The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20160191 Ver 1_Environmental Impact Statement_20070702STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENI' OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GoveRuors MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: JUiy 2, 2ooi R-2250 MergerTeam Beth Smyre, P.E. �JQ' i'�, �,¢� Project Planning Engineer y O SUBJECT: Greenville Southwest Bypass, Pitt County State Project No. 8.1221401, WBS No. 3441 l TIP No. R-2250 � o�� ✓G \ • cryry � Os , . 9ryU�'Jry�'`� �� ,y` �� LYNDO f�F#�PETT ?ittached aze the Meeting Minutes from the June 14, 2007 Concurrence Point 4A Merger Team Meeting. These minutes document the discussions at the meeting and summarize the measures taken as part of Avoidance and Minimization. Also attached is the final Concurrence Point 4A signature form. If you have questions or comments about the enclosed documents, please feel free to contact me at 919-733-7844, extension 333 or at bsmyre@dot.state.nc.us. Enclosures cc: Meeting Attendees NC DEPARTMENf OF TMNSPORTATION PHOJECf DEVE�OPMENf ANU ENVIRONAENfAL AlNLYSIS 1548 MML $ERVICE CEMEfl FLUEiGH NC 27699-7548 TELEPHONE: 91 &7333141 FAX: 919-733-9794 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US �ocnrarr: Twwsronrnnow &x�oinca 1 $p/TX W ILMNGTON $TflEET FUtPiGH NC DOCUMENTATION FORM GREENVILLE SOUTHWEST BYPASS (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Business) Pitt County NCDOT Project No.: 8.1221401 WBS Element: 3441 1.1.2 TIP Project No. R-2250 A Merger Meeting for the Greenville Southwest Bypass was held on June 14, 2007 in the Board Room of the Transportation Building. The purpose of the meeting was [o select a minimization option for the NC 903 interchange design and to discuss additional impact avoidance and minimization strategies identified since the preliminary design of the preferred alternative. The following people attended the meeting: Name William Wescott Gary Jordan Chris Militscher Kathy Matthews David Wainwright Travis Wilson Renee Gledhill-Earley Tom Tysinger Rob Hanson Brian Yamamoto Beth Smyre Dawn Rierson Neil Lassiter Ed Eatmon Glenn 1Vlumford Max Price Bill Zerman Bill Elam Chris Rivenbark Chris Underwood Colin Mellor Ed Lewis Kimberly Hin[on Mary Pope Furr Caleb Smitti Jeffrey Teague Ron Allen W.M. Petit Elena Talanker Stephen Yeung Mark Staley Susan Myers Brian Eason Steve Browde Kristin Maseman Doug Wheatley A� United States Army Corps of Engineers - Washington United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Environmental Protection Agency North Carolina Division of Water Quality North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Department of Cultural Resources — State Historic Preservation Office Greenville Urban Area — Metropolitan Planning Organization NCDOT— Project Development and Environmental Analysis NCDOT — Project Development and Environmental Analysis NCDOT — Project Development and Environmental Analysis NCDOT — Project Development and Environmental Analysis NCDOT — Highway Division 2 NCDOT — Highway Division 2 NCDOT — Roadway Design Unit , NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit NCDOT — Natural Environment Unit NCDOT — Natural Environment Unit NCDOT — Natural Environment Unit NCDOT — Human Environment Unit NCDOT — Human Environment Unit NCDOT — Human Environment Unit NCDOT — Human Environment Unit NCDOT — Roadway Design Unit NCDOT — Roadway Design Unit NCDOT — TIP Development Unit I�ICDOT — Transportation Planning Branch NCDOT — Congestion Management Section NCDOT — Roadside Environmental Unit N.C. Office of State Archaeology — Division of Cultural Resources H.W. Lochner H.W. Lochner H.W. Lochner H.W. Lochner The National Marine Fisheries Service and the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries representatives were not present. William Wescott started the meeting by requesting introductions of those in the room. Beth Smyre then reviewed the purpose of the meeting, noting that the majority of the Avoidance and Minimization efforts were focused on the NC 903 ,� interchange and the minimization of impacts to the Renston Rural Historic District. Brian Eason and Kristin Maseman then gave a presentation reviewing the information provided in the merger meeting packet; they described the five potential options for modifying the NC 903 interchange design to minimize impacts on the contributing properties and contributing structures in the Renston Rural Historic District, including two options that would remove the interchange. The presentation also included the results of an analysis of the traffic impacts of removing the NC 903 interchange and a review of impacts of the preferred alternative and the minimization options on water resources. Ms. Smyre then opened the meeting to Guestions and discussion. Tom Tysinger asked for clarification on whether removing the NC 903 interchange would not impact traffic on NC 11. Mr. Eason responded that the traffic forecast predicted that this scenario would increase design year trafiic volumes on NC 1 l by 5 percent, but that there would be no change in the level of service. Mr. Tysinger questioned why the forecast showed that traffic volumes on NC 903 would decrease in the absence of the interchange. Mr. Eason responded that when the forecast was done the current model was not yet complete, so [he forecast had to be done using trend analysis, although the methodology used was approved by the Transportation Planning Branch. Ms. Smyre stated that NCDOT believes tha[ Minimization Option #5 (removing the NC 903 interchange and shifting westward the alignment of the Bypass) would be preferable as it would avoid all con[ributing struc[ures in the Historic District and offer the greatest reduction in the impacted acreage on contributing properties, while removing the interchange would generally no[ have a negative impact on levels of service on the surrounding road network. She added that NCDOT recognizes that there would be a slight inerease in total stream impacts under this scenario and that there will be slight increases in traffic volumes on some nearby road segments. She stated that NCDOT will monitor intersections around the NC 903 area and address any problems that may arise as needed. Mr. Tysinger stated that there is already some local opposition to the project in the Forlines Road area due to potential increases in traffic volumes along Forlines Road as a result of the projec[. Removing the NC 903 interchange, which could possibly lead to a greater increase in traffic on Forlines, may lead to even greater concerns among these opponents. He also sta[ed that the area around Forlines and Frog Level Road, which are both forecasted to experience traffic increases with removal of the interchange, is a rapidly growing area. However, he indicated that, despite these concerns, the MPO would like to avoid further delays in [he project, so he will support a decision to remove the interchange. . David Wainwright asked for further information about the stream that will receive increased impacts under Option #5. He was referred to a table in the merger agenda packet with information on stream UTHP. ' Ms. Smyre gave a brief review of the archaeological survey recently completed for the project and stated that no sites eligible for the Na[ional Register were found. She explained that the archaeological report has been sent to HPO for review. Ms. Smyre also reviewed the schedule for the remainder of the project, stating that the FEIS should be complete in November, the ROD should be complete next February, and right-of-way acquisition should begin during the spring of 2009. Before team members began signing the concunence form, Chris Militscher asked if the form included a statement that noise walls would be constructed as they are shown to be needed as part of minimization. Ms. Smyre edited the concurrence form to include this provision and all team members present signed. Mr. Militscher also asked whether the project included a provision for 3:1 side slopes to limit water quality impacts. Steve Browde indicated that this was incorporated throughout the design of the project: These minutes were recorded by HW Lochner, Inc. and are a summary of the meeting discussions and decisions based on Lochner's understanding of the meeting. Corrections or additions to the minutes should be sent to Beth Smyre, NCDOT-PDEA. CC: Meeting Attendees Project File � p.. ] o .._� 1.�g� : - '+%..�... .. JUN 2 7 %u07 Sec�tion �a�l'�EY�.1�lerger Projcct Team I��eetin� Agreement; ;� ,:�,::��..,;::�� :,. Concurrence Point No. � � ' � ��oi�lance and :�'Iinimizatic�n Pt�nicct ?`wo.t"t'TF tio.! �ame/Uescrirstian: TrP � unibcr: R_2Z5{l �'�"BS Nurnbei•: :�4=�11 �C'C��' i)escription: Gr��n��ille S�utl�tia�est 13��s�, �NG � 1 1<� Existin� Gre�n��itl�� Bk�aass. �aur l�ne divicicd f��cilit}� c�n ne�v lc�catian with a �}��as� c�f�GVintervitle `C'he Prc�ject Teana has concurred on this date c�f June .1�, �f){)7 that l�Iinimi�aCion Option � sEiall be implemented at the iutersection of :tiC 903 and ihe Greenville ��uth�+�est B�#�ass. "I'he I'ruject Teaai has also cancurred on the fntforving other .Avoiilance &, �Iininiization measures:'�oi.�e b�u-ri�rs ��r �itttpactetl site�s as ]isteci in Table l c�f th� J�une� 14, �{}t�? rr�cr��r pt�ck�t tivill l�e stud�Yezi in the final desi�n. GF. S. Arm�� C.orps oi Engineers �. C;. llepartment of'Transportation L#. 5. Environmenta3 Pr+ntectifln ��enc�� U. 4. Fish nnd t'4�ildlife �crti�ice �. C. «'iIcilife Resources Gammession Statcs [°iistoric Prrservation Of�ce ;'�. d:� Diti�isiatt af ti'� ater Qu�lih� �iatic�na� 1larine Fisheries S�r�=ice "V. Cs. Di��isir�n of :�iari�ne E'isheri�s Creenvillc l;3rban �irea i1l:PC� _� �` g � � � � � -�-�-� � ,`��;,, �Jvs��s..�=��f ..____ % ' 3 . �r .+ ° -� . i�r�'L �::� _...�.a:_t'rEfLe='{��,., � � �. /" )§ ; h o-..F ti C.�-�'" �'` �'"{�-'" /�--_""--`--._ ..,.._ �. .._.._._._._. �` �_�_......._._.....-._.�..._._. � �� 3� � <�'�`:=�; �t.M!��,!��' ,�'_.. �.�,�:�.-�,'-' ,�r°� `'`�```�� .� �. ....;��.s.,,•.� .......___-.. _-.�._.. �,� �� -� �� ''��.�,. � . ,�,.. �,_..w ��._.,,' `�� ';�� .. � _._„_..�� :;k�� ______ �," _�,.�,�r7?.�_�`� �.''.�v�-z�.�`/[�, � �-��--�--`�` ��-.��-- - � � i� ; MEMORANDUM To: Melba McGee From: Subject: Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources February 11, 2008 David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality� Coleen H. Sullins, Director Division of Water Quality Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement related to proposed Southwest Greenville Bypass, Pitt County, TIP R-2250. This office has reviewed the referenced document dated December 20, 2007. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document: Project Specific Comments: This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team. 2. Harris Mill Run, Greens Mill Run, Swift Creek, Gum Swamp, Nobel Canal, Horsepen Swamp, Simmons Branch, Fork Swamp, and Little Contenfiea Creek aze class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concemed with sediment and emsion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoffto these Creeks. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practrces. 3. Although they may not be impacted directly by the preferred alternative, both Little Contentnea Creek and Swift Creek are class C:Sw;NSW; 303(d) waters of the State, and the project will impact several tributaries to them. Swift Creek is on the 2006 303(d) list for impaired use of aquatic life due to biological integity; Little Contentnea Creek is on the 2006 303(d) list for low dissolved oxygen. Discharges to Little Contentnea and Swift Creek's tributaries may have an adverse effect on these streams themselves, especially with regards to sediment and erosion from this p�oject. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff from reaching Little Contentnea Creek and Swift Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatrnent of the storm water runoff tivough best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices. 4. This project is within the Neuse and Taz-Pamlico River Basins. Ripazian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (Neuse River Basin) and 15A NCAC 2B.0259 (Tar-Pamlico River Basin). New development activities Trensportation Permitling Unit � ��""'H 1650 Mail Servioe Center, Raleigh, Nalh Carolina 21699-1650 2321 Crabtree Boulevarcl, Suite 250, Raleigh, NOM Carolina 21604 Plwne: 91&733-17861 FAX 91&733�6893 / Imemet httoJRi2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands An Equal OpporWnily/Alfimiative Acli�on Empbyer- 50% Recyded/1096 Post Cansumer Paper located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233 and 15A NCAC 2B.0259. Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with mitigation" within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, must be provided to DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification. General Comments: Environmental documentation should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan = with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. 6. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runof£ These alternatives should include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc. 7. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401. Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. TheNC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation. 8. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1501inear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. 9. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification application, should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping. 10. The DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The NCDOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts. 11. The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application. 12. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams. 13. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification application and could precipitate compensatory mitigation. 14. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters. 15. Based �on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate. 16. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to surFace waters due tb the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. . 17. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance. 18. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required. 19. If multiple pipes or barrels are required; they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stre�am �aan eases wa er veloc tyc susnB dimentldepos t on thate inlet or outlet end of slructures typ Y requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage. 20. If foundation test borings aze necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities. 21 and�ma ntained in acco dance with the mo��recent version ofNorth Carolina Sedimentpand Eros on Control Planning and Design Manua1 and the most recent version of NCS000250. . 22, All work in or adjacent to stream H'aters should be conducted in a dry work azea. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of the NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structw'es should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. 23, Whi1e the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NGCREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perPorm onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval. 24. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams• 7`his equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials• 25. Riprap should not be placed in �e Bicen n ering boulders orastruotures shs ou d b�ProP riy ner that precludes aquatic life passaS • S designed, sized and installed. 2(> Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the ma�cimum e�ctent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestahGshed within the construction limits of the project bY the end of the �'owing season following completion of construction. 1'he NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or require any addirional information, please contact David Wainwright at (919) 715-3415. cc: W�Iliam Wascott, US ArmY Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency Travis Wilson, NC Wil�hin on Regio al O�ceion Gazcy Ward, DWQ St File Copy Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Project Review Form Project Number Counry ��ss �� This project is being reviewed as indicated below: e Received Date Response Due (firm de I I� 10� a�---� I� Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville Air _ Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries Fayetteville _ Water _ Coastal�Management Mooresville _ Aquifer Protection `�( Wildlife R�leigh _ Land Quality Engineer �t` Forest Resources Washington _ Water Resources _ Environmental Health Wilmington . 16 Parlcs & Recreation _ Solid Waste Mgmt Winston-Salem � Water Quality f�l� �_ Radiation Protection Air Quality _ Other . Mlnager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: Response (checic a11 applicable) , No objection to project as proposed No comment Insufficient information to complete review � �� j� � � �� — �' �., � 4-Ir� � Other (specify or attach comments) �,={a.. • �! � °�`� � �'�� .r .,.., � . � I 'f ,�j RETURN TO: ��,� Melba McGee r . J��U �� =j <��;� Environmental Coordinator ��,�SR�;.:;�. � Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs J,=';;;,:;; .;, f .,.:. : : �;. t� ,, ��H MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR MEMO TO: �;•u. SUBJECT: In� ti I�j� �e� �yp,iT np' _: E. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTN�NT OF TRANSPORTATION May 23, 2007 R-2250 Merger Team Members Beth Smyre �� ,�` Project Planning Engm�r Greenville Southwest Bypass, Pitt County WBS No. 34411 (TIP No. R-2250) LYNDO TIPPETT SECRETARY The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has scheduled a NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Concunence Meeting on June 14, 2007 in the Boazd Room of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The goal of this concurrence meeting is to agree on the proposed Avoidance and Minimization measures (Concunence Point 4A) for the project. A meeting agenda and summary of work since the last merger team meeting are attached. We look forward to seeing you in June. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 919-733-7844, extension 333 or at bsmyreC�dot.state.nc.us. Please RSVP if you will not be attending Enclosure Team Members: William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers Beth Smyre, NC Department of Transportation Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service Sarah McBride, State Historic Preservation Office David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Quality Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission Sean McKenna, NC Division of Marine Fisheries - ', Tom Tysinger, Greenville Urban Area MPO I J MAILING ADDRESS: Te�EaHONe: 919-733-3141 NC DEPARTMENT OF TFANSPORTATION FAX: 919-733-9794 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US Ra�iGH NC 27699-1548 LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET' RALEIGH NC North Carolina Department of Transportation , e.,� � . � : - . . .' . .. NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting Concurrence Point 4A June 14, 2007 Greenville Southwest Bypass Study Improvements to NC I I and US 264 Business NCDOT WBS No.: 3441 I(TIP No. R-2250) AGENDA I. Introduction and Purpose of this Meeting II. Project History and Current Status ➢ Previous Merger Meetings • Concurrence Point I— Purpose and Need • Concurrence Point 2— Detailed Study Alternatives • Concurrence Point 2A — Bridging Locations • Concurrence Point 3 — LEDPA III. Review of Preferred Alternative IV. Concurrence Point 4A - Avoidance and Minimization ➢ Minimization Options — Renston Rural Historic District ➢ Impact Analysis • Streams and Wetlands • Archaeological Resources ➢ Concurrence Form V. Upcoming Activities ➢ Corridor Protection Public Hearing ➢ Final Environmental Impact StatemendRecord of Decision ➢ Project Schedule i NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting June 14, 2007 Greenville Southwest Bypass Improvements to NC I I and US 264 Business NCDOT WBS No.: 3441 I(TIP No. R-2250) I. INTRODUCTION The NCDOT proposes to provide transportation improvemenu to ease congestion on Memorial Drive (NC I I) and Suntonsburg Road (US 264 Business) in Pitt County, North Carolina. This project is identified in the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP Project Number R-2250 and is located in the vicinity of southwest Greenville, Winterville, and Ayden. The purpose of this meeting is to select a minimization option for the NC 903 interchange design and to discuss additional impact avoidance and minimization strategies identified since the preliminary design of the preferred alternative (Concurrence Point 4A). II. PROjECT HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS A. Project History In 1993, NCDOT began studying alternatives for R-2250. The coordination for this project, including agency scoping, was initiated in October 1993. Several alternatives were developed and presented at agency meetings and public workshops between 1993 and 2000. A Merger Meeting for Concurrence Point I(Purpose and Need) was held in February 2001. The purpose and need of the project is to "ease existing and anticipated traffic congestion on NC I I (Memorial Drive) in Greenville." A series of ineetings was held to identify Concurrence Point 2(Alternatives for Detailed Study). At the final meeting in February 2005, several alternatives, including the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative, were eliminated from detailed study while Alternatives I B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT were maintained for detailed study. These three alternatives were examined in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A meeting for Concurrence Point 2A was held in October 2005 to review the stream and wetland crossings along the three alternatives selected for deuil study to determine the need for bridge crossings. No bridges were proposed at any of the wetland or stream crossings, as none of the wetlands or streams crossed by the project are considered to be high quality. 3 The Concurrence Point 3 Merger Meeting was held on November 16, 2006 to identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the project. The Merger Team selected Alternative 4-EXT as LEDPA. Alternative 4-EXT was selected because it has the fewest residential relocations and divides the fewest number of neighborhoods; it has the least impacts to wetlands, streams, and floodplains; iu cost is comparatively low; and it is supported by the local governments in the project area. I11. REVIEW OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4-EXT, the preferred alternative (Exhibit I), begins south of the NC I I/NC 102 intersection and consists of I I.0 miles on new location. The design for Alternative 4-EXT includes a semi-directional interchange south of the existing NC I I/NC 102 intersection, a diamond interchange at NC 102, a diamond interchange at NC 903, a partial cloverleaf interchange at Forlines Road and US 13, and ties into the existing interchange of US 264 and US 264 Business. The preferred alternative would result in 44 relocation impacts, 0.1 acres of wetland impacu, and 1,600 linear feet of stream impacu in 9 crossings. In addition, it would impact approximately 120 acres of the Renston Rural Historic District, including approximately 51 acres within properties identified as contributing elemenu to the historic value of the area. IV. CONCURRENCE POINT 4A - AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION A. Minimization Options — Renston Rural Historic District The preferred alternative for the project would impact a significant portion of the Renston Rural Historic District, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2003. The current design of the preferred alternative, which includes a diamond interchange at NC 903, would impact eleven contributing properties within the historic district, displacing nine contributing structures. On February 8, 2005, NCDOT and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) agreed that this alternative would have an Adverse Effect on the historic district. The impacts of the preferred alternative on the Renston Rural Historic District are centered around the NC 903 interchange, currently proposed as a diamond interchange with NC 903 and Abbott Farm Road crossing over the mainline Bypass. To minimize the impacu of the preferred alternative on the Renston Rural Historic District, several potential design modifications of the NC 903 interchange have been developed. The five potential minimization options are detailed below. Table I summarizes the full range of impacu associated with each minimization option. Table 2 summarizes the specific impacu of each minimization option on contributing properties within the historic district. Exhibit 2 illustrates each of the five minimization options. 3 � J • Minimization Option I includes a half clover interchange on the south side of NC 903; the northern half of the interchange would be removed (according to the figure). This option would impact approximately 31 acres within contributing properties and displace 9 contributing structures. It would require the same number. of stream crossings (9) as the preferred alternative. • Minimization Option 2 would include a full diamond interchange, but would take the ' mainline Bypass over NC 903 and Abbott Farm Road. This option would impact approximately 49 acres within contributing properties and displace 7 contributing structures. . It would require 8 stream crossings. • Minimization Option 3 would remove the NC 903 interchange entirely ancl would take the mainline Bypass over NC 903 and Abbott Farm Road. This option would impact approximately 22 acres within contributing properties and displace 5 contributing structures. It would require 7 stream crossings. � • Minimization Option 4 would replace the south side of the NC 903 interchange with a half clover and would take the mainline Bypass over NC 903 and Abbott Farm Road. This option would impact apProximately 25 acres witliin contributing properties and displace 6 structures. It would require 7 stream crossings. . • Minimization Option 5 would remove the NC 903 interchange entirely and shift westward the alignment of the mainline Bypass, also taking it over NC 903 and Abbott Farm Road. While it would require 8 stream crossings, one fewer than the preferred alternative, it would impact more linear feet of streams and a larger area of riparian buffers than the preferred alternative. However, this, option would remove all impacts to contributing structures within the Renston Rural Historic District. 4 . . Pre(erred Option 1 Option 2 Op[ion 3 Option S Op[ion 5 Alrernative (Half Clovcr on (L, orer }'10 SYll) (L orer Y1D 8 171 (L over Y10 & Yll (L shifted over Y10 (Orivinal) South Side o( �vith No with Half Clover on & Yll wi[h No NC903) Interchange at South Side of Interchange ai NC903) NC903) NC903) Length o( Corridor Length on Ne�v Location II 11 1 - Id Len th on Esistin ?"' ° �� 3:2�-- ? 2 Toml Lenn[h -I>._ - t3._ - - � - --.L.%_ --==n��e Relocations Residential 4� 42 38 3J ?R 34 Busi Total Relocations AA 43 40 37 AO 36 hiinoriq� Po ulations 7m acted ' �unt - - -'�oni� --?�bne � Nkiae '.Vone Parks Im ucted -- --"0�" Schools Im acted -41__--_ ._ _ __I)__- �1— - ._(i. _ __ __-� Churches Im acced 0 - -- --D Ma'or Electric Po�cer Lines Crossed 2 -. - --- -- ---�- - - - - °- -- y- - - - -3 -T - - - - .2 Rxilroad Gossin s ---i- Rensron Rural Historic Disvicc Impac[s" (acres) . � 1009 81.� 90.A d3.7 71.2 39.0 Scrcams �T�rtrts SvcamCrossin s 9 9 R 7 7 8 5:7,�",n;y:. Sveam Im ac�s* 16U7 1607 U00 I163 I463 171� Riparian Bu(fer Zone l Ct' * 96,269 96,269 R9.?23 87.1 17 R7.1 17 102.21 R Zone2 ft'* 64.�78 64378 >9.27� i7.396 �7396 67.�19 TotalBu((ecIm accs I60,6d7 IG0.6A7 148.49$ Id�l.�i� I�1�15I3 I69.637 �F'etlands acres ^ �-1-� Flood lains acres * --� --- ---------f)---- U - -(?- - - — --(a-- ---4H� Federallc Protecred S ecies+ -N��ae- �--- -?Jcjrte-- - -?uone- - =�icane- - - AieFle Prime Farmland Soils in Historic District acres 77.58 ii.l7 70.10 37.1 R �4.00 3? 93 Hazardous W`este Sices � � �- Noise Impacts No. of Properties impactedu�ithout I7 -� ---- - i7 17 __I7_---- - .—.? - -�- 17 mitigation No, of properties impacted �vith --� �--_ _ 7 --7 - -- - 7 7 mi[igation Construction Cost DiFference Crom Original _ N/A +$100.000 -$IJ00.000 -$6900.000 -$1.700,000 -$7.700A00 Option Rebcatlons are cakulated on existing occupied buildings Qune 2006) � # Includes Charles McLawhorn Historic Properry * Impacu calculaced within wncepmal slope srake limiu ^ Impac[s calculated within concepmal slope stake limia plus 10 feet for potential dearing impaca + One species remalns Unresolved - Construction cost only; does not indude righao(-way mse i; / � • '• � ' � � �. � � •� � NR Nominaiion # property Name Acres Im acted Structuce Dis laced? (Map #) Ori ' al O tion 1 O tion 2 O tion 3 O tion 4 O tion 5 Original O tion 1 O tion 2 O tion 3 O tion 4 O tion 5 4 McLawhorn Farm 0 65 0.65 0.27 0 0.16 0 Tenant House #2 . -- -- -- -- -- -- � Edwards Farm 1.49 1.49 1.37 0 1.37 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- Cemete 12 Baker House 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 0 I'es- Yes- __ __ __ __ house house 13 Gharles V. Edwaxds 0.50 0.50 0 0 0 0 Yes- Yes- __ __ __ __ House house hou`se 14 Edwaxds Homeplace 0.13 0.13 0.02 0 0.02 0 Yes- Yes- Yes- __ __ __ barn barn barn 17a-c Tobacco Bams 0.31 0.31 0.31 0 031 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1��21 DailTenant 0.73 0.73 0.24 0 0.24 0 Z'es- Yes- Yes- __ Yes- __ House/Dail House house house house house 22 Dennis McLawhorn 32.32 11.57 32.18 12.27 12.40 9.39 Z'es- Yes- Ye5- Yes- Yes- __ House 5 bld s 5 bld s 5 bld s 5 bld s 5 bld s 25 Barns 14.69 14.87 14.48 930 10.88 8.96 -- -= -- -- -- -- 28 Worthington House 0.37 037 0.03 0 0.03 0 -- -- --. -- -- -- Total Impacts to Contributing Pxoperties 51.33 30.75 48.90 21.57 25.41 18.34 9 bldgs 9 bldgs'' 7 bldgs 5�bldgs 6 bldgs 0 bldg"s Possible Access Issues 16 Edwaxds Farm X X X Tenant House 18 House X X X # These properties could be impacted by control of access requirements; if these requirements affect a property, the entire property will be acquired. Two additional contributing properties not directly impacted by the right=of-way for the preferred alternative or any of the minimization options may be affected by control of access requirements that would eliminate direct access onto NC 903 from properties within 1000 feet of the Bypass interchange. As shown at the bottom of Table 2, these two. properties would be impacted by the preferred alternative and Minimization Options I and 2. Without design exceptions that would relax control of access requirements for these properties, these properties would lose direct access onto NC 903 and would be acquired by NCDOT. Two of the minimization options include removal of the NC 903 interchange. To determine how removal of this interchange would affect traffic volumes and levels of service on the Bypass and the surrounding road network, a forecast of design year (2030) traffic was prepared for scenarios with and without the NC 903 interchange. This analysis was a key part of the assessment of the minimization options as one of the compone�ts of the established purpose and need for the Bypass is to improve traffic flow and congestion on NC II (Memorial Drive) and US 264 Business (Stantonsburg Drive). If removing the NC 903 interchange would result in substantial increases in traffic volumes on NC I I and US 264, it could limit the ability of the Bypass to meet the project's purpose and need. Forecasted design year traffic volumes for many of the roadway segments studied were unchanged between the two scenarios (with and without the NC 903 interchange). For most roadway segments with forecasted differences in volumes, many of these differences were small, and in general, levels of service were unchanged; there were, however, some notable exceptions. Table 3 lists the roadway segments with forecasted increases or decreases in traffic volumes and Exhibit 3 illustrates the locations of these segments. Without the interchange, volumes on the Bypass are forecasted to increase slightly south of NC 903 and decrease slightly north of Forlines Road; the volume between Forlines Road and NC 903 is forecasted to decrease by 17 percent (4,600 vehicles). Volumes on roadway segments in the vicinity of the Renston Rural Historic District (e.g., NC 903, Abbott Farm Road) are foreeasted to decrease. Volumes on NC I I are foreeasted to increase slightly although levels of service on segments and at intersections along this roadway are not forecasted to change. Volumes on NC IO2 are forecasted to increase by I6 to 26 percent; levels of service on NC IO2 are not forecasted to change. Roadway segments east of the Bypass in the Forlines Road area, particularly on Frog Level Road between Forlines and Poeosin Road are also forecasted to experience significant percent changes in volumes. Levels of service on these segments are not forecasted to change, although significant changes in intersection levels of service are forecasted for the unsignalized intersection of Frog Level Road and Pocosin Road (from LOS C/C at AM/PM peak to LOS F/E). � were unchanged for all other roadway segments studied. While there are some notable changes in forecasted 2030 traffic volumes on surrounding roadway segmencs wichouc the Bypass NC 903 interchange, fn general these changes are fairly small and in near'ly all pses will not affect levels of service. The two minimization options that include removal of the interchange (Options 3 and 5) would therefore be feasible. Because it would allow avoidance of all contributing structures in the Renston Rural Historic District and would impact the least acreage of contributing properties, Option 5 offers the greatest opportunity for minimizing impacts to the historic district. � B. Impact Analysis Twenty-seven jurisdictional streams are located within the study area for the Greenville Southwest Bypass. The original design of the Alternative 4-EXT corridor impacted seven of these streams; however, the preliminary design for the preferred alternative would impact only five streams. Table 4 contains a summary of stream impacu for the preferred alternative. For each of the seven streams within the original Alternative 4-EXT corridor, this table shows impacts within preliminary design slope stakes as well as the total impacu that were within the corridor boundaries to show the degree of impact avoidance achieved by the preliminary design of the preferred alternative. For each of the streams, more than 60 percent of the total stream length within the corridor was avoided by the preliminary design. Table 4 also shows impacu of the preliminary design for the preferred alternative to the Zone I and Zone 2 riparian buffers within the corridor. The impacu shown in Table 4 do not incorporate any of the NC 903 minimization options detailed in Tables I and 2; the final impact calculations will incorporate the selected minimization option. Classification Forms # Impacu calculated within conceptual slope srake limits + Alternative 4-EXT corridor; preliminary design was identified within this corridor While thirteen wetlands were identified within the Bypass study area, only one of these wetlands would be impacted by the preferred alternative. As shown in Table 5, the preferred alternative would impact 0.1 acres of this wetland, and over 96 percent of the total wetland area in the Alternative 4-EXT corridor would be avoided by the preliminary design. n ToNal Total Wetland WeUands WeUand Area in Avoided/ Cowardin NCDWQ WeUand Riverine/ Isolatedl Impacffi Corrido� Minimized in WeUand ID Classification Classifcation Non-Riverine Contiauoua (acresl• lacres) Cortidor # Alternative 4-EXT corridor; preliminary design was identified within this corridor C. Additionallssues An archaeological survey and evaluation were recently completed for the preferred alternative for the Bypass. The findings show a total of 47 archaeological sites, 14 of which are located within or near the Renston Rural Historic District. None of the sites identified appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One historic cemetery was identified during the survey. The Slaughter Cemetery, which includes five 20th century grave markers with 19'" century dates, is in the northeastern portion of the Area of Potential Effecu (APE) in Renston. It is possible that additional unmarked burials exist within or near the boundary of this cemetery. The cemetery is within 100 feet of a planned service road, although it would not be directly impacted by the current alignment. The planned service road would follow an existing dirt access road in the area, so it is unlikely that the current alignment would disturb the cemetery. Three property owners in the Town of Ayden sent letters in April 2007 to NCDOT requesting service road revisions. The property owners asked that the proposed service roads that access their property be revised to end at their property line. These requests are under review by NCDOT Roadway Design. The Town of Ayden sent a letter to NCDOT on April 13, 2007, requesting certain design changes to the preferred alternative. These included retaining local access from Old Snow Hill Road/Snow Hill Street to NC I I and providing signalized local access to NC 102 between NC I I and che Bypass incerchange at NC 102. The letter also included requesu for signalization of access from NC 102 to The Pines subdivision, providing measures to limit cut-through traffic through this subdivision, and providing a noise barrier on the west side of the subdivision. These requests are also under consideration. V. PROJECT SCHEDULE Fall 2007 Corridor Protection Public Hearing November 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement February 2008 Spring 2008 Spring 2009 Post Year Record of Decision Design Public Workshop Right of Way Acquisition Letting io E�HIBIT I PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE �`'°�'" : . Greenville '' 1��-_'� �. �(P�``'��a �. � �,f � 7/ ��"+►K- {�714�tw�_.- ';�� o '� _ `� 71 ' . a', � ' "�,•� � ` .. r�, �v4' j? � _ �� 13 i ��4j ��,, ;j I . .��u' ...''Ij ��-`j� m"' � � �� "� J_ ', . , �� ALT . S` �+;'., . 4 � �3 264 2fi4�� ,� : il.�� 3 - f �i'.� � '1 I l �'� } � .� � �.,Ss%% 4 � , �� K �, �� - , • b�� p• a .� �'� a . �� "'"�`�) � ��., � ., ,,� . �� ,� `� :�, ,�' i .� ' � , ,J G i � �� tl� ` �" � Winterville , .,�,. � R-� . �vw�.n--� C#A.�,,...- • . �� wtiil�'' � , �^�.' -w �, � �`�s. � . � �., � , >�� r g �' , ,�; '�� : � ,�,�,. ' � �R�� .��% \��. � , � ,, 4�`,� • �� A'� � «y�� ! �' ��9!„- ; �S�y�l1 � � �, � � A ` ;-.. ; � " _ . ' n .�--, , a � ��`1� �9os) �� , � ` � , �� 1 T `x I. � ; .Y ��: _" ��. . �' .�• � qa- �` �/ �:b �'I/ :I �'4L.�� 11� �. -. i �,� 4 ' � '.� ' .. -rf 1 � _ �� y�` -�s�� •'FJ � i��+' G1_ iT n�?. ` r �� G � _ � A ` ^ � � -, '-e .a, t� ' � +, . _ p � ... ��.. � �: E1 - � ! ��_. �'. '` ��,�, ��' - ^ �L �� . � � � : p < ` �� _.�OZ ^' �%"k.4'.C�PIA°!6Q � � � ` - "� yde ; �, � • ,�. �I� L r�L. � 0 � • . ... y� ... �_I .-�. '.. k, ,..._ '-:�� l� . ,��...� . ��Miles I. � '• '�I— ' � .�i-� r � 0 0.5 1 � . ♦ � � s,\ � s�..� � � � _ , �� '� � � �1� r � y �+� � • � North Carolina - /� � '' � ��y � � T �' Deparlment of Transporlation . j� + �' ' i � j / 'R �� ` Greenmlle Southwest Bypass Stuay „�� ap ' .,,. 1 f y pmprovements fo NC I I 8 US 264 9us) ,. �� {�. Sa•ePrc�eaNOB.1221401 p • /7� ,� IP No R-2250 +. ' '^�:l Gi�` � 1.�� "� ° �� ( � � .:� Project Location Index Map '�� , - - — --- .�' `u Y ,r�^� Legend ' f��r�." Notlh Carolina .•v��'�';;'- � DeparimentofTransportation HISTORICPROPERTIES � � ,• Greenville Southwesl Bypass Study -''�f^� STREAMS pmprovemenfs to NC l � 8 US 264 BusJ ".�_ �t WETLANDS i i i s,a� r i Ferio r+szsnz�aoi v Feet t PLANNED SUBDIVISIONS _ `, ,' " ��` i:'"�'� .�:-,. ProjCCt LOCdtIOfl Sheet 1 — PREFERRED AlT 4-EXT �> ;' � �, � � - : . • �,. ,, y _ . ' � EDGE OF PAVEMENT �' , '�', � .�. "- � ! _� �,��`% � r,� - . . f } ♦ '�. RIGHTOF WAY i.�;� �. `,. �� G,�4`.:. • ' ,Y��. , 5� �:'� � .s : � .. N . ' BRIDGES �c � ! ; ��.;._ ....J 4: '� ��'� L . �'� .�. _ _ ' � +� ' rn .�.� p'� ' ~ � . � Si � m . � ' . i . ::�. o _ � ��' " i V� \ J ' ,fa,.tZi, ��, �� . `� _ _'" � ' I I.a''fi , ' .. � 'i► . � {' j � u �n �p�� . � . , �'J�. / � ( SY Y.. n i� �dT � � . �1� � ti� � � +'�. f',` t � �, a Q ..� � � a,J� n,. ..,, ;� .� .. ..,t �� ,yp�}� f � 'F��}�. � , j�C��f k :� 4 Y° y'� �" � — " " `f'� ,� . •� !�,aA [�� ' .: F�� ,��.. ._�' 4 • ' ,�i,�� ' � '� 7` a Sy � '. �/ y yr� � Y : y� ,��1' _\ y �_ .. , �1 � �O� ��1�`=��l.d�Y A. � .,.S�( �!I .� ��. �o . . If �' ��. ..� �� " � N.�� s�{ � .i �'"`f� i� t I�� ' �'. S� r� . �,,.�?S,a,i,� __ �. � ._ �. � � � .� � ��. . r. '� re ' n '��1 �I. � � . . , � s�i � � �1 � � �O _ � _ . !� `" -�.? ; ;:� 3 � 0 U i '� s �.n 3. .,. ,.. A�, ' T M� � �g. , ..� ... <<t +�'�;' na?;; xszxba � r. \ �,rY �;,�t ,� '_ ��,��, � � � � �. � z� -- �— . ., � � � . � - yi ' - - � _ . � � � - _ __ � -a � ,—�, �' . � � �r � , �.� . � • • I � � � '� � ` 1.�-y �ry„ �1 � I I _ ' � � � 1 . � � Tl P , �� .� , i ��I � �I. ! -� � «, ,: . l��ct— •. °' .. � � >� ` 5 c aaio�R;-rx - �1 -°w"-''1 f� I .. ' �f' , _,� `� � +� _ _ � ,�',;� 7 ��1 � � ��;_ � A>� ��s�,, �t�1 , � � SPr aeale ti . .. M�, 1 U� .�p n ent'� -. .` i .l._ � .. �' . , �T.,, F �� "^-`M%� �yT_. �. � �-� �� ,1y ' .� - _ : �f—a,, � o,. � �,� � „_ � � 1_„� ,� `\� �. '�'."Z:.vG7.Y,. � ��':1�. � • �_ .��_' !'�,_ ° F�=7+� i. � r . 1' R--:, " �;. w.e. x �..Ky.� ` � � � t t` dw- op { �� l �� , ��'� },e � � � � f i' _�4 I `."s/ � f ,y c�. ti� ��. \ J'} „ r � Y �_ , � _-��i �gw` � i '�' r � .'t-� ' ✓� - 7i �' �, i.� -�' 1 .a'3��., +�tSJ��_. ��[�, 1 j � Vi � sr�..- ^� � �:l� �1fS ..tp .� � l )�j .._ ��. tT `l/j� q 'r r'..'�� ti �FS.0 �>�y < Z � ,,'r. y , . i 7s'! � Y, F , , :,; �.,=j � ,.� �q((��.- _ + t, . � . • i � � � �� .. � e ivi�' ..Y • � ` . r •[i .. ..�� "r. .�� vv��i ��' �'�ly�^ai �+� ; . ` e� ��, .. ;_��lY. . :S� � �] �! '�'r e�i�: � .4 .- �. Zl}� � f .. •.,� �� '�'. � �� .Ayden� ,� l , ..,,' ' x �� ' : �- � 3 �, � i C i' .� J 7� � :. � u? � i rt i� �.: `Iw< �� :� ��,i� ��RJ'G .'.. � � .s[�� .. .1� � ' l�� 3 .� ' .��I i .��F .i�fiat; Ih'�' ; <• �) ;, �.. _ � � j'"' 2 �; t... _ r..<�_ "a.�... ' :�l�ai1.� y- rr ' �` i� `� � � � f .�+ a , ? �y�� .. �` jr��t �'� i��i.�� . '��"' . � � i a'. �� i _ � �� r� � . � � ' , tii • �� i.. � ��r t�+ � r � s~'��` ' ,. d'�� -�` � p�� ` , `� � .. r. , � //�ll f Z %r+ :�i � - �W n � . _ '• � . � s. • � � `s,rk � � � ? J � h � - � , a r, �j � -'� � r� j -• �. ) "<i. �:�' �'� / � .� _ .�iat �! � �:�.. ! �� ' s � � . � � - ,�. � '^ :' ^47��; v �t� y�1 �. 9os P� � ; f v � +e� - � � -,i", li �'�t , - �, . �, ' .�� :� , .�. ''�' f !:. � � �, � � . �V /\J\ �\\ HF / � 3 +,Y V .S ,. , � ..�.\ �\\\ .��\v/� �' � ,�, � i`'JT t��l �'�`.'� �I ��. 0 ,t� W . lf• •� ) , ? �.' - �'� ��jq�� ' • 1�•., h ( y . . ' � � .�, .1 � I �� 4: �7 .,�`y � �I� � �'. � � �W C ��/s �. / � .: � \ �. ' � �1 1 _O J � ^ � [ �.�n � \ y� . _ .. � • �� . ..b \ �.. � , � ' � � ORRILI R'�� f � >"�: . � a'� �� _..—�� , • � � _-:� r/ !. �& �r�, h .A .�� —: I . � �� "1 r 1 � � .'� :. � • Q�71� ' (� ' � � �� I^ / R�' - e�_ -,-.Z. _ µ � � ■� � ��;�� -_ � � ��/ Legend �� A�� ,� v"!%-� ' - HISTORIC PROPERTIES � _ � F",,,' E� � � �� -��--� STREAMS � ' ' ' � ^ • �, - . .�'�� :� � �� `li� L� WETLANDS �� ' .. 1_'I .� d� � .. .. �, � PLANNED SUBDIVISIONS ' � � � �y — PREFERRED ALT 4EXT NOFB: Ti7B NC 903 IIIIB�Chel7C,/B � •� � • 903 �� EDGE OP PAVEMENT shown is the original design ��. ' � '�i RIGHT OF WAY and does not represent a • � minimization option that could eRio�es be approved as part of CP4A. ��North Carolina � Department of Transportation GreenvAle Soulhwest Bypass Stutly � n won�fs�i ':� pmprovemenfs to NC f 1 6 US 264 Bus) m u �i,�� R;�ye �' Stale Pmjecl Ho 81121d01 „ � � IJ P Na RQ250 � ��r - �v Feet :. -a� Project Location Sheet 2 o soo i,soo s,aoo �� , Ma �,.'� 3 yno O .� . �:,. .�.-��'i � .. Rid9c.`. " Exh i b it 2 Maps of Minimization Options Exh i b it 3 NC 903 Interchange Removal — Roadway Segments with Forecasted Increases or Decreases in 2030.Traffic Volumes .