegetation and saturated soils.
Cypress-Gum Swamp
This wetland, located south of NC 125 within Alternative 4, differs from others
because of its vegetative community. The cypress-gum swamp forest exhibits buttressed
trees and cypress knees along with other strongly hydrophytic vegetation. Due to frequent
flooding and saturated soils, the floor of the wetland has a sparse herb layer. This palustrine,
forested wetland has needle-leaved deciduous vegetation and is semipermanently flooded.
e. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Anticipated effects of the project alternatives on area streams are presented on
Table 9.
34
TABLE 9
PROJECT EFFECTS ON STREAMS
Effects of Alternative
(Feet)
Stream 1 2N 4
UTl 112 83 0
UT3 50 263 0
UT4 0 14 0
UT5 233 192 0
UT6 0 11 0
UT10 0 208 0
Total 395 771 0
Streams not listed on this table will not be
affected by any of the project alternatives.
Project construction has the potential to affect surface water resources in the
following ways:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the construction zone and
increased erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Potential increase of toxic compound releases, such as fuel and oil, from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and ground
water drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during construction of the proposed project.
Table 10 below presents project effects on wetlands.
35
TABLE 10
PROJECT EFFECTS ON WETLANDS
Effects of Alternative
(Acres)
Wetland 1 2N 4
WE 0 <0.01 0
WE 0.12 0.17 0
WG 0.39 0.10 0
WH 0 0.05 0
WK 0 0.02 0
WL 0.02 0 0
WM 1.06 2.80 2.88
WQ 0 0 0.23
WT 0 0 0.17
Total 1.59 3.15 3.28
Wetland areas not listed on this table will not be
affected by any of the project alternatives.
f. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitieation
Given the number of streams and wetlands in the project area, total avoidance of
surface waters and wetlands by this project is not feasible.
Most of the alternatives still under consideration for the project have been retained
because they have the lowest impacts on wetlands and streams. Alignments within the study
corridors for the alternatives have been developed which minimize impacts to wetlands and
streams within the corridors. Impacts on wetlands and streams will be considered in the
selection of the preferred corridor for the project. Additional minimization measures will be
considered as the project progresses.
It is expected wetland and stream mitigation will be required for the project. Final
decisions regarding wetland and stream mitigation requirements will be made by the US
Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality. On-site mitigation will be
used as much as possible. The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be used for
remaining mitigation requirements beyond what can be satisfied by on-site mitigation.
36
g. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Due to the amount of potential wetland and stream impacts, a Section 404 individual
permit is likely to be required for impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the
proposed project.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC Division
of Water Quality prior to issuance of the Section 404 individual permit.
3. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. As of September 15, 2008,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not list any Federally protected threatened or
endangered species for Martin County.
The bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de-listed) from the Federal List
of Threatened and Endangered Species effective August 8, 2007. The bald eagle remains
federally-protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C.
668-668d). The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory
definition of "take" that includes "disturb".
No habitat for the bald eagle exists in the project area. Therefore, it is expected the
project will have no effect on the bald eagle.
b. Federal Species of Concern/State Protected Species
There are four species listed as Federal Species of Concern by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service for Martin County. These species are not afforded Federal protection under
the Endangered Species Act until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
Organisms listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the
NC Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded limited state
protection under the North Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 11 lists the FSC species, the State status of these species (if afforded State
protection) and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species.
37
TABLE 11
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN MARTIN COIJNTY

Common Name
Scientific Name State
Status Potential
Habitat
American eel An villa rostrata
Rafines ue's big-eared bat Co norhinus ra tnes uii T NO
Southeastern m otis M otis austrori arius SC YES

Eastern Henslow's s arrow Ammodramus henslowii
susurrans
SR*
NO
Chow anoke crayfish Orconectes virginiensis SC YES
SR = Significantly Rare.
A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no occurrence of any federal species of concern within one mile of the study
area.
4. Soils
Martin County lies in the Inner Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina.
Flat terrain, slow-moving streams, and swamplands characterize the area. Elevations in the
study area range from 4 to 26 feet above mean sea level.
Soil mapping units are based on the Natural Resource Conservation Service soil
survey for Martin County (USDA, 1989) and are generally sands and loams. Soils in the
study area are shown on Table 12.
;K
TABLE 12
SOILS IN PROJECT AREA
ID Full Name Slopes
Ba Bethera Loam 0 to 2 Percent
Bb Bibb Loam, Fre uentl Flooded 0 to 1 Percent

BoB
Bonneau Loam Sand
0 to 6 Percent JNo
BoC Bonneau Loam Sand 6 to 12 Percent
CrC2 Craven Cla Loam, Eroded 4 to 12 Percent
Fo Foreston Loam Fine Sand 0 to 2 Percent No
GoA oldsboro Fine Sand Loam 0 to 2 Percent No
L L nchbur Fine Sand Loam 0 to 1 Percent Inclusions
NoA Norfolk Loamy Fine Sand 0 to 2 Percent No
NoB Norfolk Loam Fine Sand 2 to 6 Percent No
NuB Norfolk-Urban Land Complex 0 to 6 Percent No
Ra Rains Fine Sand Loam 0 to 2 Percent Yes
Ro Roanoke Loam, Frequently Flooded 0 to 2 Percent Yes
St Stallings Loam Sand 0 to 3 Percent Inclusions
WnD Winton Fine Sandy Loam 8 to 15 Percent No
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included
in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
A field survey of the area of potential effects (APE) was conducted by architectural
historians in 2003. All structures over fifty years of age within the APE were evaluated for
eligibility according to National Register of Historic Places criteria. The APE included areas
that may be physically and/or visually affected by the project.
No properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located within the
project APE. The National Register-listed Williamston Historic District, Williamston
Commercial Historic District and the Asa Biggs House are located on or near existing
NC 125 in Williamston. but these properties are outside the APE of the proposed bypass.
Following this evaluation, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) requested in-depth evaluations of four properties in the APE. Following this
additional evaluation. the State Historic Preservation Office cited the Slade Cemetery as
39
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in a letter dated June 23. 2005 and
concurred with the eligible boundaries in a letter dated January 11, 2006 (see Appendix A)
The Slade Cemetery was determined eligible for the National Register under Criterion
A, for its association with the growth and development of plantation family burials in Martin
County. The cemetery contains markers that span over 150 years, from the last quarter of the
eighteenth century through the mid-twentieth century. The cemetery is located on the south
side of NC 125 east of SR 1421. The National Register eligible boundaries for the cemetery
are approximately sixty feet by sixty feet, and include the ironwork fence surrounding the
cemetery. The location of the cemetery relative to the project alternatives is shown on Figure
5.
It is anticipated the proposed project will have "no effect" on the Slade Cemetery.
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this finding on August 30, 2006. A
copy of the concurrence form is included in Appendix A.
2. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the project for archaeological
resources. In a letter dated May 13, 2005, the State Historic Preservation Office requested an
intensive archaeological survey be conducted for the project from north of the CSX rail line
to existing NC 125 northwest of Williamston. These archaeological surveys will be
performed following selection of the preferred alternative for the project. A copy of the State
Historic Preservation Office's letter is included in Appendix A.
C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966, as
amended, specifies publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, and all historic sites of national, state, and local significance may be used
for federal projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land
and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from
such use.
This project will not affect any resources protected by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act
of 1966, as amended.
D. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important
farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider
the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by
the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Land planned or zoned for urban
development is not afforded the same level of preservation as rural, agricultural areas.
40
All of the project alternatives will affect agricultural fields and areas with prime and
important farmland soils. Table 13 below presents project effects on farmland. The Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating Forms (USDA Form AD-1006) completed for the project are included
in Appendix C.
TABLE 13
PROJECT EFFECTS ON FARMLAND
Alt.1 Alt. 2N Alt.4
Prime and Unique Farmland
Acres 42.1 40.7 47.5
Statewide and Locally
Important Farmland Acres 3.3 2.9 0
Total Farmland Acres 45.4 43.6 47.5
Total Site Assessment/Relative Value
Score* 169.9 168.2 170.3
*-From USDA Form AD-1006
E. Social Effects
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
All of the alternatives for the proposed bypass cross SR 1420 (McCaskey Road). A
number of homes are located along McCaskey Road. Several subdivisions have entrances
onto McCaskey Road, as well.
Alternatives 1 and 2N may have an effect on community cohesion because these two
alternatives would cross McCaskey Road in a residential area, requiring pedestrians to cross
the proposed bypass. Alternative 4 will relocate homes along McCaskey Road and will
reroute NC 125 along a portion of McCaskey Road in a residential area.
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
All of the alternatives studied in detail for the proposed project will require the
relocation of homes and businesses. Table 14 below presents relocations required for the
project.
TABLE 14
HOMES AND BUSINESSES TO BE RELOCATED
Alternative Homes Businesses
1 9(1)
1
2N 11 (3) 1
4 15(4) 2
Numbers in parenthesis () indicate minority-owned
homes or businesses
41
As discussed in Section III-A-S, two alternatives studied previously were dropped
from consideration because they would relocate more homes than the other alternatives.
3. Minoritv/Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by
law, to administer and implement its programs, policies and activities that affect human
health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse"
effects on minority and low-income populations.
The project study area includes a higher percentage of minorities than the county
average. Approximately 51 to 54 percent of the study area population is minority, compared
with 47.5 percent for Martin County. Although over 50 percent of the project area is
minority, only between 11 to 27 percent of the homes which would be relocated by the
project alternatives are minority-owned or occupied.
The percentage of low-income households in the project area is between 11.6 to 13.8
percent, which is similar to Martin County's percentage of 11.8 percent. Although between
45.6 to 47, percent of the households in the project area had a household income below
$25,000, it is estimated that between approximately 27 to 33 percent of the homes to be
relocated by the project are occupied by families with household incomes below $25,000.
A citizens informational workshop was held for the project on December 13, 2001
(see Section VI-A). This workshop was advertised in local newspapers and newsletters
announcing the workshop were mailed to area property owners. In addition, a small group
meeting was held following the workshop at the request of several property owners.
Through the public involvement program, citizens have been kept informed of the
proposed project. Based on project studies, this project will not have a disproportionate
impact on low-income populations. This project is being implemented in accordance with
Executive Order 12898.
4. Public Facilities
Several churches are located within the project study area. Martin County Community
College is located off of existing NC 125 on SR 1 182 (East College Road). It is anticipated the
project will not affect any public facilities in the project area. Reduced delay along existing
NC 125 within Williamston and reduced travel times on the western side of Williamston with
construction of the bypass should improve emergency response times in the project area.
F. Economic Effects
Overall, the proposed bypass may have a positive effect on economic development in
the area by improving access to the town's business park. Changes in individual property
values in the vicinity of the proposed project will depend on their proximity to the new
42
roadway. Removing traffic from the downtown area may affect downtown businesses.
Travel-related businesses will be most affected.
Williamston was declared a State of North Carolina Development Zone by the
Department of Commerce and is classified as Tier 1, the most economically stressed. The
Development Zone designation provides tax-credit incentives for businesses that create jobs.
G. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Land use in the study area consists primarily of residential and agricultural uses with
scattered commercial and industrial development. Residential development is located along
many of the roads in the study area. In addition, there are approximately seven mobile home
communities in the study area on SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) and NC 125.
Land use within Williamston consists of primarily residential development with
scattered commercial development.
2. Future Land Use
The Town's expected growth areas are along Wildcat Road, McCaskey Road and
NC 125. Residential development is expected for the Wildcat Road/McCaskey Road area,
with industrial development targeted for NC 125 north of Williamston in the vicinity of the
Williamston Yarn Mill. In addition, the proposed business park is a targeted growth area.
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
The proposed project is compatible with local land use plans and the jointly adopted
1995 Williamston Thoroughfare Plan.
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The proposed bypass may improve the economy of Williamston and Martin County
by improving access to Roberson Business Park. As new businesses relocate to the area,
other development may follow. Additional employment opportunities will likely result in
increased population and greater demand for housing. However. not all of the study area has
water and sewer services. If the Town were to extend water and sewer services in the project
area, the development potential for properties served by the utilities would increase.
Although the new location portions of the project will open new land for
development, partial control of access is proposed. The proposed control of access and
zoning regulations should prevent major changes in land use. There are no plans for
development along new location portions of the proposed bypass.
43
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The Town of Williamston and Martin County are both participants in the National
Flood Insurance Program. None of the alternatives under consideration for the proposed
project will cross any designated flood hazard areas. Figure 5 shows the location of 100-Year
floodplains in the project area.
J. Traffic Noise Analysis
In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772), each Type
I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. Type I projects are
proposed federal or federal-aid highway projects for construction of a highway on new
location or improvements to an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal
or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise
found in Title 23 CFR 772, which also includes provisions for traffic noise abatement
measures. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement, measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating these
impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Highway
Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis can be viewed in the Transportation Building, 1
South Wilmington Street, Raleigh.
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
The maximum number of receptors along each project alternative predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise are shown in Table 15 below. The table includes those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.
TABLE 15
PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE*
Alt
ti Traffic Noise Im acts
erna
ve Residential Churches/Schools Businesses Total
1 1 0 1 2
2N 2 0 ] 3
4 7 0 1 8
*Per TNW'2.1 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours measured from the
center of the proposed roadway are 41.6 feet and 74.7 feet, respectively.
44
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives
,Measures for reducing or eliminating traffic noise impacts were considered for all
impacted receptors in each alternative. Noise abatement measures evaluated include highway
alignment changes, traffic system management measures, buffer acquisition and noise
barriers.
For each of these measures, benefits versus costs, engineering feasibility,
effectiveness and practicability, land use issues and other factors were considered. Benefits
versus costs are evaluated based on cost per benefitted receptor. The cost of noise abatement
is considered reasonable if it does not exceed $35,000 per benefited receptor plus an
incremental increase of $500 per dBA average increase in the predicted exterior noise levels
of the impacted receptors in the area.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement
due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of service of the
proposed roadway.
Highway Alignment Changes
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental
factors.
Buffer Acquisition
Costs to acquire buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT
abatement cost threshold. Therefore, this abatement measure is unreasonable.
Noise Barriers
Noise barriers include three basic types: vegetative barriers, earthen berms and noise
walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise. For this
project, the cost of acquiring additional right of way and planting sufficient vegetation is
estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold. Also, for this project, earthen berms
are not viable abatement measures because the additional right of way, materials and
construction costs are estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement cost threshold.
This project will maintain partial control of access, meaning that most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed project,
and all intersections will be at-grade. Businesses, churches and other related establishments
require accessibility and high visibility. Noise barriers do not allow uncontrolled access, easy
accessibility or high visibility, and would therefore not be acceptable abatement measures for
this project.
45
3. Summary
Based on this preliminary study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and no
noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. No additional noise analysis will be performed for
this project unless warranted by a significant change in the project scope, vehicle capacity or
alignment.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The
Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). For development occurring after this date, local
governing bodies are responsible for insuring noise compatible designs are utilized along the
proposed facility.
K. Air Quality Analvsis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction
ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality.
1. Project Air Quality Effects
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are set for carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), ozone (03), lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (S02). The
main pollutants from transportation sources are carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter.
The project is located in Martin County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 are
not applicable because the project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
2. Mobile Source Air Toxics
Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the
Clean Air Act. MSATs are compounds emitted by highway vehicles and non-road
equipment.
This document includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this
project. However, project specific health effects of the emission changes associated with the
project alternatives cannot be predicted with available technical tools.
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed
highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling.
46
dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated
emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated
concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated
exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science
that prevent a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of the proposed
project. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing.
For each alternative, the amount of MSATs emitted is proportional to the vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), assuming other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each
alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the detailed study alternatives will likely be
higher than that for the no-build alternative, because the additional capacity provided by the
project increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in
the transportation network. The increased VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for
the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in
MSAT emissions along the existing route. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by
lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds. According to EPA's MOBILE6
emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter
decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases
will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably predicted due to the inherent
deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT for each of the alternatives is nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the
various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions in the design year
will likely be lower than present levels as a result of EPA's national control programs that are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local
conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover,
VMT growth rates and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-
projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT
emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.
A copy of the unabridged version of the full air quality technical report entitled Air
Ouality Analvsi can be viewed in the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street,
Raleigh.
3. Construction Air Ouality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be performed in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will
be taken to insure burning will be performed at the greatest distance practical from dwellings
and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance. Measures will also be taken to reduce the dust
47
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
L. Hazardous Materials
Based on a field reconnaissance survey and database review of the project area, a
landfill site exists in the project study area. The currently active Martin County Construction
Debris landfill exists on the site of the inactive Martin County Solid Waste Landfill. This
property is located on Landfill Road, which is off of SR 1420 (McCaskey Road). Figure 5
shows the location of this landfill.
Monitoring wells on the property indicate violations of groundwater standards for
benzene, vinyl chloride and dichlorobenzene at this site. None of the current study
alternatives for the project will affect this site.
No underground storage tanks (UST) were found to exist in the project limits.
However, there is the possibility unregulated USTs may exist within the proposed right of
way limits. If a site with unregulated USTs or landfills is identified, a preliminary site
assessment will be performed prior to right of way acquisition.
48
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop was held on January 9, 2003, at Martin
Community College to obtain comments and suggestions about the project from the public.
Approximately 115 persons attended this meeting, including NCDOT representatives. This
meeting was advertised through local newspapers and flyers were sent to property owners and
citizens in the project area.
Six alternatives were presented at the workshop (Alternatives 1, 2 North. 2 South, 3,
4, and 5). The majority of those attending supported the project. Some citizens expressed
concerns about project effects on their property, but agreed with the need for the project. A
few citizens opposed the project entirely.
Several citizens expressed concern the project would have a negative effect on their
community. These citizens asked for a small group meeting with NCDOT staff. This second
meeting was held on January 30, 2003. At this meeting, the group discussed their concerns.
An additional alternative, Alternative 6, was suggested at this meeting. This alternative was
investigated, but was dropped from further consideration due to anticipated environmental
impacts. No additional comments have been received since the January 2003 meeting.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing for this project will be held following approval of this document and
prior to right of way acquisition. The alternatives still under consideration for the project will
be presented to the public for their comments at the hearing. The recommended alternative
for the project will be selected following the hearing. Citizen comments will be taken into
consideration in the selection of the recommended alternative.
C. NEPAJ404 Merger Process
This project has followed the NEPA/404 merger process. The merger process is an
interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act into the National Environmental Policy Act decision making process.
Representatives of the Federal Highway Administration, the US Army Corps of
Engineers and NCDOT served as co-chairs for the merger team. The following agencies also
participated on the NEPA/404 merger team for this project:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Division of Water Quality
49
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
The merger team formally concurs on project decisions made at key project
milestones. These decision points are called concurrence points in the merger process. By
concurring, merger team members are agreeing with the decision made. Concurrence points
are not revisited unless there is substantive new information that warrants reevaluating the
concurrence point.
The merger team has concurred on the purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1),
alternatives to be studied in detail (Concurrence Point 2) and wetlands/streams to be bridged
(Concurrence Point 2A). Copies of the concurrence forms are included in Appendix D.
The merger team will select the least environmentally damaging preferred corridor
(Concurrence Point 3) for the project following the public hearing. The team will also concur
on further avoidance and minimization measures for the project (Concurrence Point 4A)
following selection of the preferred corridor.
D. Other Agency Coordination
NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate federal, state and local agencies throughout
the project development study. Comments on the project have been requested from the
agencies listed below. An asterisk designates an agency from which comments were
received. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Health
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Forest
Resources
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
*NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mid-East Commission (Region Q Council of Governments)
Martin County
Town of Williamston
50

1420 uq
1_21 114L3/. "
115 14_
? .?. to
.

-? i 14-20

1451
2

- ? , 1440

1419

?.. I?
uz U .
i]

i
a H
25 1
IrJ 14 os A 1123 A
1 ,
116
/
?,?
IIBI _ _ IIB US
? . 'i - 1198
/\\ / / 1131
1189 ItOB/\ .
1189
120]
1 1198 1190
66 1209 -
1211 1112 1124 BUS
111] 1]
/ / 159<
1201 1200

PROJECT STUDY AREA
0 1
MILES
s--^? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
G?? TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 1 25 WILLIAMSTON BYPASS
MARTIN COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3826
FIGURE 1

ssurto
?t.p¢
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
July 18, 2003
Mr. Ray Lofti
NCDOT
Transportation Building
1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC
Dear?\A,r. Lo ii:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 03-E-4220-0350; Scoping; Comstruction of NC 125 Bypass at Williamson in Mrtin
County; TIP r-3826
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
1 f any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
I' Attachments
I,
cc: Region Q
Mailing Address:
1302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302
Si cF fly,
C kJp?-
Ms. CI rys Baggctt
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Telephone: [phone]
Fax[phone]
State Courier 051-01-00
e-moil Chrys.Unggel ancmnil.nei
An Equal Opporno ily/Afr,nobve Action Emplurer
A-1
location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
e.•ss>to
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
July 15, 2003
Mr. Ray Lofti
NCDOT
Transportation Building
1548 MSC
Ralel'oh, NC
Dear Mr. Lofti:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 03-E-4220-0350; Scoping; Comstruction of NC 125 Bypass at Williamson in Mrtin
County; TIP r-3826
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this oft-ice for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy
Attachments
cc: Region Q
Hailing Address: Telephone. [phone]
1302 Mail Service Center Fax [phone]
R alcigh,NC 27699-1302 Stale Courier 951-01-00
e-mail Chrys.0aggclla nciiar eet
Act Coordinator
Location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
au /!goal OppmTioiq/A[ltrmnlire ilelion Enrplnrrr
A-2
O
North Carolina
Department of Administration

Michael F. Easley, Governor
July 9, 2003
Mr. Ray Lofti
NCDOT
I ransportation Building
1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC
Dear Mr. Lotti:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File P 03-E-4220-0350; Scoping: Comstruction of NC 125 Bypass at Williamson in Mrtin
County; TiP r-3326
The above referenced environmental.in?pact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
enviro!?mental dccu:rent meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
!etter for ol.tr consideration are the cornments made by agencies in the course of this review.
1 I 'any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for ilitc]"'mernmental review
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Attachments
cc: Region Q
Jlailia; :Irlrlnss:
:ills\'hiil ScnICC ( enter
WJv i_h. N'(: 176r19 1i02
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Telephocie: [phone]
fas (919)733 9i71
.S!:ne Courierk?1.01-00
. n+uJ (hn:+ Hn,q;?elfnvrnnrriLnrl
:In !(yual Uppo?;unin'A I/(irmuln'r Acliun l iuplQrer
A-3
Location Athhess:
116 Wcst Jones Slrcel
Raleigh. North Carolina

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
May 30, 2003
Mr. kay Loru
NCDOT
Transportation Building
1548 MSC
Raleigh NC
Dear Mr. Lofti:
Subject: Seeping - Comstruction of NC 125 Bypass o Williamson in Main County; TIP r-3826
'1'h., ?.I n C1..fr, /`I ..., ..1 ^ 1"'.? .,.a 1 l.: .. r.' F. ?1.,?„- ,,.,}•ZI ..??1?(••?V ThIS
project has been assigned State Application Number 03-E-4220-0350. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 06/30/2003 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
11loilil , Addrass: Telephone: (9l))807-2425 Localinn Address:
1302 Mail Sulmc Ccnler Pas (91017330571 1 1(i wesl Jones S(reel
u-mail Chi ys.l ta?bcll a ncmxil.nct
,Jn Egonl Oppnrlonrlr 4J/n'rnrnive AClion limp/ore,
A-4
I,ederul.Iid 4 SIP-12? (1) . N111 R-3826 County: Martin
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

Project Description: Construction of NC 125 Bypass of Williamston on new location on multi-
lane right-of-way
On August 30, 2006, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
8 There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
? There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse..
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHWA, for the Divtsto Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, IIPO
Statc Historic Prescrvation Ofliccr
A-5
)-dZ
Date
TIP !E R-3826 Comm-: Martin
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).

Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDO'f '((P S s
I HWA 4_
IIPOSbm
A-6
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter R. Savdbnk, Administrator
Michael P. I Sasley, Govcmor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Depury Secretary
January 11, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways C,
FROM: Peter SandbeckA, U FOU - (5/t
rim
Office of Archives and I listory
Division of l listorical Resources
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: Addendum, Boundary Justification and Map for Slade Cemetery, Historic/Architectural
Survey Report, NC 125 Bypass of Williamston on New Location, Williamston Township,
R-3826, Martin County, ER 01-9766
Thank you for your memorandum of September 19, 2005, transmitting the boundary justification and map
for the Slade Family Cemetery that we requested on June 23, 2005. The Slade Family Cemetery is determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
We concur with the proposed National Register boundary for the Slade Family Cemetery as described and
delineated in this additional submission.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Fort, NCDOT
Loemlon Mailing Addteae Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4117 Mail Scniee Ccntcp Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/733 8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Illnunt Sto,,t, Italcigh NC 4617 Mail Serricc Ccnteq 1616gh NC 276994.17 [phone]/715 4901
SURVEY & PIANNING 515 N. IIIOUnl Su,c,, Italcigh, NC 4617 hlad $crricc fmuv, Italcigh NC 27699A617 [phone]/715.4901
A-7

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael 1'. 13aslcy, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Beans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook Director
June 23, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director f?Uid ?B ?005
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch I 01,
cor
N't,
NCDOT Division of Highways p p(ytStoN
G, b? HIGHNA ?? of
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ft r4awS ugeL Ro?.,FNTAV plly?\?
SUBJECT: Addendum to Phase II: Historic Architectural Survey Report, Construction of NC 125 Bypass
of Williamston on New Location, R-3826, Martin County, ER 01-9766
Thank you for your letter of May 5, 2005, transmitting the survey report addendum by Marvin A. Brown of
URS Corporation for the above-referenced undertaking.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
(#23) Golden Peanut Buying Station, south side of NC 125, 2.1 miles east of junction with SR 1421,
Withamston vicinity. The property is less than 50 years old and is not of exceptional significance.
(#33) Dixie Peanut Buying Station, south side of NC 125, 0.3 miles west of junction with SR 1421,
Williamston vicinity. The property is less than 50 years old and is not of exceptional significance.
(#68) Twilite Drive-In, north side of US 64, 02 [Hiles east of junction with SR 1142, Williamston. Although
a rare property type for Martin County, alterations and infrll buildings have affected the integrity of the
property.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we do not concur
with the report evaluation and consider the following property eligible for listing in the National. Register of
Historic Places:
(#40) (MT 415) Slade Cemetery, south side of NC 125, 0.4 miles east of junction with SR 1421, Williamston
vicinity, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for its association with the growth and
development of plantation family-burials in Martin County. The rural cemetery, clearly demarcated with a
metal fence, contains markers that span from the last quarter of the eighteenth century through the nud-
twentieth century, documenting burials for over 150 years. Most of the comparative cemetery examples
provided in the report do not have the same historic pattern of development, are not the same age, and do
not have the associative values as the Slade Cemetery.
Locauon Alailu%g Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. 191,.,11 Sued, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail S,,eire C,rur, IAdeigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/73 ).8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Illnunl Su cc 1, inleigh NC 4617 Mail set, ice (coral, R.dngh NC 276994617 (919)733-6,547; 715 4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Iiluum Jrtvn, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Se-,, (en¢r. Ibdogh NC 27699.4617 [phone]/715.4801
A-9
Please provide a proposed'National Register boundary justification and map for the Slade Cemetery. We will
add this information to the survey report addendum.
While we have concurred with your finding that the Twilite Drive-In is not eligible for listing in the National
Register, we believe the property, as one of the few, if not the only remaining, drive-in theatres in eastern
North Carolina, is of significant architectural interest to warrant additional attention. We, therefore, propose
that our agencies undertake a joint investigation of the property to record the ticket booth and the screen,
especially the building techniques used in the screen's construction. We feel that such an effort will be of
mutual interest and benefit as well as providing valuable information for both agencies' staffs and files.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Marvin A. Brown, URS Corporation
A-10
y? ,,. STATF°
P
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter R. Sandbeck, Adernentramr
Michael F. galley, Governor Office of Archives and history
Lisbeth C. grans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffreyl. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
May 13, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director MAY I If' eft,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
tc
NCDOT Division of Highways
ff3 ?}, F ROM: Peter Sandbeck V PL- . t.y
V ??rf1 nay
SUBJECT: NC 125 Williamston'Bypass, Federal Aid Project No. STP-125(1), State Project No.
8.1090501, TIP R-3826, Martin County, ER 01-9766
Thank you for your letter of May 29, 2003, concerning the above project., We apologize for our delay in
responding to your inquiry. We have conducted a review of our site files and quadrangle maps and offer the
following comments.
No archaeological sites are recorded within the proposed project area. However, the alternatives cross
landforms overlooking and/or adjacent to three major streams (Skewakee Gut, Mill Branch, and Beaverdam
Creek). This area constitutes the uplands adjacent to the Roanoke River. Based on this information the
proposed project location should be considered a high probability area, particularly for prehistoric cultural
resources. We recommend an intensive archaeological survey of Alternatives 1, 2M, 2N, 2S, and 4 north of
the CSX railroad line to their respective intersections with NC 125. We recommend intensive survey of the
northern end of Alternative 3B from the point where it turns northward and away from SR 1420 to its
intersection with NC 125.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CPR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number (ER01-9766).
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
t.ocarion Mailing Addreee Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/737.8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 MA Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/715-4&11
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC Old 7 Mail S,,ice Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone]/715-48111
A-11
a„a 5fA7[q
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pctcr R. Sandbcck, Adreinisuxtor
r
Michael P. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evan, Secretary
Icffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
February 4, 2005
MEMORANDUM
Office of Archives and History
Division of 1-listorical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck wlril P4441 W
SUBJECT: Phase II Historic Architectural Survey Report, NC 125 Bypass of Williamston, on New
Location on Multi-Lane Right-of-Way, R-3826, Martin County, ER 01-9766
On January 6, 2005, staff from the State Historic Preservation Office and NC Department of Transportation
conducted a field trip to the above project area. We conducted the trip to clarify recommendations outlined
in our November 4, 2004, letter concerning the above project.
Based on the field trip, we recommend farther research be conducted for the following properties:
? The Golden Peanut Mill (#23) and Abbitts Mill (#33) should be evaluated within the context of
20th-century peanut mill production in Martin County. 'T'hese mills also need to be dated.
? The Drive-In Theater (#68) appears to be a rare type in eastern North Carolina. We are requesting
a date of construction and more contextual information about drive-ins in terms of how many might
be left in North Carolina. We believe Richard Silverman has already compiled a list of historic drive-
ins in North Carolina.
• The Rodgers-Leggett Farmstead (#12-20) contains an early concentration of outbuildings, including
a possible cotton gin. We are requesting further identification and contextual information about
antebellum agricultural buildings in the region.
? The Slade Cemetery (#40) appears to be eligible for the National Register as an intact-rural
antebellum family cemetery with decorative funerary art. We would like further identification of the
gravestone art and comparable information with other rural antebellum-family cemeteries in the
region.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Rlounr Sorel, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Scnice Ccntep Ral6gh NC 276'19-4617 (919)7334763/733 B653
RESTORATION 515 N. Mount Snccl, Ralcigh :NC 4617 Mail Service Ccnmr, Raleigh NC 2767) 4!.17 [phone]/715 4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Illnunt Sncet, Ralcigh, NC 4617 Mad Scrricc Ccnmo Itnlcigh NC 276994617 (919)7336545/7154X01
A-13
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:
e The Whitley Farm (#5-7), east side of NC 125, 0.2 miles south of junction with J. C. Leggett Road,
is no longer eligible for the National Register because of a loss of integrity.
? The Medway Mini Mart (# 41), 22451 NC 125, is no longer eligible for the National Register
because of a loss of integrity.
For further clarification on research approaches, please contact Scott Power, Branch Head, State Historic
Preservation Eastern Office, 252-830-6580.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Marvin A. Brown, URS Corporation
A-14
O?A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter II. Sxndbeck, Ad.wivut.,
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and I listory
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of I lietorical Resources
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
November 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck t?
SUBJECT: Phase II, Historic Architectural Survey Report for Construction of NC 125 Bypass of
Williamston on New Location on Multi-lane Right-of-Way, TIP No. R-3826, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-125(1), WBS No. 33512.1.1, Martin County, ER 01-9766
"Thank you for your letter of September 23, 2004, transmitting the survey report for the above project.
We offer the following comments.
? Whitley Farm (Properties 5-7) (MT 694): The report does not evaluate this property for potential
significance as a historic farmstead. The report only evaluates the property for individual significance
in architecture and as part of a potential historic district. There is also no discussion of the integrity
of the 265 acres associated with the farm for potential agricultural significance. How does it relate to
other farmsteads in western Martin County? Many of the outbuildings, if not a majority, appear to be
over 50 years of age. Two surviving tenant houses are also significant features. This property should
be further assessed for its significance under Criterion A for agriculture.
? Rodgers-Leggett Farmstead (Properties 12-20): Clearly there is a concentration of early to mid 19th
century buildings on this site which include what appears to be a slave dwelling and other antebellum
buildings-rare survivors in Martin County. There is no discussion of these buildings as they relate to
other antebellum outbuildings in the county and very little discussion about the type of construction
or original use. The report does not evaluate this property for potential significance as a historic
farmstead. The report suggests the loss of the earlier house negates the remaining significance of the
resources which appear to be 10 historic buildings, two cemeteries, and an agricultural landscape that
might prove intact and significant. This property should be further assessed for its significance under
Criterion A for agriculture.
L
Locatbn Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Itloum Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Alail Scr. ice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)7314763/713-8653
RESTORATION 515 N Itlonw Sovet, Ralo,h NC 4617 Mud Senlce Lewd, H:dcigh NC 276994,17 [phone]/715-48111
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Itloum Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 A1ail Service Cemeq Raleigh NC 27699 4617 (919171' 6545/715.4x01
A-15
Slade Cemetery (Property 40) (MT 415): This cemetery appears to represent what was once
commonplace, but now, rare since it illustrates a nearly completely intact antebellum plantation
burying ground with some decoratively carved stones, a fence, and association with one of the
county's most influential early 19" century families. The report does not discuss the decoratively
carved stones or the early stones that are apparent in the photos. Are they the work of known
carvers? Are there any signatures or marks to indicate where their origin? The Slade Cemetery may
also be eligible under Criterion Consideration D for the grave of General Slade, a person of
"outstanding importance" and where there is no other site or building directly associated with his life.
We concur that the Bennett-Smith House is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Review of the properties in Appendix A by staff more familiar with the area of potential effect resulted in the
following comments and recommendations for additional study.
? Golden Peanut Mill (Property 23) and Abbitts Mill (Property 33): what is the date of construction for
each mill and its buildings? Peanut production in mid 20ih century Martin County is a significant
agricultural activity. The two mills should be further evaluated for their importance.
Medway Mini Mart (Property 41): This building appears to be remarkably intact from the historic time
period, apart from the synthetic siding. The siding does not immediately disqualify the building for
National Register eligibility under Criterion A, as it more than likely would for Criterion C. This type
of roadside building is rarely as intact as this resource, and it very likely served an important function
in this rural area of Wilhamston as a social center, grocery store, gas station, and/or rooming house.
We recommend further investigation of this resource for its importance to the local community.
? Drive-In Theater (Property 68): A rare surviving building type. What was its date of construction?
This, site appears to have all the essential drive-in theater components, including the ticket booth and
open viewing court. We would like to know more about the history of this drive-in.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.' If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
A-16

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
dichael F. Easley, Governor
.isbeth C. Evans, Secretary
August 4, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook yl ?J
Deputy State Hist C Preservation Officer
Re: Extension of 125 from SR 1182 to NC 125 northwest of Williamston,
R-3826, Martin County, ER 01-9766
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your memorandum of May 23, 2001,,conceming the above-referenced undertaking. We
have checked our maps and files and noted that there is one property shown on our maps. The Whitley
Farm (MT 694) is located on the north side of NC 125 one-tenth of a mile west of the city limits. Since
the Martin County survey was conducted nearly ten years ago, we recommend that an architectural
historian for the Department of Transportation survey the area of potential effect (APE), evaluate the
Whitley Farm and report the results to us.
We also recommend an archaeological reconnaissance-level survey of the northern section of the APE
where the highway crosses or parallels the tributary of Shewahee Creek.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763. -
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Thomas Padgett, NCDOT
bc: Brown/ Montgomery
Claggett/Mathis
County
RF
Location Mailing Address , Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh . NC 4613 Mail Scrvice Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
Survey & PlanninX 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Scrvicc Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
A-17
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
s R?cl.?0
MEMORANDUM
CT)
00 a/1'80
Oq 00,%
?o
S'
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee(
Project Review Coordinator
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RE: 403-0350, Seeping, NC 125 Bypass of Williamston in Martin County,
Federal Aid Project
O. TE: July 17, 2003
The attached comments were received by this office after the response due date.
These comments should be forwarded to the applicant and made a part of our previous
comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENRI

<_.. A- 18 _ ,.
r
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor

MEMORA14DUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee Y
Project Review Coordinator
iC J0
J" L 2003
SeRpo s?QQ
rice
A
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RE: 03-0350 Scoping Williamston Bypass NC 125 in Martin County
DATE: July 3: 2003
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review.
Mere specific comments will be provided during the environmental review
process. The Division of Water Quality has not orovided comments. Should
comments be provided they will be forwarded to you for your file.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation
of the environmental document, additional information is needed, the
_ applicant is encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet. www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Euual Ocportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 501-b Reeicled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
A-19
1N .uGrK Department of CnVlronmeni ano Natural Resources ProjectNUmber. U» v
Due Date: - r r
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to construct& operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of const
i

facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems ruct
on
contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference us
al
30 days
not discharging into state surface waters. u
. (90 days)
LJ NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
i Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
perm
t to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface wate
s conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
f 90-120 days
r
. acility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
0 Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian propert
owner
y
.
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
55 days
to Fill from N.C. Department of .4dinistrazion and Federal Dredge and Fiii Permit (90 :.a9[)
O I Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement .
iacuiries and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A

(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) 60 days
Any open burninq associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900 '
Demolition or renovations of structure: containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A 60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 919-733-0820.
L] Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance
. 30 days
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
U North Carolina 8.2ming permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds4 days
1 day
(N/A)
El Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties on-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required 'if more than five '
in coastal N.C..with organicsoils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested 1 day

at least ten days before actual burn is planned." (N/A)
Oif Refining Facilities -

N/A 90- 120 days
(N/A)
Q Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program,and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers, 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. Aminimum (60 days)
fee of 5200 00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A-21
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or P.Ei UIREMENTS. Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit t0 drill exploratory cil or gas well File surety bond of S5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any

well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according 10 days
to DENR rules and regulations. (N/A)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions

'
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. 15 - 20 days
(NSA)
401 Water Quality Certification NIA 55 days
0 30 days)
0 CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment ofanywells, if required must be in accordance with Title tSA.Subchapter 2C.0100.
i I Nutifm anon of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan' underground storage tanks (DS T S) are discovered during any excavatiun operarm:.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stomrwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
I ..
I ?
I Other comment;(a^.ach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment aumority)

j
a
n _
V
y
I ?
?' C '11
?.
?-
,
r
I N
fy
s r J ,
G
?
Y
?
A v

C ,nom

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodffn Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C.28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.27611
[phone]
X Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
A-22
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
Y?WA
r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Michael F. Easley, Governor
'vVilliam G. Ross. Jr.: Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Mike Street
DATE: June 23, 2003
SUBJECT: Project No. 03-0350 - NCDOT
NC 125 Williamston Bypass - TIP R-3826
Martin County
Preston P. Pate, Jr.; Director
Attached is the Divisions' reply for the above referenced project. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Ms/sw
34.: N.rendeil 3L, P.O. Box 769. Ntorel ead City. Noah Carolina 28557
Phorat "j 2-725-7021 AX: 252-727-5127 Nernt': % 5rm oror n?'.,yer- , . - ,, Fos' Consur'?er Prper
A-23
LD JU N 2 3 2003 NCDENR F HABIT AT PROTECTION
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Marine Fisheries Preston P. Pate Jr., Director
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator Office
Of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
THROUGH: Mike Street, Chief of Habitat Section ?J
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Northern District Managerx;" 1j'1
SUBJECT: Project No. 03-0350 - NCDOT - NC 125 Williamston Bypass - TIP R-3826
DATE: June 18, 2003
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has reviewed the information provided. Since
there are no specifics on this project at this time the Division can only submit general comments.
This agency would be concerned with impacts or loss of wetlands associated with this project.
Wetlands play a very important role in fisheries production, as well as water quality.
Based on the general map provided this agency doesn't see where anadromous spawning or
nursery areas would be impacted. When alignments are more detailed concerns could develop.
The Division appreciates the opportunity to submit concerns early in the process.
A-24
?V V
Y
O ?
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: John E. Hennessy
;UC 2003
RECEIVED
Serretarys Office
DOA
-1!1, -a'0rna uepanntent of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
July 14, 2003
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed NC 125 Bypass of Williamston in Martin County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-125(1), State Project No. 8.1090501, TIP R-3826, DENR No. 03E-0350.
Reference your correspondence dated May 29, 2003 in which you requested comments for the referenced project.
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional
wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification(s) Stream Index Number
Skewakee Gut & uts Roanoke (030209) Class C 23-49.5
Mill Branch & uts Roanoke (030209) Class C 23-49-3
Back Swam Roanoke (030209) Class C 23-50-1-1-1
Conoho Creek & uts Roanoke (030209) Class C 23-49
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
iurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water
Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. The DWQ has been a participating member of the NEPA/404 Merger Team. At this point, we have already
agreed to a Concurrence Point 1 and 2. We will continue to work with the team as the planning of this
project proceeds.
The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and
streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High Quality
Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However, should further
analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere
to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024)
throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams
having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
yCDEM1F.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748 A-25
?O \`G
? r
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road closure. If a
detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ requirements for General
401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must
be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted by the
project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned water resources,
the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream classified as
HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the design of
the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream.
G. ' If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control structures/measures)
to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be
chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of
one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
1. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be
required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should
be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing.
K. If foundation test borines are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved
under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
I.. In accnrdance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be required
for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation
becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration
Program or the Ecological Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
M. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
N. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention
facility/apparatus.
0. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project will be required as
part of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
N. C. Division of Water Duality 1650 Mail Service Center
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
'NJIM ? i iuli I Ia UcPafa llcl? 0t cnv INne 291. ano Nawrat meSOU fees
Raleigiy NC 27699-1650
A-26
[phone]
?O G
? =f
D Y
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C'\ncd01\TIP K-3326\comments\R-3326 scopin.- corunents.Joc
worm ?afonna uepartment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-77,18 A-27
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commdss_ ion F _
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Direccpr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee .
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
Project Coordinator
FROM: Travis Wilson, Program
Habitat C Conservation n
DATE: June 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife contemns for the proposed NC 125
Williamston Bypass from existing NC 125 at East College Road (SR
1182) to existing NC 125 northwest of Williarnston, Martin County. North
Carolina. TIP No. R-3826, SCH Project No. 03-0350.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. Ray Lotfi of the NCDOT for
our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject
project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))
and the Fislr and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401. as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
We have no specific concerns regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction sbould be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural. l4eritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
Mnihnt Address: Division oFInland Fisheric> - 1?? eervice Center • F-116911, N(= 2 7 599-1 72 1
Tcicph.one: [phone] c A-29 7ax: [phone]
Memo
2 June 26, 2003
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2, Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may
undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland identification may be
accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person delineating
wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
3. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, USFWS, Raleigh
A-30
Town of wlliamston
P.O. Box 506
Planning0oning Wllliamslon, North Carolina 27892
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
February 7, 2002
James A. McInnis, Jr. P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Jay,
Enclosed are some copies of presentations submitted at past TIP meetings. I hope these will help
in supporting the project need.
Anew factor in justification is that since 125 South now extends to include a portion of SR1142,
truck traffic has a tendency to continue on W. Main Street to its intersection with 13-64 Alt. and 125
South to avoid the 90 degree turns on Elm and Washington Streets. By continuing on Main Street they
have a shorter route and avoid at least 3 traffic lights. This only further compounds the safety and
noise problem since W. Main Street is mostly residential in nature.
Should you need additional information or documents you may contact me at 252-792-5142.
Thank you for your time on Wednesday the 61h and we look forward to this seeing this project
progress.
Sincerely,

Brent Kanipe, AICP
Zoning Administrator
A-31
A STATEMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
FOR
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Ahoskie, North Carolina
May 1, 1991
1
w
by the
Town of Williamston
P.O. Box 586
Williamston, North Carolina 27892
A-33
STATEMENT
TOWN 017 WILLIAMSTON
MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM DON CHRISTOPHER. I SERVE A DUAL CAPACITY IN
REPRESENTING BOTH THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON AND THE MARTIN COUNTY
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AT THIS MOMENT, I AM REPRESENTING THE TOWN OF
WILLIAMSTON.
THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON IS STRATEGICALLY SITUATED AS THE
CONVERGING POINT OF U. S. HIGHWAYS 64 AND 17-13, WITH STATE HIGHWAY
125 SERVING AN EVER INCREASING VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.
IT IS STATE HIGHWAY 125 ON WHICH WE FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION.
EXHIBIT 1 IS A COUNTY MAP FROM. WHICH YOU CAN GAIN AN OVERALL
PERSPECTIVE OF HIGHWAY 125 IN RELATION TO THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON
AND TO THE OTHER MAJOR ARTERIES; 64, 17 and 13.
EXHIBIT 2 BRINGS A CLOSE-UP VIEW OF THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON
AND VIVIDLY ILLUSTRATES HIGHWAY 125 AS IT DISECTS THE TOWN INTO TWO,
NEARLY EQUAL HALVES.
EXHIBIT 3 IS YET ANOTHER VIEW OF THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON, AND
INCLUDES THE CITY'S CURRENT.PLANNING ZONES. UPON CLOSE INSPECTION,
YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT HIGHWAY 125 NOT ONLY CUTS THROUGH
THE HEART OF THE. COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO THAT THE INCREASING TRAFFIC
VOLUME FUNNELS THROUGH EXCLUSIVELY RESIDENTIAL ZONES ALL THE WAY TO
WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF MAIN STREET. MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE ENTIRE
125 ROUTE IN WILLIAMSTON TRAVELS THROUGH THE MOST CONCENTRATED
RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN THE,ENTIRE TOWN.
A-34
STATEMENT Page 2
TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON
HAVING DOCUMENTED THIS GROWING PROBLEM TO BOTH TRAFFIC AND
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. THE WILLIAMSTON TOWN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUESTS THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "PLAN
AND CARRY OUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HIGHWAY 125 BYPASS AROUND THE
TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON."
A COPY OF THE TOWN RESOLUTION TO THAT EFFECT IS PROVIDED.
THANK YOU.
V
A-35
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON
WHEREAS there has been a significant increase in traffic--particularly
large truck traffic--within the Town of Williamston due to the fact that
traffic going to and from Highway 125 passes through the downtown section
of town;
AND WHEREAS traffic routes in the town cause the awkward and sometimes
dangerous passage of large vehicles through the town;
DE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of
Williamston that the North Carolina Department of Transportation plan and
carry out the construction of a Highway 125 By-Pass around the Town of
Williamston.
Adopted this the lst day of April, 1991.
R. 6?4??

A-36
MR. CHAIRMAN:
I AM AL CHESSON. I AM A MEMBER OF IT-IE TOWN BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF WILLIAMSTON.
FORTUNAIMLY, WILLIAMSTON IS STRATEGICALLY LOCATED AT THE
CROSSROADS OF U. S. HIGHWAYS 64 AND 17. A THIRD MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
THAT CONTINUES TO SERVE AN INCREASING VOLUME OF TRAFFIC IS NORTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY 125.
IT IS FOR THIS CORRIDOR THAT WE SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE.
AMONG THE MAI' EXHIBITS All-rACI-IED TO THESE COMMENTS IS EXHIBIT
1, WHICH IS SIMPLY AN AREA MAP FROM WHICH YOU CAN GAIN AN OVERALL
PERSPECTIVE OF HIGHWAY 125 IN RELATION TO THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON.
EXHIBIT 2 DISPLAYS A ZONING MAP TRACING THE 125 ROUTE AS IT

FUNNELS TRAFFIC THROUGH HEAVILY POPULATED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS. MUCH OF THE VOLUME INCLUDES I4EAVY TRUCKS WHICH
ARE FORCED TO MAKE SUCCESSIVE 90-DEGREE TURNS TO ACCESS U. S. 64 AND
17. IT IS AN AWKWARD AND BURDENSOME COMPROMISE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
A-37
I

EXHIBIT 3 SHOWS WILLIAMSTON'S OFFICIAL THOROUGHFARE
PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED BY YOUR BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION AT ITS
MEETING ON JANUARY 6, 1995. THIS PLAN RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO CREATE
A BYPASS ROUTE FREE FROM RESIDENTIAL CONCENTRATION, WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME OFFERING DIRECT ACCESS TO U. S. 64 AND 17, PLUS THE STATE'S
PLANNED EASTERN AGRICULTURAL CENTER.
NORTH CAROLINA IS KNOWN FOR ITS QUALITY ROADS AND WE THANK
YOU FOR TI-IL LEGACY THAT PRESERVES PUBLIC SAFETY AND EASE OF
TRAVEL.
WITH THAT IN MIND, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND CARRY OUT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY 125 BYPASS PROJECT.
IN CLOSING, TI-IE BREVITY OF THIS PRESENTATION IS FOR YOUR
CONVENIENCE, AND IN NO WAY DIMINISHES TI-IE NEED FOR A PROJECT THAT
OFFERS DISTINCT BENEFITS B011-I TO TI-Ill TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON AND TO
TI-IE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

TI-LANK YOU.
A-38
O

8
-
WILLIAMSTON
a
j rw.f9?5
1 I?

\ a
`
\ 13

17

u5 `

__ a
----------- --------- -----------
u91 ue lJ ?
® ,__ ?
-
IX \ \ p IAN [C
a
1 1
\ 5
I IN /
1169 ®® 16l 1
- gi ?•\ 1199 'd \

/
6 1tB
1 ua 1

\
1 G
\ _

I
- t1 I
?

\ /
I

\ na \

/ '\ 1195 119 B)
1 ?11J6
\
G

i 1 1 11?
nn
- \

/ - % 119
/ O
? / ?
1 / _Jr S
\IIPo d

\ 1
1
' 1 \ -
'
\ 119 .\ I_p1
1?1
1 S i
-A-39 j

W
/ ?
?
i?
,.
.
:.. /...:.
.. _ 1NVlg b3
,.
?4 01
M3S
P

3N0 NVNEI --
v VVTIIir ?
?
_ '(V5 N051130 N111
1
V 4

AWN BR `
X /
?
? ONVWH 0 '1S 113NHtlH z ST ?\.\NG 1
\!1 GP
p?
W / z ? o T?
•- GP
r W Y L ?'1: S
1
1
1: S99
B
MIR 7 s
a Ha 100H0S
¦ ?r
m --
m

ti.
'1$
w
lS 1
SIAM
e
p
' j
6801
MVaa r
J -
u
1S NOAMH IIWS
1
T
/'? o o > '? zm .
PARK S
/rv' ?P• ie ;? z u?i ? .n ?'-i ? rc o J m 2
?j ?
/S a' ]3l ?
Y ?„ z
O 4 OSILH
Q tlH W N ? ?
0? u' G
? 2 u 2 l3 •5tlH \ d W --j

- re.
s dH LS
o H9
nV H
o
N N a
7 J
?
J m
fs
)
5
?)
? S W13
J
.
p.
y
S
S i
rV,
,
?ddS_ PV' OE µµ0 AD St
GPPG'
ua-- .-
o z 'O n J O
' i ?
1S '1S SHtl3d
lH tl3d N ar
z
S
?S r
'? µ
\µ m
o F
- z
.
/
?
o 1 Y01003H
P
? r ;
,?
? H1n014
?a - '-
N '1Sr Wj 3H0 WtlOA S w S ?aOW ',k Id
F.
' z_
s ' Y
9
CYO
`? 1?7 T- %ry [? Z idOr
3
µSER 57.
?7]rl u.' v Q Hµ
z - 9 ro'n

?' ? Q ('V n' P
S
O

fs e
°?, \
Jr d°
° te
.
S
0
,? Fp0?6 t

f) y3
.o
?
c9 O
%kN
H bH `% M t. y
\ dy S \ ` ? ?,m PEE"? S eP
ff 3`bH z µANOVER ? i ? ? ? I
'?'WBEHSLN BHITVN? N? ?a2 0o VEp PV ? °Q..
EDGE- p° s CPA
O Q d
,W dy fbl ti m ., /
5v i' / S?QQ °a b
'r nv ,.,13 sans ? ?? i..
ESN IH0101A aN /' ti
Qo
rVQ?1 I N '1S OOOM3903
? o0
yV' ?
M31 AHItl1
RD. Oap5P6n
Oct MdABKY
SNOW*
U
{{P tl p ?e
U j
?,A-40 - - ?'/
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy ofNCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or
rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of
ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program
will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to
tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with
the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5
through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation
officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory
services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, priorto displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe and sanitary standards. The displacees are
given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of
displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably
accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced businesses, non-profit organizations and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options. such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2)
rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
B-1
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to
displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for
the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations and
farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for
Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings.
Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest
payments and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except
under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent
a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has
been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the
extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other
federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not
available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program
is to allow broad latitude in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not believed this program will be
necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities for relocation within
the area.
B-2
L tit; K t L U U M I I V IV RCr V K I Ilet
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT: 34553.1.1 COUNTY Martin Alternate 1 of 3 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3826
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 125 WIIIlarnston B ypass

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
-Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 6 3 9 1 0 3 3 4 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 0 $0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20- 6 150-250 0 20-40M 6 150.250 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70m 0 250-400 3 40.70m 25 250.400 2
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 0-100m 2 400-600 0 70.100M 17 400.600 2
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by !
100 UP 4 600 UP 0 100 UP 42 600 UP 2
displacement? TOTAL 7 3 - - 90 8
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS Respond b Number
after project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4 -Reddick Fumigants and Chemicals- 7-10 employees
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
6, 12, 14 - Multiple Listing Service, Newspaper, Local Realtor
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 8 - As m andated by law. .
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list ,
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12-16

12/3/07 12/05/07
Nikki N. Woolard
Right of Way Agent Date Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
B-3
EIS RELU1.,A I IUIV KcrUIN I Im
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 34553.1.1 COUNTY Martin Alternate 2N of 3 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3826
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 125 Williamston Bypass
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
of
Displacees Owners Tenants 1 1 Total Minorities
Residential 8 3 11
Businesses 1 0 1
Farms 0 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Explain all "YES" answers.
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
P! displacement?
x 3. Will business services still be available
after project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
- indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X -7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X
I
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
1E 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
4 it. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12-16
12/3/07"
Nikki N. Woolard
Right of Wav Agent _ Date
U-1 bM 10-ZOM
0 3
VALUE OF DWELLING
r

F t250400

0 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
3
0
0

4 4 0
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
For
Sale
For Rent
0 0.20M 0 $0.150 0
0
3 2040M
40-70M 6
25
- 150-250
250400 1
2
0 70-100M 17 400-600 2
0 100 UP 42 600 UP 2
3 90 8
4 -Reddick Fumigants and Chemicals- 7-10 employees
6, 12, 14 - Multiple Listing Service, Newspaper, Local Realtor
8 - As mandated by law.
12/05/2007
Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
B-4
EIS RELOCATION KEPUK'I
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
H E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN ' L
nBS ELEMENT: 34553.1.1 'COUNTY Martin Alternate 4 of 3 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3826
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 125 Willlamston Bypass

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 10 5 15 4 0 4 5 6 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0 $0-150 0 0-20M 0 $0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 0 150.250 0 20-40M 6 150-250 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. F40-70m 2 250400 3 40.70M 25 250.400 2
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 3 400-600 2 70-100M 17 400-600 2
2. W ill schools or churches be affected by 5 600 uP 0 100 uP 42 600 uP 2
displacement? 10 5 90 8
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond b Number
after project?
)( 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4 -Reddick Fumigants and Chemicals- 7-10 employees
Peanut Plant - Seasonal- 10-12 employees
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
6, 12, 14 - Multiple Listing Service, Newspaper, Local Realtor
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. . Source for available housing (list). _ 8 - As mandated by law.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
-
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X it. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
)( 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12-16

,

12/3/07 b y:. 12/-5/07
Nikki N. Woolard
Right of Way Agent Date Relocation Coordinator Date
i
15-E
B-5
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (TO be completed by Federal Agency) Date of Land Evaluation Request

Name of Project November 13, 2003

TIP Project No. R-3826 Federal Agency Involved
FHWA
Proposed Lantl Use

Transportation facility County and Stale
Martin County, North Carolina
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Re uesl R d b
q ecerve y NRCS // -20- d-7
Does the site contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(Tro, the FPPA does not apply -do not complete additional parts olthis form).
Ma M ? Q 2 3 7 /0, c-, ,
Major Crop(s) [? /1 Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
1\ ' " Acres: q S ?I 9 6 s, y Acres: 19 3 s7 7 % Y. To % Name of Land Evaluati? E is Used Name of Local Site Assessmen
t System Date Land Evaluation Re
MA r;. NO/JE 11- __03 turned by NRCS
2
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
A.
Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site A l Site B 2N Site C 2 Site D

S.
Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 45.4 44.5 46.5 46.6
C. Total Acres in Site

PART IV (To be com
leted b
NRC 45.4 44.5 46.5 46.6
p
y
S) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland

B.

Total Acres Statevride and Local Important Farmland - 1-2 ?
017
'L,
G. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted 3 2 Cl $? o

D.
Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value ,0007_3
$ Z 100022
'10 -L .0001-7-
'
, ,000'LO
S
?) PART V 5 S'3
(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Value of Farmland to be Converted (Scale of 0 to too Points) p cl
O $ . I 9 0.2. c bb
p b 'q 7 ?i .
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7CFR 658.5(6) Points
1. Area in Nenurbam Use 15 I S 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 ( S
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed 20 ) O D O
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20 O

5. Distance from Urban Built-up Area
A5_
N A
A O
/V f, O
4
6. Distance to Urban Support Services AT N !? A A
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10
8. Creation of Non-Farmable Farmland S6 •lf7 1 Q 1, Q 0 ! 0
9. Availability of Farm Support Services 5
10. Orr-Farn Investments 20 f ' O O
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services 16 25 to n
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 j
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100 '? Steil
VV ,1 t
-Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above or a local
site assessment) 160 I -I V L?
O
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 fines) 260 tG I. L4
'
Sq
Site Selected: Date of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
twee msrucuons on reverse sine)
Form AD-1006 (10.83)
C-1
U:S: Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PAK 1 I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date of Land Evaluation Request

Name of Project November 13, 2003

TIP Project No. R-3826 Federal Agency Involved
FHWA
Proposed Lantl Use County and State
Transportation facility Martin County, North Carolina
PART 11 (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received by NRCS
-•••--••?--vp?11su,uiiiquv,btdrewlUe OT local important farmland? Yes No
(lino, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ? ? Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop(s)

Name of Land Evaluation System Used Farrnable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Name of Local Site Assessment System Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
PART III (TO be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Alternative Site Rating
Site A 3A Site B 4 Site C Site D
53.8 48.3
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres in Site 53.8 48.3
PART IV (TO be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland 3 rZ
( 0 3 4 S
p
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted 000 7-5- , 600 Z L
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative.Value z) g r2 H4 L
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland to be Converted (Scale of O to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 / S
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed 10
20 If $
-1
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20 0 0
5. Distance from Urban Built-up Area
6. Distance to Urban Support Services
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average )15?
w
10 N
A
8. Creation of Non-Farnable Farmland )e ?5
9. Availability of Farm Support Services 5
10. On-Farm Investments 20 10
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services M 25 0
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PARTVII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Y
Total Site Assessment (From Part V1 above or a local
site assessment) `
160
I
y
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) _ 260 f (y Co
Site Selected:

ate of Selection
I D

Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
I
Reason For Selection:
(bee instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
C-2
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1 - Purpose and Need
Project Title: NC 125 Williamston corridor study, Martin County, TIP Project R-3826,
IWeral-Aid Project No. STP-125(1), State Project No. 8.81090501
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project: The purpose of the proposed project is to
reduce truck traffic and improve safety on existing NC 125 through downtown
Williamston. Supporting data for the purpose and need for this project is contained in
information provided by NCDOT at the project team meeting held on April 17, 2002.
The Project Team concurred on this date of April 17, 2002 with the purpose and need for
the proposed project as stated above.
NAME
it
Yl
\ f
AGENCY
&I
A& 6Z-11(

D-1
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point 2
Alternatives to be Carried Forward
Project Title: NC 125 Williamston Bypass, Martin County, TIP Project R-3826,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-125(1), State Project No. 8.81090501,
WBS Element 34533. 1.1
Project Description: The project will construct a NC 125 bypass of Williamston, mostly
on new location. The proposed two-lane roadway will be constructed on a multi-lane
right of way. For all bypass alternatives, existing NC 125 will be widened between
SR 1182 and US 64A.
Alternatives Dropped from Further Study: In addition to Widen Existing NC 125,
Reroute NC 125, One-Way Pair Extension, Widen McCaskey Road, Alternatives 3B, 5
and 6, which were dropped at the April 10, 2003 merger meeting, the following
alternatives have been dropped from further consideration with the agreement of the
merger team: Alternatives 2M, 2S and 3A.
Alternatives to be Carried Forward: The environmental document will evaluate the
following alternatives: 1, 2N, and 4. These alternatives are shown on the attached map.
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 5, 2005 with the alternatives to be
carried forward in the environmental document as shown on the attached map and
described above. All selected alternative's meet the purpose and need of the project.
Concurrence on these alternatives to be carried forward will replace the previous
Concurrence Point 2 agreement signed on April 10, 2003.
NAME

AGENCY
NC D ylsi im t,T Wn -ICY 0 tia
A6 tk) & G
U.sFW5
s .Z P'

e??

Ai Cpa T
D-3
(14 1 U ,-ilz slit )
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point 2
Alternatives to be Carried Forward
Project Title: NC 125 Williamston Bypass, Martin County, TIP Project R-3826,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-125(1), State Project No. 8.81090501,
WBS Element 34533.1.1
Project Description: The project will construct a NC 125 bypass of Williamston, mostly
on new location. The proposed two-lane roadway will be constructed on a multi-lane
right of way. For all bypass alternatives, existing NC 125 will be widened between
SR 1182 and US 64A.
Alternatives Dropped from Further Study: In addition to Widen Existing NC 125,
Reroute NC 125, One-Way Pair Extension, Widen McCaskey Road, Alternatives 313, 5
and 6, which were dropped at the April 10, 2003 merger meeting, the following
alternatives have been dropped from further consideration with the agreement of the
merger team: Alternatives 2M, 2S and 3A.
Alternatives to be Carried Forward: The environmental document will evaluate the
following alternatives: 1, 2N, and 4. These alternatives are shown on the attached map.
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 5, 2005 with the alternatives to be
carried forward in the environmental document as shown on the attached map and
described above. All selected alternatives meet the purpose and need of the project.
Concurrence on these alternatives to be carried forward will replace the previous
Concurrence Point 2 agreement signed on April 10, 2003.
NAME

AGENCY
Ll?r??r
D-4
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point 2
Alternatives to be Carried Forward
Proiect Title: NC 125 Williamston Bypass, Martin County, TIP Project R-3826,
Federal-Aid Project STP-125(1), State Project 8.81090501
Project Description: The project will construct a NC 125 bypass of Williamston on new
location. The proposed two-lane roadway will be constructed on a multi-lane right of
way. For all the bypass alternatives, SR 1142 (East College Road) will be widened
between SR 1182 and US 64A. A new traffic signal will be installed at the intersection
of NC 125 with US 64A.
Alternatives Dropped from Further Study: The following alternatives have been
dropped from further consideration with the agreement of the merger team:
Widen Existing NC 125, Reroute NC 125, One-Way Pair Extension, Widen McCaskey
Road, Alternatives 313, 5 and 6.
Alternatives to be Carried Forward: The environmental document will evaluate the
following alternatives: 1, 2N, 2S, 2M( Added at March 13, 2003 merger meeting), 3A
and alternative 4. These alternatives are shown on the attached map.
The project team has concurred on this date of March 13, 2003 with the
alternatives to be carried forward in the environmental document as shown on the
attached map and described above. All selected alternatives meet the purpose and need
of the project.
NAME
AGENCY
U %C1 ?) o3
US Ft?S Ltl/a163
,o /t )) lC q-10 -03
Lul9crz -7123/o3
D-5

LA
'R7
......_.._.....?
1423
AGRICULTURE CENtEA
LLTERPunvE M
0
a LLTEAU I
i
1440
xLTE
14--
/ t207? '
IZ09
0 MILES
0 gLOMETFAS t
aJ,?T1" w L-?A, MSTON „
buTrvE
FP
((-rQ?

s?.• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRAN5PORTAllON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
_EN""IRONAENTAL ANALY515 BRANCH
ILTERNATIVE CORRIDORS 111111111111111111
NVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AREA CZ:?
NC 125
WILLIAMSTON BYPASS
CORRIDOR STUDY
MARTIN COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-5826
D-6
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point 2A - Bridge Locations and Lengths
r
Y
SR 1182 and US 64A.
Project Title: NC 125 Williamston Bypass, Martin County, TIP Project R-3826,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-125(1), State Project No. 8.81090501,
WBS Element 34533.1.1
Project Description: The project will construct a NC 125 bypass of Williamston, mostly
on new location. The proposed two-lane roadway will be constructed on a multi-lane
right of way. For all bypass alternatives, existing NC 125 will be widened between
Wetland/Stream Crossing Type and Length:
Alternative
Wetland/Stream 1 2N 4
UT # 10 N/A N/A 1 @ 10 ft x 5 ft RCBC
A pipe less than 72 inches in diameter will be used at all other locations.
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 5, 2005 with the bridge locations and
lengths for the proposed project as stated above.
NAME
6114101mw &Umo

AGENCY
NC . Di t?si c7t oL Itla f£,? Q uu I? ?-(
d
USFWS
F'j-(Ct,
us55? A
aJx'4>' - .6 VA PC)
Nc val
D-7
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point 2A - Bridge Locations and Lengths
Project Title: NC 125 Williamston Bypass, Martin County, TIP Project R-3826,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-125(1), State Project No. 8.81090501,
WBS Element 34533.1.1
Project Description: The project will construct a NC 125 bypass of Williamston, mostly
on new location. The proposed two-lane roadway will be constructed on a multi-lane
right of way. For all bypass alternatives, existing NC 125 will be widened between
SR 1182 and US 64A.
Wetland/Stream Crossing Type and Length:
Alternative
Wetland/Stream 1 2N 4
UT # 10 N/A N/A 1 10 ft x 5 ft RCBC
A pipe less than 72 inches in diameter will be used at all other locations.
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 5, 2005 with the bridge locations and
lengths for the proposed project as stated above.
NAME AGENCY
US&E

D-8
TIP PROJECT K-3826- I
2'
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
(CSX RAIL LINE TO NC 125 NW OF WILLIAMSTON)
FUTURE LANEr
2' PAVED SHOULDER
I s
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
I 1
1
1
MEDIAN
NOTE: INITIAL TWO LANES MAY BE ON EITHER
LEFT OR RIGHT SIDE OF PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY.
WAY
I
2' PAVED
FIGURE 4
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
(SR 1182 TO CSX RAIL LINE)

•
f
•
¦
¦
¦n
_L
¦
;I s
¦
¦
1. 0
¦

¦
¦
¦
f
i

I

O
a
O
v
z
n
N
Ctw
D
cn

A.
' At
war

Z
O
O
c n
D
r
4
O,y
vo c9,
A4e
so
?o
J
urlw
J J
o I e

D <
I
I o
(W v
/ O
e i \
I e
CA
1 1 p
om m
0x ?
10 Oz
Z r

ono
w
NI'D
w 3
N

i
T
Y
i
-r N
to v ?
w
r ?p
O
.y
i O
C i
pN Y
A j
m
m
m = -
1 ,
1
1
J J 1
N W i
1
1
1
1
1

W IJ

r?
V N
'
,
AIw
Z

J

'
.'
\ R N IA
?
V IN
\
'
?
O N \a
\
'
`
ol
?

I;
m lw

y
z
A
O
? O
1
i
1 '
11
v
it '1 O
i '
y ,? -0 0
i .
' ?ti y a
y
y '.
iIrn
S, m° la y
?? to
R ?n
P
0
IN

//1N I?
I
C
O N
Co Ch
.y

1
1
i
1
1
1 ? 0
0 0,
Z
O
O
/
V/
n
D
r
m
/qt's tic i •,
otic ,?s
°oA 9,?A
I
I ?
i
T
y

-f N
i ?
so -
m 3 ! y
-N r
N y
/ O
O Cl)
i
C
y v ?
O
Y

r y

i
D

J J

N A y
?

?
1 y
IN 1
N
i. i Sit i ="?? wl,
m
N
e e OIN
0 0 ,
D I r?
r I / ?in lw
\ I m V
o n
A
? J
3 N 'v N
o is 3
m
m
D J \ N
a IJ J R
5
50 x Z ol? J?j
ZC
z IN
w
m IA
N IN IT
'? 0
(3.2)
it 11?

J
m V ?
N 01 / ?

a
i ?
O N
2 N
y
WIN
4 Im
\ ?V V ?
A
A
Io
/ j Flo
HIV
th
J IN
WI
-?
^ PROP. NC 12S BYPASS ° Iw
ti
y`'
O
CIO)
0
D
IM
i
tic
O+ C% -Pit
?O
/3?J Eo J `°iIw
m
0 0
C 2
D 'I <
r I /
J
W3
/I o\
?

vv ?
m
m
n X 1

-4 x
° °
Z
Z ? r

mo

y
? X
w
N y O
Q. ch
c r c
N Y _m
A `
r -?- r
m % D
z = i
m ="4 i o
J J 11
N ? y 1?
N IN
/ - Wdo
? o IA ' i ?? p9

? m O

o Im i y `,
. `,

? AmIin
N
A
J
N
0
m I<n ? r?
mo
011A +IJ
N + W ?
OIN
??Im a°?a
04 01
I, y5d
' m m
3 J y%3
N w %a?y o o?
1 A iN ??Cy -a `'? a
mIm /?o1ij, yy
--' N w y

a=
? n
2 u
y
.ti
A IN N? Im/ ?r
N
AIm
oiA
I ? k
AIN
?I o I+ r V y
WIN A ______
O ?+
r i
0 -4

i
.

? K ?V V V Y •( .-\ 17
G At

?/ it ? '? ? S'?-•$`? ???.\'?

/\ is ? 3\ti[Y
A
\??\ CY iK

Rw•
rA

^){ ti
'i
0
v fV
o 11 7

r

e
O
Z O
-
I n 29
z z r
_
D cn X n0 o m
r
< -n r cn
p m0 o m `
O 0
- m r- z
Z v ?.
z ? -4 X ,

® ? 1
I?