19950717 Ver 1_Complete File_19950720

AUG 2 , U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT T5 7) 7
Action ID. ?O'lq 3? a County k.-Scy-?
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent tic 06T LOCsN? ooc\K vn"Acs')
Address e1n Mc
Telephone No. UO?Vcl )X33 -'3yk\
Size and Location of project (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.) S0. \'3-An LA: ?\ooc\.?
TCerh S,qZ \-S'a\ Se???c1 ?O SCE `\Sis (- VII.'. 12e
?1L1rn'?.r?y J lid e% w, f, _
Description of Activity
C
t•` ..fir !?1 C\Q[LC ?rt.[? 4??\??rd O? Vet ???A?S C1 k. e, L. P .,t `?A l1cr..e.?.n a SvJ \
Lsn we nr. a ?e?r. IVES ales ?k SR 1USA c rcmA enK,s c1J
?Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
A to Regional General Permit o ationwide Permit um .
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve the undersigned
permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee
may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and conditions of this
permit.
Property Owner/Authorized Agent Sig
I
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Datks."_Rl?
Da
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED TO
THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.

CESAW Form 601
Doe 1993
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?EHNF1
July 20, 1995
Wilson County
DEM Project # 95717
TIP # U-2727
State Project # 9.8044590
FILE C,wP
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.71 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of widening of SR 1320, Airport Boulevard, as you described in your application dated 19 July 1995.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it
is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Sincerely,
Pr ton H ard, jr.P
95717.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
?rr? r
STATE: of Noiu*i I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAM1 B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GO Vi_RNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RA1,1 1611. N.C. 27611-5201
g5-7 i?
R. SAMUEL I IUNI I II
s1CRI1ARY
RECEIVED
July 19, 1995
John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
JUL 2 01995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
SUBJECT: Wilson County, Airport Boulevard Thoroughfare,•State Project No.
9.8044590, TIP No. U-2727
NCDOT proposes to widen Airport Road (SR 1320) in Wilson from US 264 to
SR 1321 and to construct a 0.5 mile two lane connector road from US 264 to
SR 1158 (see enclosed site map). The existing road will be widened to a five
lane, 64 foot curb and gutter facility. This activity will result in 0.08
acres of open water impacts to Hominy Swamp and 0.63 acres of wetlands (see
enclosed drawings).
The Hominy Swamp crossing will require the extension of the existing
2@7X7 reinforced concrete box culvert. Anticipated impacts to wetlands and
waters are a worst case scenario at this crossing. The entire area within
the temporary drainage easement (TDE) was included as impacts. However, the
contractor will probably not utilize this entire area when extending the box
culvert. Excavation will be required for installing the box culvert and may
be temporarily stockpiled along the stream banks. However, stockpile areas
will be returned to existing grade and all excess excavated material will be
removed and used as borrow material on other parts of the project or disposed
of offsite.
The impacts to wetlands and waters of the US at each site meet the
conditions of, and are authorized under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit 26. The impacts are above the limits of headwaters and are less than
an acre in size. Therefore, no notification to the US Army Corps of
Engineers is required (33CFR 330.6(C13)). However, impacts to wetlands and
waters of the US at the two sites are greater than one third acre and
requires notification to the Division of Environmental Management.
G)
July 19, 1995
Page 2
As a result, the NCDOT requests that the above referenced project be
authorized under General Water Quality Certification 2671. Please find
enclosed a copy of the permit application, site map and drawing for the
project. A copy of this information is also being sent to the US Army Corps
of Engineers for their files.
If you have any questions concerning this application please do not
hesitate to call Scott P. Gottfried at 919-733-3141 Ext. 307.
Sincer y
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SG/rfm
Enclosures
cc: District Engineer, COE-Wilmington
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, WRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Project Management Unit
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
NOTIFICATION FORM r.
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP 7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands)
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area.
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
concurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
B. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NWP 16, NWP 17, NWP 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
NWP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
The following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
less than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
cubic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-thud acre fill of waters or
wetlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
C.'NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES.
The attached form should be used to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The permittee should make sure that all necessary information is
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Endangered species requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may
be affected by the proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636*3726
Telephone [phone]
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps.
DEM ID:
Y.
ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Bop 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. jOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address. P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): --- (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Wilson
Nearest Town or City:
Wilson
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Airport Boulevard from Wilson Christian
School Road (SR 1158) to US 264 and From US 264 to 0.088 mile west of SR 1321
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: Hominy Swamp
7. River Basin:
Neuse
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [x ]
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.63 acre wetlands; 0.08 acre of waters
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: 0.71 acre
r
r
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): Total project length is
1.5 miles. The proposed project will widen the existing two lane roadway to a five lane
64' curb & gutter facility and extend Airport Rd. from US 264 to SR 1158 on new location.
13. Purpose of proposed work: To improve safety and traffic handling capacity along this
thoroughfare.
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note me sures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. The widening of Airport Rd. will require impacts to the existing
stream crossing at Hominy Swamp. The isolated wetland within the ROW along the new location
will be impacted to create a sate intersection at ub eu4.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [ X ] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [X ] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Residential and agricultural
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
? / 9s
Owner's Signature Date
?1
d
age a

USIA uil
111,64
ISO
?w
%
a w
4
."I,
11J."I
#at

vigil O
2
y l?E:
or r
I0

?_3 0
E

Imp,

?
6a
? 81!
oy
?q V ??ooV l[ O

?
y
? 11
y= r?naoo
I ?
A

t s
?
I [?

t

? E .9 5
4 ? I-
V
?h
ca v) o
< ?C N
r
v
w r .Z
Fo-
W * 6 d
`? ac
s
h
o ?zw? M
,p'r'pv'SAnpr®rprQrprprpr pro
1a??

I
I a` ?
14
?.zs.zo.zts a ....•--
In
rv+
r.+•••
P? O
Op
_ @ rg ?
s r
W ?
kit
I?j
" ? S
it a
Vol
?? .
Wtv
1' ?? i ? I I I I I 111 I I1TT'T'tTl'iifT,,,.
I
it-
1?.
r•,? l
I
4 c A/
F J I I
.. ? ur u
£ I
1
ZI I ?'
,.v vy
b
or °
a I g ? as
m? m
p
V
LL
1

f
V
a
w? .
O
?a
swoo
U ? O
z ?
CO)
N
H
p
Ul- U, -I
Q CP
v?,
c?
Q
?C
1.4
$?h
oy ?
o? o
_y+QC/cs
O\
Cy "Q
H ?
lit
?U
RVaMT ar
A? ? a
?o
I

14
9

y 0?
a
M I
O ? 0
W
1' ai \•? ? t 1Y
IO/-
? I ?\K I i i I
L, -
?- v
A ? J
tl
k
6
a:
i
h
i
a
Wortwo&
t
\
h
?? ode

N„ ..?

•an*?

? R
8
?
O

a ?

C M
p. P
s
?
t

A
An G
?s

I o
_
C
O
v
?
a
4
7/ 7-t IM CHOP 104 0
Y nT
i
Department of Environment, Health, and Nall m Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form 10biz
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
LA, -
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-H se Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? ill
tt Air ?Coastal Management ? Water Planning

? ev
e
Faye Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
Mooresville Groundwater (tWildlife Solid Waste Management
Raleigh and Quality Engineer ( Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Recreational Consultant I?Land Resources ? David Foster
Washington ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others nvironmental Manageme nt
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RECEIVED
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Ps 104
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RRANCH
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
l
Wilson, Airport Road (SR 1320)
From Wilson Christian Church Road (SR 1158) to SR 1321
Wilson County
State Project 9.8044590
T.I.P. Project No. U-2727
•

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information Contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
Dat
3.
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
I
Wilson, Airport Road (SR 1320)
From Wilson Christian Church Road (SR 1158) to SR 1321
Wilson County
State Project 9.8044590
T.I.P. Project No. U-2727
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
August, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
Robert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Unit Head ?,,• ?N CARD ',•,
• ESS/d... -V %
01
3( SEAL i
Richar Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch
"% tigRO ....• • QP ??

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. System Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. EXIS TING ROADWAY INVENTORY (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Existing Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
F. Existing Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
G. Intersections and Type of Control . . . . . . . . . . 2
H. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
J. Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT . . . 3
A. Project Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Project Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
E. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control . . . . . 4
H. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
J. Bicycles. . 4
K. Railroad Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
L. Bridge Work Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
M. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
N. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
0. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
P. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Alternate 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Reduced Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. No-Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
VI. LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Status of Local Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Future Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT
OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Social and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis . . 13
E. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Biotic Community Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Soils and Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Rare and Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Federally-Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . 25
F. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
G. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT . . . . . . . . 29
APPENDIX
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to improve Airport
Road (SR 1320) from Wilson Christian Church Road (SR 1158) to SR 1321
in Wilson County (See Figure 1). The total project length is
approximately 1.5 miles. The proposed project will widen the
existing two lane roadway (Section A) to a five lane 64-foot, face to
face of curbs, curb and gutter facility and extend Airport Road
(Section B) from US 264 to SR 1158 (on new location). The
recommended cross section for the extended section is a two lane,
24-foot roadway with two-foot paved shoulders. The current estimated
cost of Section A and B is $1,499,000 and $715,000, respectively,
for a total project cost of $2,214,000. The estimated project cost
in the 1995-2001 TIP is $2,400,000. This project is included in the
1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with right-of-way
acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1995 and
construction to begin in FFY 1997.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact by improving the safety and traffic handling
capacity of this major thoroughfare. There may be some erosion and
siltation during the construction period, and there will be some
delay and inconvenience to motorists during construction; however,
the effects will be short term in nature. No significant impacts to
plant or animal life are expected and no recreational facilities or
historic sites will be involved. A small amount of wetlands (less
than 1.0 acre) will be impacted by the project. No families or
businesses will be displaced by the proposed improvements.
3. Alternatives Considered - No alternative corridor alignments were
considered. However, in addition to the recommended five lane cross
section for Section A, a reduced facility alternative and public
transportation alternative were considered, but eliminated. The "Do
Nothing" Alternative was also considered, but rejected because of the
need to increase the traffic carrying capacity along this section of
Airport Road. The five lane cross section is recommended because it
provides adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated future traffic
volumes and provides increased safety benefits due to the separation
of traffic movement with a center turn lane.
A two lane cross section for Section B on a 100 foot right of way is
recommended. Traffic will not be as high on this section due to the
fact that the major traffic moves will be from US 264 turning north
on Airport Road.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were
consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received during the preparation of
this report:
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
City of Wilson
5. Permits Required - Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers will be required for the stream crossing on this project
under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Section
401 General Water Quality Certification administered through
the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
6. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact - Based on an analysis of
potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, it has been
determined that no significant adverse effects on the quality of the
human environment will result from the construction of the proposed
project.
7. Environmental Commitments
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management
Practices will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
No right of way will be taken from the park adjacent to Airport
Road.
ii
Wilson, Airport Road (SR 1320)
From Wilson Christian Church Road (SR 1158) to SR 1321
Wilson County
State Project 9.8044590
T.I.P. Project No. U-2727
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen Airport Road (SR 1320) in Wilson from US 264
to SR 1321 (Section A) and to construct a 0.5 mile two lane connector from
US 264 to SR 1158 (Section B) (See Appendix, Figures 1 and 2). The
existing road will be widened to a five lane, 64-foot, face to face of
curbs, curb and gutter cross section. The total project length is 1.5
miles. The estimated cost of this improvement is $2,214,000.
The proposed project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin
in Fiscal Year 1995, and construction to begin in Fiscal Year 1997.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Thorouahfare Plan
Airport Road is listed as an urban major thoroughfare in the 1983
mutually adopted Wilson Thoroughfare Plan. This facility is also
classified as an Urban Minor Arterial on the Functional Classification
System.
Since, the proposed improvement of Airport Road is in concurrence
with the thoroughfare plan, the construction of this project will be a
step toward the implementation of this plan.
B. System Linkage
The proposed widening of Airport Road will serve as a vital link in
the major transportation for the City of Wilson. Airport Road will
function as an north-south cross town facility in the northern portion of
Wilson. It will reduce travel time, increase capacity and safety, provide
access for the airport via NC 42 and I-95, and provide access to
anticipated development along this corridor.
C. Economic Development
Much of the future development is anticipated to occur in northwest
Wilson. Increased development in an area creates an increased
transportation demand. The proposed project will aid in the economic
development of the area by improving the accessibility to northwest
Wilson. The improved access to the area, savings in operating costs,
reduced accident potential, reduced travel time, and the general
improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local
community, as well as the State.
2
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated 1997 and projected 2017 traffic volumes are shown in
Appendix (See Figure 3). Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1997
range from a low of 6600 vehicles per day (vpd) to a high of 7000 vpd.
Projected average daily traffic (ADT) estimates for the year 2017 range
from a low of 12,000 vpd to a high of 12,600 vpd. These estimates include
3% dual tired vehicles, and 2% truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Presently, Airport Road is operating at a level of service D.
The level of service of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying
utility. Level of service of A represents unrestricted maneuvering, and
operating speeds close to the speed limit. Level of service of D
represents severely restricted maneuverability, and unstable and low
operating speeds.
The proposed project should operate at a level of service of C when
constructed, and based on traffic projections should continue to operate
at level of service of C or better through the design year (2017).
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY (SECTION A)
A. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section on Airport Road consists of a 20-foot
roadway with 4-foot unpaved shoulders.
B. Existing Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along the project is 80 feet. The
right-of-way is symmetrical about the existing centerline.
C. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 45 mph.
D. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
E. Structures
A double 8' x 8' reinforced concrete box culvert is located where the
Hominy Swamp Tributary crosses the project.
F. Existing Alignment
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment is good.
G. Intersections and Tvpe of Control
All intersections within the project limits are at grade and stop
sign controlled.
3
H. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along the project.
I. Utilities
Existing utilities within the corridor of the proposed project
includes a 12" water line, 4" gas line, overhead power lines and a 10" ABS
sanitary sewer line.
J. Terminals
The Southern terminal of Section A is at the intersection of Airport
Road and US 264. At this location Airport Road is a channelized
intersection. At the north end of the project, Airport Road, is a five
lane, 59-foot, face to face of curbs, curb and gutter facility. At the
southern terminal of Section B SR 1158 is a two lane 24' shoulder section.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
A. Project Length
The proposed project is approximately 1.5 mile long.
B. Pro.iect Termini
The proposed project begins at SR 1158 and terminates at SR 1321.
The southern terminal is at the intersection of SR 1158 and Airport Road
extension. At this location, a two lane shoulder section is proposed for
Airport Road. The northern terminal of the proposed project is at the
intersection of Airport Road and (SR 1321). At this intersection, Airport
Road will remain a 59-foot, face to face of curbs, curb and gutter
section.
C. Cross Section Description
A five lane, 64-foot, face to face of curbs, curb and gutter facility
is recommended for the existing section (Section A) of Airport Road. This
cross section will provide two through lanes (24 feet) in each direction
and a twelve-foot continuous center left turn lane. The proposed
alignment is symmetrical about the existing centerline. For Section B, a
two lane, 24 foot cross section with '2 foot paved shoulders is
recommended.
D. Design Speed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing roadway
development or a minimum of 50 mph.
Design speed is a correlation of the physical features of a highway
which influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of safety and
mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted
as a recommended posted speed limit.
4
E. Right-of-Way
An 80-foot right-of-way width exists for Section A. This is to be
symmetrical about the centerline. Temporary easements will be required
to contain construction at various locations along the project. A
100-foot right of way width is recommended for Section B, which will
accommodate a future 5-lane curb and gutter facility if needed. F.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
G. Intersection Treatment and Tvoe of Control
All intersections on the proposed project will be at grade and stop
sign controlled.
H. Sidewalks
No side walks will be provided along the project. However, an 8-foot
berm area behind the curb is proposed. This will provide an area where
sidewalks can be constructed by others in the future.
I. Parking
Parking will not be provided for or permitted along the project.
J. Bicycles
Special accommodations for bicycles are not recommended for the
proposed project.
K. Railroad Involvement
No railroad crosses or parallels the proposed project.
L. Bridge Work Required
No bridges are involved with the proposed project. However, there is
one drainage structure involved within the project limits. A double 8' x
8' reinforced concrete box culvert located at Hominy Swamp Tributary will
be retained and extended.
M. Utilities
Overhead utility poles parallel the project. Water and telephone
lines are buried underground within the existing right-of-way limits.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
N. Special Permits Required
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
it is anticipated that nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers will be needed for one crossing a tributary associated with
Hominy Swamp. Final permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
5
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N. C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
0. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit on Airport Road is 45 mph. After completion
of the project, the speed limit is expected to remain 45 mph on Section A.
Section B is anticipated to be posted at 55 mph.
P. Cost Estimate
Section A Section B Total
Construction* $1,400,000 $550,000 $1,950,000
Right-of-Way** $ 99,000 $165,000 $ 264,000
Total $1,499,000 $715,000 $2,214,000
* Includes 10% for engineering and contingencies.
** Includes acquisition, relocation, and utility costs.
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternate 1 (Recommended)
This alternate widens Airport Road to a five lane, 64-foot, face to
face of curbs, curb and gutter facility from US 264 to SR 1321 (Section
A). The proposed widening is symmetrical throughout Section A and
provides for two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction and 12-foot center
lane for left turns. Additionally, this alternate proposes a two lane
connector from US 264 to SR 1158 (Section B). A two lane 24-foot shoulder
section with two-foot paved shoulders is recommended for this section of
roadway. This alternative is recommended since it provides adequate
traffic service through the year 2017.
B. Reduced Facilit
A four lane facility was considered but rejected due to the reduction
of safety that occurs when the center turn lane is eliminated. Although
this alternative was less expensive than the recommended five lane cross
section, it is not considered to be a viable alternative. Left turning
traffic generated by the anticipated development will clog the center
lanes of a four lane roadway reducing the effective capacity to two lanes.
For this reason and since it is not compatible with the existing five lane
roadway, this alternate is therefore rejected.
Not building Section B was also under consideration. This would
reduce cost but not provide the traffic service and Airport access. With
this connector a southern route to the Airport would be established
connecting Interstate 95, NC 42 and Airport Road, and the existing offset
intersection is eliminated.
C. Public Transportation
Although the City of Wilson has a public transit system, it does not
serve the portion of Airport Road being studied. It is not anticipated
that this service will be extended to this area in the near future.
Public transportation is not a prudent alternative to the widening of a
1.0 mile portion of Airport Road.
D. No-Build Alternative
If the "No-Build" alternative were chosen, it would avoid the adverse
effects arising from the project. However, it would have a definite
negative impact on transportation in the proposed corridor. Not
constructing the proposed project will hamper commercial and residential
growth in the area.
As traffic increases, safety for both motorists and pedestrians will
decrease. Without the proposed facility, it will require a longer travel
time and increased road-user costs for cross town travel. Since the
advantages of the project outweigh the disadvantages of not constructing
it, the No-Build alternative was rejected.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Status of Local Planning Activities
SR 1320 (Airport Road) currently serves as the municipal boundary for
City of Wilson. Land on the east side of the roadway and the Wilson
Airport to the northwest are within the municipal limits. The land on the
west side of SR 1320 is within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction,
where the City has planning and zoning authority. The City and Wilson
County jointly adopted the Wilson Growth Plan in 1990, a strategic
planning document which provides detailed urban growth boundaries and
specific policies relating to the quality and location of future
development and the provision of public facilities. The City has also
adopted a long range plan for recreation facilities which includes a
greenways plan. Both the City and County enforce zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations.
B. Existing Land Use
SR 1320 provides access to the Wilson Airport. The proposed
improvement is located in an area characterized by transition from rural
to suburban land uses. Little development has occurred at the southern
end of the project, while suburban residential development, specifically
construction of the Woodbridge subdivision, has recently occurred in the
center of the project area. Another phase to the Woodbridge development
is planned on the east and south side of Belle Mead Park. The land on the
southside of US 264, east of SR 1158 (Wilson Christian School Road) is
currently used for agricultural purposes. The Wilson Christian School, a
private school is located beyond the projects southern limit.
Belle Mead Park, operated by the City of Wilson, was recently
constructed on the east side of SR 1320. It is a neighborhood park with
playground equipment and picnic areas. The park was developed using Land
and Water Conservation Act Funds (LWCF). Coordination with the City's
Parks and Recreation Department and the Department of Interior will not be
necessary since no right-of-way will be acquired from the park site.
Several small commercial establishments are located at the northern
end of the project, near the entrance to the airport.
C. Existing Zoning
The transitional nature of the project area is reflected in the
current zoning. Neighborhood Business and Highway Business Park districts
are located at the northern and southern ends of the project. Medium
density single family residential zoning encompasses the Woodbridge
development as well as land immediately east of the subdivision. The
remaining land north of US 264 and all of the land south of US 264 is
zoned for agricultural uses. The portion of the proposed improvement
south of US 264 is located within the Contentnea Creek Protected Area, as
defined in the City's water supply watershed protection ordinance. The
most stringent use of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters" will be appropriate during construction of
this segment.
D. Future Land Use
According to the Wilson Growth Plan, the SR 1320 and SR 1158 are
located within the Primary Urban Growth Area for the City. This is the
area where "urban level development and redevelopment are to be especially
encouraged and where water and sewer services are already available or can
be provided cost effectively by the year 2000".
One transportation policy included in the Plan indicates support for
the area's thoroughfare plan and the elements contained within "to promote
the proper arrangement of land patterns by controlling the location of
streets and roads".
The City's long range recreation plan indicates that a greenway is
proposed along Hominy Swamp Creek, which is crossed by SR 1320. The
greenway will follow a sewer easement on the east side of Airport Road to
Belle Mead Park, and then continue across Airport Road to the west. The
City's Capital Improvement Plan includes $40,000 to begin construction of
the nine mile greenway system, which will be allocated in 1998.
E. Farmland
Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires state agencies to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. The proposed improvement will require no right-of-way from land
currently used for agriculture. Given that the entire area is expected to
develop to urban land uses by the year 2000, no consideration will be
given to alternatives which would reduce the impact to farmland.
8
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Social and Economic
Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Wilson County near the Town
of Wilson, North Carolina.
Wilson County is situated in the east central section of the
state and is bounded by Pitt, Greene, Wayne, Johnston, Nash and
Edgecombe Counties. The county has a population consisting of 66,061
people. Wilson, North Carolina is the largest urban area in Wilson
County.
Existing highway facility SR 1320 is located in a rural
community that is rapidly becoming urban. It may be more accurate to
characterize the area of SR 1320 or the site of the proposed action
as rural-urban. This highway facility is much in demand by traffic
which is generated by the airport which is located on SR 1321. On
the southern end of the proposed project the neighborhood is
characterized by farmland on both sides of the road. One house is
located on the west side of the existing highway facility and then
there are a few trees that line both sides of the road. North of the
wooded area along SR 1320 on the east side there are residential
dwellings. A few of these homes are apartments or condominiums, but
for the most part the homes are large single family dwellings. A
tall wooden fence has been constructed between the residential
dwellings and the existing SR 1320 highway facility to maintain
privacy for the residents.
2. Economic Factors
During the month of January, 1993, Wilson County's Labor Force
reached an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent. This may have been due
in part to the season of the year. During this time of year most if
not all farm crops have been harvested and sold. Farm labor reduced;
as farmers ponder over their next season crops. Despite the fact
that Wilson County is growing in retail, wholesale, and other
commodities, agriculture is still holding on, and is not completely
knocked out yet. Wilson still remains somewhat rural and depends on
seasonal crops to help boost her economy. In addition, the economy
in general was just beginning to bounce back from a sluggish state.
It can be anticipated that with the improvement of SR 1320 proposed
with project U-2727 the economy in the Wilson area will improve.
9
3. Public Facilities
There is a small playground area for tots situated just south of
the residential development on the east side of the existing highway
facility. It is back from the existing right of way.
4. Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact
The proposed action will not have any relocatees.
5. Social Impacts
The improvement of SR 1320 or Airport Road will have positive
impacts on the business industry and for motorists in general.
Airports have a tendency to generate a lot of commercial
activities. Many businesses depend on commercial air service to
deliver their products and goods to various destinations throughout
the world. Highways are the main facilities used to bring these
products and goods to an airport like the one in Wilson, North
Carolina. This type of activity places additional responsibility and
stress on existing highways, especially those highways that are
inadequate to carry the increased traffic volume.
Development near the Wilson Airport and along SR 1320 or Airport
Road is increasing. There are signs of new homes and businesses
being constructed. Continued growth (and there is no indication that
it will discontinue) will add to the problems of the existing two
lane highway facility. Therefore, by improving SR 1320 by widening
will be a positive social impact.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina
General Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action will
have an adverse effect upon a property listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission
will be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect on historical architectural
properties for this project was delineated, and the area was reviewed
in the field by NCDCT staff. No properties over fifty years old were
identified.
Since there are no properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places located within the area of
potential effect, no further compliance with GS 121-12(a) is
required.
10
2. Archaeological Resources
This is a state funded project, consideration of cultural
resources is required, subject to the North Carolina Archives and
History Act (General Statutes 121.12), Executive Order 16, and the
North Carolina Environmental Protection Act (NCGS 113). The State
Historic Preservation Office was consulted regarding properties
listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the project
vicinity.
A review of the files at the Office of State Archaeology
indicates that there are no archaeological sites recorded in the
project area. A reconnaissance of the project area by NCDOT
archaeological staff confirmed that the likelihood of the project
encountering any significant archaeological sites is low, given the
limited scope of the project and extensive modern development in the
project area. There are no sites listed on the National Register of
Historic Places within the project vicinity.
C. Air Quality Analvsis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and
any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a
point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once
the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together
to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and
to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
11
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of
sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions
are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it
is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
12
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any alternative. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year
of 1997 and the design year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors and the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer
model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor for the build scenario was
determined to be receptor #48 at a distance of 60' from the centerline of
the roadway . The worst-case air quality receptor for the no-build
scenario was determined to be receptor #49 at a distance of 40' from the
centerline of the roadway. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1997
and 2017 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1997 2017
R-48 2.4 2.4
Nearest No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1997 2017
R-49 2.4 2.5
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al, A2,
A3 and A4 for input data and output.
13
The project is located in the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality Control
Region. The ambient air quality for Wilson County has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since
this project is located in an area where the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the conformity
procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not
apply to this project.
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 done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated
by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 770, and no additional reports are required.
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area (Figure N1). This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses
and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area.
It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually
a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
14
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, references will be made to dBA, which means an A-weighted decibel
level. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in
Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas
are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about
their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1) the amount and
nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship between the background
noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type of activity occurring where
the noise is heard.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which
intrude into their lives, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to regulate many of
these types of noises including airplane noises, factory noise, railroad
noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise,
methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few
years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise
level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
An ambient noise measurement was taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise level. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The field data was also used to establish an ambient noise level for
residences and businesses in the vicinity of the project. The existing
Leq noise level along SR 1320 as measured at 50 feet from the roadway was
64.8 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing
noise levels for comparison with the noise level actually measured. The
calculated existing noise level was 1.6 dBA of the measured noise level
15
for the one location where a noise measurement was obtained. This
difference can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced"
vehicles and single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continual changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed project is to
widen the existing two lane roadway symmetrically to five lanes with curb
and gutter, 64' face to face of curbs. The proposed roadway was modeled
assuming no special noise abatement measures would be incorporated. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were considered. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade.
Thus, this analysis represents "worst-case" topographic conditions. The
noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with
proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak
hour in the design year 2017, would be exposed to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses
predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was
to select a receptor location such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600
feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of
the roadway). The location of this receptor was determined by the
projected traffic volume along the proposed project. The result of this
procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this
grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
16
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N3
according to the section. These are noted in terms of those receptors
expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. No
receptors will experience a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.
Other information included in Table N3 is the maximum extent of the 72 and
67 dBA noise level contours. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped
lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example,
with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N4 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors adjacent to the roadway section. Predicted noise
level increases for this project range from +4 to +5 dBA. Increases in
exterior traffic noise levels of this magnitude are common on widening
projects due to the road traversing areas that currently have highway
traffic noise in their acoustic environment and proposed lanes constructed
closer to receptors. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a
halving of the loudness of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS/ABATEMENT MEASURES
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively defract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earthberms or artificial abatement walls. The project will
maintain no control of access, meaning most commercial establishments and
residences will have direct driveway connections to the proposed roadway,
and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at
access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
11
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient
reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight (8) times the
distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located
50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long.
An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter
5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along
a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility.
Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities and, thus, would not be acceptable abatement
measures in their case.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are
feasible and none are recommended for this project.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations are often effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternate were also considered. Seven residences in the immediate project
area would experience traffic noise impacts within the next twenty years.
Noise level increases would be on the order of 3-4 dBA. As previously
stated, it is possible to barely detect level changes of 2-3 dBA and a 5
dBA change is more readily noticeable.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. Overall, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime
hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures
are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement measures
are not feasible nor reasonable and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
18
requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional reports are required for this project.
E. Ecological Analysis
Distribution and composition of three plant communities throughout
the project area reflect the topographic positioning, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land use practices.
1. Plant Communities
The project area is generally urbanized, consisting primarily of
farm land and residential developments, with natural areas sandwiched
between. Three biotic communities were identified in the project
area: Man-dominated, Pine Forest, and Coastal Plain Swamp Forest.
Natural community profile descriptions, where applicable, have been
adopted and modified from the NCNHP classification scheme (Schafale
and Weakley 1990).
Man-Dominated
Residential neighborhoods, agricultural fields, roadside
shoulder and shrub-scrub thickets constitute man-dominated
communities in the project area, where man's structures or activities
preclude natural plant succession.
Maintained shoulder slopes, grounds and lawns support fescue
(Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative component, complemented with
landscape ornamentals. Black walnut (Ju lans nigra), pecan (Carya
illinoensis), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and various oak trees ( uercus spp.) are common. Mowing is
frequently associated with this community.
Agricultural fields are interspersed in this suburban area.
This community contains only those lands currently managed for
agriculture, including fields under cultivation and fields
temporarily fallow. Cotton, tobacco and soybeans are prevalent in
the project area. Because of routine management practices associated
with farming, this community retains only isolated remnants of its
native character, providing little of its initial value as wildlife
habitat. Remnants of native vegetation and various invading weedy
species occur within the agricultural fields and along field edges.
Common plants include tall golden-rod (Solidago canadensis var.
scabra dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), cranesbill (Geranium
carolinianum), black nightshade (Solanum americanum) and foxtail
grass (Setaria sp.)
Shrub-scrub assemblages are previously cleared sites that have
been allowed to revegetate naturally. The vegetation of this
community consists primarily of sweetgum saplings (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Prevalent herbaceous plant
species occurring in this disturbed community include broom sedge
(Andropogon virginicus), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), Mexican tea
(Chenopodium ambrosioides), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium),
and golden-rods (Solidago spp.).
19
Pine Forest
Small remnants of pine forests occur in the project area.
Mature loblolly pine typically dominates the canopy and occurs as an
even-aged stand, indicative of selective logging practices.
Subcanopy components contain sweet-gum, red maple, horse sugar
(Symplocus tinctoria), and various oaks, notably southern red oak
( uercus fa]cata). Blueberries (Vaccinium sp.), and wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera) are abundant as are the common vines, muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia) and green-brier (Smilax sp.)
Coastal Plain Swamp Forest
Hominy Swamp is a large floodplain system traversed by subject
project. Soils are frequently flooded and or saturated. A logging
road bisects the swamp on the west side of the alignment and former
timbering activities are apparent by the evidence of stumps, cull
trees and soil disturbance. Septic lines are located in the swamp to
the east of the alignment. Canopy trees include willow oak ( uercus
hellos), green ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), red maple, tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum. Knotweed (Polygonum sp.),
soft needlerush (Juncus effusus), cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and
broom panic grass (Dichanthelium scoparium) make up the herbaceous
component. Shrubs present, are swamp dogwood (Cornus amomum),
meadow-sweet (S iraea alba var. alba), swamp rose (Rosa palustris),
and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Swamp blue violet (Viola
cucullata), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), water hemlock (Cicuta maculata), and ironweed
(Vernonia noveboracensis) are typical herbaceous plants.
2. Wildlife
Both terrestrial and aquatic organisms will be impacted by
proposed construction. Wildlife seen, or signs of (tracks, scat),
are denoted by an *asterisk.
Disturbed roadside communities and urban areas provide shelter
for opportunistic animal species, such as the Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus leucopus), house
mouse (Mus musculus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humilis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus mallurus). These are primarily
animals of disturbed environments, preferring old fields, brushy
edges, and other habitats characterized by mixtures of herbaceous
vegetation and shrubby plants. The red fox (Vul es fulva) is also
usually associated with open habitat, preferring areas with oldfieds,
woodlots and agricultural land. Mice make up an important part of
its diet as do eastern cottontails. These animals are not only an
important food source for the red fox, but are also common prey for
red-tail hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and other birds of prey who favor
hunting over open lands. Grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis)* were
frequently observed in the local neighborhoods, as were bird species
20
such as the rock dove (Columba livia)*, northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis)*, dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis)*, blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata)* and starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Pine siskins (Carduelis
inus)* and brown-headed nuthatchs (Sitta usilla)* are common in the
pine forested areas.
Low water levels (approximately 0.3 m, (1 ft) in Hominy Swamp,
in the immediate project vicinity, are not likely to support a
diversity of game fish species (pers. comm. WRC Fisheries Biologist,
Wayne Johnson). Small fish such as the eastern mudminnow (Umbra
pygmaea), mud sunfish (Acantharchus omotis), pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sayanus), swampfish (Chologaster cornuta), and redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus) may be present. Deeper parts of the swamp
support fish such chain pickerel (Esox niger), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), flier (Centrarchus macropterus), green sunfish (L.
cyanellus), and warmouth (L. ulosus). The American eel (Anguilla
rostrata) is also a common inhabitant.
Amphibians are also water dependent, laying shell-less eggs in
freshwater or in moist places and having an aquatic larval stage.
Inhabiting ditches and swamps in the project area include the
southern toad (Bufo terrestris), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer),
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and two-lined salamander (E.
bislineata). Insects, snails and worms are important food sources.
Reptiles evolved from primitive
and near freshwater habitats. Likely
are the snapping turtle (Chelydra
(Chrysemys concinna), painted turtle
snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Biotic community Impacts
amphibians and many are found in
to be seen in the project area
serpentina), river cooter
(C. pitta), and northern water
Future widening will eliminate portions of roadside shoulders,
agricultural land, pine forest, shrub-scrub, swamp and suburban
lawns. This will result in direct loss of plant species from
grubbing operations, soil compaction, and soil erosion.
Impacts to each community are summarized in Table 1 below.
Calculations are based on right of way limits of 24.4 m (80 ft feet).
Table 1. BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS hectares (acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY
Man-dominated Areas
Pine Forest
Coastal Plain Swamp
(including ditches)
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
4.64 (11.6)
1.2 (2.90)
0.02 0.06
TOTAL IMPACTS 6.86 (14.56)
21
Loss of wildlife habitat, particularly for aquatic species are
serious impacts that will result from dredging, filling, culvert
placement operations, slope stabilization and land clearing. These
construction activities result in the direct loss of benthic
organisms and an increase in silt load in wetland/aquatic
environments. Mobile aquatic organisms are better able to avoid
impacts, than those species that are filter feeders and/or relatively
immobile. However, the removal of benthic organisms reduces the
potential food supply for vertebrate and aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and benthos:
decreases the depth of light penetration inhibiting plant and algal
growth, which is a food source; clogs the filtration apparatus of
filter-feeding benthos and the gills of fish; buries benthic
organisms on the bottom, cutting them off from a food source;
adversely modifies preferred benthic substrate; and spoils downstream
spawning beds for fish.
For terrestrial species, impacts due to the proposed widening
will be reflected in the creation of new habitat and in the
alteration and elimination of previously existing habitat.
Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving organisms will be eliminated.
Larger, faster animals will simply be displaced. Expansion of a
"highway barrier" can affect both short-term migrations (diurnal,
nocturnal, diel) and long term migrations (seasonal) of animal
populations, depending on individual species' requirements for food,
water and cover. Also, animal migration may be interrupted due to
vehicular noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of individuals of
certain species.
4. Soils and Topography
The project area predominantly lies in the Upper Coastal Plain
and Piedmont Soil System. This is a transition zone where saprolite
from felsic igneous and Slate Belt rocks occur on the same landscape
with Coastal Plain sediments.
Most of the soils are well drained and upland areas have soils 2
to 3 meters thick. Thick sandy surface horizons are common in many
areas and are present in soils like Wagram. The cultivated uplands
and valley slopes are nearly white due to the sandy nature of the
soils. Soil mapping units located within the project area are
presented in Table 2.
22
Table 2 HYDRIC AND NONHYDRIC SOIL UNITS IN STUDY AREA
SOIL MAPPING UNIT CLASSIFICATION HYDRIC INCLUSION
Duplin sandy loam
0 to 2% slopes Non-hydric
Rains sandy loam Hydric
Goldsboro sandy loam
0 to 2% slopes Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand
0 to 2% slopes Non-Hydric
Marlboro loamy sand
2 to 5% slopes Non-hydric
Bibb loam Hydric
State loamy sand
0 to 3% slopes Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Wagram loamy sand
0 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Yes
5. Water Resources
Subject project crosses Hominy Swamp, and two drainage ditches
located in agricultural fields that drain into Hominy Swamp. These
waterbodies are located in the Neuse River basin. The Neuse River
basin is the second largest drainage basin lying entirely within
North Carolina and is formed by the confluence of the Eno and Flat
Rivers northeast of Durham. The river flows in a generally southeast
direction from its origin, to below New Bern.
Soils and vegetation of Hominy Swamp have been previously
disturbed by logging activities. Water levels at time of field visit
were 0.3 m (1 ft.). The channel is poorly defined, but at culvert
crossing was 3.7 to 4.6 m (12 to 15 ft) in width. Substrate is muck.
Two drainage ditches that flow into Hominy Swamp are located in
agricultural fields at the southern end of the project area.
Approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) in width, they contain herbaceous wetland
vegetation. Waters levels were insignificant. No natural fringe
vegetation is present.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The
segment of Hominy Swamp in the project area is assigned a "best
usage" classification of C by the NC-DEHR. Class C designates waters
23
suitable for secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife and agriculture. The supplemental
classification of Sw (Swamp waters) indicates waters which have low
velocities and other natural characteristics which differ from
adjacent streams, such as low ph, low dissolved oxygen and a high
organic matter content. The supplemental classification of NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) indicates waters needing additional
nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-off) due to their
being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) (NC-DEHNR,
Division of Environmental Management) addresses long term trends in
water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. No data is available for Hominy
Swamp.
Neither High Quality Water, Outstanding Resource Waters, nor
waters classified as WS-I and WS-11 are located in the study area, or
within 1.4 km (one mile) downstream. No National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits have been issued for the project area.
Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources in the study area include
the following:
- Increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion.
- Alterations of water level due to interruptions and/or additions
to surface and ground water flow from construction.
- Changes in water temperature and light incidence due to the
removal of vegetative cover.
Stringent application of Best Management Practices will be
advocated during the design and construction phases of this project,
in order to minimize impacts to water resources.
6. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Surface waters and associated wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill material into these waters of the U.S.
as authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Approximately 45.0 square m (500 sq ft) of jurisdictional
wetlands may receive impacts from project construction (Fig. 2).
Hominy Swamp is categorized as palustrine', forested, broad-leaved
deciduous communities (PF01A), and agricultural ditches are
classified as palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEM1), as defined by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland communities were identified in the
project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma values, hydrophytic
24
vegetation and the presence of hydrology or hydrological indicators.
A summary of wetland impacts associated with each site is provided in
table 3 below.
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Impacts, square m,(square ft)
Site Wetland Classification Anticipated Impacts
1 PEM1 2.25 (25)
2 PEM1 2.25 (25)
3 PFOIA 45.0 (500)
Total Impacts 49.5 (550)
* Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
**Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded
7. Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States". Final permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
It is anticipated that all wetlands will be authorized by
Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)). Nationwide #14 allows
for road crossing fills of non-tidal "Waters of the United States",
provided that the fill does not exceed 60.9 linear meters (200 ft)
and that the fill placed in waters of the U.S. is limited to a filled
area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.3 ac).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be
required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may
result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
8. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide permits
are required, according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE (1989). Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
9. Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to
have a detrimental impact to the survival and well being of any
species classified as federally protected, is subject to review by
25
the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
In North Carolina, protection of plant and animal species falls
under N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
These species may or may not be federally protected.
10. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The FWS lists several federally Endangered species for Wilson
County, as of December 20, 1993 (Table 4).
Table 4 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wilson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac* E
E-Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all
its range.
* Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20 years.
A brief description and habitat requirements for the above listed
species are summarized below.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland,
Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery,
Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange,
Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for
small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back is
black and white with horizontal stripes and the breast and underside
is white with streaked flanks. There is a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
26
RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A
forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
equal to greater that 60 years old and are contiguous with pine
stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is
from 100 to 200 acres, this acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100 ft
above the ground and average 30-50 ft high. They can be identified
by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. This
is used as a defense against possible predators. A clan of
woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring
from previous years. The eggs are laid in April, May, and June and
hatch 38 days later. Clutch size is from 3 - 5 eggs. All members of
the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed
mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological conclusion: No effect. Pine dominated stands are not of
sufficient size or age to support the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf-wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Nash, Wake,
Wilson, Warren and Halifax.
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac
River, Canada to the Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina
populations are found in Middle Creek and the Little River of the
Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked, and
Stony Creeks of the Tar River system.
The dwarf-wedged mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from
2.5 cm to 3.8 cm in length. It's shell is distinguishable by two
lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and
the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Successful reproduction is dependent on the attachment of larval
mussels to a host fish. It is not known what the host fish is but
evidence suggests that it is either an anadromous or catadromous
species. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and
industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with
well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological conclusion: No effect. The portion of Hominy Swamp
occurring in the immediate project area is highly disturbed. The
presence of sewer lines, timbering and earth moving activities rule
27
out the possibility that it is present. In addition, a search along
swamp boundaries for shell middens turned up no evidence of Unioids
present.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Moore,
Orange, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, Wake, Wilson.
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal
plain and lower piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia. This species is believed to be extirpated in South
Carolina. It is currently known from only 21 populations in North
Carolina and Georgia. In North Carolina populations of Michaux's
sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond, Scotland, Franklin, Davie,
Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that
grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in height. The narrowly winged or wingless
rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets
that are each 4 to 9cm long, 2 to 5cm wide, acute and acuminate. The
bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
serrate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster.
The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop
from August to September on female plants, are a red densely
short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6mm across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent
on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat.
It usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand
or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full
sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as
Japanese honeysuckle that it is often associated with.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. Suitable habitat is present along
the fringes of shrub-scrub and pine forested areas. Plant by plant
surveys were conducted January 31, 1994. No individuals were seen.
Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
The following Candidate 2 (C2) species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of it's
provisions until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms for which there
is some evidence of vulnerability, but data are not sufficient to
warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or
Proposed Threatened at this time. Plants or animals with state
designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern
(SC) are granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act and
the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and
the NC Department of Agriculture.
2s
The following species may potentially occur in the project area.
Organisms and their suitable habitat were not surveyed for. The NHP
data base was reviewed to determine if any protected species have
been verified in the project area. None were recorded.
Table 5. Federal Candidate/State Listed Species
Common Name Scientific Name CAT. STATE
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii C2 -
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2 T
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra* C2 -
C2-Candidate 2: A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
as Endangered or Threatened at this time.
*-Indicates no state protected status
F. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced with
the construction of this project. Measures will be taken to mitigate
these effects to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures". The
contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders and decreases regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of
way is permitted by the Engineer.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
29
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Divisions of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines
and interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of this
project. For this reason an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work which must be coordinated to reduce
erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion
control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction
with the erosion control schedule the contractor will be required to
follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use
of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures".
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source
will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. A
copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to
performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
G. Hazardous Waste
Based on records maintained at the Solid Waste Management Branch no
potential hazardous waste sites are known to be in the project area. Land
uses observed reveal it is primarily agricultural and a low risk for
hazardous waste. There was no evidence of any underground storage tanks
regulated under 40 CFR 280 along the project corridor.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project, it has been determined there will be no significant
adverse effects on the quality of the human environment as a result of its
construction.
30
The project will not require the relocation of any families or
businesses. It will have no adverse effect of religious, educational, or
medical facilities. The project should have no adverse effects on the
economy of the area.
RJB/wp

luo \ i ?
1. ?1 \
I 1?92
•? I .12
Le= $ F 1331 is 1
• 14 1]20 1HV
? .. 16]1 I 1788 •?` ? ? 4r
.'•? 1399 :;;:i •,6.
1382 \ • 33
C ?\ 1r \ .32
1?2 `Y ?O
? ,.n \ uee \ \ ?a 1:
?.? ,":':•i? . ;ti%?:i r ??' 4,\\ ?1 It
i 1382 ,` rrt y` j •1u1 '.
I\ $ \'.
7.1
n WILSON i t =±: M6
AIRPORT
SECTION A PROJECT
?:? ? LIMIT
\ \ 1 \ FNJ =iiti i1i1111*r' 4?
CUL-DE-SAC ? f
Lw -----SECTION A
"• '::<:? SECTION B '
SECTION B %A
`??. 26a "a4c+ w. \
118 PROJECT i 1?. • 1.01 C3 FNJ
LIMIT *KW,Y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LIM BRANCH
• 41 L36 I
WILSON
SR 1320 (AIRPORT ROAD)
.NO l FIS FROM SR 1158 TO SR 1321
J.
D .64 U - 2727
N WILSON COUNTY _
1nm 12m
'o 4'r7 I IX2
,m
iro3 0 mile 1/2 FIGURE 11
4
s?
I
WILSON COUNTY
FEBRUARY, 1993
16
390
ESTIMATED 199712017 ADT VOLUMES IN HUNDREDS
SR 1320 FROM US 264 TO SR 1321
:?3
co
66
120
20
230
416
FIGURE 3
-tom L t& ->.
108 25 15
105 208
94
170
U-"L/G!
WILSON CO.
FEBRUARY, 1993
ESTIMATED 1997/2017 ADT VOLUMES
SR 1320 FROM US 264 TO SR 1321
ADT (in hundreds)
LOCATION TTST DUAL DHV DIR
1997 2017
SR 1320 FROM
US 264 TO SR 70 126 2 0,/a 30 10°0 60%
1 321
FIGURE 3 CONT'D
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 1
JOB: U-2727: SR 1320, Wilson County RUN: BUILD, 5 LN/60' UNDIVIDED, YR-1997,45MPH
DATE: 09/09/1993 TIME: 13:15:36.24
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-
------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES
(M)
" LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
" X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ ------------------------- ---- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 350. 16.4 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link " .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 - 1609. 180. AG 350. 16.4 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR " X Y Z
-------------------------"-------------------------------------*
1. R48, 60' RT. CL RES * -12.8 .0 1.8 "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
R-::-ARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
e
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)' REC1
MAX " 2.4
DEGR. * 3
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 2
JOB: U-2727: SR 1320, Wilson County RUN: BUILD, 5 LN/60' UNDIVIDED, YR-2017,45MPII
DATE: 09/09/1993 TIME: 13:17:29.66
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---
---------------------------
VS = .0 GM/S VD = -
.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION "
LINK COORDINATES
(M)
•
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
Ii
W V/C QUEUE
"
* X1 Yl X2 Y2 "
- " (M)
---------- (DEC)
------------ (G/MI)
-------------- (M)
---- (M) (VEH)
------------------
------------------------
--
1. Far Lane Link " -----------------------
11.0 -804.7 -----
11.0 ---------
804.7 " 1609. 360. AG 630. 10.4 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link • .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 " 1609. 180. AG 630. 10.4 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
"
COORDINATES (M
)
"
RECEPTOR "
• X Y
-------------------
- Z
---- "
--------"
-------------------------
--
1. R49, 60' RT. CL RES • --
-
* -12.8 .0 1.8 *
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.

WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)" REC1
MAX * 2.4
DEGR. * 1
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSICN MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 3
JOB: U-2727: SR 1320, Wilson County RUN: NOBUILD, 2LZ420' UNDIVIDED, YR-1997,45MPH
DATE: 09/09/1993 TIME: 13:18:52.76
SITE S METECROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--
----------------------
VS = .0 CM/S -------
VD = 0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMH - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
" LINK COORDINATES (M)
' LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2
" Y2
---------- * (M)
"---------- (DEC)
----------- (G/MI)
--------------- (M)
---- (M) (VEH)
------------------
-----------------------
1. Far Lane Link -----------------------------
-
' 3.0 -804.7 3.0 -
804.7 " 1609. 360. AG 350. 16.4 .0 9.1
2. Near Lane Link * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 " 1609. 180. AG 350. 16.4 .0 9.1
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M)
"
RECEPTOR " X Y Z "
----------------------- -- '-------------------------------------"
1. R49, 40' RT. CL RES " . -10.7 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARF3 : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.4
DEGR. * 2
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 4
:,OB: U-2727: SR 1320, Wilson County RUN: NCBUILD, 2LN20' UNDIVIDED, YR-2017,45MPH
DATE: 09/09/1993 TIME: 13:19:57.52
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------
---------------------
VS - .0 CM/S ---
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 1 08. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINT: D-cSCRIPTICN
' LINK COORDINATES
(M)
' LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
" X1 Y1 X2 Y2
------- * (M)
----------- (DEG)
------------ (G/MI)
-------------- (M)
----- (M) (VEH)
-----------------
----------------------
1. Far Lane Link -- --------------------------
" 3.0 -804.7 ---
3.0 ----
804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 630. 10.4 .0 9.1
2. Near Lane Link • .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 630. 10.4 .0 9.1
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M)
'
RECEPTOR ' X Y
-------------------
' Z
--- '
--------*
-----------------------
1. R49, 40' RT. CL RES -------
--
* . -10.7 .0 1.8 "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
• WIND ' CCNCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)" REC1
MAX ' 2.5
DEGR. * 4
TABLE Nl
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

140 Shotgun blast, jot 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammor
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditlcner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of loavos
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF i.rMARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Bock, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishlfski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the aroa is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
c
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
e

Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
Fh'AA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
SR 1320 (Airport Road), Wilson County
TIP # U-2727 State Project x 9.8044590

Description
1. SR 1320, From US 264 to SR 1321
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 57 dBA
67 63 58 <49' 82'
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 6 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 100', and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1320 (Airport Road), Wilson County
TIP N U-2727 State Project it 9.8044590
Substantial
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Noise Level
Increases
Section <=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >- 25 >- 15 dBA
1. SR 1320, From US 264 to 0 0 31 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1321
•ht Q?'?r•
J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 15, 1993
y
JUL 2 0 1993
DIVISION OF
Division cat;
William
MEMORANDUM
4
C
t.
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to SR 1320 (Airport Road), Wilson,
Wilson County, U-2727, CH 93-E-4220-0967
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted, a search of our files and are aware of no National Register-
listed properties located within the planning area.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Basec
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc:. State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q?
A STATE
It-? r(I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 27, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
Wilson, Airport Road (SR 1320), From Wilson Christian Church Road
(SR 1158) to SR 1321, Wilson County, State Project 9.8044590,
T.I.P. Project No. U-2727
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved State
Environmental Assessment/FONSI and the Natural Resources Technical Report for
the subject proposed highway improvement. This report records the
determination that implementing the proposed action will not have a
significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
4 6" CJ \0
cbb ?

STATt o
7S ?J I.??v^???n?
v `r 11 1 yP>
I?
ur N?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IAMB B. HUNT. JIL DIVISION OF HIGHMYS SAJM Huvr
GoWERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 22, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Hart, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
ATTENTION: Bob Booker, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resource Technical Report for the
Proposed Widening of SR 1320 (Airport Road),
from US 264 to SR 13::1; T.I.P. U-2727;
Wilson, Wilson County; State Project NO.
9.8044590.
The following Natural Resources Technical Report and
Elecutive Summary has been prepared following a field survey
conducted by Environmental Unit Staff on January 31, 1994.
No outstanding issues are to be reported. If you have
questions or need additional information, please give me a
call.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
?I
Widening of SR 1320 (Airport Road),
from US 264 to SR 1321
Wilson County
T.I.P. No. U-2727
State Project No. 9.8044590
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
U-2727
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL U14IT
JANET L. SHIPLEY
Februarv 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................1
1.2 Purpose ...........................................1
1.3 Study Area ........................................1
1.4 Methodology .......................................1
2.0 Biotic Resources .....................................2
2.1. Plant Communities ..............................2
2.2 Wildlife ........................................3
2.3 Biotic Community Impacts ........................4
.0 Physical Resources ...................................6
3.1 Soils and Topography .............................6
3.2 Water Resources ..................................6
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts .....................7
4.0 Special Topics ........................................8
4.1 Jurisidictional Waters of the United States ...... 8
4.1.1 Permits ....................................8
4.1.2 Mitigation .................................9
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .......................9
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ................9
4.2.2 Federal Candidate/State Protected Species.12
5.0 References ...........................................13
i
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
prepared to assist in the preparation of a state funded
Environmental Assessment (EA) document.
1.1 Proiect Description
The proposed project calls for improved t_affic carrying
capacity of SR 1320 (Airport Road) by widening the existing
two lanes to a five lane curb and gutter facility, from US
264 to SR 1321 for a project length of 1.5 km (0.9 mile)
(Fig. 1). The existing right of way is 18.1 m (60 ft.),
while the proposed right of way is 24.4 m (80 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the
natural systems found within the project area and to document
probable impacts to these systems.
1.3 Study Area
Subject project is located east of the City of Wilson
in Wilson County. Located in the inner Coastal Plain, this
region is primarily agricultural. Tobbaco is a leading crop.
1.4 Methodology
The study area is defined by right of way limits of 24.4
m (80 feet). An ecological survey was conducted February 1,
1994 to identify vegetative communities and wildlife species
contained within the project area. Vegetative communities
and wildlife were inventoried and mapped during on-site
surveys. Wetlands were identified, using methods in the
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987).
In-house preparatory work was completed prior to a field
visit. The Wilson County Soil Survey, USGS Winstead
Crossroads quadrangle map, and the hydric soils list for
Wilson County were studied to identify potential wetland
sites. The Environmental Sensitivity Base Map for Wilson
County was utilized to determine if any sensitive resources
are present in the project area. "Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River
Basin" (N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources) was consulted to determine the best usage
classification for area streams. N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) files
were reviewed to determine if any protected flora or fauna
occurs in the project area.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
.12
, ICG2 ••? ? l 1l •!? ',??
.34
1?G1 - 1 \
`? * ? .., ,• r .,. is ? `J ;a\\ ? ? •?.. -; ? f.?- :V ?? 4 ?'*'` s
' . ? av• ,'?\ .sz '•`?•\'' 4 ...13y .'o .,lid \v?c.`yy
v.vb 135,
c. A r ,:l Z3 7?? r
ion
Z3 ion
3 J ,, rlrJ`J 111] - \ 51
t:x
•h: .v y1J 7
/ •?
C:z
.73
WILSON
AIRPORT I 1 .? t
ws_
.?? :?• 1]21 .?.''.•::; ?:? '\ ii yl •.
PROJECT
• "? -'LIMITS '
• ,'': ,^=,•;\ ?? 1;,.,_.,.,; .79 W-4 amt •-
A3 L=
'4 f-" Wk 14
'\ FKl
46
\ PROJECT
LIMITS
. ` Mo 1` t
112 • •
9 11 9 I
I 1 r?"??• 1.01 E S34 ,ma 9 UWqh Rd .
••\ 1 •? FM FAA
'ktw 1152 \ Q isat
h 1 -
?- -`?
/• S !!iJliJ%JINNJlJJJ1!!?> ' . ?1 u? `
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
uu? i I R TI2AIVS['ORTA1'ION, V L?si3
DI,VVISIOY ORHICHWAYS
d ` L I;LANNING AND'I:NVII2ONMIsN1AL
'ti3 t 5? - _?.fr I31Zr1NCH'..wr?tzxzc.'a ?;.''. s!
\o ® _ 4 AS
t•? m t `?0r.Y:• '6a• .. :?.i ' -i i "? n,?"^ r { tit a. 4:1;Y?,:•?y?,. r „CRY; I'iI^•t3.
• ?M, ? = •?' v '{,?,! tt; ?? ?'?'_?'::??'t?I;.-T:°-t'lIa'L 4???'Pr
--'?y
co a Or 320-',(-A I'RPORT'1ROAD)? f
` :. LZ31 Y 1 FROM'..US??_6j -,O SR 132 1
um r., \ 1 ri' U-2727
4y;? IttSJO N NCO UttN `f Y.
! V i F 1 gu z 1? 0 p m it o s 6' '2'2 `< :,{`
Distribution and composition of three plant communities
throughout the project area reflect the topographic
positioning, hydrologic influences, and past and present land
use practices.
2.1 Plant Communities
The project area is generally urbanized, consisting
primarily of farm land and residential developments, with
natural areas sandwiched between. Three biotic communities
were identified in the project area: Man-dominated, Pine
Forest, and Coastal Plain Swamp Forest. Natural community
profile descriptions, where applicable, have been adopted and
modified from the NCNHP classification scheme (Schafale and
Weakley 1990).
Man-Dominated
Residential neighborhoods, agricultural fields, roadside
shoulder and shrub-scrub thickets constitute man-dominated
communities in the project area, where man's structures or
activities preclude natural plant succession.
Maintained shoulder slopes, grounds and lawns support
fescue (Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative component,
complemented with landscape ornamentals. Black walnut
(Juglans nigra), pecan (Carva illinoensis), red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and
various oak trees (Quercus spp.) are common. Morning is
frequently associated with this community.
Agricultural fields are interspersed in this suburban
area. This community contains only those lands currently
managed for agriculture, including fields under cultivation
and fields temporarily fallow. Cotton, tobacco and soybeans
are prevalent in the project area. Because of routine
management practices associated with farming, this community
retains only isolated remnants of its native character,
providing little of its initial value as wildlife habitat.
Remnants of native vegetation and various invading weedy
species occur within the agricultural fields and along field
edges. Common plants include tall golden-rod (Solidago
canadenensis var. seabra), dog-fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), black
nightshade (Solanum americanum) and (oxtail grass (Setaria
sp.)
Shrub-scrub assemblages are previously cleared sites
that have been allowed to revegetate naturally. The
vegetation of this community consists primarily of sweetgum
saplings (Liquidambar stvraeiflua) and red maple (Aeer
rubrum). Prevalent herbaceous plant species occurring in
3
virginicus), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), Mexican tea
(Chenonodium ambrosioides), rabbit tobacco (Gnaohalium
obtusifolium), and golden-rods (Solidago spp.).
Pine Forest
Small remnants of pine forests occur in the project
area. Mature loblolly pine typically dominates the canopy
and occurs as an even-aged stand, indicative of selective
logging practices.
Subcanopy components contain sweet-gum, red maple, horse
sugar (SVmplocus tinctoria), and various oaks, notably
southern red oak (Quercus falcata). Blueberries (Vaeeinium
sp.), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) are abundant as are
the common vines, muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) and green-
brier (Smilax sp.)
Coastal Plain Swamn Forest
Hominy Swamp is a large floodplain system traversed by
subject project. Soils are frequently flooded and or
saturated. A logging road bisects the swamp on the west side
of the alignment and former timbering activities are apparent
by the evidence of stumps, cull trees and soil disturbance.
Septic lines are located in the swamp to the east of the
alignment. Canopy trees include willow oak (201.iercus
phellos), green ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), red maple, tulip
tree (Liriodendron tulinifora) and sweetgum. Knotweed
(Polygonul sp.), soft needlerush (Juncus effusus), care
(Arundinaria gigantea) and groom panic grass (Dichantholium
scoparium) make up the herbaceous component.
Shrubs present, are swamp dogwood (Cornus amomum), meadow-
sweet (Spiraea alba var. alba), swamp rose (Rosa nalustris),
and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidegtalis). Swamp blue
violet (Viola cucmllata), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
renens), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), water hemlock
(Cicuta maculata), and ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis) are
typical herbaceous plants.
2.2 Wildlife
Both terrestrial and aquatic organisms will be impacted
by proposed construction. wildlife seen, or signs of
(tracks, scat), are denoted by an *asterisk.
Disturbed roadside communities and urban areas provide
shelter for opportunistic animal species, such as the Norway
rat (Rattus norvegicus), white-footed mouse (Peromysci
leucopus leucopus), house mouse ( us musculus), eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humilis), hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), and eastern cottontail (SVlvilagt s
floridanus mallurus). These are primarily animals of
disturbed environments, preferring old fields, brushy edges,
4
and other habitats characterized by mixtures of herbaceous
vegetation and shrubby plants. The red fox (yulpes fulva) is
also usually associated with open habitat, preferring areas
with oldfieds, woodlots and agricultural land. Mice make up
an important part of its diet as do eastern cottontails.
These animals are not only an important food source for the
red fox, but are also common prey for red-tail hawks (Buteo
lamaicensis) and other birds of prey who favor hunting over
open lands. Grey squirrels (sciurus carolinensis)* were
frequently observed in the local neighborhoods, as were bird
species such as the rock dove (Columba livia)*, northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*, dark eyed junco (Junco
hyemalis)*, blue jay (Cvanocitta cri.stata)* and starling
(Sturnus vulgaris). Pine siskins (Carduelis 2inus)* and
brown-headed nuthatchs (Sitta nusilla)* are common in the
pine forested areas.
Low water levels (approximately 0.3 m, (1 ft) in Hominy
Swamp, in the immediate project vicinity, are not likely to
support a diversity of game fish species (pers. comm. WRC
Fisheries Biologist, Wayne Johnson). Small fish such as the
eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), mud sunfish (Acantharchus
nomotis), pirate perch (Aphredoderus savanus), swampfish
(Chologaster cornuta), and redfin pickerel
(Eso:; americanus )
may be present. Deeper parts of the swamp support fish such
chain pickerel (Esox niger), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
flier (Centrarchus macronterus), green sunfish (L.
cvanellus), and warmouth (L. gulosus). The American eel
(Anguilla rostrata) is also a common inhabitant.
Amphibians are also water dependent, laying shellless
eggs in freshwater or in moist places and having an aquatic
larval stage. Inhabiting ditches and swamps in the project
area include the southern toad (Bufo terrestris), spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and two-
lined salamander (E. bislineata). Insects, snails and worms
are important food sources.
Reptiles evolved from primitive amphibians and many are
found in and near freshwater habitats. Likely to be seen in
the project area are the snapping turtle (Chelvdra
serpentina), river cooter (Chrvsemvs concinna), painted
turtle (C. iP cta), and northern water snake (Nerodi3
sipedon).
2.3 Biotic community impacts
Future widening will eliminate portions of roadside
shoulders, agricultural land, pine forest, shrub-scrub, swamp
and suburban lawns. This will result in direct loss of plant
species from grubbing operations, soil compaction, and soil
erosion.
Imparts to each community are summarized in Table 1
below. Calculations are based on right of way limits of 24.4
m (80 ft feet).
Table 1. BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS hectares (acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Man-dominated Areas 4.64 (11.6)
Pine Forest 1.2 (2.90)
Coastal Plain Swamp
(including ditches) 0.02 (0.06)
TOTAL IMPACTS 6.86 (14.56)
Loss of wildlife habitat, particularly for aquatic
species are serious impacts that will result from dredging,
filling, culvert placement operations, slope stabilization
and land clearing. These construction activities result in
the direct loss of benthic organisms and an increase in silt
load in wetland/aquatic environments. Mobile aquatic
organisms are better able to avoid impacts, than those
species that are filter feeders and/or relatively immobile.
However, the removal of benthic organisms reduces the
potential food supply for vertebrate and aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and benthos:
decreases the depth of light penetration inhibiting plant and
algal growth, which is a food source; clogs the filtration
apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and the gills of fish;
buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting them off from
a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic
substrate; and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
For terrestrial species, impacts due to the proposed
widening will be reflected in the creation of new habitat and
in the alteration and elimination of previously existing
habitat. Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving organisms
will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced. Expansion of a "highway barrier" can affect both
short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal, diel) and long
term migrations (seasonal) of animal populations, depending
on individual species' requirements for food, water and
cover. Also, animal migration may be interrupted due to
vehicular noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of
individuals of certain species.
6
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
3.1 Soils and Topography
The project area predominantly lies in the Upper
Coastal Plain and Piedmont Soil System. This is a transition
zone where saprolite from felsic igneous and Slate Belt rocks
occur on the same landscape with Coastal Plain sediments.
Most of the soils are well drained and upland areas have
soils 2 to 3 meters thick. Thick sandy surface horizons are
common in many areas and are present in soils like Wagram.
The cultivated uplands and valley slopes are ne-rly white due
to the sands nature of the soils. Soil mapping units located
within the project area are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 HYDRIC AND NONHYDRIC SOIL UNITS IN STUDY AREA
SOIL MAPPING UNIT CLASSIFICATION HYDRIC INCLUSION
Duplin sandy loam
0 to 2- slopes Non-hydric
Pains sandy loam Hydric
Goldsboro sandy loam
0 to 2% slopes Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand
0 to 2% slopes Non-Hydric
Marlbcro loamy sand
2 to 5% slopes Non-hydric
Bibb loam Hydric
State loamy sand
0 to 3% slopes Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand
2 to 6% slopes Non-hydric
Wagram loamy sand
0 to 6 slopes Non-hydric
Yes
3.2 Water Resources
Subject project crosses Hominy Swamp, and two drainage
ditches located in agricultural fields that drain into Hominy
Swamp. These waterbodies are located in the Neuse River
basin. The Neuse River basin is the second largest drainage
basin lying entirely within North Carolina and is formed by
the confluence of the Eno and Flat Rivers north=ast of
Durham. The river flows in a generally southeast direction
from its origin, to below New Bern.
Soils and vegetation of Hominy Swamp have been
previously disturbed by logging activities. 'eater levels at
time of field visit were 0.3 m (1 ft.). The channel is
poorly defined, but at culvert crossing was 3.7 to 4.6 m (12
to 15 ft) in width. Substrate is muck.
Two drainage ditches that flow into Hominy Swamp are
located in agricultural fields at the southern end of the
project area. Approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) in width, they
contain herbaceous wetland vegetation. Waters levels were
insignificant. No natural fringe vegetation is present.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). The segment of Hominy Swamp in the project area is
assigned a "best usage" classification of C by the NC-DEHR.
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
agriculture. The supplemental classification of Sw (Swamp
waters) indicates waters which have low velocities and other
natural characteristics which differ from adjacent streams,
such as low ph, low dissolved oxygen and a high organic
matter content. The supplemental classification of NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) indicates waters needing
additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-
off) du= to their being subject to e.:cessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
The Eenthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient tletwork. (BMAN)
(NC-DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fired monitoring sites
by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. No data is available for Hominy Swamp.
Neither High Quality Water, Outstanding Resource Waters,
nor waters classified as WS-I and WS-11 are located in the
study area, or within 1.4 km (one mile) downstream. No
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits have
been issued for the project area.
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources in the study area
include the following:
- Increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion.
- Alterations of water level due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Changes in water temperature and light incidence
due to the removal of vegetative cover.
Stringent application of Best Management Practices
should be advocated during the design and construction phases
of this project, in order to minimize impacts to water
resources.
8
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional waters of the United States
Surface waters and associated wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in
33 CFR 323.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes
jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material
into these waters of the U.S. as authorized by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.
Approximately 45.0 square m (500 sq ft) of
jurisdictional wetlands may receive impacts from project
construction (Fig. 2). Hominy Swamp is categorized as
palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous communities
(PFOIA), and agricultural ditches are classified as
palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEM1), as defined by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland communities were identified
in the project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma
values, hydrophytie vegetation and the presence of hydrology
or hydrological indicators. A summary of wetland impacts
associated with each site is provided in table 3 below.
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Impacts,
Site Wetland Classification
1 PEM1
2 PEM1
3 PFOlA
square m,(square ft)
Anticipated Impacts
2.25 ('S)
-.25 ('S)
45.0 (500)
--------------
Total Impacts 49.5 (550)
*Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
**Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily
Flooded
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required
from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Final permit decisions
rest with the Corps of Engineers.
It is anticipated that all wetlands will be authorized
by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)). Nationwide
T14 allows for road crossing fills of non-tidal "Waters of
the United States", provided that the fill does not exceed
60.9 linear meters (200 ft) and that the fill placed in
waters of the U.S. is limited to a filled area of no more
than 0.1 ha (0.3 ac).
-- . PFOIA , - I v ???` P f0i
1 ?s
PSSIA I _ l64IL. V. PtlB9Hx ,
PU63Hx PFOIA
PFOIA
?• ?1 <;
PU09H ci
P,f01
5S1A' ,-'
PF01/tA- olf
PU93I11, ;x
150
< ?SJ'
PFOIA
? ? 11]06 ,1`%66 --? •??'
lEl` A4
U Ch
PFOIA
PEMIF
PFOIC PUI? H><-'{?
we'son Az
PFOI/4A
_ y.
FFOIC
% \ U03Ht, -?\•,WILSON AIRPORT./
PU03HI. ':'I'
0-1
Tee
Pf01A
PUB3Hx
(1303 ,PF0I/4A?, \'Y .; ? ,;<J \
56 J I<s I. ?. n PU03HL, PFOIC/ St ?tthewl.l 1
I i Ums n 1]21 Ch FOIA C
•\ J/ ?-•? Gant • y; ? • `: •.I
\I `?y </s> PFOU? ?as°?PU69Hx \ ._.::! ?
PUB3HX
PFOIC Mipon •,''__ ,t ??? PFOIAd
Q, : ?.
?Ge PF0114A \ PUBS ti
PP I/4A , M PF I to l
PFOIA _ • •? _ '
-: PU03Hti tba PF IAI
? ? Og3H.h ' ? ?- _ .v to ?? ?' lul _ ` .: •\ ;i
r. ? ?? Trims •,"., '1 ' pU fT ?,. • Hills
PFOIC 15
R ` PFOIA I! PFOL/1&'
,ro ' !
>UB Hx?>? u PFO Am•?',??? /<v PuB3Nh fry ?L'J•-,._.e
-PFOIA PFOr _ Lf
PF01/4A 1 PF01l1
• ? PF ? - o?HF???°? I •.?.
,r 4,+ crnl •,? ; _ _ -- N ,j `? Figure 2
?• ?: ?fo1?4A \? l - I U-2727
vc°u ,7uri sdictional
UB • r Chrvt'an Sch
3Hh-(?•a 'het1and sites
PC?IC
9
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through
the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources will be required. This certificate is issued for
any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for
which a federal permit is required.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide
permits are required, according to the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE (1989). Final discretionary authority in
these matters rests with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the
potential to have a detrimental impact to the survival and
well being of any species classified as federally protected,
is subject to review by the FWS and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
In North Carolina, protection of plant and animal
species falls tinder N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12
to 106-202.19 of 1979. These species may or may not be
federally protected.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected tinder provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The FWS lists several federally Endangered species for
Wilson County, as of December 20, 1993 (Table 4).
Table 4 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wilson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E
Rhu michauxii Michaux's sumac* E
E-Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all its range.
* Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20
years.
A brief description and habitat requirements for the
1()
above listed species are summarized below.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven,
Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax,
Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee,
Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, orange, Pamlico, Pender,
Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland,
Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except
for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The
back is black and white with horizontal stripes and the breast and
underside is white with streaked flanks. There is a large white
cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 505, pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are equal to greater that 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The
foraging range of the RCW is from 100 to 200 acres, this acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100
ft above the ground and average 30-50 ft high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. This is used as a defense against possible predators.
A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and
the offspring from previous years. The eggs are laid in April,
May, and June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size is from 3 - 5
eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-
cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on
seasonal wild fruits.
Biological conclusion: No effect. Pine dominated stands are
not of sufficient size or age to support the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf-wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Nash, Wake,
Wilson, Warren and Halifax.
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac
11
River, Canada to the Neuse River, North Carclina. in North
Carolina populations are found in Middle Creek and the Little
River of the Neuse River Basin and in the tipper Tar River and
Cedar, Crooked, and stony creeks of the Tar River system.
The dwarf-wedged mussel is a small mussel ranging in size
from 2.5 cm to 3.8 cm in length. It's shell is distinguishable by
two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color
and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Successful reproduction is dependent on the attachment of
larval mussels to a host fish. It is not known what the host fish
is but evidence suggests that it is either ai: anadromous or
catadromous species. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural,
domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt
free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological conclusion: No effect. The portion of Hominy Swamp
cccuring in the immediate project area is highly disturbed. The
presence of sewer lines, timbering and earth moving activates rule
out the possibility that it is present. In addition, a search
along swamp boundaries for shell middens turned up no evidence of
Unioids present.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke,
Moore, Orange, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, Wake,
Wilson.
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal
plain and lower piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia. This species is believed to be extirpated in South
Carolina. It is currently known from only 21 populations in North
Carolina and Georgia. In North Carolina populations of Michaux's
sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond, Scotland, Franklin, Davie,
Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that
grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in height. The narrowly winged or
wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-
lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9cm long, 2 to 5cm wide,
acute and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and
their edges are simply or doubly serrate. It bears small flowers
in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to
white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6mm
across.
12
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is
dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of
its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils and
occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat
where it can get full sunlight and it does not compete well with
other species such as Japanese honeysuckle that it is often
associated with.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. Suitable habitat is
present along the fringes of shrub-scrub and piffle forested
areas. Plant by plant surveys were conducted January 31,
1994. No individuals were seen.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
The following Candidate 2 (C2) species are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of it's provisions until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species
are defined as organisims for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but data are not sufficient to warrant a
listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or
Proposed Threatened at this time. Plants or animals with
state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or
special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC
Department of Agriculture.
The following species may potentially occur in the
project area. organisms and their suitable habitat were not
surveyed for. The NHP data base was reviewed to determine if
any protected species have been verified in the project area.
None were recorded.
Table 5. Federal Candidate/State Listed Species
Common Name Scientific Name CAT. STATE
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii C2 -
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2 T
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra* C2 -
C2-Candidate 2: A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
support listing as Endangered or Threatened at this time.
*- Indicates no state protected status
13
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North
American Birds. (6th ed.) Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence,
Kansas. 877p.
Ehrlich, P.E., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders
Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural History of North
American Birds. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., N.Y. 785 p.
Depoe, C.E., J.B. Funderburg, and T.L. Quay. 1961. The
reptiles and amphibians of North Carolina: a preliminary
check-list and bibliography. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.
77:125-136
Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1931. Aquatic and Wetland Plants
of Southeastern United States, Dicotyledons. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens. 933p.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.E. Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North American Mammals. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, N.C. 70 p.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 264p.
North Carolina Wildlife Resourses Commission. 1974. North
Carolina mammalian species with keys to the orders and
families. N.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm.,Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DER. 1992. Classifications and water quality
standards assigned to the waters of the Neuse River basin.
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, N.C. 34n.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill. 408 p.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 p.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial
Mollusks. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North
Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. 179 p.
Scott, S.L. (ed.). 1987.
Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National
Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 464
Smith, R.R., J.B. Funderburg and T.L. Quay. 1960. A
checklist of North Carolina mammals. N.C. Wildl. Resour.
Comm., Raleigh.
14
USDA-SCS 1983. Soil survey of Wilson County, North Carolina.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Wahington, D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 255 p.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Widening of SR 1320 (Airport Road),
from US 264 to SR 1321
Wilson County
T.I.P. No. U-2727
State Project No. 9.8044590
General field surveys were conducted along the project
alignment January 31, 1994. No outstanding issues are to be
resolved.
Plant Communities
Three biotic communities were identified in the project
area: Man-dominated, Pine Forest, and Coastal Plain Swamp
Forest.
Man-dominated areas predominate and are comprised of
residential neighborhoods, agricultural fields, roadside
shoulder and shrub-scrub thickets. Maintained shoulder
slopes, grounds and lawns support fescue as the dominant
vegetative component, complemented with landscape
ornamentals. Black walnut, pecan, red cedar, loblolly pine
and various oak trees are common. Mowing is frequently
associated with this community.
Agricultural fields are interspersed in this suburban
area. This community contains only those lands currently
managed for agriculture, including fields under cultivation
and fields temporarily fallow. Cotton, tobacco and soybeans
are prevalent in the project area.
Shrub-scrub assemblages are previously cleared sites
that have been allowed to revegetate naturally. The
vegetation of this community consists primarily of sweetgum
saplings and red maple. Prevalent herbaceous plant species
occurring in this disturbed community include broom sedge
trumpet vine, Mexican tea, rabbit tobacco, and golden-rods.
Pine Forest
small remnants of pine forests occur in the project
area. Mature loblolly pine typically dominates the canopy
and occurs as an even-aged stand, indicative of selective
logging practices.
Subcanopy components contain sweet-gum, red maple, horse
sugar and various oaks, notably southern red oak.
Blueberries and wax myrtle are abundant as are the common
vines, muscadine and green-brier.
Coastal Plain Swamp Forest
Hominy swamp is a large floodplain system traversed by
subject project. Soils are frequently flooded and or
saturated. A logging road bisects the swamp on the west side
of the alignment and former timbering activities are apparent
by the evidence of stumps, cull trees and soil disturbance.
Septic lines are located in the swamp to the east of the
alignment. Canopy trees include willow oak, green ash, red
maple, tulip tree, and sweetgum. Knotweed, soft needlerush,
cane, and broom panic grass make up the herbaceous component.
Shrubs present, are swamp dogwood meadow-sweet, swamp rose,
and buttonbush Swamp blue violet, creeping buttercup,
sensitive fern, water hemlock and ironweed are typical
herbaceous plants.
Wildlife
Disturbed roadside communities and urban areas provide
shelter for opportunistic animal species, such as the Norway
rat, white-footed mouse, house mouse, eastern harvest mouse,
hispid cotton rat, and eastern cottontail. These are
primarily animals of disturbed environments, preferring old
fields, brushy edges, and other habitats characterized by
mixtures of herbaceous vegetation and shrubby plants. Grey
squirrels were frequently observed in the local
neighborhoods, as were bird species such as the rock dove,
northern cardinal, dark eyed jui:co, blue jay and starling,
Pine siskins and brown-headed nuthatchs are common in the
pine forested areas.
Low water levels (approximately 0.3 m, (1 ft) in Hominy
Swamp, in the immediate project vicinity, may support Small
fish such as the eastern mudminnow, mud sunfish, pirate
perch, swampfish and redfin pickerel may be present. Deeper
parts of the swamp support fish such chain pickerel,
bluegill, flier green sunfish, and warmouth. The American
eel is also a common inhabitant.
Biotic Community Impacts
Impacts to biotic communities are presented below.
Calculations are based on right of way limits of 24.4 m (80
ft.)
Table 1. BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS hectares (acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY
Man-dominated Areas
Pine Forest
Coastal Plain Swamp
(including ditches)
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
4.64 (11.6)
1.2 (2.90)
0.02 (0.06)
TOTAL IMPACTS 6.85 (14.56)
Loss of wildlife habitat, particularly for aquatic
species are serious impacts that will result from dredging,
filling, culvert placement operations, slope stabilization
and land clearing. These construction activities result in
the direct loss of benthic organisms and an increase in silt
load in wetland/aquatic environments. Mobile aquatic
organisms are better able to avoid impacts, than those
species that are filter feeders and/or relatively immobile.
However, the removal of benthic organisms reduces the
potential food supply for vertebrate and aquatic organisms.
For terrestrial species, impacts due to the proposed
widening will be reflected in the creation of new habitat and
in the alteration and elimination of previously existing
habitat. Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving organisms
will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced.
soils and Topography
The project area predominantly lies in the Upper
Coastal Plain and Piedmont Soil System. This is a transition
zone where saprolite from felsic igneous and Slate Belt rocks
occur on the same landscape with Coastal Plain sediments.
Most of the soils are well drained and upland areas have
soils 2 to 3 meters thick. Thick sandy surface horizons are
common in many areas and are present in soils like Wagram.
The cultivated uplands and valley slopes are nearly white due
to the sandy nature of the soils. Soil mapping units located
within the project area are presented in Table 2.
Water Resources
subject project crosses Hominy Swamp, and two drainage
ditches located in agricultural fields that drain into Hominy
Swamp. These waterbodies are located in the Neuse River
basin. Soils and vegetation of Hominy Swamp have been
previously disturbed by logging activities. Water levels at
time of field visit were 0.3 m (1 ft.). The channel is
poorly defined, but at culvert crossing was 3.7 to 4.6 m (12
to 15 ft) in width. Substrate is muck.
Two drainage ditches that flow into Hominy Swamp are
located in agricultural fields at the southern end of the
project area. Approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) in width, they
contain herbaceous wetland vegetation. Waters levels were
insignificant. No natural fringe vegetation is present.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). The segment of Hominy Swamp in the project area is
assigned a "best usage" classification of C by the NC-DEHR.
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
agriculture. The supplemental classification of Sw (Swamp
waters) indicates waters which have low velocities and other
natural characteristics which differ from adjacent streams,
such as low ph, low dissolved oxygen and a high organic
matter content. The supplemental classification of NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) indicates waters needing
additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-
off) due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources in the study area
include the following:
- Increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion.
- Alterations of water level due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Changes in water temperature and light incidence
due to the removal of vegetative cover.
Stringent application of Best Management Practices
should be advocated during the design and construction phases
of this project, in order to minimize impacts to water
resources.
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Approximately 45.0 square m (500 sq ft) of
jurisdictional wetlands may receive impacts from project
construction. Potential wetland sites were evaluated using
the criteria specified in the 1937 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". Hominy Swamp is
categorized as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous
(PFOi), and agricultural ditches are classified as
palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEM1), as defined by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland communities were identified
in the project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma
values, hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of hydrology
or hydrological indicators. A summary of wetland impacts
associated with each site is provided in table 2 below.
Table 2 Summary of Wetland Impacts, square m,(square ft)
Site Wetland Classification Anticipated Impacts
1 PEM1 2.25 (25)
2 PEM1 2.25 (25)
3 PF01A 45.0 (500)
--------------
Total Impacts 49.5 (550)
*Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
**Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved, Deciduous, temporarily
flooded
Permits
it is anticipated that all wetlands will be authorized
by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)]. Nationwide
=14 allows for road crossing fills of non-tidal "waters of
the United States", provided that the fill does not exceed
60.9 linear meters (200 ft) and that the fill placed in
waters of the U.S. is limited to a filled area of no more
than 0.1 ha (0.3 ac).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through
the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources will be required. This certificate is issued for
any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for
which a federal permit is required.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide
permits are required, according to the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE (1989). Final discretionary authority in
these matters rests with the COE.
Federally Protected species
The FWS lists several federally Endangered species for
Wilson County, as of December 20, 1993 (Table 3).
Table 3 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wilson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac* E
E-Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all its range.
Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20
years.
A brief description and habitat requirements for the
above listed species are summarized below.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Biological conclusion: No effect. Pine dominated stands are
not of sufficient size or age to support the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf-wedge mussel) E
Biological conclusion: No effect. The portion of Hominy Swamp
occuring in the immediate project area is highly disturbed. The
presence of sewer lines, timbering and earth moving activates rule
out the possibility that it is present. In addition, a search
along swamp boundaries for shell middens turned up no evidence of
Unioids present.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Biological Conclusion: No effect. Suitable habitat is
present along the fringes of shrub-scrub and pine forested
areas. Plant by plant surveys were conducted January 31,
1994. No individuals were seen.
Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
The following species may potentially occur in the
project area. Organisms and their suitable habitat were not
surveyed for. The NHP data base was reviewed to determine if
any protected species have been verified in the project area.
None were recorded.
Table 4. Federal Candidate/State Listed Species
Common Name Scientific Name CAT. STATE
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii. C2 -
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2 T
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra* C2 -
C2-Candidate 2: A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
support listing as Endangered or Threatened at this time.
*- Indicates no state protected status
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-f
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
DATE
3- /9' 93
TO : REF. NO. OR ROOM, ULDG.

FRO REF. NO. F1° ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ,(
} FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE /? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
?I
r
41 t,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT, IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNoIt P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
March 17, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Airport Road (SR 1320) from
US 264 to SR 1321, Wilson, Wilson County, TIP No. U-2727
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for May 5, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Bob Booker, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-9770.
RJB/plr
Attachment Uk ?-l
C 7/x -14
C? 7 R
qD1
rll-la 2 6
,5 ?1?

r

I.OOJN AJOJ
r
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date W4R444 (q3
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP # 0- 22 Z-7
Project # Q, 30 y4'SD X10
F.A. Project # Nl?
Division /L/ ?-?
County C .71 so n/
Route S? (32o . . . . . Functional Classification
Length
Purpose of Project: (C

Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
W l LSot? 5 2 ( ? ZU HC? onl FQO ?t?t U,.!' 26?-! S / ?Z
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or (x)
How and when will this be paid?
Page 1
IOa0(i Ad OD
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
r
Type of Facility: Z L,vnc 5-40vld"r cea4 ),S TJN6)
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None
Type of Roadway : ? ?-l FF cf & C?G2d G?or?)
Interchanges D Grade Separations d Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: Gcl' &? C- ,
Traffic : Current Z s-d o Design Year Zo / 7 % Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Design Speed: SS MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ / 4/oo coo
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3?/0 oov
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ( ?C)o 02 c.)
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ago ovo
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ Z Oho 000
Page 2
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAGE i
PRE LIMINARY hST'TMA.(•! DIV:IS:I:OL'! OF Fi:I:GI"1Wiii'(S 0.0000000
COM PLETE ENTIRE PROJECT
Z7207 TIP NO. FED AID NO., PROJECT COUNTY
?..-2 727 0.00000 00 WILSON

WIDEN 1=i''i .20' SHI_.:OR.•T(:1 64'F-!::' C ONST. COST
PREPARED :(:{`i R . r1. (•ARR I S DATE : 3-15-93
f+E(IUI"ST'E:: D BY 1:+.,BOOI:E::ft DATE 3....15.-9:: $ 1 ,400 ,000
LIN E/DES/SEC :L'T1=M DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
-----
- B:Ell
-----
------- AMOU
---- NT
-----
---
i ---------
M SP ---------------------------
MOB & M.I: ;:) (.: (20%) -----------
L.. t.J i i !- -
,.) . 20 , 110. {•
--- ---------
'200 ---------------------------
CLEARING & GRUBBING -----------
LUMP SUM i ------- ----- ------- ---- ----
2ACRES
-
-----
-------
----
-----
---
3 ---------
G SP ---------------------------
EARTHWORK -----------
23,100 ------
5 .00 115, 500. 0c:
CY
-
----
----
---
4 ---------
:O SI°' ---------------------------
DRAINAGE -----------
I...UPiF:' ISt.J'H -------
I....S. ----- ------
1 47, '7"-0. O{
---
..:' ---------
I° SP ---------------------------
PAVING (WIDENING) -----------
23,100 -------
16 -----
.00 -------
.; t.; . , ----
6; 1. ----
S Y
-
-------
----
----
---
c') ---------
f'' S l::, ---------------------------
PAVING (RESURFACE) -----------
1 1 , w ;:; i? -------
3 ----
.50 .<:} 0, .:'} .:::.: j .. ¢ ry.
Y
------
----
---
---
i ---------
1°' ;31' ---------------------------
::; (.J 1•.t G R r l .C) L:. STABILIZATION -----------
'. ;:) ...; ,:: 0 -------
3 -----
150 -
93, 030. 0(
SY
-
---
----
----
--- ---------
SP ---------------------------
EROSION C:, t.,. . r , .1 L.. -----------
..: -------
3,000 -----
.00 --
-
.., , 000. 0
A (:: r ..
-
--
-
-
----
---
---
s ---------
Y SP ---------------------------
TRAFFIC CCJN•T•R(:1I... -----------
I...C.1NI::' E "'UN -------
L.. ., f:.. --
-- --
-
.%I,) , 000 . 0I
10 Y ;}P •T'HERMO 4:: MARKERS I...UM l' ' UM I..... '° ' 5
---

ii ---------

G .:P
SP ---------------------------
2'-6" o r••
CURB & GUTTER -----------
r•5
:• r•.,,aoo
L_ 1= -------
r?
x' -----

.00 -------
00, ----
200. ---
0
_ ...........
i ;:' ............._.._......_.._.....
Y SF:' ._........................................................................................................
UPGRADE TRAFFIC S:I: GNAL.. ......_.._................................
i
^
I::: A ............................
25,000 .....................
.00 ...........................
25, ................
000. .._ -
0(
---
13 ---------
S SP ---------------------------
RCBC EXTENSION -----------
1 -------
52,200 -----
.00 -------
52, ----
200. ---
0(

---
--------- DEGREE SKEW
---------------------------
-----------
-------
-----
-------
----
--
1._I NGTH ALONG F:'FtOJ .930 MILES CONTRACT . . . ....... COST $1,202,000.0(
i_:. & C:. (i 5 .) .......... 1901000.0(..'
CONSTRUCTION COST ........ $1,3a2,000.0(
SAY ........., ............ 0,400,000.0c.

?•i
J
??•10
WILSON
AIRPORT
4:fi?-?_r:r }-:I
?r.
.za
• ?`
a\ 132
?,"'j' '"• 1111 ? ?\\ 1. jflCg; A ''o
a
/ 113 •?
:a I `
773
'a \ •'`4;'ft::;t:tii:i;t:ti'.
wl?
ra ter' Y ''
/• .,
, it, '.PROJECT
LIMITS
19 wad W.+ L
/
Al.
,\ -\ \ 4 ? •`•.\ F PROJECT
Urn
1LIMITS j
'? fix,,,, ' ? ? i ? •\ ?
LL4 A No I?,?aoi WSJ
I [ ?w FAP FPU tiro \ g
,o L
I A 4i
i L1w
LL-J `: ;? 'NORTI-I CAROLINA DEPARINI EN-1
;,g a TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
PLA.NNING AND ENVIRONMENTi
BRANCH ,
• ? a? m t FAG
=2 ./
. ?;.. W I LSON
`_-SR 3201AI'RPORT-ROAD)'
FROM US 264 TO SR 1321
-:.U-2727 '
t `;W I LSON COUNTY

a „. 51AiCo D
7 t s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA '-
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JP- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 2, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor /
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
(Nli
Planning and Environmental ran
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: SR 1320 (Airport Road), US 264 to SR 1321 Wilson, Wilson
County, TIP #U-2727
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to U-2727. The project is included
in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal
year 1997.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document
evaluating environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your
agency respond by August 1, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Bob
Booker, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment
U
'UN - 7 D
1 t ?
??Q
.!2 •r?• 1332
fR 112 8 ?-F L731 re ^\\
..',B ';@ ?? \\ y3 173 •? A??? \ ,? ??
r ,:\ I \ i- L-wd rs \
\ .32
\ `6 1? rg? 1
y *^.- nh \ 129
- [ti %:> r.:;r-• 1311 ?\
13x2 K;,
n rj,rf• •y\ ':'y \ ti '
•. ?Q •
'J
r4 •`tl n
n:lve :•'tiaAnnnf'j'-fr' ® •'\
r.
'1 ,......r '=7 131E _.._ `ter, '•? t+.a`± ....
WILSON
AIRPORT bon
lf-
/ 4,^T try .,y 1
tta i ';jt •?
264 ?%4 ; -A'•°. h.,...• .'1,' ^
PROJECT
LIMITS f
.79 Wand Blvd.
Hills Jtd./
FAAUJ
' PROJECT i ;'? -•., _ _
LIMITS I <?::. '- ,., - ,-•- •- ?i '-, ?
i \
Mo '? \ l
us •' \
x.62\\
I FZ FAU
•i I ':; 'ticw,?r 11nz ?' 'ro 13
I a F?
•\, \ i - I it
?• ?' --:::.::.---`-'-•--° - - g?- - •\ __ 1192
'NUItTl1 CAI20LINA UI;I'AR9MCNT
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS? t
8 ® / .. _T PLANNING AND PNVIRONMI NTA
FAS BRANCH
WILSON
i ?'a SR 'I 320 '(A I RPORT ROAD)'
,., FROM US 264 TO SR 1321 '
U -2727
i WILSON COUNTY
t., 0 miles _ 2