19960197 Ver 1_Complete File_19960222

C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

h L)07W Aj
FROM; REO. OR RO LDG.

REF: NO. OR 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 SIZE ME ABOUT THIS ? , FOR YOUR INFORMATION
- ? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR. YOUR COMMENTS,
?PREPARE REPLY: FOR MY SIGNATURE ?X SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO March 14, 1996
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
RECEIVED ?Z,5?
5W
MAR 1 5 1996 w;
ENWIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
©RAI C H
Subject: Action ID No. 199404603 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved
Categorical Exclusions)
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your Categorical Exclusion Document, dated February 19, 1996,
for alterations to the U.S. 264 Interchanges at State Road 1210 (Mozingo
Road) and at State Road 1221 (Wesley Church Road), Federal Aid Project
No. STPNHF-59(1), State Aid Project No. 8.1187401, T.I.P. No. R-0526G,
Pitt County, North Carolina. The stated purpose of the project is to
construct two diamond-type interchanges on U.S 264, east of Farmville.
The proposed project will adversely impact 1.05 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands located adjacent.to Little.Contentnea Creek and,Pinelog Branch.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineer,s'.,Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal, Regulations '(CFR). Part 330.6, published in
the Federal Register'on Nov_ember_.22,_1991,.'lists`nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and,Harbors Act
of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken; assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole
or in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions.of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Review of this project indicates that the construction of an on-site
temporary detour road for the U.S. 264 and State Road 1221 diamond interchange
will adversely impact 0.23 acres of high quality cypress/gum swamp. In order
for this project to be authorized under Nationwide Permit 23, Categorical
Exclusion, I am requesting that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) construct the detour road utilizing matting material
that will facilitate the removal of any and all fill material associated with
it. In addition, NCDOT must provide us with a plan detailing the restoration
of the 0.23 acre of impacted cypress/gum area. This plan should include, but
is not necessarily limited to, the following:' 1)_provisions for our staff to
be notified when the temporary fill is.removed; 2) pre-project elevations,
taken within the detour road construction area to serve as target elevations
for the restoration work; 3) a tree.planting_plan,to be developed with a mix
that is similar'to the species destroyed; and 4) a monitoring schedule to be
developed to ensure that the planting effort is a success.
e-
-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions or comments may be
addressed to Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field office, telephone
[phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
orth Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Wetlands and Aquatic Plants
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188

JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 19, 1996
?STAZo
EB 2 21996
ENY'RONMENTAL SCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
960119 7
401 ISSUED
Subject: Pitt County, US 264 Interchanges at SR 1210 (Mozingo Road) and at
SR 1221 (Wesley Church Road), Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-59(1),
State Aid Project No. 8.1187401, T.I.P. No. R-0526G
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to
construct two diamond-type interchanges on US 264, east of Farmville. The proposed
interchanges will be constructed at the existing intersection of US 264 and SR 1210
(Mozingo Road) and at the existing intersection of US 64 and SR 1221 (Wesley Church
Road). Construction of the proposed interchanges w' mporary detours. The
proposed project will fill an estimated 0.38 hecta es (1.05 acres) o Jurisdictional wetlands.
e project is being processed by the Federal i dministration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
a ere uestin individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Management,
for their review.
e
_ s
i=
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at 733-7844, Ext. 307.
Si e 1 ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
• HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. G. R. Shirley, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Mr. Derrick G. Weaver, P & E Project Planning Engineer
,.-4
r
US 264 Interchanges.
at SR 1210 (Mozingo Road) and
at SR 1221 (Wesley Church Road)
Pitt County
F.A. Project No. STPNHF-59 (1)
State Project No. 8.1181401
T.I.P. No. R-526G
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
3191145--
L-
'Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
3 33i 95- ?,L (2. Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Federal Highway Administration
US 264 Interchanges
at SR 1210 (Mozingo Road) and
at SR 1221 (Wesley Church Road)
Pitt County
F.A. Project No. STPNHF-59 (1)
State Project No. 8.1187401
T.I.P. No. R-526G

a

w
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Wry-Tck G. eaver
Project Planning Engineer
?..
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
.

Kicnara b. uavis, N. t., Asst. ma
Planning and Environmental Branch
/?
Ghj
i
• [SS
SEAL _
6944
??. G
• y, •.. r rvt,..•
,6?fl/tlltltt?•t??
US 264 Interchanges 960107
at SR 1210 (Mozingo Road) and
at SR 1221 (Wesley Church Road)
Pitt County
F.A. Project No. STPNHF-59 (1)
State Project No. 8.1187401
T.I.P. No. R-526G
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
a
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will use Best
Management Practices. This will significantly minimize sediment-
related impacts to area streams.
2. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the N. C.
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 or eligible for
inclusion 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.
3. The NCDOT will coordinate as necessary with the Wildlife Resources
Commission regarding stream relocation and channelization impacts.
Permits Required
1. A. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be required prior to the
issue of an Nationwide permit.
2. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States, resulting from the
proposed action. Final permit and mitigation decisions will rest
with the discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

I. STATUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Historical Resume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied . . . . . . . 1
2. Route Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Existing Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
6. Access Control . . 2
7. Intersection Treatment/Type of Control 3
8. Service Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
9. Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
10. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Bridges . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Drai nape Structures . . . . . 3
C. Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
F. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
" IV. PU
Proposed Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Construction Detour . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Hydraulics and Drainage Structures. . . . . . . . . . 7
Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Estimated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RPOSE OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Recommended Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation . . . . . . . . . 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

L
.
VI. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Local Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . 8
.2. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Architectural/Historical Resources . . . . . . . 10
C. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Topography and Soils . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 11
4. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
a. Characteristics of Waters . . . . . . . . . 12
b. Best Usage Classification . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . 13
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts . . . . . . . 14
5. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
a. Terrestrial Communities . . . . . . . . . . 15
Maintained
Roadside Drainage Ditch Community
Early-Successional Open Field
Mesic Hardwood Forest
Cypress/gum Swamp
Disturbed-Bottomland Hardwood
b. Aquatic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intermittent Streams
Pinelog Branch
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts. . . . . . . 20
Terrestrial
Aquatic
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
6. Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
a. Waters of the United States . . . . . . 23
Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Permits
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
b. Rare and Protected Species. . . . . . . . . 25
Federally Protected Species
Federally Candidate Species
D. Traffic Noise and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
E. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
VII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
APPENDIX
.
F
US 264 Interchanges
at SR 1210 (Mozingo Road) and
at SR 1221 (Wesley Church Road)
Pitt County
F.A. Project No. STPNHF-59 (1)
'State Project No. 8.1187401
T.I.P. No. R-526G'
I.
A. General Description
STATUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to construct two interchanges on US 264, east of
Farmville, in Pitt County (see Appendix, Figure 1). The proposed
interchanges will be the diamond-type, with one being constructed at the
existing intersection of US 264 and SR 1210 (Mozingo Road) (see Appendix,
Figure 2), and one at the existing intersection of US 264 and SR 1221
(Wesley Church Road) (see Appendix, Figure 3). Bridges will be
constructed at both locations to carry SR 1210 and SR 1221 over US 264.
The improvements included in this p
entirely in the existing right of way and
significant impacts on the existing human
project will cause no significant changes
use, and is not controversial in nature.
a Categorical Exclusion is applicable.
B. Historical Resume
°oject are likely to be made
are not anticipated to result in
and natural environment. This
in route classification and land
Therefore, it is concluded that
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), with construction scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1996. Right-of-way for this project was acquired in the early
1980's as part of TIP Projects R-526C and R-526D, however additional right
of way and construction easements may be needed. The acquisition this
additional right-of-way and construction easements are scheduled to begin
in FFY 1995. The estimated project cost in the 1995-2001 TIP is
7,400,000. The current cost estimate for the project is $7,385,000, which
includes $85,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $7,300,000 for
construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Roadways
1. Lenoth of Roadwav Section Studied
At the intersection of US 264 and SR 1210, the length of the
studied section along US 264 is approximately 1.4 km (0.9 miles).
Along SR 1210 the length of the studied section is approximately 0.6
km (0.4 miles).
2
At the intersection of US 264 and SR 1221, the length of the
studied section along US 264 is approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mile).
Along SR 1221 the length of the studied section is approximately 0.8
km (0.5 miles).
2. Route Classification
US 264 is classified as an
functional classification system.
classified as Minor Collectors.
Other Principal Arterial on the
SR 1210 and SR 1221 are both
3. Existing Cross Section
The studied section of US 264 is a 4-lane, median divided
roadway. The existing cross section has two through lanes in each
direction, consisting of 7.4 meters (24.0 feet) of pavement and a
14.0-meter (46-foot) width median. The section has paved inside
shoulders which range from 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) to 0.6 meters (2.0
feet) and paved outside shoulders which range from 0.5 meters (1.6
feet) to 0.8 meters (2.6 feet). At the intersections of SR 1210 and
SR 1221, US 264 widens to 4 lanes (14.4 meters (48.0 feet) of
pavement) in each direction. These additional lanes provide for
separate left and right turn lanes.
Both SR 1210 and SR 1221 are 2-lane roadways with 3.6-meter
(12.0-foot) travel lanes and 0.3-meter (1.0-foot) paved shoulders.
At the intersections of both with US 264 the pavement width is 10.8
meters (36.0 feet). This additional width accommodates the concrete
islands and allows turning movements at each intersection.
4. Existing Right of Way
The existing right-of-way width along the majority of US 264 is
91.5 meters (300.0 feet), except where the roadway intersects SR 1210
and SR 1221. At the US 264/SR 1210 and US 264/SR 1221 intersections
the right-of-way, widths are 330.0 meters (1080.0 feet) and 270.0
meters (885.0 feet), respectively. These right-of-way widths were
acquired to accommodate the proposed interchanges. The right-of-way
width along SR 1210 is 18.2 meters (60.0 feet) and along SR 1221 it
ij generally 61.0 meters (200.0 feet) (see Appendix, Figures 2 and
3.
5. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit on US 264 is 90 kph (55 mph). The speed
limit is also 90 kph (55 mph) on both SR 1210 and SR 1221.
6. Access Control
In the project area US 264 has partially controlled access, with
access permitted only at the intersections of SR 1210 and SR 1221.
The only control of access along SR 1210 and SR 1221 is within their
intersections with US 264.
3
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
The US 264/SR 1210 intersection is at-grade and stop sign
controlled. The intersection of US 264 and SR 1221 is at-grade and
stop sign controlled with flashing warning lights.
8. Service Roads
There are no service roads in the project area.
9. Railroad Crossings
+ There are no railroad crossing in the project area.
10. Utilities
The utility impact along this project is considered to be low.
B. Structures
1. Bridges
There are no existing bridges in the project area.
2. Drainage Structures
There are three drainage structures in the proposed project
area; all of which are located on the Pine Log Branch. Two of the
structures are located on US 264. The first, approximately 0.7 km
(0.4 miles) west of the US 264 and SR 1210 intersection, is a one
barrel 2.7-meter (9.0-foot) x 1.8-meter (6.0-foot) reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC). The second structure is approximately
0.5 km (0.3 miles) east of the US 264 and SR 1210 intersection, and
it is a one barrel 2.2-meter (7.0-foot) x 1.9-meter (6.0-foot) RCBC.
The last structure is located on SR 1210 approximately 0.2 km (0.1
miles) north of the US 264 and SR 1210 intersection. It is a one
barrel 2.2-meter (7.0-foot) x 1.8-meter (6.0-foot) RCBC. All of
these were constructed in 1984 as a part of TIP Projects R-526C and
R-526D.
C. Traffic Volumes
At the intersection of US 264 and SR 1210, the 1994 traffic volumes
on US 264 range from 7600 vehicles per day (vpd) west of SR 1210 to 8400
vpd east of SR 1210. The 1994 traffic volumes on SR 1210 range from 1100
vpd north of US 264 to 1900 vpd south of US 264. The projected traffic
volumes for 1997 at these locations range from 8200 vpd to 9000 vpd on
US 264, and from 1200 vpd to 2000 vpd on SR 1210, respectively. For the
design year 2017 the projected traffic volumes at these locations range
from 13,800 vpd to 14,800 vpd on US 264, and from 2000 vpd to 3400 vpd on
SR 1210, respectively.
4
At the intersection of US 264 and SR 1221, the 1994 traffic volumes
on US 264 range from 7100 vpd west of SR 1221 to 7600 vpd east of SR 1221.
The 1994 traffic volumes on SR 1221 range from 2800 vpd north of US 264 to
3300 vpd south of US 264. The projected traffic volumes for 1997 at these
locations range from 7600 vpd to 8200 vpd on US 264, and from 3000 vpd to
3600 vpd on SR 1221, respectively. For the design year 2017 the projected
traffic volumes at these locations range from 12,800 vpd to 13,800 vpd on
US 264, and from 5400 vpd to 6400 vpd on SR 1221, respectively.
Truck traffic comprises approximately 13 percent of these volumes
(percent TTST and percent duals) on US 264, 3 percent on SR 1210, and 8
percent on SR 1221. Projected traffic volumes, major turning movements,
truck percentages, and design hour data for all of the above locations are
shown in the Appendix (see Figures 5 and 6).
D. Capacity Analysis
The Level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic
carrying ability. Levels of service range from LOS A to F. Level of
service A represents unrestricted maneuverability and operating speeds.
Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal operating
speeds. Level of service C represents restricted maneuvering and operating
speeds close to the speed limit. Level of service D represents severely
restricted maneuvering and unstable, low operating speeds. This condition
is considered acceptable in densely developed urban areas. Level of
service E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level.
Breakdown conditions which are characterized by stop and go travel occur
with level of service F.
The unsignalized capacity analyses for the existing SR 1210 and
SR 1221 intersections with US 264 indicate that they are both currently
operating at a LOS F. Signalizing these intersections would improve the
LOS, however it would interrupt the free flow movement on US 264.
Capacity analysis were performed for US 264, SR 1210, and SR 1221
using peak hour traffic demands to determine the LOS for 2017, with the
interchanges in place. A capacity analysis was also performed to
determine the level of service along the merge and diverge areas of the
proposed ramps along US 264. Table 1 summarizes the results of these
analyses.
TABLE 1
. 2017 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH INTERCHANGE
US 264 Freeway Analysis at SR 1210 at SR 1221
LOS B LOS B
US 264 Ramp Analysis at SR 1210 at SR 1221
West On (Merge) LOS B LOS B
West Off (Diverge) LOS B LOS B
East On (Merge) LOS B LOS B
East Off (Diverge) LOS B LOS B
5
Ramp Terminal Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
0
Westbound Ramps
at SR 1210 LOS B (Minor left)
LOS A (Minor right)
LOS A (Major left)
LOS A (Major right)
at SR 1221 LOS F (Minor left)
LOS A (Minor right)
LOS A (Major left)
LOS A (Major right)
Signalization is not warranted for the ramp
as seen in the Table 1 Capacity Analysis results.
are proposed at the ramp terminal intersections at
E. Accident Analysis
Eastbound Ramps
LOS B (Minor left)
LOS A (Minor right)
LOS A (Major left)
LOS A (Major right)
LOS E (Minor left)
LOS A (Minor right)
LOS A (Major left)
LOS A (Major right)
terminal intersections,
Therefore, no signals
SR 1210 and SR 1221.
Table 2 shows the accidents rates for the exist.ing SR 1210 and
SR 1221 intersections with US 264. This analysis covers the period from
July 7, 1991 through June 31, 1994. A comparison between the accident
rates at the intersections of SR 1210 and SR 1221 with US 264, and the
average statewide accident rate for the period of 1991 through 1993 is
also shown.
TABLE 2
ACCIDENT RATES
(per 100 million vehicle miles)
Statewide Average for
Accident Type SR 1210 SR 1221 Rural US Routes
All Accidents 41.5 145.2 115.8
Fatal 0.0 0.0 1.1
Non-Fatal with Injury 31.1 103.7 55.1
Nighttime 10.4 41.5 32.1
Wet Conditions 0.0 31.0 25.8
A total of 4 accidents were recorded at the SR 1210 intersection
during the analysis period. Fifty (50) percent of these accidents
involved left-turn movements, 25 percent were angle accidents, and 25
percent were rear-end accidents. The estimated property damage resulting
from these accidents was $36,250.00.
A total of 14 accidents were recorded at the SR 1221 intersection
during the analysis period. Seventy nine (79) percent of these accidents
were angle accidents, 14 percent involved left-turn movements, and 7
percent were rear-end accidents. The estimated property damage resulting
from these accidents was $76,350.00.
6
F. Thoroughfare Plan
The mutually adopted Farmville Area Thoroughfare Plan (see Appendix,
Figure 4) designates SR 1221 (Wesley Church Road) as a major thoroughfare.
SR 1210 is beyond the limits of the Farmville Area Thoroughfare Plan and
is therefore not included. Construction of the proposed SR 1221
interchange is in conformance with, and will be a step toward the
implementation of this Thoroughfare Plan.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Proposed Improvements d
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program and proposes to construct two diamond-type interchanges on US 264
east of Farmville in Pitt County (see Appendix, Figure 1). It is
recommended the existing at grade intersections be converted to
diamond-type interchanges, with one being constructed at the existing
intersection of US 264 and SR 1210 (Mozingo Road), and one at the existing
intersection of US 264 and SR 1221 (Wesley Church Road). The improvements
included in this project are likely to be made entirely in the existing
right of way, which was acquired in the early 1980's as part of TIP
Projects R-526C and R-526D.
US 264 will continue to be a four-lane divided expressway with 7.4
meters (24.0 feet) of pavement and a 14-meter (46.0-foot) grassed median
through the interchange areas. The exclusive left turn lanes, right turn
lanes, and cross overs will all be removed as a part of this project.
Bridges will be constructed to carry SR 1210 and SR 1221 over US 264.
At the proposed US 264/SR 1210 interchange, SR 1210 will be a three
lane roadway through the interchange area. Exclusive left turn auxiliary
lanes will be provided on SR 1210 at both of the US 264 ramp terminals.
Exclusive left and right turn lanes will be provided on the US 264 off
ramps at their intersection with SR 1210 (see Appendix, Figures 7 and 8).
At the proposed US 264/SR 1221 interchange, SR 1221 will be a three
lane roadway through the interchange area. Auxiliary left and right turn
lanes will be provided on SR 1221 at both of the US 264 ramp terminals.
Exclusive left and right turn lanes will be provided on the US 264 off
ramps at their intersection with SR 1221 (see Appendix, Figures 9 and 10).
B. Construction Detour
Construction of the proposed interchanges will require temporary
detours. An off-site detour will be required for the US 264/SR 1240
intersection. An on-site detour shall be used at the US 264/SR 1221
intersection (see Appendix, Figure 3). The on-site detour will require
signalization of the SR 1221 intersection with US 264 due to the limited
site distance caused by the interchange construction.
C. Hvdraulics and Drainaqe Structures
Two reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) are expected to be
extended as a part of this project. Both of these culverts were
constructed in 1984 as a part of TIP Projects R-526C and R-526D.
Therefore, they should be hydraulically and structurally adequate. Both
will be verified in the final hydraulic design of this project.
The first RCBC located approximately 0.7 km (0.4 miles) west of the
US 264 and SR 1210 intersection is proposed to be extended on both ends
for the construction of acceleration and deceleration lanes on US 264 as
part of the interchange construction. The inflow (southern end) of the
culvert is to be extended by approximately 4.97 meters (16.3 feet) and the
outflow (northern end) of the culvert is to be extended by approximately
3.33 meters (10.9 feet).
The second RCBC located approximately 0.2 km (0.1 miles) north of the
US 264 and SR 1210 intersection is proposed to be extended on both ends
for the purpose of raising the grade of SR 1210 as part of the interchange
construction. The inflow (eastern end) of the culvert is to be extended
by approximately 3.2 meters (10.5 feet) and the outflow (western end) of
the culvert is to be extended by approximately 4.3 meters (14.1 feet).
D. Access Control
With the completion of the proposed interchanges, a full control of
access will exist along US 264 through the project area.
E. Bikeways
There is no need for special accommodations for bicycles along this
project.
F. Estimated Costs
Construction $7,300,000*
Right-of-Way $0,085,000**
Total Cost $7,385,000
*Includes engineering and contingencies.
**Includes Right-of-way acquisition & utility costs.
IV. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The intersections of SR 1210 and SR 1221 with US 264 are currently
operating at a Level of Service (LOS) F. The current accident rate at the
SR 1221 intersection with US 264 is higher than the statewide average for
this type of facility. Signalization of these intersection would improve
capacity and reduce the accident rates. However, signalization is not
considered a feasible alternative, because it would interrupt the free
flow existing along US 264.
8
The purpose of this project is to improve the capacity, and safety by
creating a full control of access along this section of US 264. The
right-of-way for the proposed interchanges was acquired as part of TIP
Projects R-526C and R-526D in the early 1980's. The SR 1221 interchange
is shown as a part of the Farmville Urban Area (FUA) Thoroughfare Plan.
Therefore, construction of this project will complete the original plans
of TIP Projects R-526C and R-526D, and part of the FUA Thoroughfare Plan.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is to build two full diamond-type
interchanges at the existing intersection of US 264 and SR 1210, and at
the existing intersection of US 264 and SR 1221 (see Appendix, Figures 2
and 3). The proposed interchange construction will be contained within
existing right-of-way purchased as part of TIP Projects R-526C and R-526D.
This project will complete the original plans along this section of
US 264, and part of the Farmville Area Thoroughfare Plan. The estimated
cost of this alternative is $7,385,000. No other construction
alternatives were studied. The recommended improvement is considered to be
the most feasible means of providing full access to the area.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The construction of the proposed interchanges would complete the
original TIP Project R-526, making US 264 a controlled access freeway
along this section. The proposed interchange along US 264 at the SR 1221
is part of the Farmville Area Thoroughfare Plan, which classifies SR 1221
as a major thoroughfare. The current accident rates at both intersections
will only get worse as the traffic increases in the future. Therefore the
"do nothing" alternative is not considered reasonable or feasible and is
not recommended.
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternative modes of transportation were considered to be -
practical. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation
in the project area, and alternate modes of transportation are not
available or planned.
VI. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Land Use
1. Local Planning Activities / Existing Zoning
The proposed extension is located within the planning
jurisdiction of Pitt County. The County's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, adopted in 1990, contains a series of policy statements, goals,
and objectives regarding the physical development of the County and
its infrastructure. The plan delineates portions of the county,
including the area of the proposed interchanges, as "preferred
development areas."
9
2. Existing Land Use
Most of the project area is undeveloped, consisting of wooded
areas and open fields. The existing land use in the area is
generally residential and some commercial.
3. Future Land Use
The current land use plan designates the project area, as
"preferred development areas." These areas are locations where the
widest range of urban land use should occur, particularly the
intensive residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Capital improvements will occur first in the "preferred development
areas." The construction of the proposed interchanges will
facilitate this planned development and is therefore consistent with
the County's comprehensive plan.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impacts of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Land which supports urban development or has been committed
to non-agricultural uses is exempt from the requirements of the Act.
The proposed improvements will be constructed on land previously
converted to highway right-of-way. No additional permanent
conversion of land will occur as a result of this project. Therefore,
the project is exempt from further consideration of impacts to
farmland soils.
B. Historic and Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that
if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, Advisory Council on Historic Places be given an opportunity to
comment. It is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
1. Archaeological Resources
The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine
whether any archaeological resources that could potentially qualify
for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places would be
affected by the proposed construction project. The archaeological
survey methodology for this project was designed to locate, identify,
and delineate any cultural resources, especially those that may
possess the quality of significance as defined by the National
Register of Historic Places criteria (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d].
10
The archaeological field investigations for this project were
conducted by NCDOT staff archaeologist John J. Mintz on November 10,
1994. A total of one person day, counting drive time was spent in
the field.
No archaeological resources were identified at either of the
proposed interchanges within the Area of Potential Effect. The
project area was found to be greatly disturbed by the placement of
roadside ditches, landscaping and/or grading, wildflower plantings,
and existing wetlands. Therefore, no further archaeological
investigations are necessary or warranted. The State Historic
Preservation Officer has concurred with this finding (see letter from
the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources in the Appendix).
2. Architectural/Historical Resources
As part of the environmental studies conducted by NCDOT, the
historic architectural resources present in the area of potential
effect (APE) of the undertaking must be identified and evaluated with
reference to the National Register of Historic Places criteria for
evaluation. If any properties in the APE are determined to be
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, then
additional compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act is required.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, 16 U.S.C. Section 470f, requires Federal agencies to take
into account the effect of their undertakings on properties included
in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a
reasonable opportunity comment on such undertakings.
As part of the process for identifying significant historic
architectural resources located in the APE, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted. On September 19, 1994, the
SHPO reported they were aware of "no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area". On
February 17, 1995 the SHPO recommended that no historical survey be
conducted for this project. This concludes compliance with Section
106 (see letters in Appendix).
C. Natural Resources
1. Study Area
The proposed project involves the construction of diamond
interchanges on US 264. Two interchanges will be constructed, one at
the intersection of'US 264/SR 1221 and one at US 264/SR 1210. During
construction of the proposed US 264/SR 1221 interchange a temporary
on-site detour will be constructed. This detour involves shifting
the US 264/SR 1221 intersection 24.3 meters (80.0 feet) east of its
present location and rerouting SR 1221. The intersection of
US 264/SR 1210 will be closed during construction of the interchange,
11
with traffic being detoured along secondary roads. The culvert
found approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) east of the US 264/SR 1210
intersection will be lengthened 3.6 meters (12.0 feet) to the north
in order to accommodate the proposed deceleration lane for the US 264
exit ramp. The culvert will also be lengthened 3.6 meters (12.0 feet)
to the south in order to accommodate the proposed acceleration lane
for the US 264 entry ramp.
2. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study
area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps
(Farmville and Greenville SW), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps,
NCDOT aerial photomosaics of project area (1: 4800) and Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of Pitt County. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Pitt County). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected and candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Phillip Todd and Lane Sauls on 15
September 1994 and 31 October 1994 within the existing right-of-way
boundaries. An additional field investigation was conducted by NCDOT
biologists Phillip Todd and Gerard Nieters on 06 December 1994.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows), Organisms captured during these searches
were identified and then released. Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
3. Topography and Soils
Pitt County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province.
The topography of Pitt County is characterized as nearly level to
gently sloping. Table 3 provides an inventory of specific soil
mapping units which occur in the project area.
12
Table 3. County Soils in the Project Area
MAP UNIT SPECIFIC PERCENT HYORIC
SYMBOL MAPPING UNIT SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
Tu Tu ckerman fine sandy loam - A
NrB2 Norfolk sandy loam 1 to 6 non-hydric
NrA Norfolk sandy loam 0 to 1 non-hydric
Note: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
4. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are
also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
a. Characteristics of Waters
Water resources in the project study area include
intermittent roadway drainage ditches, an intermittent coastal
stream and Pinelog Branch. The intermittent drainage ditches
range in width between 1.2 to 1.8 meters (4.0 to 6.0 feet) and
in depth from 30.0 to 80.0 cm (1.0 to 3.0 inches).
An unnamed tributary of Contentnea Creek occurs in the
study area. This coastal intermittent stream currently flows
into a roadside drainage ditch. It is likely that this stream
emptied directly into Contentnea Creek before construction of
SR 1221. The intermittent stream was dry during the first site
visit and displayed a width of 0.6 meters (2.0 feet).
Pinelog Branch crosses the study area approximately 0.5 km
(0.3 mi) east of the US 264/SR 1210 intersection. This stream
is culverted under US 264 with a one barrel 2.2 meters (7.0
feet) x 1.9 meters (6.0 feet.) culvert. At its crossing with
US 264, Pinelog Branch has a mud substrate, aquatic vegetation
and low flow rate. The channel of Pinelog Branch displays a
width of 0.6-1.8 meters (2.0-6.0 feet) and a depth of 7.6-12.7
cm (3.0-5.0 inches). At the outflow of the culvert the stream
exhibits a width of 7.6 meters (25.0 feet) and a depth of 1.5 cm
(6.0 inches). The increased width and depth of the stream
channel can be attributed to scour and erosion at the culvert
outflow. This characteristic is due to modified flow rates
especially during times of high flow.
13
A drainage ditch lies along SR 1221 and flows adjacent to
the cypress/gum swamp. This ditch ranges in width from 0.6-1.2
meters (2.0-4.0 feet) and has a depth of <0.1 meter (2.0
inches). This ditch forms a pool at the outflow end of a pipe.
This pool has a width of 3.0 meters (10.0 feet) and a depth of
0.1 m (5.0 inches).
b. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). An unnamed
tributary carries the Best Usage Classification of the stream
into which it flows. Table 4 lists best usage classifications
for all water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project.
Table 4. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Pinelog Branch C, Sw, NSW
Unnamed Intermittent Tributary
of Contentnea Creek C, Sw, NSW
Note: "C" refers to Class C waters which are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
"Sw" refers to Swamp water which is a supplemental water
classification including waters which have low velocities and
other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams;
"NSW" refers to Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mile) of project study area.
• c. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes
in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass
are reflections of water quality. No specific BMAN information
is available for these water resources.
14
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Jp Elimination System (NPDES) program. All dischargers are
required to register for a permit. No dischargers occur in the
project study area.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The intermittent drainage ditches and the intermittent
stream will be filled (eliminated) by project construction. New
roadside ditches will be created from construction to maintain
drainage in the project area.
The culvert extension will alter Pinelog Branch in several
manners. Bank vegetation will be removed or buried by fill and
culvert extension. Removal of bank vegetation will increase
erosion from the stream banks and will contribute to greater
sedimentation and siltation in Pinelog Branch. The elimination
of streamside vegetation at the current crossing of US 264 will
lead to more exposure of water to sunlight. The loss of
streamside vegetation can result in elevation of water
temperatures and numerous other indirect consequences. Flow
changes may also occur from erosion or from the use of fill.
Each of these factors can contribute to a loss of aquatic life
which may potentially effect terrestrial species too.
Increased concentrations of toxic compounds (oil, gas, etc)
are likely from the proposed construction-related activities and
roadway use. The increased amounts of these compounds can
adversely alter the water quality of the water resource thus
impacting biological and chemical functions.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Sedimentation Control
guidelines will be strictly applied to reduce the wash of
sediment and toxic compounds into Pinelog Branch,
Cypress/gum Swamp, and Contentnea Creek.
5. Biotic Resources
.Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study
area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora within
these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses within the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna viewed during site visit are indicated with an
asterisk (*).
w

15
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent
mp references to the same organism will include the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Six distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the
project study area: Maintained, Roadside Drainage Ditch,
Early-Successional Open Field, Mesic Hardwood Forest,
Cypress/gum Swamp, and Disturbed-Bottomland Hardwood Community.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the
entire range of terrestrial communities discussed. Fauna viewed
during site visit are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Maintained
Maintained lands include those areas kept in a low-growing,
non-successional state. These areas include road shoulders,
agricultural fields, and NCDOT wildflower plots. Fescue and
dallis grass are common vegetation components in this habitat.
Populations of sneeze weed also occur along road shoulders.
NCDOT wildflower plots are common throughout the state and
are found in medians and along road shoulders. Fumigation beds,
used during plot preparation to eliminate competition by weeds
and grasses, occur on one wildflower plot in the northeast
quadrant of SR 1210. Wildflowers planted in Pitt County include
California poppy, red corn poppy, toadflax, ox-eye daisy,
lance-leaved coreopsis, cosmos, and catchfly. Other wildflower
plots, found in the northwest and northeast quadrant of SR 1210,
were respectively fallow and in a post flowering stage.
Amphibians, such as five-lined skink, thermoregulate
themselves by basking on the roadway and use the road shoulders
to forage for insects. Raccoon and Virginia opossum are very
adaptable mammals found in this community. These animals forage
on a variety of plant and animal matter, such as grains,
insects, carrion and amphibians. Reptiles like the Carolina
anole frequent roadsides, consuming small insects and spiders.
Some avian species, such as turkey vulture and common crow,
utilize this community. Turkey vultures chiefly consume animals
killed by traffic on roadways. Crows forage on vegetative
matter and may consume insects, snakes, lizards, mice, and eggs
and young of other birds.
Roadside Drainage Ditch Community
Roadside drainage ditches occur throughout the study area.
Saplings of red maple, sweet-gum, loblolly pine, persimmon, and
tulip popular grow within these ditches. Other plants found in
ditches include the shrub winged sumac, ragweed, morning glory,
poison ivy, lespedeza, dog-fennel, and trumpet vine. Vegetation
such as black willow saplings, spotted touch-me-not, tear thumb,
ludwigia, and cat-tail are associated and occur within the pools
of the intermittent drainage ditches.
16
Brown snakes may occur in this community and may be found
under paper, boards or other debris along roadside ditches. The
primary food sources for this reptile are earthworms and slugs.
The vegetative cover of this community traps moisture, providing
excellent habitat for amphibians such as southern leopard frog*,
and ornate chorus frogs. The southern leopard frog breeds in
winter or early spring and as an adult, forages on land
primarily for invertebrates. Ornate chorus frogs breed in
shallow water of drainage ditches and other similar pool
habitats during warm weather.
Mammals potentially inhabiting this community include
eastern harvest mouse, and woodchuck. Mice consume seeds,
fruits, and grasses although they appear to survive primarily on
seeds. Woodchucks are vegetarians who are often seen ambling
along roadside shoulders searching for food.
Early-Successional Open Field
The early-successional open field occurs in the southeast
quadrant of the US 264/SR 1221 intersection. This community was
recently cleared, as evidenced by the plant lespedeza, a common
vegetative cover. Other vegetative forms found in this
community include goldenrod, dog fennel, and asters. A thick
stand of opportunistic sweet-gum and red maple occurs in the
southeast quadrant of the intersection. Loblolly pine is
scattered throughout the previously named hardwoods.
This environment provides excellent shelter and food
resources for a variety of animals. Mourning doves* are
consumers of wild seeds and build their nests of twigs and pine
needles. Other notable avian species include the eastern
bluebird and Rufous-sided towhee, which builds its nest on the
ground and forages by scratching the ground with both feet.
This open field habitat provides good overhead cover and food
resources for the hispid cotton rat and eastern cottontail
rabbit.
Reptiles inhabiting this community may include black racer,
six-lined racerunner, and eastern glass lizard. Black racers
frequently hide under surface cover and disappear quickly into
thick vegetation if surprised. Eastern glass lizards forage
predominantly during early morning and late afternoon hours.
This reptile consumes invertebrates, small lizards and snakes
and the eggs of ground-nesting birds.
Mesic Hardwood Forest
Small mesic hardwood forests exist at both proposed
interchange areas. The dominant canopy features* in the
northeast quadrant of US 246/SR 1210 are sweet-gum and red
maple. Other trees intermixed in the canopy include American
holly, mulberry, black cherry, water oak, and tulip poplar.
Shrubs present in the area include tag alder and swamp dogwood.
17
The floor of this forest is dominated by southern lady
fern, a fern associated with moist-wet woods. Other vegetative
forms found in this community include greenbrier, Christmas
fern, poison ivy, privet, and grape. Also growing here is
vegetation requiring significant moisture, such as rush,
jewel-weed, and netted chain-fern.
Four mesic hardwood parcels exist at the intersection of
US 264/SR 1221. These stands have a canopy consisting
predominantly of sweet-gum and red maple. Other trees and
shrubs found intermixed within the canopy include loblolly
pines, persimmon, white oak,' water oak, sassafras, black gum,
winged sumac, Hercules'-club, and tag alder. Poison ivy
prevails throughout the floor on this stand. Scattered
vegetation include grape, southern lady fern, trumpet vine,
greenbrier, giant cane, and privet.
The wet areas in the southeast quadrant included plant
species such as black willow, ironwood, cat-tail, giant cane,
jewel-weed, and sphagnum moss. Poison ivy prevailed as the
dominant ground cover. The northeast quadrant includes
hydrophytic species such as jewel-weed and giant cane.
These parcels lack size, limiting the faunal diversity.
These communities would be frequented by avian species such as
house wren, Carolina wren, Carolina chickadee, and tufted
titmouse. These birds are highly insectivorous, utilizing these
stands for shelter and for perching to forage on insects in open
field. Mammals utilizing this community may include southern
short-tailed shrew, gray squirrel, and black rat. This shrew
travels beneath the litter level and secretes a toxin that
paralyzes its prey such as earthworms, insects and spiders.
Reptiles which may occur in this habitat include ringneck
snake and ground skink. Ringneck snakes are often found beneath
stones and in or under decaying logs and stumps. Surface
activities for these snakes occur mainly at night and may
frequent roadways. Ground skinks need little cover to hide
effectively. These skinks are more often heard than seen as it
scurries off in the leaf litter.
Cypress/gum Swamp
The cypress/gum swamp community lies adjacent to Contentnea
Creek and borders SR 1221 to the east. This community probably
extended along Contentnea Creek prior to construction of
SR 1221. The fringe of this swamp bordering SR 1221 has canopy
dominated by opportunistic trees like red maple and sweet gum.
Other canopy species include swamp chestnut oak, willow oak,
locust, and black willow. Subcanopy species include ironwood,
flowering dogwood, Virginia bay, and saplings of the mentioned
canopy species. The vine/herbaceous layer contains soft-needled
rush, jewelweed, poison ivy, giant cane, cross vine, blackberry,
greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, grape, and asters.
18
Further away from SR 1221 the community becomes more
characteristic of a cypress/gum swamp. Bald cypress and black
gum dominate the canopy while the herb layer is sparse. The
low, vegetative diversity found in blackwater cypress/gum swamps
directly relates to the flooding frequently experienced in this
community. Dense shade and continuous innundation precludes
succession of all but the most hydrophytic species. Cypress/gum
swamps are subject to frequent natural disturbances, and the
frequent inundation occurring in this community precludes normal
succession-related propagation. Other vegetation found within
this community includes grapefern and Chinese privet.
Evidence of beaver* is present in this community. This
large rodent feeds on herbaceous plants during summer months and
the bark and twigs of saplings and trees in the winter months.
White-tailed deer* frequent this community for shelter and
browse upon leaves and twigs of various trees and herbs. Other
mammals potentially found here are southern short-tailed shrew,
cotton mouse, and marsh rabbit.
Reptiles likely to occur in this community are cottonmouth,
redbelly water snake, banded water snake, mud snake, eastern mud
turtle, and greenish rat snakes*. These reptiles bask in the
sun to thermoregulate and are very lethargic if encountered
during cool days in the early winter months. Rat snakes prey
chiefly upon small mammals and birds.and bird eggs although they
also consume frogs and lizards. Brimley's chorus frog, southern
dusky salamander, and dwarf salamander are amphibians likely to
occur in or near swamp communities.
Some avian species likely to be found here include the
northern parula, prothonotary warbler, American robin, Carolina
wren, pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker,
and barred owl. These woodpeckers and the barred owl are
permanent residents of swamps. Barred owls are predators which
consume a variety of prey including rodents, insects, small
birds, frogs and occasionally fish. The northern parula and
prothonotary warblers are insectivorous, summer residents of
swamps.
Disturbed-Bottomland Hardwood Community
This small, disturbed bottomland hardwood community occurs
along Pinelog Branch and will be impacted by culvert extension
and addition of an acceleration lane. Drainage ditches found
along the south side of US 264 drain into this community. Tag
alder and graminoids like barnyard grass and fescue dominate the
area. Other trees and saplings found here include red maple,
sweet gum and willow oak. Giant cane, jewelweed, asters,
cat-tail, spike rush, false nettle, and sedge.
Two-lined salamander and three-lined salamander are
amphibians which live in or near streams of hardwood forests.
The southern cricket frog live on grassy margins and feed on
small insects and spiders. Black racers prey upon insects,

N

19
amphibians, reptiles, birds and their eggs and mammals. The
least shrew and eastern cottontail likely occur in the open
areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation where these fauna
shelter and forage. Avian species potentially found here
include rufous-sided towhee, red-eyed vireo, Carolina chickadee,
tufted titmouse, and blue-gray gnatcatcher.
b. Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, intermittent streams and
Pinelog Branch, will be impacted by the proposed project.
Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the
water resource affect faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Intermittent Streams
Intermittent streams are streams which have interrupted
water flow during dry intervals, which usually occur during the
summer months. These streams may retain water in the form of
pools during these dry times. Climatological events greatly
influence the faunal composition of these streams and may cause
the fauna to vary from year to year.
Fauna found within this community have adapted various
mechanisms in order to survive the dry periods. Many insects,
particularly early-emerging ones having aquatic life stages,
utilize these streams by laying eggs during the wet seasons
(late fall-early winter). Eggs are laid during this time period
to ensure the completion of developmental stages and
metamorphosis before the streams dry in the summer. Other
insects survive periodic dry times by remaining in their egg or
nymph stages which can shelter them through the summer seasons.
Still other insects can aestivate, or remain dormant through dry
times. Many amphibians utilize this community as well to
deposit their eggs. Tadpoles will emerge from these streams
before the warm summer months dry the streams.
Species found inhabiting the intermittent drainage ditches
during the site visit include eastern mosquito fish*, southern
leopard frog* and crayfish* (Cambaridae). The mosquito fish
were found to occur in a pool of an intermittent drainage ditch.
The southern leopard frog breeds in winter or early spring and
as an adult forages primarily on land for insects. Numerous
crayfish burrows were found along the bottom of drainage
ditches, particularly in the northeast quadrant at the
intersection of US 264 and SR 1221.
20
Pinelog Branch
Pinelog Branch has a variety of vegetation growing along
its banks, downstream oof the culvert. Trees and saplings of
sweet-gum and red maple, along with tag alder, provide shade for
the stream. Hercules' club, giant cane, grape and trumpet vine
occur along the banks. Tear thumb, microstegium, and barnyard
grass were submerged during the second site visit.
This moist, cool, dense habitat at the culvert provides
favorable conditions for numerous species. Fish species possibly
occurring here include golden shiner, spottail shiner, highfin
shiner, and eastern silvery minnow. Golden shiners are common
bait fish and are important forage fish for several game fish.
These shiners stay mainly near shore in schools. Crickets and
other insects occupy environments similar to Pinelog Branch.
Amphibians such as southern cricket frog and green treefrog
inhabit similar habitat conditions. The southern cricket frog
is abundant on grassy margins of streams, foraging on small
insects and spiders. The black rat snake and black racer are two
examples of predators which frequent this community. Black rat
snakes primarily forage on small mammals, and birds and their
eggs.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the potential
to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Terrestrial
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Table 5 summarizes potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from
project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed right-of-way. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
21
Table 5. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY AREA IMPACTED
Maintained 15.7 (39.2)
Roadside Drainage Ditches 0.6 (1.5)
Early Successional Open Field 0.9 (2.3)
Mesic Hardwood Stand 1.5 (3.6)
Cypress/Gum Swamp 0.1 (0.2)
Disturbed Bottomland Hardwood <0.1 (0.1)
TOTAL IMPACTS 18.9 (46.9)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Impacts to natural biotic communities will be minor.
Maintained areas, roadside drainage ditches and
early-successional open field will receive larger impacts. The
loss of maintained area will be minimal. Much of the maintained
community (roadside shoulders) will be recreated by the proposed
interchanges, allowing for similar vegetation to return. Fauna
which inhabit or utilize this community will be only temporarily
displaced by, the project because many aspects of the community
will be replaced in-kind.
The hardwood stands at the intersection of US 264/SR 1221
will be removed by project construction. Fauna which utilize
this habitat will be permanently displaced. A part of the
hardwood stand at the intersection of US 264/SR 1210 will be
partially removed and altered. This community will be altered
because the proposed project will impact the dense, outer fringe
of the stand, thus causing a change in composition of the
community. The removal and alteration of this stand will cause
a temporary displacement of fauna and permanent removal of,
vegetation.
Impacts to the cypress/gum swamp from the installation of
the on-site detour are minimal because the fringe of this
community will be impacted. Trees growing along the fringe of
the cypress/gum swamp will be cleared and fill material laid.
The fill material will be removed following construction.
Sweet-gum, red maple, greenbrier, blackberry and other
opportunistic species will revegetate the area impacted by the
on-site detour.
The disturbed-bottomland hardwood community will be altered
by culvert extension and by the addition of acceleration lane.
Impacts to this community are considered minor because previous
construction activities have altered this community.
22
Aquatic
The relocation of a stream can adversely effect the stream.
Effects from stream relocation not only alter the aquatic
community at the construction site, but the communities
downstream from the project will be changed as well. Problems
often associated with stream location are turbidity, loss of
bank vegetation, disruption of habitat for aquatic organisms and
increased stream current flow after completion of stream
relocation.
The intermittent roadway drainage ditches and intermittent
stream will be filled by project construction thereby altering
shelter and habitat for aquatic fauna. Roadway drainage ditches
will be created by the project. In the future, these created
ditches may provide habitat and shelter for aquatic communities.
The intermittent coastal stream will be permanently impacted
(eliminated) by project construction.
Temporary impacts to the Pinelog Branch include reduction
of water flow, removal of bank vegetation, sedimentation,
siltation and erosion. Although these actions may be temporary
processes during the construction phase of the project,
environmental impacts from these processes may be long term or
irreversible.
The Pinelog Branch community will be impacted by the
culvert extension in several ways.
The existing habitat produced by scour at the culvert
outflow will be eliminated by the extension and placement of
fill material. A similar habitat may return post-construction
from anticipated scouring at the new culvert outflow. The
faunal species will be temporarily displaced downstream of the
project. Opportunistic plant species will return
post-construction as well.
Potential impacts downstream of the project are likely as
well. Bank vegetation will be removed from project construction
and fill material placed along the culvert. Erosion,
sedimentation and siltation may potentially occur during
construction of on-ramps for the proposed interchange.
Flow changes from construction activities may occur at the
construction site and downstream from the project. These flow
changes can drastically alter the aquatic environment,
especially plant species.
From a natural resources perspective, where practicable it
is recommended that culvert extension occur during months of
seasonally low flow rates (July through September) to reduce
impacts to aquatic communities upstream and downstream of the
project. Bank stabilization and planting of native plant bank
23
species are recommended activities during and post-construction.
Best Management Practices and Sedimentation Control guidelines
should be strictly applied to reduce the wash of sediment into
the cypress/gum swamp and Pinelog Branch.
6. Special Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and protected
species, and Waters of the United States.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category
of "Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of
the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C.1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
:Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
The mesic hardwood stand contains small wetland areas (NWI
classification: PF01C-Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous
seasonally flooded). Evidence used to determine the presence of
wet ;areas includes mottled hydric soils with oxidized
rhizospheres, hydrophytic vegetation, buttressed stems and leaf
stains resulting from standing water.
The cypress/gum swamp has a NWI classification of
palustrine, needle-leaved deciduous forest and seasonally
flooded (PF02C). Evidence used to determine presence of
wetlands includes the predominance of obligate vegetation (bald
cypress and black willow), hydric soils (Bibb complex) and
hydrology (buttressed stems, inundation).
The disturbed-hardwood forest has a NWI seasonally flooded
(PF01C). Evidence used to determine presence of wetlands
includes hydric soils (Bibb complex) and hydrology (buttressed
stems, inundation).
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to gauge wetland
quality. This rating system is heavily weighted towards water
storage, pollutant removal, bank/shoreline stabilization and
aquatic life value aspects of a wetland community. Other
wetland attributes considered are wildlife habitat,
recreational/educational value and economic value.
24
These wetland communities have a quality rating of 8.5 at
SR 1210 NE quadrant, 12.0 at SR 1221 NE quadrant and 37.5 at
SR 1221 SE quadrant. The cypress/gum swamp community has a
quality rating of 85.75. The disturbed bottomland hardwood
community has a DEM wetland rating of 48.5.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will fill an estimated 0.4 hectare
(1.1 ac) of wetlands. Table 6 summarizes anticipated impacts to
wetlands by site.
Table 6. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
SITE LOCATION AREA IMPACTED
1 SR 1210 NE Quadrant 0.02 (0.05)
2 SR 1221 NE Quadrant 0.05 (0.13)
3 SR 1221 SE Quadrant 0.22 (0.55)
4 Cypress/Gum Swamp 0.09 (0.23)
5 Disturbed Bottomland Hardwood <0.01 (0.09)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.38 (1.05)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Wetland Sites 1, 2, and 3 will be eliminated by
construction of the interchanges. The fringe of the wetland
Site 4 (cypress/gum swamp) will be modified by the project, and
revegetation of opportunistic species will occur post-construc-
tion. The disturbed bottomland hardwood community will be
altered by the new proposed culvert extension at the Pine Log
Branch.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. 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."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States,
resulting from the proposed project. This permit.authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded
or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or
department where:
(1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to
the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act;
25
(2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment, and;
(3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency' or department's application
for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
• determination.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the
Nationwide permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires
that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the Waters of the United States.
This project may require a stream relocation. The
relocation of the stream should be similar in nature to the
original channel in terms of width, depth, gradient and
substrate. Bank vegetation should be re-established, but no
specific planting regime is required.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Permits authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum
of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and 'the Department of the Army. Final decisions concerning
mitigation rest with the COE.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
• 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. As of 17 November 1994, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Pitt County (Table 7). A brief
description of each species characteristics and habitat follows.
26
Table 7. Federally-Protected Species
for Pitt County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spinymussel E*
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
No specimen from Pitt County found in the past twenty years
(1973-1993).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed no recorded occurrence
of federally-protected species in or near the project study
area.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spinymussel) E
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River
drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in
Nash County. Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can be
found in streams of the Tar River Drainage Basin and of the
Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom is composed of
uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be
relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of
freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This
mussel is named for its spines which project perpendicularly
from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12
spines can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in
texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white
(posterior).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The USGS quadrangle map (Greenville Southwest) shows
Pinelog Branch to be intermittent in the project study area. In
addition, the pea-sized pebble substrate preferred by the Tar
spinymussel is not present in the study area stream. No impact
to the Tar spinymussel will result from project construction.
27
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that
is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the
sides'of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and
whitewith horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
whiteicheek patch surrounded'by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine 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 >60 years old and are contiguous with pine
stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW
is up' to 200 hectares (500 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
3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m
(30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation
of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs
in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days
later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker occurs with in
the current Right-of-Way boundaries as loblolly pine trees are
too young or the habitat is >50% pine; no impact to the
red-cockaded woodpecker will result from construction of the
proposed project.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are three federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Pitt County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently
exist;to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the
NortW Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
28
Table 8 lists federal candidate species, the species state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status
of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 8. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Pitt County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Ammodramus henslowii
Procam rus medis
Fusconaia mansoni
COMMON NAME
Henslow's sparrow
Albemarle crayfish
Atlantic pigtoe
NC STATUS HABITAT
Y
T Y
T N
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Pitt County in the past twenty
years;
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal
Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of
the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species
and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare
and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
D. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located in Pitt County which has been determined to be
in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because
the proposed project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is
not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project proposes the construction along US 264 of two
interchanges, one at SR 1210 and the other at SR 1221. The majority of
construction will be performed within the existing right-of-way of the
facility. The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes,
and no additional through travel lanes are planned. Hence, the project's
impact on noise and air quality will be insignificant.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
29
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise or air quality
impacts are expected by this project. Traffic noise abatement is not
warranted and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part
772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional reports are
required for this project.
41 E. Geodetic Markers
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted by this project.

VII. CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
document, it has been determined that the proposed improvements will have
no significant adverse impact on the environment.
DW/plr

APPENDIX
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 264 BYPASS INTERCHANGES
ONE AT SR 1210 AND ONE AT SR 1221
PITT COUNTY
FA PROJECT NO. STPNHF-59 (1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2441101
T.1. P. NO. R - 526G
0 KILOMETER 4
1 1 1 1 FIGURE 1

7, .r
C

?
0 ?
O ae
<n
0
m
rn

m
?
? O
m fl
< -?
o
m ?
0
c

r
rn
rn
z
a

I? frV
lool - ?-I
I
1
' I ? ? ? eYP

FIELJ)s
? '
c
--_,
cly
?- '
------ _I

J1

,,
<. ?/ ?
C /

O
C
D
r
m
T f'-
R
c
m

-o O

Z m ? ?°

-n y
-? O

G7

0

0 r
m
m
Z
z

r g ,? l
t6? /,c-l
f /
WESLEY
CHURCH RD
/
n
/ VI
1 , z
0
I / o
,Q

.
1

\
1

I? -
R

i

R

00000,
10
D
o ?
J
rVJ
T
i , 1
m
?T
W
Ul
? J
*10
.r
I

/

? D
O
0 r=
r
? rn
Z C
>
x D
rn z
D
5 70
Z

TRUCK PERCENTAGES FOR US-64 BYPASS
FROM FARMVILLE EAST THOROUGHFARE TO
GREENVILLE BYPASS, PITT COUNTY

PROJECT R-526

EST. ADT'S IN 1005= % % % %
LOCATION ,
1997 2017 TTST DUAL DHV DIR
i US-64 BYP = 90 14e 5 8 2 60
SF' 1 10 20 4 10 60
FARMVILLE 36 64 ? 5 12 60
E. BYP.
FIGURE 5

N Z

¢O
L.1 ?y 0
N?
H ?
m
i
I? ?N
CL
} b'1 MM
ull
"I N ?I 4N, d- 4 N cqi Un

W W N -p•?"' v N N? r ehi vri
rl
?r ?I , vir
p
w
cc uJ
Lu J
J J
Z
J
_M W
ZQ CC
N u. 0
p O
tol °- n1 ?e WA o0
?t0U-4 OD i .6- Cd co
O
W N
N ?n
`e91 tp -? oNl 7
?v co
°" -
*
r o-_
LL ef-
l a
col tQ g

0
O V) Q CO
N N U. t01
NI co -? i-4 N
m

rm O
Ca ¢
wm O
am?y j
a
! .e
CD
NO a >-
ui U. W co
_ !e rl
LLJ Al
Owl
crA m
Q e?i tD ^I eo
LL W -- i A Z,
vir vi
'A
tOJ N
W
Q
U
U)
0
0
2
Q
s
0
z
FIGURE 6
SR 1:21OWS 264 Westbound Ramp Intersection
Proposed Geometry

0
N
r
. N
US 264 WESTBOUND
OFF RAMP
US :264 WESTBOUND I ON RAMP
t
I
o
N
r
oc
N
FIGURE 7
SR '1210/US 264 Eastbound Ramp Intersection
Proposed Geometry
0
N
r
N
US 264 EASTBOUND
ON RAMP
US 264 EASTBOUND
OFF RAMP
0
N
V-
cc
0

FIGURE 8

SR 1221/ US 264 Westbound Ramp Intersection
Proposed Geometry
N'
N
N
I
US 264 WESTBOUND
I OFF RAMP
US :264 WESTBOUND
ON RAMP I
I
I
N
N
r
Q
N
FIGURE 9
SR 1' 221 / US 264 Eastbound Ramp Intersection
Proposed Geometry
FIGURE 10
NORTH CAROLINA*STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
?OB DEPARTMENT OF?ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST;JONES STREET
10-04-94 RALEIGH NORTH''CAROLINA .27603-?
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS $ 1994
MAILED TO:
-H. FRANKLIN VICK
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL' BRANCH
,TRANSPORTATION BUILDING7INTER-OFFICE
FROM:
DIVISION OF
MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT HIGHWAYS P?
DIRECTOR `IRON ?
N 'C STATE CLEARINGHOU
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF 2 INTERCHANGES ON US 264 AT US 264 AND SR 1210
ANID US 264 AND FARMVILLE'EAST THOROUGHFARE (TIP #R-526-G)
SAI N095-E-4220-0133 PROGRAM TITLE = SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.•AS A RESULT OF'THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(X ) ',COMMENTS ATTACHED.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C.-REGION Q

? AA7E o?
d
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
September 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation r
FROM: David Brook IN
Deputy State istorlc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: New interchanges at US 264 Bypass/SR 1210 and US
264 Bypass/Farmville East Thoroughfare, Pitt County,
R-526G, 8.1187401, F-38-1(33), 95-E-4220-0133
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Archaeological surveys conducted for US 264 construction located several small
sites in the vicinity of the proposed work. We recommend additional survey in
areas which have not been investigated.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw /
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
N. Graf
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
40
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
74 ?A
Ai
? James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary pEHN R
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
C
V

10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee VJ
Project Review Coordinator
. ? i
S: F
RE: 95-0133 US 264 Bypass Interchanges, Farmville and
Greenville, Pitt County
DATE: September 29, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific :comments will be provided during
review.
Thank you'for the opportunity to respond.
encouraged to, notify our commenting divisio
assistance is needed.
attachments
Natural. Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
The applicant is
ns if additional
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
E North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co nator
Habitat Conservation Progra,?: ?
DATE: September 2, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for US 264 Bypass Interchanges
at SR 1210 and SR 1221 between Farmville and
Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina, TIP No.
R-526G, SCH Project No. 95-0133.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
At this time NCWRC has no specific recommendations or
concerns regarding this project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
Memo Page 2 September 2, 1994
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
Memo
Page 3
September 2, 1994
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Brad Hammers, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

AjK:
1 11.:'.;\
Di' .jk,_)IN 0;.:
• ??il'il Cll•V ?
Inter-t\gency Project Review Response
l';oject Nan.. hop-lou ?o2{? V IYPe of Project
r--? 'Ti he applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
i. improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to:the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as requs-ed by 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public \}Vacer Supply Se--ion, [phone].
?-? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
L-? state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant ,
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (91?'! 733-2321.
r-? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet. of adjacent
ing the -shellfish sanitation progra.
L--? waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information :egard*
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project ma-.- produce a mosquito breeding -pro blem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito -ontrol measures, the applicant -should*,
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to -1're removal or demolition of dilapidated
-? structures, an extensive rodent control program rna be necessary in order to prevent- the
mi?,racion of the rodents tc adjacen :yeas. The formation. concerning rodent- control;
contact the local health departir?,ent or the Public Health Pest Management Section ar- (919)
733-6407.
i-? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their.
?--? requirements for septic tank installations as require: under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On- WaStew.. ^ter Section at-(919) 7;3-2945
Site ; . _
The applicant should be advised to contract the loca :iealth department regarding the sanitary
!_J facilities required for this project.
Iff existing water lines will be relocate:. during Eh= construction plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of En -xonmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 Sc. Mary's Street "\aleihh, North Carolina, [phone].
19
_(eviewer Section/Branch Date
M
COMMISSION
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
The enclosed information is being sent to you because the named project(s) are located in or have
some impact on your locality. This information is either a Notification of Intent to Apply for federal program
funds or an environmental review of certain federal and state projects prior to implementation.
As Regional Coordinator of this process, the Mid-East Commission passes through information to
you for your review and comment. If you have knowledge of inaccuracies in the notification or questions
regarding the need, design, location, etc., please take this opportunity to respond in writing. You may contact
the applicant directly with speck questions. Negative comments are shared with the applicant in timely
manner to resolve the issues prior to application to the funding agency. A copy of comments is required in
the application package sent to the funder.
While these review items only represent the number of publicly funded projects being considered in
your area (and not the number which are ultimately funded), the review process can keep you abreast of the
percieved needs and potential efforts in your locality.
Feel free to distribute this information to the appropriate agency within your organization, but return
comments by the date shown below.
State Number 9J' L - 4220 - U /.3 .3
Return this form by: ?-? 7 -9V
Local Govyrnment: . of
The City/County n med above supports this project.
() The City/County named above objects to this project.
CommenteesName: 9, tol.o.a n - H??kt
Address and Phone #: i.o _ qvx %L Fo??,,,,.tl a.1 ?F
Date: - ?Y • M
A"
w

Attach additional pages as needed. Return comments to:
Jane Daughtridge
Regional Clearinghouse Coordinator
Mid-East Commission
P.O. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
¦ P.O. Drawer 1787 ¦ Washington, North Carolina 27889 ¦ [phone] ¦ FAX [phone] ¦
'<Nf or
~~I
?n UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
e NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
••,n,ovSoutheast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
September 13, 1994?? C E v?
Q
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch SEp 15 N. C. Department of Transportation z 1994
P. O. Box 25201 2 DIVISIC.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 ?HIGHWA O
Attention Joe Westbrook Dear Mr. Vick:
Please reference your August 18, 1994, letter requesting
information for evaluating potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Pitt County Interchanges on US 264 Bypass at US 264 and SR
1210 and US 264 and Farmville East Thoroughfare, State Project
8.1187401, Federal-Aid Project F-38-1(33), TIP R-526G.
The interchange at US 264 and the Farmville East Thoroughfare (SR
1221) may impact wetlands associated with Little Contentnea Creek
and its tributaries. Wetlands in the project area are a part of
the Contentnea Creek and Neuse River watershed and potentially
support anadromous fishery resources. Accordingly, these wetlands
and adverse impacts resulting from the proposed work should be
described. Furthermore, measures to avoid and minimize wetland
losses should be incorporated into the project plans.
Consideration of a Categorical Exclusion for this work should be
contingent on minimization of wetland losses and provision of
mitigation for unavoidable losses.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can
be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
n
v
And as Mager r.
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
J4?" ?rrrtoicd#
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC
NCDEHNR, Morehead City, NC
F/SE02
w.
SMENT OF ty
M,RCH 3 ?eAe C
r
I:
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 2, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post office Box 25201
P.alaigh, :earth Carolina 2^511-5201
G
b Sf P 7 19%
DIVISION OF <<
,.tt r
Subject: Scoping Comments for Interchanges on US 264, between Farmville
and Greenville, in Pitt County, TIP #R-526G, Federal-Aid #F-38-
1(33), State Proj. #8.1187401.
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for your letter of August 18, 1994, requesting comments on the
proposed project identified above. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions-of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
calls for construction of two interchanges on US 264 Bypass between
Farmville and Greenville, one at SR 1210 and one at the Farmville East
Thoroughfare.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within exisring and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland types
should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each wetland type
to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which
would be impacted by the proposed project.
S. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for upland and wetlands habitat impacts
associated with the project. These measures should include plans
for replacing unavoidable wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after
construction as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary
impacts) and an assessment of the extent to which the proposed
project will add to similar environmental impacts produced by
other, completed projects in the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened,
and candidate species which occur in Pitt County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species must contain the
following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CPR
402.02, on the species and habitat including consideration of
direct, indirect, cumulative effects, and the results of related
studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any
species or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential
effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to
its provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if
its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be
prudent for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or
their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be
contacted for information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your
official determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can
supply any additional information or clarification, please contact David
Dell, highway projects coordinator, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 19).
Sincerely yours,
a Kk- ?,?-a4cl
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor
Enclosure
REVISED JULY 26, 1994
Pitt County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Tar spinymussel (Ellivtio steinstansana) - E*
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(Cl and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (fusconaia masoni) - C2*
Albemarle crayfish (Procambarus medialis) - C2
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) - C2
i

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 9, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: New-interchanges at US 264/SR 1210 and US
264/SR 1221, Farmville, Pitt County, Federal Aid
F-38-1(33), State 8.1187401, TIP R-526G, CH 95-
E-4220-0133, ER 95-8225
Dear Mr. Graf:
o- Li 74!n\
FEB 14 1995
DIVISIO
Arglllyj% 1-story
nce, J , ci?ector'
t
Thank you for your letter of January 19, 1995, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by John Mintz concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the subject report and. find that it meets our guidelines and
those of the Secretary of the Interior. Mentioned in the report is disturbance
caused by placement of roadside ditches, grading, and wildflower planting
projects. We wonder whether these operations were within the original project
bounds, or are additional disturbances which should be considered in reviewing
future projects. We also wish to note that the additional archaeological work on
this particular project was the result of direct consultation with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) archaeological staff. The direct
consultation saved considerable time and effort in the completion of the project
review. We appreciate their efforts and NCDOT's cooperation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
All?
avid_Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: •?H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
J. Mintz
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
?w?
„a SEAJZ .
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
J
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
. February 17, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tra ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. "Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: New interchanges at US 264 Bypass/SR 1210 and US
264 Bypass/Farmville East Thoroughfare, Pitt County,
R-526G, 8.1187401, F-38-1(33), 95-E-4220-0133
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect for the above project. We recommend
that no historic architectural survey be conducted 'for this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church.
Orrick Weaver
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 (63p

'peel
?i
September 27, 1994 ??°?, ?q
BEENK)RANDUM 'PC
o
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart?,/Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0133; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Pitt County Interchanges on US 264, TIP R-526G
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
f?
Melba McGee
September 27, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10726er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
i
t
,u
i
oa STATFo ?3
AUG 2 3 1994
WETLANDS GPG s .. , -
i WATER ?t1ALITY 5E
---
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Pitt County, Interchanges on US 264 Bypass at US 264 and
SR 1210 and US 264 and Farmville East Thoroughfare, State
Project 8.1187401, Federal-Aid Project F-38-1(33),
TIP R-526G
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun
studying the proposed improvements to the subject project. The project is
included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and
is scheduled for construction in fiscal year 1996.
We plan to construct two (2) Interchanges on US 264 between Farmville and
Greenville (see attached vicinity map).
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 federally funded Categorical
Exclusion. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
October 1, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Joe
Westbrook, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
i
-r
;,. _ ----
_ --_ _z? ? i:?=-?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Environmental Management
Now&
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ID E H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 14, 1994
MEMO
To: Joe Westbrook
NC DOT
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: TIP # R-5266{
This memo is a follow-up to our telephone conversation. The
interchange south of SR 1210 has the potential to impact an U.T.
to Pinelog Branch (class C-SW-NSW). DOT should design the
interchange to avoid relocating this tributary.
The interchange near Farmville has she potential to impact
Little Contentnea Creek (class C-SW-NSW). Again, DOT should
design the interchange to avoid relocating this stream.
Should you have any questions, contact me at 733-1786.
R5266.mem
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, Norfh Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501k recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEPA?TIVDENT
OF ,TRANSPORTATION
s
n
T ANSMITTAL SLIP'f DA??? I`I T
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
L A. (i, c ; Qo mcb D I11'? N IJ Lo
FRO
M REF. NO. OR. ROOM, BLDG.
/???p
?

? NOTE AND FILE ,.? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN. TO ME :? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN- WITH MORE, DET AILS I ?-FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ^:$ ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE
BEPLYFOR "-M.Y, - SIG NATUR E- ? SIGNATURE ,
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
e,,
COMMENTS:

1994
2
'
FP
ERL0 LISY SECTION-`

u

.i I
4s• -
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 31, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the replacement of
at-grade intersections on US 264 Bypass and SR 1210 and
US 264 and Farmville East Thoroughfare with
interchanges, State Project 8.1187401 (R-526G), Pitt
County, Federal-Aid Project F-38-1(33)
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 October 4, 1994 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). 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 Joe Westbrook, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. jaj
JAW/pl r Te s )y S 1 71-96
Attachment d tt, "? •- ?`
.. r. ti file&
e v, (K

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 8-31 -94
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning _X_
Design _X_
TIP # R-526G
Project # 8.1187401
F.A. Project # F-38-1-(33)
Division 2
County PITT
Route(s) US264
Functional Classification PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
Length TWO INTERCHANGES
Purpose of Project: REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING AT-GRADE
INTESECTIONS WITH INTECHANGES ON US264 BYPASS AT US 264 AND
SR 1210 AND US264 AND FARMVILLE EAST THOROUGHFARE
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: REFER ABOVE
Type of environmental document to be prepared: CATEGORICAL
EXCLUSION
complete
Environmental Study schedule C/E 1-95
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
-Page 1- -
c.
L
developers, or other? Yes
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid?
No
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
, or (-0)
Type of Access Control: Full _X_ Partial None
Number of Interchanges _2 Grade Separations
Stream Crossings
Typical Section: Existing 350 min.
Proposed var.
Traffic (ADT): Current 9000 Design Year 414800
% TTST 5 % DUALS 8
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Design Speed: 70?
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and
acquisition) . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,400,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0
-Page 2-

TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . , $ 7,400,000

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which could affect cost or schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recy 1 i ng . . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface items. . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (list any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures
Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Wails . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Other Misc. . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing
W.W .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . $
C.L .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
-Page 3-
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
` Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . $
Signing
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With/without arms . . . . . . . . . . . $
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade. . . . . $
Pavement Markings
Paint . . . $
Thermoplastic . . . . . $
Raised Pavement Markers . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) $
CONTRACT COST Subtotal. . . . . . . . $
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal. . . . . . . . $
Right-of-Way
Will Contain within existing R/W? Yes
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated cost. $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated cost. $
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right-of-Way Subtotal. . . . . . . . $
No
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. . $
Prepared by:
Dat e
-Page 4-

Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Phot og rammet ry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
Init. Date
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
_ Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Op
_ Sec Roads Officer
_ Construction Branch
_ Roadside Environ.
_ Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date
Init. Date
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator _
Traffic Engr. Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res. _
City/Municipality DEHNR _
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineering.)
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
scoping, note your proposed revisions or comments here:
-Page 5-
r >
s

t
1 170
Th„

_ ?soo
w?