19970114 Ver 1_Complete File_19970220 (2)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb A
A17%
41 0
?EHNR
IT o iH
Subject: EA for US 258
Lenoir County
State Project DOT No. 8.1200401, TIP # U-2542
DEHNR No. 96-0426, DEM No. 11146
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 0.25 acres of waters including wetlands will be
impacted. The following comments are based on a review of the EA document:
1) DEM concurs with the proposed widening.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Missy Dickens, DOT
us258.ea
FAXED
FEB 919961
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
a
y?.
40 r
US 258
From US 70 to SR 1575
Kinston
Lenoir County
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-258(4)
State Project 8.1200401
TIP Project U-2542
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
Date -4r H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
-513-16
Date ich L. Graf, P.E.
)*4ivision Administrator, FHWA
G

r?

?t.

S

?u
F
Y

,s

i

11
US 258
From US 70 to SR 1575
Kinston
Lenoir County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-258(4)
State Project No. 8.1200401
TIP Project U-2542
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
May, 1996
Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch by:

`
164.9
Mary is Dickens, P.E. Z'
v
?
•
Project Planning Engineer '?.-
?'
??MNNp11h1i1P?

W' on Stroud
Project Planning Unit Head
, 01??
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Type of Action ............................................................................................... I
II. Description of Proposed Action .....................................................................1
III. Summary of Project Commitments ................................................................. 2
A. Permits ..............................................................................................2
B. Federally-Listed Species
C. Erosion Control .................................................................................. 2
D. Floodway Modification ....................................................................... 2
E. Stream Modification ........................................................................... 2
F. Bicycle Commitments ......................................................................... 3
G. Railroad Coordination ........................................................................ 3
H. Underground Storage Tanks ............................................................... 3
IV. Coordination and Comments ..........................................................................3
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ...................................... 3
B. Public Hearing .................................................................................... 4
1. Asymmetrical Acquisition of Right of Way at Banks
School Road ........................................................................... 4
2. Three-Lane Widening Instead of Five-Lane Widening ............. 5
3. Proposed Improvements to Daly Waldrop Road (SR 1554)
Intersection ............................................................................. 5
4. Turn-Lanes at Country Club Estates ....................................... 6
5. US 70 Westbound Free-Flow Right Turn-Lane ....................... 6
6. US 70 Westbound Left-Turn Lane .......................................... 7
7. Project Not Centered Between Eastside and Westside
Residences .............................................................................. 7
8. Proposed Improvements to A Street ....................................... 8
9. Proposed Right of Way at Village Square Shopping Center..... 8
V. Design Revisions Since the Public Hearing ..................................................... 9
A. Turnout Widths at Non-State System Roads ....................................... 9
B. Proposed Right of Way ...................................................................... 9
C. Alignment Shift at Daly Waldrop Road (SR 1554) .............................. 9
D. US 70 Westbound Left-Turn Lane ...................................................... 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
VI. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment ................................................... 9
A. Service Road Improvements ............................................................... 9
B. Intersections .......................................................................................10
C. Proposed Berm Widths .......................................................................10
D. Proposed Right of Way ......................................................................10
VII. Only Practicable Alternative Wetland Finding .................................................10
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
VIII. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact .....................................................10
FIGURE 1 - Vicinity Map
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX B - Public Hearing Information
Press Release ...................................................................................... B-1
Handout ........................................................................ B-2 through B-5
Newspaper Article .............................................................................. B-6
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment, which has
been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental
Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for
the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen US 258
(Kinston, Lenoir County) from US 70 to SR 1575 (Poole Road) from the existing two-
lane shoulder section to a five-lane roadway with curb and gutter that will measure 19.2
meters (64 feet) face to face of curbs. The intersection with US 70 at the southern
terminal of the project will also be revised as a part of this project. Additional turn-lanes
are proposed at various intersections along the project. The project is approximately 5.5
kilometers (3.4 miles) long and is shown in Figure 1.
The proposed widening of US 258 is included in the 1996-2002 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction
are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1998, respectively. The TIP includes a
total funding of $4,260,000, including $740,000 for right of way and $3,520,000 for
construction. The total cost of the recommended improvements is $6,525,000
($1,225,000 for right of way and $5,300,000 for construction, verified as of April 12,
1995). The estimated project cost exceeds the TIP funding by $2,265,000.
2
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. Permits
The subject project is expected to result in the fill of less than 0.1 hectare (0.25
acre) of wetlands. It is anticipated that the proposed project will require a Section 404
Nationwide 14 permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 General
Water Quality Certification from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources.
B. Federally-Listed Species
The sensitive jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica) has been listed as Threatened in
Lenoir County since the Environmental Assessment was completed (based upon the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Listed and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern
by County in North Carolina, dated April 1, 1996). Prior to the beginning of right of way
acquisition, the Natural Resources staff of the Planning and Environmental Branch will
conduct the necessary surveys to determine if the project will have any impact on the
species.
C. Erosion Control
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of
the project in order to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
D. Fooodway Modification
The structural integrity of the existing culverts that convey the Neuse River
Tributary under the US 70 westbound right-turn lane and the US 70 mainline just east of
the US 258 intersection will be evaluated during the final design stage to ensure that they
can be retained and extended as recommended. In addition, if, during final hydraulic
design, the culverts are determined not to be hydraulically adequate, they will be
supplemented as needed or a floodway modification will be coordinated with the
appropriate local officials.
E. Stream Modification
Approximately 70 meters (230 feet) of the Neuse River Tributary will be
rechannelized in order to direct it through an extended culvert under US 70. NCDOT will
carry out the necessary coordination with the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding this rechannelization.
F. Bicycle Commitments
The subject project crosses Lenoir County Bicycle Route No. 45 at the
intersection with SR 1546/Sand Clay Road. NCDOT will maintain access for bicyclists
across US 258 at this intersection during project construction.
G. Railroad Coordination
A railroad agreement will be necessary since the project will involve the widening
of the US 258 crossing of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad. The Right of Way
Branch will coordinate with the railroad regarding this agreement during the right of way
acquisition phase of the project.
H. Underground Storage Tanks
There are five underground storage tanks located along the project. Right of way
will be required from some of these parcels. Prior to acquiring any right of way, NCDOT
will conduct a site assessment to determine if there is any underground contamination
within the proposed right of way.
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was made available to the public and circulated to
the following federal, state, and local agencies:
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
Federal Aviation Administration - Atlanta
Federal Emergency Management Administration - Atlanta
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U. S. Department of the Interior - Geological Survey - Raleigh
N.C. Department of Agriculture
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Flood Insurance Program
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -Morehead City
* N.C. DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
City of Kinston
Region P Council of Governments
Lenoir County Board of Commissioners
4
Lenoir County Manager
Global Transpark Authority
Greiner, Inc. (preparers of the EIS for the proposed Global TransPark)
* Denotes agencies from which written comments on the Environmental
Assessment were received
Copies of the letters received are included in Appendix A (see pages A-1 through
A-3)Z None of these comments received from agencies require a response.
B. Public Hearing
In order to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed project, a
combined public hearing was held on Monday, February 12, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Banks Elementary School Cafeteria located near Kinston on Banks School Road. The
press release advertising the public hearing is included in the Appendix, page B-1. A copy
of the handout that was provided to participants is also included in the Appendix, pages B-
2 through B-5. The moderator described the format and purpose of the hearing, and then
he explained the public hearing map which was displayed. The floor was then opened for
comments. An article that appeared in the Kinston Free Press on February 14, 1996 is
found on page B-6. Since the hearing, NCDOT has received several written comments
from citizens. Following is a summary of concerns expressed by the public, either verbally
at the hearing or in writing following the hearing.
Asymmetrical Acquisition of Right of Way at Banks School Road
COMMENT
Concern was expressed regarding the fact that more right of way is
proposed on the south side of SR 1546 (Banks School Road) than on the north
side. The opinion was expressed that this proposal would result in inequitable
impacts; businesses and homes on the south side of SR 1546 would experience
greater damages than the church on the north side of SR 1546.
RESPONSE
The additional right of way on the south side of SR 1546 was proposed to
allow for the construction of an eastbound exclusive right-turn lane and to have
adequate construction room to tie the proposed slopes into the existing ground.
More right of way is required on the south side of SR 1546 than on the north side
in order to maintain the existing centerline (and the existing tangent alignment) of
SR 1546 while providing the needed right-turn lane.
5
While it is not prudent to shift the alignment of SR 1546 to minimize
impacts to the properties along the south side of SR 1546, NCDOT will reduce the
amount of right of way required from these properties to the maximum extent
practicable. Temporary construction easements will be acquired instead of
permanent right of way wherever possible.
2. Three-Lane Widening Instead of Five-Lane Widening
COMMENT
Support was expressed for the construction of a three-lane cross section
along US 258 instead of the proposed five-lane cross-section. It was expressed
that three lanes would be sufficient to handle traffic demands, especially given the
proposed Crescent Road (Project R-2719) that will roughly parallel US 258 to the
west. Five lanes would simply result in increased traffic.
RESPONSE
The five-lane cross-section is proposed based on the projected traffic
volumes in the year 2020. Even with the proposed Crescent Road in place, design
year volumes warrant five lanes on US 258. Any increase in traffic volumes
resulting only from the widening of the roadway is expected to be negligible.
Proposed Improvements to Daly Waldrop Road SR 1554) Intersection
COMMENT
Concern was expressed over the right of way that is being proposed on the
west side of US 258 just north of SR 1554 (Daly Waldrop Road) for two reasons.
First, since all of the right of way is proposed on the west side, the westside
residences will experience all of the right of way impacts while the parcel on the
east side, where no residences or businesses exist, will experience none. Secondly,
several additional turn-lanes, perceived to be unnecessary, are proposed at this
intersection. Furthermore, there is a high accident history at this location, and
concern was expressed that additional turn-lanes causing a wider road would
worsen, not improve, the accident potential at the intersection. Also, the desire for
the signalization of this intersection was expressed.
RESPONSE
Regarding Safety. Forty-four percent of the accidents occurring at this
intersection between October 1, 1991 and September 30, 1994 were the rear-end
stop or slow type. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle slowing to turn is
struck in the rear by another vehicle traveling in the same direction and attempting
to maneuver through the intersection. The frequency of this type of accident will
6
be significantly reduced by the addition of the proposed turn-lanes. The
intersection will be monitored following project construction, and signals will be
installed when warranted.
RepardinQ Proposed Right of Way. NCDOT has altered the design to reflect a
5.4-meter (18-foot) eastward shift of the centerline in the vicinity of this
intersection to minimize impacts to residences on the west side of the roadway.
4. Turn-Lanes at Country Squire Estates
COMN ENT
Some residents of Country Squire Estates, a subdivision located on the east
side of US 258 approximately 0.5 kilometer (0.3 mile) north of SR 1575 (Poole
Road), expressed a desire for a southbound left turn-lane on US 258 at Country
Squire Road. They feel that it is unsafe now and that the increased traffic volumes
after project construction will worsen the situation. They requested that the
subject project be expanded to include this left-turn lane.
RESPONSE
The proposed project ends at SR 1575 (Poole Road); therefore, no
improvements will be constructed in the area of Country Squire Estates as a part
of this project since it is beyond the project limits. While NCDOT did, during the
early stages of project planning, consider extending the project northward to
SR 1536 (north of SR 1575), this alternative was eliminated from further
consideration based on the Division's recommendation. However, Division 2 has
been made aware of the concern at the Country Squire Estates entrance and will
address the need for this turn lane upon receiving a request from the concerned
citizens. These citizens have been told that they need to prepare such a request of
the Division. Furthermore, it needs to be reiterated that the proposed widening
will not cause significant increases in traffic; the widening is proposed to
accommodate traffic volumes that already exist or are projected in the design year
regardless of whether or not the proposed project is constructed.
US 70 Westbound Free-Flow Right Turn-Lane
COMN ENT
Concern was expressed over the proposed elimination of the existing
US 70 westbound free-flow right-turn lane at the US 258 intersection. Businesses
that are currently accessed by the existing free-flow lane feel that the proposed
intersection improvements will reduce business and reduce the overall safety of the
intersection.
7
RESPONSE
It is currently proposed to bring the westbound right-turning traffic under
control of the traffic signal. The existing configuration requires the unsafe merging
of substantial traffic volumes at high speeds. The proposed westbound right-
turning lane improvements will increase safety at the intersection by concentrating
all conflicting moves at one signalized point.
The proposed service road, which will utilize a portion of the existing free-
flow lane, will connect with US 70 approximately 192 meters (630 feet) east of
US 258 and will provide access to the businesses which are currently accessed by
the free-flow lane. The service road will actually increase the safety and
convenience of access to the adjacent businesses by separating traffic accessing
those businesses from traffic attempting to travel north on US 258. Northbound
US 258 traffic will not have to slow for traffic entering the business parking lots,
so rear-end accident potential will be significantly reduced. Likewise, the fact that
traffic exiting the business parking lots will not have to contend with northbound
US 258 traffic will increase convenience and reduce accident potential.
6. US 70 Westbound Left-Turn Lane
COMN[ENT
One comment was the request for the construction of a westbound (US 70)
left-turn lane at the US 70/US 258 intersection. This would facilitate the U-
turning movement by westbound traffic accessing businesses on the south side of
US 70.
RESPONSE
NCDOT will construct a westbound left-turn lane on US 70 at US 258 as
part of the subject project in order to facilitate U-turns.
7. Project Not Centered Between Eastside and Westside Residences
COMMENT
One resident said that the proposed roadway will be closer to residences on
the west side of US 258 than to those on the east side because the east side
residences are set farther back from the roadway. This resident was concerned
that this would result in a greater increase in noise levels for residences on the west
side than for those on the east side.
8
RESPONSE
On average, there is not a significant difference in the setbacks of
residences on one side of the road versus the setbacks of those on the other. To
center the roadway between every pair of opposing structures would make a
crooked and unsafe roadway. The proposed alignment optimizes the use of
existing right of way, which keeps project costs down (except in the vicinity of
Daly Walldrop Road, where the centerline will be shifted to minimize impacts to
residences, see Sections IV.B.3 and V.Q. In some places, more easements are
required on one side of the road than on the other because the existing ground
profile is such that additional construction room is needed to tie the proposed
slopes into the existing ground. Even where the proposed roadway is off-center
with respect to roadside development, differences in the setbacks between the road
and structures are not substantial enough to cause noticeable differences in the
noise level increases.
81: , Proposed Improvements to A Street
COMMENT
Some residents said that the projected traffic volumes at the
US 258/A Street intersection are too high. They communicated that the true
volumes do not justify the proposed improvements to A Street.
RESPONSE
NCDOT will decrease the proposed opening widths on A Street and
C Street (neither are on the state system) from 12.2 meters (40 feet) to 9.8 meters
(32 feet) face to face to minimize impacts to nearby properties. No turn lanes will
be striped on A Street or C Street.
9. Proposed Right of Way at Village Square Shopping Center
COMMENT
One citizen expressed concern about the amount of right of way that is
proposed in front of the Village Square Shopping Center.
RESPONSE
In front of the Village Square Shopping Center and other businesses where
right of way is required, NCDOT, where possible, will steepen the side slopes or
construct a small retaining wall to reduce the amount of required right of way.
Where side slopes steeper than 4:1 are used, the Roadside Environmental Unit will
consider the need for any special plantings required to stabilize the slopes.
9
V. DESIGN REVISIONS SINCE THE PUBLIC HEARING
A. Turnout Widths at Non-State System Roads
Prior to the Public Hearing, the plans called for a 12.2 meter (40-foot) face to face
turnout width at the intersections of roads not on the state system (A Street, C Street, and
the Barnet driveway). However, as a result of Public Hearing comments received, the
plans will be revised to show a proposed turnout width of 9.8 meters (32 feet) face to face
of curbs at the intersections of A Street and C Street. No turn lanes will be constructed or
striped on these two roads. The proposed turnout width at Barnet driveway has not
changed, as projected volumes justify separate left-turn and right-turn lanes.
B. Proposed Right of Way
The public hearing map showed significant amounts of proposed right of way
(required because of the existing roadway alignment and the existing ground profile)
adjacent to some businesses. As a result of comments received at the Public Hearing,
NCDOT will, where possible in these locations, steepen side slopes or construct small
retaining walls to reduce the amount of proposed right of way. If side slopes steeper than
4:1 are constructed, special landscaping for purposes of slope stabilization may be
required.
NCDOT will also minimize proposed right of way by acquiring temporary
construction easements instead of permanent right of way wherever possible (see Section
IV.C.1).
C. Alignment Shift at Daly Waldrop Road (SR 1554)
NCDOT has revised the design to reflect an eastward shift of the US 258
centerline of about 5.4 meters (18 feet) in the vicinity of Daly Waldrop Road (SR 1554) in
order to minimize impacts to residences on the west side.
D. US 70 Westbound Left-Turn Lane
NCDOT will construct a westbound left-turn lane on US 70 at US 258 to facilitate
U-turning movements by westbound traffic accessing businesses on the southside of
US 70.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Service Road Improvements
Figure 5 (the aerial photograph), Sheet 1 of 6, in the Environmental Assessment
shows a proposed connection between the proposed service road near the U 258/US 70
intersection and the existing mainline of US 258. This figure was incorrect, and this
10
connection is not proposed as part of the subject project. The service road will be
accessible only from US 70 just east of US 258.
B. Intersections
No turn-lanes are proposed on A Street or C Street. This is a change from what
was stated in Sections II.G.2 and II.G.3 of the EA.
C. Proposed Berm Widths
The proposed berm width is 2.4 meters (8 feet). (The Environmental Assessment
incorrectly stated that the proposed berm width is 1.8 meters (6 feet)).
D. Proposed Right of Way
The total acreage of proposed right of way required for the project may be smaller
than that which was stated in the EA as a result of the design changes explained in Section
V.B abo*e.
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 established a national policy to avoid, to the extent
possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
Anticipated impacts of less than 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) are expected to occur with the
filling of roadside ditches associated with the widening of US 258. Since the project is
primarily a symmetrical widening of an existing facility requiring the acquisition of minimal
amounts of additional right of way and easements, impacts to wetlands are minimal. The
project does not involve any wetland beyond the bank-to-bank impact area. With the
exception of not building the project, there are no feasible means of avoiding this wetland
taking. NCDOT will minimize impacts on wetlands through the use of best management
practices.
It has been determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IlVIPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment and upon comments received on the Environmental
Assessment and at the Public Hearing, it is the finding the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that the project will not have a
significant impact upon the quality of the human or natural environment. The project is
II
not controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts on natural,
ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. No significant impact on air or
water quality or on ambient noise levels is expected. The proposed project will have no
effect on any property listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. The proposed improvements are not expected to have any effect on federally-
listed threatened or endangered species. (Appropriate surveys will be completed by the
Planning and Environmental Branch before the project letting to insure this project is in
compliance with the National Endangered Species Act). The project is consistent with
local plans and will not divide or disrupt a community. The project will not involve the
relocation of any residences or businesses. In view of the above evaluation, it has been
determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Neither an
Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis will be required.
MAD/plr
1
'I
i
AL

END PROJECT
37
143
r.r,
luz
. ??' Instrtu
?O Ls Grange
r - • 13 55
•?• L E '
-- - - -- - - `• I i yep Ron
• `• ` ink Mill
' • r
r? •
,• ? 7Si s
Ian
36 p
.17 Im
tar: •
Lli '
w1 /
•
r ?
/
1J '
/
•
Lin
?Q
?0 •P r •
.i a
•? it ? ?. ? ?,
a
BEGIN PROJECT
r
. J
i
nQe•
ston t
70 -??
I F?
0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 258
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. U - 2542 _
FIGURE 1
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
• State of North Carolina,
Department of Environment,
health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
ffl?W4
-- A?14
;?t &MMMI
DEHN
RE: 96-0453 EA US 258 Widening, Kinston, Lenoir county
DATE: February 12, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed information. The attached comments are for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED"
FEB I.
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-1
_ I? North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Caroll=176044188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fawood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEFINR
FROM: David Cox, Ilighway Project Ca ator
habitat Conservation 1'rogr
nJ 4??
DATE: February 9, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental Assessment
(EA) for us 258 widening, from US 70 to SR 1575 in Kinston, Lenoir County, North
Carolina. TIP No. U-2542, SCH Project No. 96-0453.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject EA and
are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(e)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.G. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to symmetrically widen US 258 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility from US 70
to SR 1575. The project length is approximately 3.4 miles. Wetland and waters impacts are associated
with culvert extensions and minor stream channel modifications and will likely be covered under
nationwide "404" permits.
The FA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
project area. Due to the developed nature of the project area and the decision to widen an existing
roadway, we feel that impacts to natural resources will be minimal.
We will concur with the EA for this project and anticipate our concurrence: with the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). NCDOT should continue efforts to minimize impacts to stream channels
and should employ NCDOT Best Management Practices to protect off-site resources. Stream channel
modifications should be performed using state-of-the-art stream relocation techniques. NCWRC
biologists will be available to discuss stream channel modifications with NCDOT when necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistancc please
call me at [phone],
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-2
.Stc??e of'North?Caa?pllno i
.. ' •.D:epdt?rrier??:af?E?ylf:o'nment, .. 'H? ttr rind W urd Resources .4
Division of Environmental Management
i
James B. Hunt;:Jr:.'Governor
Jonathan 8. Howes. Secretary CHE"" --
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E., Director .
t
i
i? aary
r? 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM Fe
To: Melba McGee
Through: John-born
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for pS 258
Le;noi.r,County
State Project DOT No. 8.160040.1, TIP # U-2542
DEHNR No. 96-04,V? DEwI No. 1.1146
The subject documdht. has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental-Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for,activities which) impact of waters !of the state including
wetlands. The,:'docurn"ent' states that 0.25 acres of waters including wetlands will be
impacted. The following comments are `based on a review of the EA document:
1) DEM concurs with the proposed) widening.
DOT is reminded that .endorsement of
a-401 Certification: upon application if
and minimized to th.e maximum extent
.EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
land or water impacts have not been avoided
icticable.
cc: Monica Swihart .
Missy Dicke. §, -DOT
us258.ea
;
I
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh; North CaroUnd 27626-0635
An Equcl:Opportunity Afflt'native Action Employer
A-3
T ephone 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
6096 recycled/ 1 o% post-coruumer paper
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF US 258
FROM US 70 TO NORTH OF POOLE ROAD (SR 1575)
Project 8.1200401 U-2542 Lenoir County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
hold the above public hearing on Monday, February 12, 1996 at
7:00 p.m. in the Banks Elementary School Cafeteria located
near Kinston on Banks School Road.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the
proposed design and right of way requirements/procedures.
The hearing will be open to those present for statements,
questions, comments, and/or submittal of material pertaining
to the proposed project. Additional material may be
submitted for a period of 10 days from the date of the
hearing to: L. L. Hendricks, NCDOT, Citizens Participation
Unit, P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
It is proposed to widen US 258 from the existing two-
lane roadway with shoulders to a five-lane roadway with curb
and gutter - a distance of approximately 3.4 miles. The
intersection with US 70 will be revised as part of this
project. Additional turn-lanes are proposed at various
intersections along the project. Additional right of way
will be required for these improvements.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending the public hearing. Anyone desiring additional
information may contact Mr. Hendricks at the above mailing
address, by FAX at [phone], or by telephone at
[phone].
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy
of the environmental document - Environmental Assessment -
are available for public review in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's District Office located at
1620 Richlands Road (US 258 South) in Kinston.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
hearing.
B-1

r
U'S 258
FROM US 70
TO NORTH OF POOLE ROAD
PROJECT 8.1200401
TIP NO. U-2542
LENOIR COUNTY
COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
BANKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FEBRUARY 12, 1996

PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The proposed widening/improvements of US 258 from the US 70/US 258
intersection to north of Poole Road will improve traffic flow and
safety along this project. A continuous left-turn lane will be provided
reducing the number of accidents related to left-turning vehicles.
Upgrading the roadway will also reduce travel time, resulting in lower
road user costs. Access to businesses and residences in the area will be
improved.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of Transportation's
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning process.
The Department of Transportation is soliciting your views on the proposed
widening/improvements of US 258.
The Department of Transportation's views on the above project are set
forth in the environmental document - Environmental Assessment. A copy
of this report is available for review in the North Carolina Department
of Transportation's District Office located at 1620 Richlands Road
(US 258 South) in Kinston.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you
your comments and/or questions a part
Transcript. This may be done by havii
them on the comment sheet and leaving
submitting them in writing during the.
Hearing.
are urged to participate by making
of the Official Public Hearing
ag them-recorded tonight, writing
it in the designated location or by
10 days following the Public
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is
important, however, that THE OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED
REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly,
debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings. Also, the public
hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the
alignment and design by a majority vote of those present.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
All input received through the public involvement process will be
reviewed and considered by the Administrative and Engineering staffs of
the Division of Highways for recommendations prior to final decisions
being made.
6-3
a
PROJECT
Length 3.4 Miles (5.5 Kilometers)
Typical Section Five 12' Lanes (3.6 Meters) - Curb & Gutter
Right of Way Variable - 30.5 Meters to 37.0 Meters + Easements
100 Feet to 120 Feet + Easements
Relocatees Residences - 0
Businesses - 0
Non-Profit - 0
Estimated Cost Right of Way - $ 1,225,000
Construction - 5,300,000
TOTAL $ 6,525,000
Tentative Schedule Right of Way - July, 1996
Construction - April, 1998
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be
constructed under the State-Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of
this project will be 80% Federal Funds and 20% State Funds. The Board of
Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of
projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and
construction. The Board is responsible for 1000 of the project's
maintenance cost after construction. The Federal Highway Administration
is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed,
constructed, and maintained to Federal Aid Standards.
14
I
B-4

e
COMMENT SHEET
Widening/Improvements of US 258
From US 70 to North of Poole Road (SR 1575)
February 12, 1996
U-2542 Lenoir County Project 8.1200401
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
L. L. Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
B-5

In-tersection's. a concern
at widening hearing .
? Meeting Residents
express thoughts
on U.S. 258 construction
By ill sodvoge!
Copy Editor
-Several people said Monday
they, are concerned that
widening U.S. 258 North could.
worsen unsafe intersections and
drainage problems.
About 15 people brought up
those concerns during a hearing
on the project at Banks School.
The state Department of
Transportation plans to widen
the road from U.S. 70 to.north of
Poole Road. The new road would
replace the two-lane road with
shoulders with five lanes with
curbs and gutters. - .
The project would also modify
the intersection with U.S. 70 and
add turn lanes atvarious
intersections.
But some people said the
widening could increase
problems at the intersection of
Paul's Path, Hull Road and U.S.
258, the site of several accidents
last year, said Ronald
Davenport, district highway
engineer. Some also testified
that they have concerns about
the intersection with Daly
Waldrop Road,
"They'll be reviewed and
taken into consideration,"
Davenport said: "If minor
changes need to be made, they
will be made."
About 75 people attended the
hearing and spoke with DOT
officials. Written comment cards
were also available.
Davenport said it is unlikely
the concerns will delay the
project. _
The DOT is scheduled to begin
acquiring right of way this
summer. Construction should
start in the spring of 1998 and
take 18 months to two years to
complete.
"It will definitely improve it
for the traveling public,"
Davenport said. ..
A map of the proposed.
location and design and a copy of
the environmental assessment
are available in the DOT
Division Office at 1620
Richlands Road.'
B-6

q7- Of)j
Y J
Widening of US 258 to a Five-Lane
Curb and Gutter Facility From US 70
to SR 1575 in Lenoir County
TIP No. U-2542
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-258(4)
State Project No. 8.1200401
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2542
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
LANE SAULS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
19 JULY 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................ 1
1.1 Project Description ........................... 1
1.2 Purpose ...................... ............... 1
1.3 Methodology ................ ................. 2
2.0 Physical Resources .................................. 2
2.1 Soils ......................................... 2
2.2 Water Resources ............................... 3
2.2.1 Characteristics of Waters ............ 3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............ 4

...
2.2.3 Water Quality.. .... ****' 4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 5
3.0 Biotic Resources .................................... 5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities.. ..................... 6
.3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................... 7
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts, ................ 8
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ............................... 9
4.1 Waters of the United States..... .............. 9
4.1.1 Study Area Waters .af--t-h-e U:.-S......... 9
4.1.2 Summary-o-f Anticipated Impacts ....... 9
4.1.3 Permits.'..
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation.. 10
.4.2 Rare and Protected Species....... ........... 10
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .......... 10
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ............. 11
5.0 References ............................ ............ 12
.. Appe ndix A: Comments from Resource Agencies
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
- submitted to assist in preparation of an EA for the proposed
project. The project lies at the western City Limits of
Kinston, the county seat of Lenoir County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for improved traffic-carrying
capacity of US 258 by widening the existing two lanes to a 5-
lane curb and gutter facility, from US 70 to SR 1575. The
existing x-section is 7.3 m (24 ft) with two 3.7 m (12 ft)
lanes and 1.0-2.5 m (4-8 ft) shoulders (grass), changing to 3
lanes near US 70. The proposed 5-lane curb and gutter
facility will be 19.5 m (64-ft) face to face. The proposed
right-of-way remains 30.5 m (100 ft), while a 39.6 m (130 ft)
_ corridor was studied. The construction of a grade separation
-,- at the railroad tossing is being considered, requiring the
acquisition of additional construction easements and
construction of a temporary detour where the existing grade
of US 258 would be raised.
These three alternatives are being considered for the
railroad crossing on US 258:
Alternative 1 - Symmetrical widening of US 258 from US 70 to
SR 1575 to a five-lane facility.
Alternative 2 - Symmetrical widening of US 258 from US 70 to
SR 1575 to a five-lane facility and construction of a grade
.>- separation at the railroad crossing with a temporary detour .
of US 258 occurring just west of the crossing.
Alternative 3 - Symmetrical widening of US 258 from US 70 to
SR 1575 to a five-Lane facility and construction of a grade
separation at the railroad crossing with a temporary detour
of US 258 occurring just east of the crossing.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
END PROJECT
J7
44
J.L14
14__L
.1?
leg
J.+L
. 1H1.
1 .9!
u
am
?r1 ¦ / 6 _ 58
6
r •?r r
¦ ?" I Institute 9
Dawsoo
O L
a Grange
fr nte•
1 a
st
n ?
u
6 C?...?,?,
55
+ t]

70
11

?
? L E ` O
I R
i . •eo Run • It
.
• 158 /
i
+' • i
• Rink Hill
•
f
o 400.

am
X-1

ae
'
.i7 ]3zt.
Lm
1114 ' f

I•
At
f

•

]1i •
•

tIU
r
' O
"'
•
LUZ
1

At

• t l
z. a
]AW 71

BEGIN PROJECT
W
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 258
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY
T.1. P. PROJECT NO. U - 2542
2
1.3 Methodologv
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field in-:esti-*ation o
the study area ir.ciude: U.S. Geolo`ical Survcy (USES)
Quadrangle map (Fal l in` Creek. NC). \at iona l Wetland
inventory ( N'WI) ?:ap ( F a I I in2 Cree;:. \C) . \CDOT aeria l
ohotographs of project area (1:1200) and. Soi! Conservation
Service (SCS) soil man of Lenoir County. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Ens^ironment. Health and Natural Resources (DEHyR. 1993)
and from the NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analvsis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Man of Lenoir
County). Information concerning the occurrence of federal
and state protected species in the study area was gathered
from the Fish and WiIdiife Service (FWS) list of protected
and candidate species and the N.C. Nat uraI Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted alon-2 the proposed
alignment by \CDOT bioiogist Lane Sauis on July 6 and July;
12. 1994. Plant communities and their associated, wildlife
were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using a variety of observation techniques: active
searching and capture. visual observations (binoculars).
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat.
tracks and burrows). Tactile searches for benthic organisms
were administered as well. Organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then reieased. Jurisdictionai
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory. 198').
2.0 Pnvsical Resources
Soil and water resources. which occur in the study area.
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in anr biotic community.
Lenoir County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Providence. The topography of this County is characterized
by gentle contours and medium to wide interstream divides..
2.1 Soils
Soils located alon= the project corridor ars mainly
those associated with nearly level to gently sloping
topography and medium to well drainage classes. The Pocalla
loamy sand series dociinates the area. This :genic Paleudult
has moderateI - rapid infiltration and runoff is slow as with
the other soi.ls found within the vicinity. Table i provides
an inventory of specific soil types which occur in the
project area.

Table 1. Soils in the Project Area
'.tap Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Go Goldsboro loamy sand 0-2 _
3o johns sandy loam 0-2 B
La Kalmia loamy sand 0-2 B
`b Kalmia loamy sand 2-6
_
Na Norfolk loamy sane. 0-2 B
Po Pocalla loamy sand 0-6 B
Pr Portsmouth loam 0-1 A
Ra Rains sandy loam 0-1 A
St Stallings loamy sand 0-2 B
To Torhunta loam 0-1 A
Wn Woodington loamy sand 0-i A
Note: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
"B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or
which have wet spots.
2.2 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 quaiity of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed. as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Stream Characteristics
The proposed project is located in the Neuse River
Basin. Two small watersheds border the project. each
containing one perennial stream, but do not cross the project
at any point. These streams. Falling Creek and Briery Run.
are tributaries to the Meuse River. Two unnamed streams are
located within the project boundary and serve as tributaries
for Falling Creek and Briery Run.
The first, a perennial stream. originates near the
western boundary of US 253 between SR 1553 and the railroad
crossing and flows parallel. southward. to a point between
the railroad crossing and US 0 and turns east taking it
under US 253 by means of a box culvert. The stream is
characterized by very slot- moving water and the corresponding
width and depth are 1-3 meters (3-10 ft) and less than I
meter W ft), respectively. Sedimentation is evident and
channelization is man-included. The stream is primarily used
to drain the surrounding agriculture fields.
The second. an intermittent stream. originates near the
western boundary of US ?5S between SR i5,i3 and SR 1001 and
flows eastward under US ?58 by means of a nine culvert. The.
intermittent stream is characterized by water flow oni;- under
heavy rain conditions during the wet season. When visited.
the streambed was dry.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Unnamed
tributaries in the study area carry the same best usage
classification as the streams to which they are tributaries.
Table 2 lists best usage classifications for ail water
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
Table 2. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Fal1ina Creek C Sw NSW
Briery Run C Sw NSW
Notes: C - .Aquatic life propagation and survival. fishing.
wildlife. secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
Sw Waters which have lots velocities and other
natural characteristics which are different
froin adjacent streams.
NSW - Nutrient Sensitive Waters which re^_.uire
limitations on nutrient inputs
Neither High Quality Waters (HQ\V). Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (B`AN) is
a basin wide study which is managed by DE} and is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which
addresses lone term trends in water quality. The progra?n
assesses water quality by sampling, for selected berithic
rlacroinvertebra.te organisms at ifixed monitoring sites. Some
macroinve.rtebrates are sensitive to very subtle cl:an_es in
water quality: thus. the species richness and overall biomass
are reflections of cater duality.
The project site is located on the western boundary of
the Kinston City Limits. No specific BNIAN information is
provided for the small perennial and intermittent streams
iocated within the corridor but there is information nrovided

for areas aion__ the Neuse River in either direction from the
project site. The BMA\ estimation for areas between two ::no;cn
sites should remain the same if conditions are alike at both
sites. information concerning BMAN ratin s are cited below
in Table 3.
Table 3. BMAN Ratings for Sites Along Neuse River
SITE NO. LOCATION RATING
H yeuse River near Goldsboro Good
I Neuse River at Kinston Good
Point source dischar_ers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted throu_h the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit.
The \PDES does not list any dischargers for the
intermittent and perennial streams which flow through the
proposed facility nor the adjacent watersheds containing
Faliin, Creek and Briery Run.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction-related impacts include reduced eater
quality. increased sedimentation. toxic runoff. alterations
of the water level due to interruptions or increases in water
flow. and the destruction of natural substrate due to stream
channelization. Reduced water quality results from changes
in turbidity. temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient
limitation. In order to minimize impacts to water resources
in the study area, NCDOT7s Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control
guidelines should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
3.0 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 arld flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topo_•raohv. hvdrolosic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed. or likeiv to occur. in each community are described
and discussed. ,
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
6
applicable) are provided :or each an lmai and ,)iant soecles
described. Subsequent re-erences to the same Organisii; will
include the common name on1-?
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project study area: (1) mar.-dominated mesic pine
fl a twood community: (?) i,.iised pine-hardwood com::lunity: and
(3) the roadside community. Community boundaries are
frequently ill-defined: contiguous communities general Iv
merge without any transition zone between them. Many faunal
Species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range
of terrestrial communities discussed.
%11 of these communities occur on relative fertile
sites. These sites were cleared long ago for a_riculture and
rural streetscape settings. In addition. these communities
are quickly invaded by hardwoods clue to suppression of
frequent. loci'-intensity fires. -"he floral and faunal
components associated with such terrestrial areas relate
directly to disturbed (mowed) and edge-type species while
interior species occur in some of the larger pine-hardwood
stands.
Dominant upper canopy species observed include loblolly
pine (Pin us taeda). blackjack oak (Quercus nrarrIan(I ica),
white oak (Q. alba). water oak. (Q. ni`ra), willow (Salix
ni=err). red maple (Aces rubrum). sweet_urn (Liquidambar
styracifIua) and sweet Ieaf (St•mplocos tir.cto
ri;t)
Giant cane (.4rundinaria ziz.:rntea) . two species of
greenbriar ( Smilax r•Otund.rfoI ra and S. bona-nox) . wi Id °-rape
( Vi tis rotundifoI ia) , poison ivy ( Toxi codendron radicalls) .
wax myrt le lirrica cerif'er,:i) . huckleberry ( Garlussacia
frondosa) . highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium corfrinbosum) . sweet
pepperbush ( Clethra alnifol ia) and sweet bay ( lagnol is
VI.l*Zini.:rna) were the dominant species comprising the middle
and lower canopies.
Species which were observed in the herb layer included
bracken fern ( Pteridium aqui 1 inure) . cinnamon fern ( Osrnunda
cinnamornea) , royal fern (0. regal is) . trumpet vine ( Campsis
radicans) . meadow beauty ( Rh,,xIa spp.) . dog- fennel
(Lupator'ium capi11ifolium). fescue (Festuca spp.), cudweed
( Gnapha 1 i um spp . ) , and po:eweed ( Phrto la. cca atneri cana) .
few faunal species were observed during the visit.
Reasons of such felt sightings were the time of day. time of
year and weather. However. bird species such as the downy
woodpecker (Dendrocopos pubescons). yellow beliied sapsucker
( Sphyrapicus varrrrs) . summer tanager ( Piranza rubra) .
cardinal (-'a.rdinali car•dinalis) and carolina chickadee
(Parus carol inensi.s) were all observed.
(Parus carolinensis) were all observed.
Mammal species that are likely to frequent the project
area include the virginia opossum (Didelphis viroiniana),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray: squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis)
and the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) all inhabit
the surrounding areas.
Reptile species likely to be seen are the eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), corn snake (Elaphe ,-uttata), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta.), and the eastern kingsnake.(Lampropeltis .-etulus)
are generally found in these areas amid the project location.
Other species including amphibians that would
occassionally be seen are the spotted salamander (Ambystoma
macula tum), slimy salamander (Plethodon ,alutinosus), oak toad
(Bufo quercicus), southern toad (Bufo terrestris) and spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer). These species are primarily found in
woodland, grassy areas at or near fallen logs and other
debris.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Only one aquatic community typo, the roadside disturbed
community with drainage ditches, will be significantly
impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics
of the water body and condition of the water resource reflect
faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly
influence aquatic communities.
Roadside drainage ditches are located throughout the
entire corridor along US 258 and the railroad tracks. These
ditch banks were originally intended to have small variable
slopes to encourage the flow of runoff without promoting
erosion. Presently, the ditch banks vary from steep,
channelized gullies to gradual depressions, which cannot hold
any increased volume of water. Sedimentation is evident in
some areas near residential homes and businesses. Floral and
faunal species differ greatly from terrestrial communities in
these areas due to the emergence of water for most of the
year. Floral species observed mainly in these drainage
ditches included black willow, cattail (Typha spp.), and
others not identifiable due to recent mowing by road
maintenance crews.
The intermittent and perennial tributaries will be
minimally impacted since seasonal water flow is primarily
•
3
perpendicular to the road. Box and pipe culverts contain
the water flow and transfer it under the road properly.
3.3 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.
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 the disturbed communities. Table
4 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width of 30.5 m (100 ft). Usually, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Potential impacts to the aquatic environment include
increased sedimentation, nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff
from construction-related erosion.
Organisms that utilize these intermittent streams to
complete their life cycles can be affected by increased
sedimentation, nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff from
construction-related erosion. These factors act to decrease
successful reproduction in individual species and decrease
community diversity. Other species which utilize these
streams to forage are affected through biomagnification of
pollutants and loss of prey species.
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
Man-dominated mesic pine 1.3 (3.25) 1.3 (3.25)
flatwood community
Roadside aquatic community 3.7 (9.25) 3.7 (9.25)
Pine-hardwood community 0 (0) 0 (0)
TOTAL IMPACTS 5.0 (12.5) 5.0 (12.5)
Notes: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Alternatives 1 and 2 differ-only in location of the
temporary detour for construction of the bridge.
" 9
Impacts to biotic communities will be significantly
decreased if construction is planned during the driest part
of the year (summer). For most of the summer the
intermittent and perennial streambeds are either dry or
barely flowing, which will help to prevent large amounts of
sedimentation from overwhelming these streams. This also
proves to be a time when the least amount of impact will
occur to streambanks and biotic communities.'
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 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 (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 325.3, 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).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Study Area Wetlands and Surface
Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology. The proposed project contains drainage ditches
which run parallel to US 258 and the railroad tracks.
In some areas they have all three criteria needed to be
classified as a wetland. These ditches provide habitat for
aquatic vegetation but do not concentrate standing water for
most of the year. They provide passageways to channelize
runoff during heavy rain and flood conditions. These
drainage ditches eventually flow into Briery Run and Falling
Creek.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to provide minimal impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands located in the study area.
Anticipated impacts of less than 0.1 ha (<0.1 ac) are
expected to occur with the filling of roadside ditches to
widen US 255. However, new ditches will be created which
10
mitigate these impacts.
4.1.3 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)14 should be applicable to
project U-2542. This permit requires: (1) that all
crossings be from high ground to high ground; (2) the width
of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing; (3) the fill placed in waters of the U.S. is
limited to a filled area of no mor than 1/3 acre; and (4) the
crossing is culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows and the movement of aquatic organisms.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Project U-2542 does not involve any wetland beyond the
bank-to-bank impact area, and this area will be mitigated
immediately to the outside of the right-of-way.
4.2 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. It is important to
determine why these declines take place so that man may
better understand how to coexist with natural systems.
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.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of July 8, 1994, the FWS lists only the
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) as a federally
Endangered species for Lenoir County. A brief description of
the red-cockaded woodpecker's characteristics and habitat
follows.
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in
scattered locations throughout the southeast. The bird
measures 18 to 20 cm long with a wing span ranging from 35 to
38 cm. The male has a small red spot on each side of the
head. Both males and females show a black cap and stripe on
the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the
11
cheeks and under parts are white. Black and white horizontal
stripes are visible on the back.
Nesting habitat consists of open pine stands (minimum
age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or
more pine). Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) is most commonly
used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
The home range for a clan (a family unit) averages about 200
acres and includes nesting habitat, as well as foraging
habitat. This bird requires pine or mixed pine/hardwood
stands (50 percent or more pine) 30 years or older for
foraging. Foraging habitats must be contiguous with nesting
habitat.
Biological Conclusion:
NO EFFECT
Possible red-cockaded woodpecker habitat does exist
within the study area. Surveys using transects were
conducted on a north/south axis. No birds or cavity trees
were seen on a 0.5 mile radius of the US 258 corridor.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the project will not
impact the red-cockaded woodpecker.
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.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 4 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Lenoir 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. North 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.
Table 7 lists federal candidate species and the species
state status (if afforded state protection). This species
list is provided for information purposes as the status of
these species may be upgraded in the future.
12
Table 7. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected.
for Lenoir County Species
SCIENTIFIC COMMON NAME HABITAT NC
NAME STATUS
Procambarus medialis Albemarle crayfish N -
Amorpha georgiana Georgia leadplant N E
georgiana*
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap N SC
Sporobolus teretifolius* Wireleaf dropseed N T
NOTES: Population not documented in Lenoir County in the
past twenty years;
"E" Endangered. Any species or higher taxon of plant
or animal whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's is determined to be in
jeopardy.
"T" Threatened. Any resident species of plant or
animal which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC" Special Concern. Any species of plant or animal
in North Carol.ina which requires monitoring but
which may be collected and sold under regulations
adopted under the provisions of (the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act)(GS 19B
106:202.12).
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.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-37-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, Palmer, Bailey, Harrison III. 1930. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1980. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
13
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to Waters of the Neuse River Basin.
Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1991. The
Fresh Water Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar
Company, Charlotte, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
Robbins, C.S. B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks.
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977.
Soil Survey of Lenoir County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, Parnell, Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virgina and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
REV. 10/92
TIP NO.: U-2542
UNIT PRIORITY NO.:,,,,,
DATE: February 21, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Environmental Unit Head
FROM: Missy Dickens
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Environmental Input
Please provide environmental input for the project
described below. Information concerning the proposed project
is provided to assist your staff in their investigations. If
you will be unable to meet the schedule shown below, please
let me know.
ENVIRONMENTAL INPUT REQUESTED
X ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
_X ARCHITECTURAL/ HISTORIC RESOURCES
X NATURAL SYSTEMS
WETLAND MITIGATION (PERMITS)
X LAND USE AND FARMLAND
X SOCIOECONOMIC
X TRAFFIC NOISE/ AIR QUALITY
ALL OF THE ABOVE
OTHER:
PROJECT INFORMATION
TIP NO.: U-2542 COUNTY: Lenoir
STATE PROJECT: 8.1200401 F. A. PROJECT: STPNHF-258(4)
SCHEDULE: RIGHT OF WAY - FY 1995 CONSTRUCTION - FY 1996
DESCRIPTION: US 258, From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston, Widen to
a 5-lane curb and gutter facility
DATE NEEDED: August 10, 1994 DOCUMENT TYPE: EA
ENGINEER: Missy Dickens CONSULTATION TYPE:
UNIT HEAD: Wilson Stroud FUNDING : STATE X FEDERAL
REV. 10/92 TIP NO.: U-2542
UNIT PRIORITY NO.:
DESIGN INFORMATION
PROJECT LENGTH: 2.7 miles
EXISTING R/W: 100 feet
POSTED SPEED: 45 MPH
EXISTING X-SECTION: 24-
ft (var.) shoulders (gr
PROPOSED R/W: Same
PROPOSED SPEED: 45 MPH
vement (2 12-ft lanes) with 4-8
,) ; 3 lanes near US' 70
PROPOSED X-SECTION: 5-lane curb & gutter, 64-ft face to face
STRUCTURE TYPE: YEAR BUILT:
TRAFFIC
CURRENT( ) ADT:
TTST: % DT: %
DESIGN YEAR( ) ADT:
DHV: % DIR: %
* ADT REQUESTED: ADT DUE BY:
* Traffic will -be forwarded when available
SPECIAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS
Although it is planned to build this project within
existing right of way, additional right of way or easements
may be required. I would suggest studying a 130-ft corridor
siway des p of s th15 feet back e road). of the
(that ,eexisting s on right both of
right of way monument
The construction of a grade separation at the railroad
crossing is being considered. Such construction would
require the acquisition of additional construction easements
and construction of a temporary detour where the existing
grade of US 258 would be raised. The proposed right of way
for the grade separation alternatives is shown on the
accompanying aerial. Please study this area as well.
ATTACHMENTS
X vicinity maps (7)
X Aerial mosaics (6)
X USGS Quad Maps (7)
35 mm photos ( )
Agency Input letters
Design Plans (7)
?'
USGS FALLING CREEK QUADRANGLE eM,aso\
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2542
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY
i-..
i 157.
31.9 \. 4' r
-- ?•
•• •?
- moo, .? 1575?/ END PROJECT ?? }+ w
?? \
?--? x..32-? /Hull R , . •\• ` 1573
.310 ? `? 1 '? , "' • • -. ? ?30 r "•:/?\??
- , J + Ch Cem•
1554 icol)
30
~ I \? ' 37. ?JQ \ i?
J\' J • _ - ?``-?•? J f? \ i ` / 1554 Btvt `
i
16:4: I ?o i SM'. 5.0
34.1
j4LO
, / ! : ? _.-' _, ?• ? ? ' :15:2: 1
• (- +' ^' Cem ??_
F M...
Trailev d i -
„t.:: • ' • _. t' ?` _ - ark _ ; : . ; i? •. ? ,
io(T wers"_ • ?'\; \„ ?S ?. /
11.4
'Beth
am Ch
77
• .??, ?? i J 153o i ..? -••?• _L % • 29.8
l.-• ` 2 ?/. `. ? ' '??'+••'•• . f i /? 1.
J20
258
/ • '-?
aurch aE?he 2
'BM j ?: •? ?
BM EAST-
I?
/ •• t 6.s
BEGIN PROJECT
1552 -
i \ ;1 ?- ' •?-r .: Cem t ` w
^Cem:: / : ,
fNT Op
TAKI s
United States Department of the Interior AME ilc"A.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ®s?
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726 C-U,11SIGN E I April 7, 1994 1 1 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch OF
N.C. Division of Highways GHWAYS P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 RON
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of February 15, 1994 requesting information on
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposal by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to widen US 258 from US 70 north
to the junction with SR 1575 near Kinston, Lenoir County (TIP Project U-2542).
The comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by NCDOT calls for the widening of US 258 along its present
path to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The construction of a railroad
grade separation at the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad is also being
considered. We estimate that the total length of the project will be
approximately 3.5 miles.
The Service has examined the proposed corridor on both the topographic map and
the National, Wetlands Inventory map (Falling Creek quadrangle). Based on this
review the project area seems fairly developed with no major wetland areas in the
direct path of the project. There do appear to be some forested areas adjacent
to the current road, particularly in the northern portion of the proposed
corridor. There appear to be minor streams and/or drainage ditches near the
corridor. We would like to emphasize that it is responsibility of NCDOT to
determine the amount of wetlands to be impacted4by this project, and to obtain
any necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corps o Erg_ncs:s. If this rcject
results in substantial destruction of wetlands, a compensatory mitigation plan
.will be required.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) species which
may occur in the proposed project corridor. The only listed species which is
likely to be affected by this project is the red-cockaded woodpecker, an upland
species which requires mature and open pinewoods.
Because of the Federal trust resources (threatened/ endangered species and
wetlands) potentially at risk, the environmental review needs to consider the
project's impact on all uplands and wetlands in the construction corridor as well
as additional areas such as borrow pits, temporary access roads, or equipment
storage areas which will be directly or indirectly affected.
We recommend that all potential project sites be surveyed for Federally-listed
species at the earliest possible time. All surveys must be conducted during the
seasoniand time of day when each species is most likely to be observed. We also
recommend that NCDOT survey for candidate species since these species could
become officially listed as threatened or endangered in the future. If new
species are listed for Lenoir county, a new survey may be required. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species
under state protection. The various project alignments and construction
procedures must be considered for potential adverse impacts on any Federally-
listed threatened or endangered species.
If the proposed project will require the removal of pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted
for active red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a half-mile radius of project boundaries. If red-
cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or active cavity trees
are found, the project has the potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded
woodpecker and you should contact this office for further information.
The environmental review of uplands should include a brief description of the
habitats or forest cover types which will be eliminated by the project. This
should include the wildlife resources using these areas.
The wetlands part of the environmental review should include:
1. a description of the wetland types which will be impacted. This should,
follow the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory;
2. the acreage of each wetland type to be impacted. Wetland acreages
should be determined in accordance with the Federal Manual for
Identifvinq and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands; and,
3. the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
The environmental review should evaluate various alignments and construction
techniques that will be employed to minimize adverse environmental impacts. This
section should demonstrate the amount of impacts on uplands and wetlands for each
alignment and/or construction technique. For a road widening such as this
project, symmetrical versus asymmetrical designs should be evaluated. The
service is particularly concerned about potential impacts on stream ecosystems
and associated wetlands within the project corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and construction of all stream crossing structures. This
section of the review should conclude with a statement of the selected alignment
and general construction techniques. The discussion should indicate that the
selected procedures are the least damaging to fish and wildlife resources or the
reasons for selecting the proposed alternative.
If the necessary funding and permits for this project are obtained, we recommend
that the project contract specifications require the following measures during
construction in or near wetland areas:
1. When project construction is initiated, complete all work quickly to
minimize the period of environmental disturbance;
2. Minimize the disturbance or destruction of vegetation;
3. During and after construction, maintain existing elevations and natural
flow regimes in both flowing and standing water areas;
4. If construction of the existing roadway reduced or completely blocked
natural water flow patterns in nearby wetlands, restore these patterns
during the present construction; and,
5. Follow all applicable best management practices to avoid increased
sedimentation in adjacent wetlands and waterways.
f
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 Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520.
Sincerely yours,
1cRU-Q (/q
L.K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor
Attachment

fx
4
_ i

REVISED MAY 18, 1993
Lenoir County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Piocoide borealis) - 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" (C1 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.' -
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifoiius) - C2*
Georgia leadplant (Amorpha georgiana georgiana) - C2*
Albemarle crayfish (Procambarus medialis) - C2
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C2
*Iadicates no specimen is at least 21 pears from this couaty.
IF,

I

' ANSPORTATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TK- _
DAC '
• ?-- TE 2? a 4
- ,
TRANSMITTAL SLIP 2
ROOM. OLDC•
REF, NO. OR
REF. HO. OR ROOM. 51.0G.
TJ1v `i ' -
• ??/WWW 1
FROM'
tiltss`I ?../
ACTION a PER OUR-RSATIOH
NOTC AND "If PER YOUR REQUEST
TO MC 0 FOR YOUR APPROVAL
Q NGTE AND.RLTURN DETAILS
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
O RETURN VtTN IAORL O FOR YOUR COMMENTS .
tIVU ANO SLE ME ABOUT THIS
E3 "Olz liGNA11 Re
GI PLCASC ANSWER RE}ORt i
V SIGNATURE
F ? INVESTIGAtL AND
?REPARC REPLY OR M AC710N i
E3 TARE APPROPRIATE /,,,jjj,???J?11? 1)? i
?`? I
COMMENTS: e
pnieC t I
I
i
C USGS FALLING CREEK QUADRANGLE / Hu1rfa ab"
T. I . P. PROJECT U-2542 \ -' ?1 dii", '
_ KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY • \ ?eM ..•••- : END .PROJECT +
• It .? .•• ? +
HINZIQ
cerh!
30
37.
30
r' ?I W
?r . l / ??.+'?.-••?,r ice' ' lbdb? • "? ! i f 1554 8m ?\ )
LSS7
]in
140
u ark
4 `- o
'? „^ ?;•.• M`?. (;' _ v `
(WAN
?' ,i. ?,' eM X298 I c3h,v
%
Church of d+w I- _"_- =t t -- ewi9?_0isp0v1
:91v1 , . O I T` ~ a:aesne - L? 20?
411
8
1VL
I ETC . 5.4
/ I 154E 'AND 1 8M E+4SL
e.a - a_
?;-
cam,
?'d \ \ _ 4; Tempts.lsrael •? 11 1 i ?•'r' . M
Cam j a t
pin
• _ / 1 \ BEGIN PROEECT
' :Cam (lta:tny G.wnr \ ?_ ?r{. -^ _ ??! - t• ' t0 r ?-r ,,.-_'? .rT
_r+ ' ?'? rte' , \ t ! ? \?:?•?- ? •' ? ` - ?"....?. ?w.{ 4 ? _.
ailing ?=1? ?? ?--• `?,-? , i reek-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` o
Office of Policy Development rn?'
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor AdIft
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary F= H
John G. Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett '
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee Yk-
Project Review Coordinator '
RE: 94-0609 - Scoping US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575 in
Kinston, Lenoir County
DATE: March 24, 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.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
N
attachments
I. ??
I WR 2 51994
J
i
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10. post-consumer paper
® 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 Projects C or nator ,
Habitat Conservation Program- Gz?a
DATE: March 21, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575
in Kinston, Lenoir County, North Carolina, TIP No.
U-2542, SCH Project No. 94-0609.
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. The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has 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). 4
The proposed project involves widening existing US 258
to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility with a possible grade
separation at the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad
crossing.
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
%4
s
Memo Page 2 March 21, 1994
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:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. 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 maybe
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.
Memo
Page 3 March 21, 1994
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
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
Projects Coordinator, at [phone].
CC: Bennett Wynne, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
N
f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A4*
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart?'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0609; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
US 258, From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston, TIP No. U-2542
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. Identifv 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 reauests
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.
4
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
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4 t
Melba McGee
March 18, 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.
10545er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
Nt
I
State of North Carolina
` Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AT4 • •
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
PA Flp
David W. Sides, Director
March 9, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Proposed widening of US 258 near Kinston.
Project No. 94-0609.
The proposed project involves widening US 258 to
and gutter highway from US 70 in Kinston to SR 1
Construction of a railroad grade separation will
The Environmental Assessment should identify any
and important farmland that would be impacted by
wetlands evaluation should be included.
DH/tl
ti
I
a five-lane curb
575.
also be studied.
unique, prime,
the project. A
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 276 1 1-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r tea.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and NaturalResources--:
Division of Land Resources - --v'
James G. Martin, Governor PROTECT REVIEW Co2ixmTs Chades H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary _ ?G Director
Project Number: /} 66 J County: L n
Project Name: 0 6 0
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior *to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For mote information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
2- -3
Reviewer D ?A15 jF. 1) ,
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
Co
pp ?. r? .va;'? of y4 j?
This project will require app!-
erosio? and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginnin 'any land-d3. activity if more
than one (1) acre will be distur d.
If an environmental-do
cument is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for. sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date -
P.O. Box 27687 a Melgh. N.C. 27611-7687 a Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer ^
E
PERMITS
Permit to construct 6 operate wastewater treatment
facilities. sewer system extensions. 3 sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Washin ton Reoional Office
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -- PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
C) c}_ O.(o O'T 3 ??3 I9
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit{s} and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Proc
Regional Office. Time
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters.
Water Use Permit
(statutory ti
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post application
technical conference usual (90 days
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reoly
time. 30 days after"receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Pre-appfication technical conference usually neceJsary
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
D Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Poilunon Abatement
CI facilities andfor Emission Sources s per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA
ny open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demol on or renovations of structures containing
stos material must be in compliance with 15A NfA
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
y. prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
L ? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d seoimentatio
er Regional Office (Land Quality Sect i at least 30
ith
ro
f
d
l
20 da.
?j p
w
p
e
i
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan
rst acre and $2000 for each addrti al acre or part must accomoanv the oia-
f
th
f 00 da%
i
e
or
days before beginning actrvety A fee of S30 00 day
I The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the relerrenced Local Ordinance:
on-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
" varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 day
L
t Mining Permit mined greater than one acre must be permited The appropriate bond t60 da)
must be received before the permit can be issued
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 da,
'
North Carolina Burning permit exceeds A days A
(N
ecial Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22
S On site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required more

ctions
I
1 aa,
(NIA
? p
bounties iri coastal N.C. with organic sods nspe
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved
sted at least ten days before actual burn is planned "
r
ld b
e
eque
shou
90.120 c
- NIA IN:A
at Refining Facilities
It permit required. application 60 days before begin construction. 30 ca
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
D Dam Safety PerrolI inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR aoprov
also require permit under mosquito control program And 160 da
M
l
ay
ans
1 ed p
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
Sary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum lee of $20000 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing tee based on a
percenia. a or the total project cost will be required u00n complelion 1
Continued on reverse
Y? 1V.

DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
March 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nancy Smith
Regional Manager
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Pat McClain Uv?
Assistant Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Washington Regional Office
RE: Project #94-0609
Review of Scoping Process for Environmental Impact
Statement
N.C. Department of Transportation
Proposed US 258, From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston
Lenoir County
State Project Number 8.1200401
This project must be consistent with the N.C. Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973, as amended. Temporary and
permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and/or
devices must be utilized throughout the project to prevent
sediment from leaving the limits of construction and entering
adjacent properties, wetlands and natural watercourses.
Borrow and waste areas, along with other associated land-
disturbing activities, must be addressed according to the
Memorandum of Agreement between DOT and the N.C. Sedimentation
Control Commission. Periodic inspections will be made by
personnel of the Land Quality Section to ensure compliance.

Department of Envir, , Health, and Natural Resources
, /
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmentah,Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:
Date:
LJ Project located in 7th floor library
?)1?8
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
6.1 - 5,3
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone' Regionai Office Area' fn-House Review
El Asheville El All R/O Areas oil and Water El Marine Fisheries
El Fayetteville Air Coastal Management El Water Planning
? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
. ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources El David Foster
ngton
Was ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others nvironmental Management
RECEIVED
El Winston-Salem PWg Monica swihart
F4A 1
A 81996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
pOA 11ryV
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed ? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? No Comment ? Applicant has been contacted
? Insufficient information to complete review ? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached) NEPA and SEPA
Recommended for further development if specific & substantive ? Other (specify and attach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

a
Y
0
r
US 258
From US 70 to SR 1575
Kinston
Lenoir County
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-258(4)
State Project 8.1200401
TIP Project U-2542
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:

Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
10-30-95
Date -p H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
/D 3/ .S
Date Nich L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
US 258
From US 70 to SR 1575
Kinston
Lenoir County
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-258(4)
State Project 8.1200401
TIP Project U-2542
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
October, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Mary ice Pickens
Project Planning Engineer
mil/???`i ???•?•.n?n,••,,.
Wil n Stroud C A RO
Prcjfct Planning Unit Head sa
SEAL
S = 6976
Lubin V, Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
f
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. i
1. Summary of Special Project Commitments ............................................. i
2. Description of Action ............................................................................ ii
3. Additional Information .......................................................................... ii
4. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects .................... ii
5. Alternatives Considered .....................................................:................... u
6. Coordination .......................................................................................... ni
7. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................... ni
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment ....................................................... ni
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .........................................................1
A. General Description of the Project ...........:.............................................. I
B. Project Status and Historical Resume ..................................................... 1
C. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area .............................. 1
D. Proposed Global Transpark ......... ........................................................... 2
E. Existing Conditions ................................................................................ 2
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied ........................................... 2
2. Route Classification .................................................................... 2
3. Existing Cross Section ................................................................ 2
4. Existing Right of Way ................................................................. 2
5. Access Control ........................................................................... 2
6. Speed Limits .......................................................................... 3
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures ................................................. 3
8. Traffic Data ................................................................................ 3
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature .............................................. 4
10. Intersecting Roads ...................................................................... 4
a. US 70 (Southern Project Terminal) ................................. 4
b. SR 1546 (Banks School Road)/Sand Clay Road .............. 4
C. SR 1554 (Daly Waldrop Road) ....................................... 4
d. SR 1001 (Pauls Path Road)/SR 1557 (Hull Road) ........... 4
e. SR 1573 (Dobbs Farm Road) .......................................... 4
f. SR 1575 (Poole Road) (Northern Project Terminal) ........ 5

11. Degree of Roadside Interference ................................................. 5
12. Railroad Crossings ...................................................................... 5
13. Airports ...................................................................................... 5
14. School Bus Data ......................................................................... 5
15. Bikeways ................................................................................... 5
16. Sidewalks ................................................................................... 5
F. Capacity Analysis ................................................................................... 6
1. Mainline Analysis ........................................................................ 6
2. Intersection Analysis ................................................................... 7
a. Unsignalized ................................................................... 7
b. Signalized ....................................................................... 9
G. Accident Analysis ...................................................................................10
H. Project Terminals ....................................................................................10
1. Thoroughfare Plan .................................................................................10
J. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community ........................................ I l
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................:......................................11
A. General Description ................................................................................ I l
B. Length of Project ...................................................................................11
C. Cross Section ......................................................................................... I 1
D. Design Speed .....................................................................:...................11
E. Right of Way .......................................................................................... I l
F. Access Control ....................................................................................... I l
G. Intersection Treatment ...........................................................................12
1. US 258/US 70 (Southern Project Terminal) ................................ 12
2. US 258/C Street ......................................................................... 12
3. US 258/A Street ......................................................................... 12
4. US 258/Bamet Driveway ............................................................ 12
5. US 258/SR 1546/Sand Clay Road ............................................... 12
6. US 258/SR 1638 ........................................................................ 13
7. US 258/SR 1554 ........................................................................ 13
8. US 258/SR 1001/SR 1557 .......................................................... 13
9. US 258/SR 1005 ........................................................................ 13
10. US 258/SR 1612 ........................................................................ 13
11. US 258/SR 1573 ........................................................................ 13
12. US 258/SR 1575 (Northern Project Terminal) ............................ 13
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures ............................................................. 14
I. Stream Modifications ............................................................................. 14
J. Railroad Involvement ............................................................................. 14
K. Special Permits Required ........................................................................ 14
L. Changes in the State Highway System .................................................... 14
M. Multiple Use of Space ............................................................................ 15
N. Bikeways ............................................................................................... 15
0. Sidewalks ............................................................................................... 15
P. Landscaping ........................................................................................... 15
Q. Noise Barriers ........................................................................................ 15
R. Airports ................................................................................................. 15
S. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................... 15
T. Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 15
U. Degree of Utility Conflicts ...................................................................... 15
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................16
A. Recommended Improvements .................................................................16
B. Design Alternatives (Railroad Grade Separation) ....................................16
C. Postponement of Proposed Action .........................................................17
D. "No Build" Alternative ...........................................................................17
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation ........................................................17

IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................17
A. Land Use ...............................................................................................17
19
1. Existing Land Use ...................................................................... 17
2. Existing Zoning ........................................................................:. 18
B. Socioeconomic Impacts .......................................................................... 18
1. Neighborhood Characteristics...
2. Public Facilities ........................................................................... 19
3. Relocatees .................................................................................. 19
4. Economic Impacts ...................................................................... 19
5. Social Impacts ............................................................................ 19
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................. 19
1. Archaeological Resources ........................................................... 19
a. Introduction .................................................................... 19
b. Physical Environment ...................................................... 20
C. Previous Archaeological Research ................................... 20
d. Cultural Background ....................................................... 21
e. Field Methodology .......................................................... 27
f. Results ............................................................................ 27
g. Recommendations ........................................................... 28
2. Architectural/Historical Resources .............................................. 29
a. Purpose of Survey and Report ......................................... 29
b. Methodology .................................................................. 29
C. Summary of Results of Phase I Survey ............................ 29
d. Conclusions .................................................................... 30
D. Impacts to Natural Resources., ................................................................ 30
1. Methodology .............................................................................. 30
2. Physical Resources ..................................................................... 30
a. Soils ................................................................................ 30
b. Water Resources ............................................................. 31
i. Stream Characteristics ......................................... 31
ii. Best Usage Classification ..................................... 32
iii. Water Quality ............. ......................................32
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......................... 33
3. Biotic Resources .........................................................................33
a. Terrestrial Communities ..................................................33
b. Aquatic Communities ......................................................35
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................... 35
4. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................... 36
a. Waters of the United States ............................................. 36
i. Characteristics of Study Area Wetlands and
Surface Waters .................................................... 36
ii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......................... 36
iii. Anticipated Permit Requirements ......................... 37
iv. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ................... 37
b. Rare and Protected Species .........................:................... 37
i. Federally-Protected Species ................................. 37
H. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species.......... 38
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation ........................................................................ 39
F. Farmland ................................................................................................ 40
G. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ............................... 40
1. Characteristics of Noise .............................................................. 40
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ............................................................ 41
3. Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................. 41
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ............................. 42
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ..................................................... 43
a. Highway Alignment ......................................................... 43
b. Traffic System Management Measures ............................ 43
C. Noise Barriers ................................................................. 43
6. "Do Nothing„ Alternative ........................................................... 44
7. Construction Noise ..................................................................... 44
8. Summary .................................................................................... 44
H. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................... 45
I. Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 47
1. Underground Storage Tanks ....................................................... 47
2. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties ............. 48
J. Geotechnical Impacts ............................................................................. 48
1. Physiography, Relief, and Drainage ............................................. 48
2. Geology and Soils ....................................................................... 48
3. Mineral Resources ...................................................................... 49
4. Erosion Control .......................................................................... 49
5. Groundwater .............................................................................. 49
K. Construction Impacts ............................................................................. 49
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................ 51
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local
Agencies ................................................................................................ 51
B. Citizen Information Workshop ............................................................... 51
C. Public Hearing ........................................................................................ 51
TABLES
Table IA - Capacity Analysis - Mainline Levels of Service .................................7
Table 1B - Capacity Analysis - Unsignalized Intersections ................................... 8
Table I C - Capacity Analysis - Signalized Intersections ...................................... 9
Table 2 - Accident Analysis ................................................................................10
Table 3 - Soils in the Project Area ...................................................................... 31
Table 4 - Water Resources Best Usage Classifications ........................................ 32
Table 5 - BMAN Ratings for Sites Along Neuse River ....................................... 33
Table 6 - Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .........................................35
Table 7 - Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for Lenoir County .............. 39
Table 8 - Air Quality: One Hour CO Concentrations .........................................46
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3 - Aerial Mosaic Showing Proposed Improvements
Figure 4 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5A - Projected Average Daily Traffic - Year 2000 - Without GTP
Figure 5B - Projected Average Daily Traffic - Year 2000 - With GTP
Figure 5C - Projected Average Daily Traffic - Year 2020 - Without GTP
Figure 5D - Projected Average Daily Traffic - Year 2020 - With GTP
Figure 6 - Proposed Typical Section
Figure 7 - 100-Year Floodplain Limits
Figure 8 - Other TIP Projects in the Area
APPENDICES
APPENDix A - Additional Tables
APPENDix B - Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
APPENDix C - Citizen Informational Workshop Information
Summary
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Summary of Special Proiect Commitments
The subject project is expected to result in the fill of less than 0.1 hectare (0.25
acre) of wetlands. It is anticipated that the proposed project will require a Section 404
Nationwide 14 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 General
Water Quality Certification from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources.
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of
the project in order to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
The structural integrity of the existing culverts that convey the Neuse River
Tributary under the US 70 westbound right-turn lane and the US 70 mainline just east of
the US 258 intersection will be evaluated during the final design stage to ensure that they
can be retained and extended as recommended. If, during final hydraulic design, the
culverts are determined not to be hydraulically adequate, they will be supplemented as
needed or a floodway modification will be coordinated with the appropriate local officials.
Approximately 70 meters (230 feet) of the Neuse River Tributary will be
rechannelized in order to direct it through an extended culvert under US 70. NCDOT will
carry out the necessary coordination with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding this rechannelization.
The subject project crosses Lenoir County Bicycle Route No. 45 at the
intersection with SR 1546/Sand Clay Road. NCDOT will maintain access for bicyclists
across US 258 at this intersection during project construction.
A railroad agreement will be necessary since the project will involve the widening
of the US 258 crossing of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad. The Right of Way
Branch will coordinate with the railroad regarding this agreement during the right of way
acquisition phase of the project.
There are five underground storage tanks located along the project (see Section
IV.I.1). Right of way will be required from some of these parcels. Prior to acquiring any
right of way, NCDOT will conduct a site assessment to determine if there is any
underground contamination within the proposed right of way.
2. Description of Action
NCDOT proposes to widen US 258 in Kinston (Lenoir County) from US 70 to
north of SR 1575. The project will include improvements to the US 70/US 258
intersection. The project is approximately 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) long. It is proposed
to widen the existing two-lane roadway to a 5-lane roadway with curb and gutter. The
proposed roadway is 19.2 meters (64 feet) wide (face to face of curbs).
Additional Information
For additional information concerning this proposal and statement, please contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
4. Summarv of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects
It is anticipated that the proposed project will have an overall positive effect on the
City of Kinston and Lenoir County by reducing congestion and increasing safety along
US 258 and by providing additional capacity to contain the traffic that is anticipated to be
generated by the proposed Global Transpark and associated development.
Most of the construction will occur within the existing right of way of 30.5 meters
(100 feet) plus easements to be acquired. Additional right of way will be required at some
locations (see Section II.E. for more information). Approximately 0.89 hectare (2.2 acres)
of additional right of way and 0.91 hectare (2.3 acres) of easements are expected to be
required. The project will not result in the relocation of any residences or businesses.
Less than 0.1 hectare ( 0.25 acre) of wetlands will be affected by filling roadside ditches
within the project limits. No farmland, as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act,
will be affected.
5. Alternatives Considered
Three alternatives for the subject project were studied; they are as follows:
• No Build
• Postponement Alternative
Recommended Alternative - Symmetrical widening of US 258 from
US 70 to SR 1575 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility with an at-grade
crossing of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad.
ii
Consideration was also given to alternatives that included a grade separation at the
crossing of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad. These alternatives were eliminated
from study because of the high right of way costs and relocations they would require. See
Section III.B. for more discussion of the grade separation alternatives.
6. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were contacted regarding this
project:
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) -
Planning and Assessment Section
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Forest Resources
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
N.C. DEHNR -Division of Soil and Water Conservation
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region P Council of Governments
Lenoir County Schools
Lenoir County - Board of Commissioners
City of Kinston - The Honorable Orice A Ritch, Jr., Mayor
Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is not anticipated that the subject project will require any design exceptions.
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment
Based on planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated that the subject
project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human
environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in route
classification and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been
reviewed by federal, state, and local agencies, and no objections have been raised. For
these reasons, this Environmental Assessment is applicable.
iii
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of the Proiect
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen US 258 from
US 70 to north of SR 1575 from the existing two-lane shoulder section to a 5-lane
roadway with curb and gutter. The intersection with US 70 at the southern terminal of the
project will also be revised as a part of this project. Additional turn-lanes are proposed at
various intersections along the project (see Section II.G). The project is 5.5 kilometers
(3.4 miles) long and lies at the western city limits of Kinston, the county seat of Lenoir
County. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1, and the proposed improvements
are shown in Figure 3.
B. Proiect Status and Historical Resume
The proposed widening of US 258 is included in the 1996-2002 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). According to the TIP, right of way
acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997,
respectively. The TIP includes a total funding of $4,260,000, including $740,000 for right
of way and $3,520,000 for construction. The total cost of the recommended
improvements is $6,525,000 ($1,225,000 for right of way and $5,300,000 for
construction). Therefore, the total estimated project cost exceeds the TIP funding by
$2,265,000.
C. Other Provosed Mahwav Improvements in the Area
TIP Project R-2719 (proposed Crescent Road) calls for construction of a four-lane
freeway on new location from US 70 to US 258 (R-2719A) and two-lane improvements
from US 258 to SR 1578 (R-2719B) and from SR 1578 to NC 11 (R-2719C). Project
R-2719 intersects the subject project near the northern terminal (at SR 1573). It is
anticipated that an at-grade intersection will be constructed at the US 258/SR 1573/
Crescent Road junction as part of Project R-2719A. Right of way acquisition for Project
R-2719 is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997, and construction is scheduled to begin
in Fiscal Year 1998.
TIP Project R-2553 (proposed US 70, Kinston Bypass) calls for a four-lane
divided freeway on new location. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 2001, and construction is scheduled to begin sometime after Fiscal Year 2002.
TIP Project R-2235 calls for the widening of US 258 to a four-lane divided facility
from NC 24 near Richlands to US 70 in Kinston. This project is south of the subject
project. It is identified as a future need in the 1996-2002 TIP.
TIP Project R-2001 calls for the multi-lane widening of NC I 1 from NC 241 in
Pink Hill to Jackson Store, with a bypass of Deep Run. Right of way acquisition is
underway and is scheduled to be completed in September, 1999. Construction is
underway and is scheduled to be completed in September, 2001.
TIP Projects R-2719, R-2553, R-2235, and R-2001 are shown in Figure 8. Please
note that the corridors for Projects R-2719A and R-2553 shown in Figure 8 are
approximate and subject to change once detailed planning and design studies are
performed for those projects.
D. Proposed Global Transpark
The Global Transpark Authority, a North Carolina state agency created by the
North Carolina General Assembly, is proposing to develop the Global Transpark (GTP) at
the existing location of the Kinston Regional Jetport (KRJP), northeast of the subject
project. The proposed GTP is an innovative concept of integrated transportation,
communication, and industrial park systems. In anticipation of the development of the
GTP, the existing airport will be expanded to accommodate present and projected air
cargo operations associated with the incremental development of adjacent manufacturing,
distribution, and defense-related industrial park facilities that depend upon rapid and
flexible delivery of raw materials, finished goods, and associated services by means of an
integrated intermodal transportation network.
Currently, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
improvements to KRJP to accommodate the proposed GTP is being prepared by Greiner,
Inc., under the supervision of the FAA and is expected to be completed in December,
1995. The Final EIS is expected to be completed in May, 1996, and the Record of
Decision (ROD) is expected to be completed in November, 1996. Construction of the
runway and other airport improvements may begin once the ROD is approved.
E. Existing; Conditions
Length of Roadway Section Studied
The studied roadway segment is 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) long.
Route Classification
From US 70 to SR 1573, US 258 is classified as an Other Major Arterial in
the Functional Classification System. From SR 1573 to SR 1575, US 258 is
classified as a Minor Arterial.
Existing Cross Section
The existing roadway has a pavement that is primarily 7.2 meters (24 feet)
wide, which includes two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and grassed shoulders that
vary from 1.2 to 2.4 meters (4 feet to 8 feet) in width. From US 70 to 0.41 km
(0.25 mile) north of US 70, US 258 currently has three 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes.
The existing cross-section widens at various intersections where turn-lanes are
located as described in Section I.E.10.
Photographs of the existing conditions are found in Figure 2.
4. Existing Right of Way
The North Carolina Department of Transportation currently owns a
30.5-meter (100-foot) wide right of way along US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575.
The existing right of way limits are shown in Figure 3.
Access Control
There is no existing access control along the subject project.
6. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit along the subject section of US 258 is 72.4 km/h
(45 mph).
Bridges and Drainage Structures
At the project's southern terminal, the Neuse River Tributary is conveyed
under the US 70 westbound right turn lane by a double barrel 1.8-meter by
1.8-meter (6-foot by 6-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The same
stream is conveyed under US 70 just east of US 258 by a single barrel 3.6-meter
by 1.8-meter (12-foot by 6-foot) RCBC.
8. Traffic Data
Given the influences of the proposed US 70 Kinston Bypass (TIP Project
R-2553), the proposed Crescent Road (TIP Project R-2719), and proposed Global
Transpark (GTP) on US 258 traffic (see Figure 8), projected traffic volumes and
turning movements along the subject project were generated for several scenarios.
They are as follows:
Existing Road Network without GTP in the year 2000
Existing Road Network with GTP in the year 2000
TIP Projects R-2719 and R-2553 in place without GTP in the year 2020
TIP Projects R-2719 and R-2553 in place with GTP in the year 2020
These volumes, including and turning movements and truck percentages,
are shown in Figures 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D, respectively.
Volumes along US 258 in the year 2000 are expected to vary from 11,000
vehicles per day (vpd) to 15,840 vpd without the proposed GTP in place (see
Figure 5A). Under this scenario, the highest volumes tend toward US 70. With
the GTP in place, volumes for the year 2000 are expected to vary from 16,160 vpd
to 19,270 vpd (see Figure 5B). Under this scenario, the volumes are fairly
consistent along the length of the project. In the year 2020 without the GTP in
place but with TIP Projects R-2719 and R-2553 in place, volumes are expected to
vary from 11,590 vpd to 20,600 vpd (see Figure 5C). Under this scenario,
volumes are highest near the proposed Crescent Road crossing and lowest in the
middle of the project (between SR 1001 and SR 1554). In the year 2020 with the
GTP in place but with TIP Projects R-2719 and R-2553 in place, volumes are
expected to vary from 28,130 vpd to 35,240 vpd (see Figure 5D). Under this
scenario, the minimum volumes occur in the center of the project.
Note that the scenario with GTP in place in the year 2000 considers the
level of build-out anticipated at the GTP by the year 2000 (3600 jobs), and
scenarios with GTP in place in the year 2020 consider the level of build-out
anticipated by the year 2020 (29,560 jobs). These employment figures were
projected by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Volumes for the year 2020 were projected based upon the construction of
an at-grade intersection at SR 1001 and an interchange or an at-grade intersection
at the junction of US 258, Crescent Road, and Dobbs Farm Road (SR 1573) as
part of TIP Project R-2719 (Crescent Road).
Projects R-2719 and R-2553 are discussed in Section I.I and are shown in
Figure 8. The Global Transpark is discussed in Section I.D.
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The terrain in the project vicinity is flat, according to the Mileage Inventory
Straight Line Diagram. The vertical and horizontal alignment of the subject
section of US 258 is very good, except for the horizontal curve near the US 70
intersection at the southern terminal of the project.
10. Intersecting Roads
All intersections along the project are at-grade. Following is a description
of the configurations of the major intersections. All intersections not mentioned
below are stop-sign controlled on the minor street.
a. US 70 (Southern Project Terminal)
The US 258/US 70 intersection is currently operating as a three-
legged, signalized intersection. The existing intersection configuration
includes channelization and free-flow right turns at the westbound (US 70)
and southbound (US 258) approaches (see Figure 3, Sheet 1 of 6).
b. SR 1546 Banks School Road)/Sand Clay Road
This intersection is currently a four-legged, signalized intersection.
The northbound and southbound approaches on US 258 each have one
exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. The
eastbound (SR 1546) and westbound (Sand Clay Road) approaches each
have one approach lane (see Figure 3, Sheet 3 of 6).
C. SR 1554 (Daly Waldrop Road)
This intersection is currently a four-legged, skewed, unsignalized
intersection. There is one approach lane on every approach (no exclusive
turn-lanes). However, because of the skew configuration, there is extra
pavement width on the eastbound and westbound (SR 1554) approaches to
facilitate right-turning movements (see Figure 3, Sheet 4 of 6).
d. SR 1001 (Pauls Path Road)/SR 1557 (Hull Road)
This intersection is currently a four-legged, signalized intersection.
The northbound and southbound approaches on US 258 and the eastbound
(SR 1001) approach each have three lanes: one exclusive right-turn lane,
one exclusive left-turn lane, and one through lane. The westbound
(SR 1557) approach has one shared through/left-turn lane and a free-flow
right turning lane (see Figure 3, Sheet 5 of 6).
e. SR 1573 (Dobbs Farm Road)
This intersection is a signalized "T" intersection. The westbound
(SR 1573) approach has an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-
turn lane. The southbound (US 258) approach has one through lane and
4
one exclusive left-turn lane. The northbound (US 258) approach has one
through lane only (see Figure 3, Sheet 6 of 6).
f. SR 1575 (Poole Road) (Northern Project Terminal)
This intersection is an unsignalized "T" intersection. There is one
approach lane on each approach (no exclusive turn-lanes; see Figure 3,
Sheet 6 of 6).
11. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside development near the US 70 intersection is very dense and is
mostly commercial and industrial with some scattered residences. Northward from
US 70, development becomes moderately dense and primarily residential.
12. Railroad Crossines
US 258 crosses the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad approximately 1.0
kilometer (0.6 mile) north of the intersection of US 258 and US 70. The crossing
is signalized with gates. It is a perpendicular crossing on level terrain with
excellent sight distance. Two trains cross US 258 at this location daily.
13. AiERorts
The Kinston Regional Jetport, which is the site of the proposed Global
Transpark, is approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) northeast of the subject
project. The airport will not be directly impacted by the proposed construction
14. School Bus Data
The subject section of US 258 serves a total of 53 school bus trips per day.
Banks Elementary School has 9 buses which use the subject road for 27 trips per
day. Frink Middle School has 4 buses which use the subject road for 12 trips per
day. North Lenoir High School has 4 buses which use the subject road for 14 trips
per day.
15. Bikeways
According to the NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation,
the subject section of US 258 is not designated as a bicycle route, but it does cross
Lenoir County Bicycle Route No. 45 at the intersection with SR 1546/Sand Clay
Road. Lenoir County Bicycle Route No. 45 originates in Pink Hill and follows a
mostly northward path along various secondary roads to US 70. From US 70, the
bike route follows SR 1546 to US 258 (the subject project). From US 258, it
follows Sand Clay Road to other secondary roads outside the project vicinity (see
Figure 1).
16. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along the project.
F. Canacitv Analvsis
The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational
conditions within a traffic stream and how these conditions are perceived by motorists and/or
passengers. A level of service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and
safety. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are
available. They are given letter designations from A to F, with level of service A representing the
best operation conditions and level of service F representing the worst.
Analyses were conducted for the years 2000 and 2020, both with and without the proposed
Global Transpark. All traffic data for the year 2000 (see Figures 5A and 5B) assume that TIP
Projects R-2719 (proposed Crescent Road) and R-2553 (proposed US 70 Bypass) are not in place.
All traffic data for the year 2020 (see Figures 5C and 5D) reflect the completion of TIP Projects
R-2719 and R-2553. Scenarios in the year 2000 with the GTP in place reflect the extent of GTP
development anticipated by the year 2000 (3600 jobs). Volumes in 2020 with the GTP in place
reflect full development of the GTP (29,560 jobs).
Both a mainline analysis and intersection analyses were performed. These analyses are
discussed below.
Mainline Analysis
A mainline analysis was run for US 258 for each of the following scenarios:
• Year 2000 without U-2542, without GTP (existing conditions scenario)
• Year 2000 with U-2542, without GTP
• Year 2000 with U-2542, with GTP
• Year 2020 with U-2542, without GTP
• Year 2020 with U-2542, with GTP
Note: All scenarios in the year 2000 assume that TIP Projects R-2719 and R-2553 are not
in place; all scenarios in the year 2020 assume that R-2719 and R-2553 are in place.
The results of these analyses are summarized in Table IA.
Table IA. _ Capacity Analysis - Mainline Levels of Service
2000
Without R-2719 & R-2553 in lace 2020
R-2719 & R-2553 in lace
SECTION OF NO U-2542; w/ U-2542; W/ U-2542; W/ U-2542; W/ U-2542;
US 258 No GTP No GTP w/ GTP No GTP W/ GTP
US 70 to SR 1546 E B B B C
SR 1546 to SR
1554 E B B B D
SR 1554 to SR
1001 D A B A C
SR 1001 to
SR 1573 E B B A C
North of
SR 1573 D A B B D
Note that the subject project, along with Projects R-2719 and R-2553, improves or
maintains the existing level of service along the mainline, even with the increased traffic
provided by GTP in the year 2020.
2. Intersection Analysis
a. Unsignalized
For unsignalized intersections, there is no overall level of service calculated;
instead, levels of service are broken down by individual movements. No level of
service is calculated for the mainline through and right-turning movements for
unsignalized intersections. Since mainline through and right-turning movements
always have the right of way, the flow of these moves is considered to be basically
unaffected by the intersection and is therefore approximated by the mainline level of
service (see Section I.D.1 above).
Unsignalized analyses were performed for the years 2000 and 2020 at the
US 258/SR 1554 intersection and the US 258/SR 1575 intersection for the
scenarios presented in Section I.D.1. The results of the unsignalized intersection
analyses are shown in Table I.B.
7
Table IB. Capacity Analysis - Unsignalized Intersections
US 258/SR 1554 Intersection
(Unsignalized)
2000
Without R-2 719A & R-2553 in lace 2020
R-2 719A & R-2553 in lace
MOVEMENT No U-2542; W/ U-2542; w/ U-2542; W/ U-2542; W/ U-2542;
No GTP No GTP w/ GTP No GTP w/ GTP
EB Left F F F F F
EB Through F F F F F
EB Right C A A A C
WB Left F F F F F
WB F F F F F
Through
WB Right C A A A A
SB Left B B C A D
NB Left C B C B F
US 258/SR 1575 Intersection
(Unsignalized)
2000
Without R-2 719A & R-2553 in lace 2020
R-2 719A & R-2553 in lace
MOVEMENT No U-2542; W/ U-2542; W/ U-2542; w/ U-2542; W/ U-2542;
No GTP No GTP W/ GTP NO GTP W/ GTP
WB Left E E F F --**
WB Right A A A A --**
SB Left A A C D --**
* * The US 258/SR 1575 intersection will not exist in 2020 if GTP develops according to the
Master Plan.
Note that the project improves the level of service for the eastbound and
westbound right-turning movement and the northbound and southbound left-
turning movement (without GTP only) at the US 258/SR 1554 intersection; all
other movements at this intersection remain unimproved by the project. The
project maintains the existing level of service for the westbound right-turning
movement at the US 258/SR 1575 intersection throughout the life of the project;
however, the westbound left-turning movement and the southbound left-turning
movement are expected to experience a reduced level of service as a result of the
project.
The additional traffic caused by the development of GTP, is expected to
cause the levels of service at the US 258/SR 1554 intersection to decrease slightly.
However, note that the existing levels of service at this intersection (without GTP
or U-2542 in place) are predicted to be maintained or improved (depending on the
movement) by the construction of U-2542, even with the additional projected
traffic provided by GTP.
The levels of service of the westbound and southbound left-turning
movements at the US 258/SR 1575 intersection are expected to worsen with the
construction of the subject project in the year 2000; however, this intersection is
not expected to exist in 2020 according the GTP Master Plan. Therefore, the
reduced efficiency of this intersection is not a long-term condition. No design year
predictions are deemed necessary at this location.
b. Signalized
For signalized intersections, the overall level of service is calculated for the
entire intersection. A signalized intersection capacity analysis was conducted for
the years 2000 and 2020 for the four intersections along the project which are
presently signalized (US 258/US 70, US 258/SR 1546/Sand Clay Road, US
258/SR 1001/SR 1557, and US 258/SR 1573). Also, signalized analyses were
conducted for the intersections at SR 1554 and SR 1575 (currently unsignalized)
to determine if capacity demands might warrant signals in the future. The results
of the signalized analyses are shown in Table 1 C.
Table IC. Capacity Analysis - Signalized Intersection
2000
Without R-2 719A & R-2553 in lace 2020
R-2 719A & R-2553 in lace
INTERSECTION No U-2542; W/ U-2542; W/ U-2542; W/ U-2542; W/ U-2542;
No GTP No GTP W/ GTP No GTP w/ GTP
US 258/US 70 D C C C E
US 258/SR 1546/Sand E D D C
Clay Rd
US 258/SR 1554*** B B A B E
US 258/ SR 1001/SR 1557 C C C C E
US 258/SR 1573 C B B F
US 258/SR 1575*** A A B A --**
* Under the prescribed conditions, the volumes wiii oversaturate the intersection and a LOS is
not calculable.
** The US 258/SR 1575 intersection will not exist in 2020 if GTP develops
according to the Master Plan.
*** These intersections are to remain stop-sign controlled under the subject project.
Note the project, along with Projects R-2719 and R-2553, maintains or improves
the projected levels of service for most of the intersections analyzed under a signalized
scenario without GTP in place. The most obvious exception is the SR 1573 (Dobbs Farm
Road) intersection. As discussed in Section I.I of this report, Project R-2719 is anticipated
to intersect US 258 at the US 258/SR 1573 intersection, thereby increasing the volume of
traffic expected to travel SR 1573.
With the proposed project in place, the level of service for each of the signalized
intersections is expected to decrease with the additional traffic provided by the development
of GTP. However, the level of service at these intersections in the design year would be
even lower without the proposed project in place.
G. Accident Anal
An accident analysis was conducted along the subject section of US 258 for the
time period from October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1994. The results of the analysis are
summarized below and are shown in Table 2. Also shown in Table 2 are the statewide
accident rates for similar highways (two-lane urban US routes).
Table 2. Accident Analysis
ACCIDENT
CATEGORY NUMBER OF
ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT RATE ON US
258 ACC/100MVK STATEWIDE ACCIDENT
RATE ACC/100MVK
Total 152 232.84 158.6
Fatal 2 3.06 0.74
Non-fatal Injury 69 105.70 65.1
Night 34 52.08 26.2
Wet 52 79.66 33.7
During the studied time period, 152 accidents occurred, two of which were fatal.
This yields a total accident rate of 232.84 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers
(ACC/100MVK) and a fatal accident rate of 3.06 ACC/100MVK. As shown in Table 2,
the accident rate for each accident category for this segment of roadway is significantly
higher than the respective statewide average rate.
The most frequently occurring type of accident is the "rear-end slow or stop" type,
which categorizes 48.7% of the total accidents. The second most frequently occurring
type of accident is the "left-turn same road" type, which categorizes 13.2% of the total
accidents. Another 9.9% of the accidents are of the "angle" type.
The highest concentration of accidents (23 accidents, that is, 15% of the total
number) occurred within 0.04 mile of the US 70 intersection. Sixteen accidents (10.5%)
occurred both at the intersection with SR 1001 and within 0.05 mile of the SR 1554
intersection. There was also a concentration of 11 accidents (7%) that occurred in the
vicinity of A Street. The remaining accidents appear to be distributed fairly randomly
along the project.
H. Project Terminals
The project begins at the intersection of US 258 and US 70 in Kinston. The
project ends north of the intersection of US 258 and SR 1575 (Poole Road).
Thoroughfare Plan
US 258 is shown on the Kinston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and is listed as a
major thoroughfare. The Thoroughfare Plan was adopted by the City of Kinston on
February 2, 1981 and by the North Carolina Board of Transportation on March 31, 1981.
The Thoroughfare Plan is shown in Figure 4.
10
Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The project will provide economic and safety benefits to the project area. The
improved roadway will provide a continuous left-turn lane and should therefore reduce the
number of accidents related to left-turning vehicles. Upgrading the roadway will also
improve traffic flow and reduce travel time, resulting in lower road user costs. The
project will improve access to businesses and residences in the area, including truck and
commuter access to the proposed Global Transpark.
H. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
NCDOT proposes to symmetrically widen US 258 from US 70 to north of
SR 1575 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility with an at-grade crossing of the Atlantic
and East Carolina Railroad. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 3.
B. Len h of Project
The proposed project is approximately 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) long.
C. Cross Section
It is proposed to widen the subject section of US 258 to a five-lane curb and gutter
facility that measures 19.2 meters (64 feet) from face of curb to face of curb. This
includes five 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes and 600-millimeter (2-foot) wide gutters.
On each side of the existing roadway, 5.4 meters (18 feet) of pavement will be
constructed. The proposed typical section is shown in Figure 6.
D. Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed project is 80 km/h (50 mph).
E. Right of Way
The North Carolina Department of Transportation currently owns 30.5 meters
(100 feet) of right of way along the subject section of US 258. Most of the construction
will occur within the existing right of way plus easements to be acquired. However,
additional right of way will be required at some intersections for sight distance or for
proposed left-turn or right-turn lanes. Additional right of way or easements will also be
needed at locations where the difference in the proposed road elevation and the elevation
of existing ground is such that existing right of way is not sufficient to contain the side
slopes. It is anticipated that approximately 0.89 hectare (2.2 acres) of additional right of
way and approximately 0.91 hectare (2.3 acres) of easements will be required for these
improvements. The approximate limits of right of way to be acquired are shown in
Figure 3.
Access Control
No control of access is proposed as a part of the subject project.
11
G. Intersection Treatment
In addition to the proposed five-lane widening of US 258, the following
improvements are proposed as a part of this project.
1. US 258/US 70 (Southern Project Terminal)
It is proposed to construct a basic "T" configuration at this location to
simplify this intersection design. Dual eastbound (US 70) and southbound
(US 258) left-turn lanes will be constructed. The southbound (US 258) free-flow
right turn lane will remain as it is; however, all other channelization will be
removed, and all other movements will be under signal control. A westbound
exclusive right-turn lane will be constructed on US 70. The existing westbound
US 70 free-flow right-turn lane will become a service road to provide access to the
businesses in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. This proposed service
road will be realigned to intersect US 70 perpendicularly east of the intersection of
US 258 and US 70 opposite the existing median crossover. An exclusive right-turn
lane is proposed on westbound US 70 at this proposed service road intersection.
It is also proposed to provide access to the service road on US 258 just north of
US 70.
In order to provide for adequate storage for eastbound (US 70) left-turning
traffic, it is proposed to close the existing median opening on US 70 just west of
the US 70/US 258 intersection.
Other proposed improvements to the US 258/US 70 intersection are shown
in Figure 3, Sheet I of 6.
2. US 258/C Street
An exclusive right-turn lane and an exclusive left-turn lane are proposed on
C Street (see Figure 3, Sheet 1 of 6). This intersection is currently stop-sign
controlled and will remain stop-sign controlled after project construction.
3. US 258/A Street
An exclusive right-turn lane and an exclusive left-turn lane are proposed on
A Street (see Figure 3, Sheet I of 6). This intersection is currently stop-sign
controlled and will remain stop-sign controlled after project construction.
4. US 258Bamet Driveway
An exclusive right-turn lane and an exclusive left-turn lane are proposed on
the Barnet driveway (see Figure 3, Sheet 2 of 6). This intersection is currently
stop-sign controlled and will remain stop-sign controlled after project construction.
5. US 258/SR 1546/Sand Clay Road
Exclusive right-turn lanes are proposed on the southbound (US 258)
approach and on the eastbound (SR 1546) approach. Exclusive left-turn lanes are
proposed on the eastbound (SR 1546) and westbound (Sand Clay Road)
approaches (see Figure 3, Sheet 3 of 6). This intersection is currently signalized
and will remain signalized after project construction.
12
6. US 258/SR 1638
An exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane are proposed on
the westbound (SR 1638) approach (see Figure 3, Sheet 3 of 6). This intersection
is currently stop-sign controlled and will remain stop-sign controlled after project
construction.
US 258/SR 1554
Exclusive right-turn lanes are proposed on the northbound and southbound
(US 258) approaches and on the eastbound (SR 1554) approach. Exclusive left-
turn lanes are proposed on the eastbound and westbound (SR 1554) approaches
(see Figure 3, Sheet 4 of 6). This intersection is currently stop-sign controlled and
will remain stop-sign controlled under the subject project. However, the
intersection operation will be monitored following project construction, and signals
will be installed, if warranted.
US 258/SR 1001/SR 1557
An exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane are proposed on
both the eastbound (SR 1001) approach and the westbound (SR 1557) approach
(see Figure 3, Sheet 5 of 6). It is proposed to remove the existing free-flow (under
yield control) right-turn lane on westbound SR 1557. This intersection is currently
signalized and will remain signalized after project construction.
US 258/SR 1005
An exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane are proposed on
the eastbound (SR 1005) approach (see Figure 3, Sheet 5 of 6). This intersection is
currently stop-sign controlled and will remain stop-sign controlled after project
construction.
10. US 258/SR 1612
An exclusive right-turn lane and an exclusive left-turn lane are proposed on
the westbound (SR 1612) approach of the US 258/SR 1612 intersection (see
Figure 3, Sheet 6 of 6). This intersection is currently stop-sign controlled and will
remain stop-sign controlled after project construction.
11. US 258/SR 1573
An exclusive right-turn lane is proposed on the northbound (US 258)
approach. The existing exclusive right-turn lane and exclusive left-turn lane on the
westbound (SR 1573) approach will be retained (see Figure 3, Sheet 6 of 6). This
intersection is currently signalized and will remain signalized after project
construction.
12. US 258/SR 1575 (Northern Project Terminal)
An exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane are proposed on
the westbound (SR 1575) approach (see Figure 3, Sheet 6 of 6). This intersection
is currently stop-sign controlled and will remain stop-sign controlled after project
construction. The configuration and control of this intersection is expected to
change in the future with the development of the GTP (see Section II. V).
13
Proposed intersection configurations as well as additional right of way and
easements that are expected to be required for these improvements are shown in
Figure 3.
H. Bridees and Drainaize Structures
The existing culverts that convey the Neuse River Tributary under the US 70
westbound right-turn lane (a double barrel 1.8-meter by 1.8-meter (6-foot by 6-foot)
RCBC) and under the US 70 mainline (a single barrel 3.6-meter by 1.8-meter (12-foot by
6-foot) RCBC) have been determined to be hydraulically adequate, based on preliminary
hydraulic analysis, and it is recommended that they be retained and extended as needed.
If, however, during final hydraulic design, the culverts are determined not to be
hydraulically adequate, they will be supplemented as needed, or a floodway modification
will be coordinated. It is anticipated that the culvert under the US 70 westbound right-
turn lane will need to be extended by approximately 13 meters (43 feet) on the north end
and shortened by approximately 12 meters (39 feet) on the south end. It is anticipated
that the culvert under the US 70 mainline will need to be extended by approximately 5
meters (16 feet) on the north end. However, the roadway grade will need to be raised at
both structures approximately 0.3 meter (1 foot) to accommodate the culvert extensions.
The structural integrity of the existing culverts will be evaluated during the final design
stage to ensure that they can be retained as recommended.
1. Stream Modifications
Approximately 70 meters (230 feet) of the Neuse River Tributary will be
rechannelized in the vicinity of US 70. NCDOT will carry out the necessary coordination
with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding this rechannelization.
J. Railroad Involvement
The existing at-grade crossing of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad will be
maintained as a part of this project. The crossing will remain signalized. The existing
gates will be replaced as part of this project. A railroad agreement will be necessary since
the project will involve the widening of a railroad crossing. The Right of Way Branch will
coordinate with Atlantic and East Carolina regarding this agreement during the right of
way acquisition phase of the project.
Consideration was given to the construction of a grade separation at this location.
However, the grade separation alternatives were eliminated based on high cost and limited
need (See Section III.B. for more information).
K. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that the proposed project will require a Section 404 Nationwide 14
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 General Water
Certification from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
L. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are expected as a result of this project.
14
M. Multinle Use of Snace
There are no plans to use the right of way for any purpose other than public
utilities, which will be allowed with certain limitations.
N. Bikeways
NCDOT will maintain access for bicyclists across US 258 at the SR 1546/Sand
Clay Road intersection, where Lenoir County Bicycle Route No. 45 crosses US 258 (see
Section I.C.15), during project construction. This is the only special accommodation for
bicycles on this project.
US 258 does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it part of NCDOT's
Bicycling Highway System. There is no indication that there will be unusual levels of
bicycling on this roadway. However, as with any roads and highways (except those which
have limited access where bicycles are prohibited), bicycle travel will occur as part of the
overall travel mix. No additional pavement width for bicyclists is recommended.
0. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are proposed as a part of this project.
P. Landscaping
The subject project does not include provisions for special landscaping. The
project will include standard landscaping as needed for erosion control purposes.
Q. Noise Barriers
The subject project will not involve the construction of any noise barriers.
R. Airports
There are no airports in the immediate project vicinity. The Kinston Regional
Jetport is located approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) to the northeast of the proposed
project. Planning studies for the proposed airport expansion necessary for the proposed
Global Transpark are underway. The proposed project will improve access to the GTP
from US 70.
S. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is not anticipated that the subject project will require any design exceptions.
T. Cost Estimates
The total cost of the recommended improvements is estimated at $6,525,000,
including $1,225,000 for right of way and 5,300,000 for construction.
U. Degree of Utility Conflicts
The degree of utility conflicts for the proposed project is expected to be severe.
15
M. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
The subject project proposes to widen US 258 symmetrically from US 70 to
SR 1575 in Kinston, Lenoir County, to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The project
length is 4.35 kilometers (2.7 miles). The proposed improvements are described in detail
in Section H.
B. Desian Alternatives (Railroad Grade Separation)
NCDOT must consider the construction of a railroad grade separation at existing
at-grade crossings in urban areas where the exposure index exceeds 30,000. The exposure
index is the product of the daily vehicular traffic volume and the daily train traffic volume.
Presently, two trains per day traveling on the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad
cross US 258 at the existing at-grade crossing on the subject project. The projected traffic
volume on US 258 at this location in the design year (2020) is 31,890 vehicles per day,
which is based upon Projects R-2553 (US 70 Bypass) and R-2719 (Crescent Road) being
in place and the proposed Global Transpark (GTP) being in operation (see Section I.E.8.).
The resulting exposure index is 63,780. Note that this exposure index, because of a lack
of reliable train traffic projections, does not take into consideration any increase in train
traffic in the future. However, it is likely that train traffic will increase in the future as a
result of anticipated Global Transpark development. Therefore, the actual design year
exposure index is likely to be higher. Since the exposure index at the subject railroad
crossing exceeds the threshold value, construction of a grade separation at this location
was considered, as described below.
Three alternatives which include the construction of a grade separation at the
crossing of the East Carolina and Atlantic Railroad were studied: one that provides a
temporary construction detour on the east side of US 258, one that provides a temporary
construction detour on the west side of US 258, and one that permanently realigns US 258
to the east in the vicinity of the railroad crossing. The latter alternative, calling for the
permanent realignment of US 258, is the most economically feasible. It would be
expected to add approximately $2.6 million ($1.85 million for construction and $750,000
for right of way) to current project costs. This alternative would put two pairs of reverse
curves into what is otherwise a straight section of roadway. The two grade separation
alternatives that call for temporary construction detours would have substantially higher
right of way costs; they would both require the relocation of approximately 4 to 5
businesses on the west side of US 258. Additionally, they would cut off access to the
remaining businesses and would therefore require the construction of a service road,
further increasing costs. Because of the high cost of constructing a grade separation at
this location, it is recommended that an at-grade crossing be maintained at this location as
part of the subject project.
Both US 258 and the railroad are on tangents at the point of crossing, and the
topography is level; therefore, the sight distances are good. The existing at-grade crossing
is controlled with gates and signals: and there is not a history of train-related accidents at
this location (none have occurred since 1985).
16
Proposed Crescent Road will cross the subject railroad west of the US 258
crossing with a grade separation, thereby providing a north-south route that avoids train
interference. Although the Crescent Road grade separated crossing will not improve
safety of the US 258 at-grade crossing, it will provide an uninterrupted route for
emergency service vehicles.
C. Postponement of Proposed Action
This alternative involves postponing the proposed improvements to some indefinite
time in the future. This alternative would not reduce the environmental effects, but it
would only delay them, while also delaying the benefits the proposed roadway will
provide. In fact, postponing the project, by allowing time for more development to occur,
may actually increase the environmental impacts of the project.
D. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative, while avoiding the limited environmental impacts of the
recommended improvements, would not provide the benefits of the proposed
construction. It would not improve the safety or the capacity of the facility. Therefore,
this alternative is not recommended.
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the area, and the
project's purposes cannot be accomplished through alternative modes of transportation.
IV. SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use
US 258 provides access to suburban development near US 70, including a
mix of residential and commercial uses on the east side of US 258, near US 70.
Strip development has occurred on the west side of the roadway in this area, with
agricultural fields beyond that development. Automobile dealerships, a small
shopping center, and other commercial- uses are mixed with single family
residences.
This mixed pattern of linear residential development with light industrial
and commercial uses continues throughout much of the length of the project,
although several large wooded tracts exist north of Banks School Road (SR 1546).
Commercial uses tend to be concentrated at intersections throughout the project
area. A small shopping center, Green Tree Plaza, is located on US 258 near Paul's
Path Road (SR 1001). The North Lenoir Fire Department is located on the east
side of the roadway at its intersection with SR 1005. Bethel Free Will Baptist
Church and Christian School is located at the intersection of Banks School Road
with US 258. The private school provides instruction for kindergarten through
twelfth grade.
17
2. Existing Zoning
The project area is zoned by the City of Kinston as B-1, neighborhood
trading districts, which permits commercial development. This zone encompasses
most of the land from US 70 north to the railroad. Exceptions include a residential
district in the A Street area and a light industrial district on the east side of the
roadway at the railroad. Residential districts comprise most of the project area
from Sand Clay Road north to the project terminal, although B-I districts are
located at the intersections of US 258 with Daly Waldrop Road (SR 1554), Hull
Road (SR 1557), and Banks School Road (SR 1546) (west side). Commercial
districts also accommodate existing businesses scattered throughout the project.
B. Socioeconomic Impacts
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Lenoir County. The southern portion of
the project lies inside the Kinston City Limits (the city limits are shown in
Figure 1).
Lenoir County is situated in the eastern section of the State and is bounded
by Craven, Jones, Duplin, Wayne, Green, and Pitt Counties. The 1990 Census
indicates that Lenoir County has a population of 57,274. The population density
(persons per square mile) is 143.23. A Certified Municipal Estimate of the
population was published July 1, 1991. The Certified Municipal Estimates
modified the 1990 NC Population Census Data and indicated that Lenoir County
had a total population of 57,206. The state of North Carolina has a total
population of 6,628,637.
In terms of racial composition, Lenoir County has a white population of
34,322, a black population of 22,539, and a Hispanic population of 463.
Kinston has a total population of 25,295. The racial composition of
Kinston consists of a total of 10,512 whites, 14,615 blacks, 34 Native Americans,
104 Asians or Pacific Islanders, and 120 Hispanics.
During the year of 1990 the average monthly recipients of AFDC in Lenoir
County were 3,342. The average monthly recipients of food stamps were 6,732.
The approved cases for Energy Assistance during the same year were 2,979.
Lenoir County in 1980 has 11,512 persons listed as being in property.
There were 4,488 children listed in the poverty category, along with 1,603 persons
65 years of age and over.
Residential development lines both sides of existing US 258 along with
commercial, office and institutional establishments at various intervals, particularly
at the southern project terminal and at the more heavily trafficked intersections
along the project. Near the end of the proposed project is the Greentree Plaza
Shopping Center. Commercial establishments increase in density near the end of
the proposed action.
The proposed action is not requiring a disproportionate amount of right of
way or easements from minorities or lower income households.
18
Public Facilities
On the west side of US 258, north of the Atlantic and East Carolina
Railroad, is the Four Square Christian Center. The Bethel Free Will Baptist
Church is located on the west side of US 258 at the Banks School Road (SR 1546)
intersection. The Kinston Baptist Temple is located on the west side of US 258
south of the SR 1001 intersection. The North Lenoir Volunteer Fire Department
is on the east side of US 258 north of the SR 1001 intersection. Near the north
end of the proposed project on the west side of US 258 is the Hull Road Free Will
Baptist Church.
Relocatees
The proposed action will not result in the relocation of any homes or
businesses.
Economic Impacts
Business activity along US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575 is pronounced and
diverse. The widening of US 258 will be a positive impact to the business
community in the area in that traffic flow will be improved.
The proposed widening will also increase accessibility for those businesses
along the proposed project. In addition, safety along the proposed project will be
enhanced for those persons who must utilize the facility.
According to the North Carolina Employment Commission, during the
month of August 1995, Lenoir County had a total civilian labor force of 29,620.
Out of this number, 28,120 persons were gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total of 1,500 or 5.1 percent.
Social Impacts
US 258 is currently a two-lane facility. Upgrading this facility to 5 lanes
will have positive impacts. The facility will increase the safety for all users, will
provide a better route for emergency vehicles by letting them reach their
destinations faster and safer, and will help alleviate traffic congestion.
The proposed project will not disrupt neighborhood cohesion, split neighborhoods
or communities, or interfere with services and facilities.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
a. Introduction
An archaeological survey was conducted on May 25, 1994 by Anna
Gray, John Mintz, and Ken Robinson, NCDOT archaeologists. The total
field time was about one and a half hours with a three-person team.
Pedestrian survey and intensive visual inspection were the two survey
methods used. The scope of the investigations was consistent with the
guidelines issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Treatment of Archaeological Properties), the Department of Interior's
19
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation
projects (48 FR 44739), and the Federal Highway Administration's
Guidance on the Consideration of Historic and Archaeological Resources
in the Highway Project Development Process (HPP-04, Jan. 25, 1989).
The results of the archaeological study indicate that the project will have
no impacts upon any archaeological sites that are eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
b. Phvsical Environment
Lenoir County is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic
province of North Carolina. It is geologically associated with the PeeDee
Formation characterized by sand, clayey sand, and clay that is locally
fossiliferous and calcareous with patches of sandy molluscan mold-
limestone in the upper part.
The soils in Lenoir County are underlain by consolidated sand, silt,
and clay (Daniels et al 1986). The three major soil associations located
within the vicinity of the current project area include Torhunta-Lumbee,
Pocalla-Wagram-Lakeland, and Rains-Lynchburg (Barnhill 1977). These
soil types range from very poorly drained to well drained or excessively
drained. These associations are found on nearly level to strongly sloping
soils on broad interstream divides, as well as on uplands. The slope of
these loamy sand soils ranges from 0 to 6 percent (Daniels et al 1986).
These three soil association types are primarily wooded. However, they
are also cultivated or used for pasturage and some non-farm purposes
(Barnhill 1977).
The Neuse River is the primary drainage for Lenoir County, while
the Trent River drains approximately one-fourth of the county's area. Soils
within the project area are best suited for corn, tobacco, soybeans, small
grain, and some small truck farming crops. The project area is currently
wooded, cultivated, and used for residential, commercial, and industrial
development.
C. Previous Archaeological Research
Some of the earliest archaeological work conducted in Lenoir
County was that done by Robert Crawford. His research focused mainly
on Lenoir County with some sites being recorded in nearby Craven, Jones,
Pitt, and Wayne Counties. Crawford recorded 64 sites in his Lenoir
County survey. The purpose of this study was to establish a chronology
for the ceramic types for eastern North Carolina (Crawford 1966). At the
time of his survey, there had not been a typology for eastern North
Carolina established. Crawford identified three ceramic types which
included the Lenoir Series, a regional variant of the Vincent Series
(compact clay and crushed quartz), the Grifton Series, which had a
contorted paste with clay temper, and the Tower Hill Series, which was
defined as having a compact paste and fine sand temper and as being fabric-
impressed. The Tower Hill Series seemed to be closely associated with the
Clements Series (Crawford 1966). These ceramic types were later
modified and found to correspond with regional types that were identified
for the northern Coastal Plain. The Lenoir Series was later found to be
subsumed under the Middle Woodland type of ceramic identified as Cashie.
20
The Grifton Series was consistent with the Hanover type. The Tower Hill
Series was identified as being a Late Woodland type consistent with the
Cashie type (Lautzenheiser and Eastman 1991).
Other archaeological work done in Lenoir County has included the
survey for the airport construction at Stallings Field conducted by East
Carolina University under the direction of David Phelps (Phelps 1975).
This survey recorded no sites within the proposed area of construction of
the airport, and no sites were listed as being part of the Stallings Field
facility. This military airbase was in use during World War II. The results
of this archaeological survey concluded that the previous disturbance of a
large part of the area precluded the existence of earlier cultural remains in
place (Phelps 1975). Also, the specific micro-environment in which this
area was located held an extremely low potential for prehistoric or historic
settlement (Phelps 1975).
Environmental compliance projects which have required
archaeological surveys have included a survey for the proposed 201 sewer
system improvements for the City of Kinston, as well as surveys for the
Lenoir-Greenville 230 kV transmission line in Lenoir, Jones, and Pitt
Counties and a survey for the Lenoir-Wake 500 kV transmission line in
Lenoir and Wake Counties (Hall and Littleton 1980; Ward and Davis 1985,
1987).
A survey for the proposed Pink Hill wastewater treatment plant
(spray irrigation field and lagoon facility) recorded three late nineteenth-
early twentieth century house sites as well as six standing tobacco barns.
These three sites and associated structures were determined not significant
(Hargrove 1988).
Archaeological testing at the site of Harmony Hall, the former
property of Governor Richard Caswell in Kinston, was among the earliest
historical archaeological work conducted in Lenoir County. The
excavations were inconclusive due to the fact that extensive fill material
was found within the test units (Bonath 1976).
The most recent archaeological survey within Lenoir County has
been the work conducted by Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. for the
proposed North Carolina Global Transpark in Kinston. This extensive
archaeological survey recorded 97 sites which were located within a 2,297-
acre project area for the proposed Global Transpark. This survey recorded
eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth century farmstead sites, historic
cemeteries, as well as numerous prehistoric sites (Lautzenheiser 1993x).
Of the 97 sites recorded during this survey (which included 7 cemeteries),
12 sites were considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (Lautzenheiser 1993b).
21
d. Cultural Back rg ound
PREHISTORIC
Paleo-Indian Period
The earliest prehistoric occupation of North Carolina dates to the
Paleo-Indian Period, which began about 12,000 years ago. Although
evidence of this period is usually very rare, some remains are indicated by
surface finds of fluted points, the temporal marker for the Paleo-Indian
Period. The subsistence pattern during this time is assumed to have been a
hunting and gathering lifestyle with an emphasis on hunting larger animals
(Phelps 1983). The most important North Carolina site yielding Paleo-
Indian components is the Hardaway Site located on the west bank of the
Yadkin River in Stanly County. This site is unusual in that it contains
stratified deposits. Paleo-Indian sites with stratified deposits are absent
from the Coastal Plain, although fluted points have been found on the
ground surface or other disturbed contexts. Although it is located in the
Piedmont, investigations at the Hardaway Site form the basis of the Paleo-
Indian and Early Archaic sequences (Coe 1964) that have been found to
apply to the adjacent Coastal Plain and to much of the interior southeast.
Even surface finds of Paleo-Indian artifacts are scarce in the Coastal
Plain region. Three of the classic fluted points were reported by Perkinson
(1971, 1973) for Nash and Edgecombe Counties. The base of a fluted
point was recovered in the excavations at 31NS 19 in Nash County, but the
context of this artifact was questionable (Phelps 1980). There have been
no reported fluted points recorded for Lenoir County.
Archaic Period
The Archaic Period (8000-1000 BC) was apparently a time of
climatic change. A shift from boreal forests to northern hardwoods
occurred around the time of the Early Archaic period (8000-5000 BC).
These northern hardwoods were in turn replaced by oak-hickory forests.
These changes were probably accompanied by an increase in population as
seen in the greater number of sites with Archaic components (Phelps
1983).
It is generally thought that in the Archaic Period there was a
continuation of a hunting and gathering lifestyle, with a possible seasonal
movement between base camps and hunting camps. The Morrow
Mountain and Guilford phases appear in the Middle Archaic (5000-3000
BC). The Halifax projectile point is dated in contexts beginning around
4000 B.C. and is usually confined to sites east of the fall line. During the
Late Archaic Savannah River phase (3000-1000 BC), there is evidence of
larger sites containing steatite bowls, burials, and prepared hearths. These
sites suggest a more settled lifestyle (Phelps 1983, Ward 1983).
Coe's 1955 excavations at the Gaston Site and other sites in the
Roanoke River Basin provided the basis for the established Late Archaic
and Woodland Period chronology for the region. The ceramics of the
Vincent, Clements, and Gaston pottery series were defined by this seminal
22
work (Coe 1964). Phelps (1980, 1983) expanded on Coe's work and
defined the Woodland cultural sequence for the adjacent Coastal Plain
region.
Woodland Period
During the Woodland Period (1000 BC-AD 1650), regional
differences in the archaeological record have been established. Phelps
(1983) has defined the archaeological assemblages for the Woodland
Period in the north Coastal Plain, and Loftfield (1976) has defined the
archaeological chronology in the southern part of the Coastal Plain. The
introduction of the bow and arrow and the beginnings of ceramic
manufacture define the beginning of the Early Woodland (1000-300 BC).
The earliest pottery is a fiber tempered ware which is reported from the
south Coastal Plain, generally below the Neuse River drainage. In the
north Coastal Plain the ceramic type is a coarse-sand tempered ware called
Deep Creek, after the creek in Edgecombe County where it was first
identified. The Large Roanoke Triangular projectile points are also a part
of the artifact assemblage. The Early Woodland and its transition from the
Archaic is the least known of the Woodland phases in the Coastal Plain.
The Middle Woodland (300 BC-AD 800) is marked by the Mount
Pleasant phase. The ceramic type found is a sand and pebble tempered
ware, often with fabric-impressed and cord-marked finishes. The clay
tempered Hanover ware of the south Coastal Plain is frequently found in
the same contexts as Mount Pleasant ceramics. During this phase there is a
decrease in the number of small sites along the smaller streams and an
increase in sites along the larger rivers, creeks, and estuaries.
The Late Woodland Period (AD 800-1650) extended up to the time
of European contact. The archaeological assemblages of this period can be
indirectly related to ethnohistoric information. Along the coastal and
tidewater regions were groups of Algonkian speakers living in villages and
organized into loosely confederated tribes. The inner Coastal Plain was the
territory of the Tuscarora, an Iroquois speaking people who lived in
villages and hamlets spread out along major waterways.
The artifact assemblage of the prehistoric Tuscarora includes
"Cashie" ware, a pebble-tempered ceramic with a floated interior finish.
Cashie ware is found in Colington (Algonkian) sites, and coastal products
are found in Cashie sites, indicating a trading relationship between the two
groups.
Gaston ceramics (primarily Gaston Simple Stamped) were probably
being used by the Indians of the area when they were first contacted by
Europeans. Phelps (1983) equates Gaston pottery with the ceramic type
Cashie Simple Stamped, which he defined as the protohistoric pottery of
the Tuscarora Indians on the inner Coastal Plain.
Historic
Prior to European settlement within the inner coastal section of
North Carolina that would become Lenoir County, this area was inhabited
by the Tuscarora (Phelps 1983). During early exploration of the North
23
Carolina coast in 1584, Arthur Barlowe and Phillip Armadas expanded
their explorations into the interior of North Carolina and encountered a
tribe of Indians who were known as the Neusiok. As noted by Barlowe and
Armadas in their reports back to England, "Adjoining this country
aforesaid called Secotan begins a country called Pomuik belonging to
another king whom they call Piemacum, and this king is in league with the
next king adjoining toward the setting sun, and the country Neusiok,
situated upon a goodly river called Neuse." (Kohler 1976).
Following this earliest exploration of the Neuse River territory,
European settlement gradually started within North Carolina's coastal
areas. The first permanent settlement was started in the tidewater region
near the Albermarle Sound. By the early eighteenth century, the town of
New Bern had been founded by a group of Swiss Palantines under the
leadership of Baron Christopher von Graffenreid. Exploration and
settlement continued throughout the early eighteenth century along the
Neuse River within the area that would later become Lenoir County.
However, the native Tuscarora inhabitants were threatened by the
encroaching European settlement on their lands.
In 1711, Graffenreid and John Lawson, an English explorer,
ventured up the Neuse River from New Bern in search of an easier inland
route to Virginia. Graffenreid and Lawson were met by hostile Tuscarora
Indians who captured both of them, eventually killing Lawson and releasing
Graffenreid (Kohler 1976). After this encounter with the Tuscaroras by
Graffenreid and Lawson, Indian relations grew worse with the European
settlers. By 1711, hostilities reached a summit and the Tuscarora War
started. Many accounts described this war as a massacre in which several
settlers were killed by the Indian attacks to their homesteads. Eventually,
the state militia moved in and troops were sent from South Carolina as
reinforcement against the Indian raiders. By the mid-1710s, the Tuscaroras
had been effectively defeated and were gradually pushed out of their native
area and moved to New York state to join the Iroquois Nation. Following
the defeat of the Tuscaroras, additional area in North Carolina's coastal
interior was open for settlement and gradually more immigrants began to
move to the area from the Tidewater of Virginia as well as many of the
northern colonies.
By the mid-eighteenth century, the area along the Neuse River,
Contentnea Creek, and Tower Hill had been gradually settled. In the
1720s, Tower Hill was proposed as a possible site for the state's new
capital; however, it never was selected (Kohler 1976). In 1758, the
General Assembly voted to form a new county out of the eastern portion of
Johnston County. This new county was named Dobbs in honor of Arthur
Dobbs, one of the state's royal governors (Powell 1963).. Shortly after
Dobbs County was formed, the General Assembly established three
tobacco inspection warehouses within the county at Atkins Bank,
Contentnea Creek, and Fellow's Ferry (Powell 1963). Public tobacco
warehouses were necessary for the inspection and shipping of tobacco out
of the colony.
In 1762, the General Assembly voted to established the town of
Kingston at Atkins Bank which had been described as "a pleasant and
healthy situation, and commodious for trade and commerce" (Powell
24
1963). After Kingston was established, town lots were drawn out and by
the 1770s, it was well on its way to becoming one of colonial North
Carolina's earliest trade centers. By 1779, the General Assembly voted to
divide Dobbs County into east and west sections, which were renamed
Wayne and Lenoir Counties, respectively. Lenoir County encompassed the
town of Kingston along the Neuse River and, by the late eighteenth
century, had become an important center for trade and commerce.
Antebellum Years
Throughout the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, Lenoir
County continued to develop, and more plantations were established
throughout this area. The town of Kingston was then named the county
seat for Lenoir County. Following the Revolutionary War, the name
Kinston was adopted instead of Kingston, which paid homage to King
George III of England.
A contemporary account of Kinston and surrounding Lenoir
County was written by John Washington in 1810. Washington, a native of
Virginia and distant relative of George Washington, lived in the Kinston
area during the early nineteenth century. According to Washington's
account, the primary agricultural crops were corn and peas [sic], cotton,
sweet potatoes, wheat, and rye (Kohler 1976). The production of pork
was also an important business for Lenoir County's farmers during the early
1800s. There were several grist mills, as well as cotton gins within the
county. According to Washington, Kinston was the only major town within
Lenoir County during the early nineteenth century. It served as an
important center for trade and commerce; however, it had been hindered
somewhat due to difficulties in inland navigation. Washington suggested
that internal improvements such as roads, bridges, and ferries could help
Kinston's and Lenoir County's economies markedly if better routes were
developed to aid inland navigation.
By the mid-nineteenth century, some improvements had been made
to Lenoir County's inland navigation routes, and the General Assembly had
proposed plans to construct a railroad from Beaufort through Trenton and
Kinston. The Raleigh and Roanoke Railroad was started in 1833;
however, actual construction of this line did not begin until 20 years later
(Powell 1963). Local citizens had also proposed to build the Kinston-
Snow Hill Plank Road in 1852; however, before construction on the road
could begin, the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad was started. The
first section of this railroad opened in 1855 and ran from New Bern to
Kinston (Cooper, et al 1980). It was during the mid-nineteenth century
that Kinston grew to be one of the larger towns within the state. In the
1850 and 1860 census, there were several hotels, boardinghouses,
merchants, harness-makers, watchmakers, farmers, tailors, lawyers,
carpenters, a bookkeeper, a barkeeper, and several county officials (Powell
1963). Prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Kinston was an important
town within the inner coastal region of North Carolina.
25
Civil War
Because of its location along several major roads and railroads, as
well as the Neuse and Trent Rivers, Kinston and Lenoir County overall
were strategic areas during the years of the Civil War. Throughout the
county, several encampments were established in order for the Federal
forces to gain access to the railroad and points further west such as
Goldsboro. Confederate troops also established encampments along the
Neuse River in order to defend the road to New Bern. Within the vicinity
of the current project area, there were no specific skirmishes; however,
throughout the Kinston area, there were encampments along the northern
side of the Neuse River up to Falling Creek. The 1863 Confederate
Engineers map of eastern North Carolina between the Neuse and Tar
Rivers depicted Kinston as well as the major roads, railroads, and
settlements within the surrounding area. Within the vicinity of the current
project area, there appeared to be a few scattered farmsteads. Further to
the east however, there was the Snow Hill and Kinston Road (the current
US 58) which ran north-south through this section of the county. There
was more settlement along this road including numerous farmsteads, a
blacksmith shop, and a steam mill.
In early December 1862, Federal troops were positioned in eastern
North Carolina with a plan of advancing towards Goldsboro in order to cut
the line of the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad (Barrett 1963). By the
time the troops left New Bern on their advance to Goldsboro, Confederate
forces had positioned themselves outside of Kinston on the banks of the
Neuse River. Although the Federal troops were hindered in their attempt
to completely overtake the Confederate forces at Kinston, they managed to
cross the Neuse and move on towards Goldsboro.
A second skirmish occurred in Kinston at the end of the war in
1865, referred to as the Battle of Southwest Creek. General J. D. Cox
moved his Federal forces from New Bern to Goldsboro in an effort to stop
the railroad supplies lines which ran to Wilmington. The Confederates
were strongly entrenched along the west bank of Southwest Creek, south
of Kinston, which flowed into the Neuse River (Barrett 1963). Southwest
Creek had long been considered a strategic location due to its proximity to
wagon roads leading from Kinston to New Bern, as well as the Wilmington
Road and the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad. Upon arriving at
Southwest Creek, Cox had found all of the bridges which crossed the creek
had been "either destroyed or dismantled" (Barrett 1963:286). The
Twelfth New York Calvary was used to patrol the roads leading to the left
of Wise's Forks, as well as watching the crossings along the creek (Barrett
1963). Although the Federals' advance was delayed at Southwest Creek,
they eventually broke through the Confederate lines which had become
quickly weakened and continued their march to Goldsboro.
.
Reconstruction and Late Nineteenth Century
Following the Civil War, Kinston and Lenoir County had to recover
from many physical and economic hardships which it endured during this
period. Racial tensions between whites and freed blacks caused many riots
during the late 1860s. Political controversies were also creating many
problems as well. However, by the mid-1870s, things were gradually
26
returning to normal. In Kinston and Lenoir County as with many sections
of coastal North Carolina, many freed blacks were quickly leaving the area
following the Civil War to seek jobs up north or in the midwest. This
exodus depleted Lenoir County of a great deal of its black population by
1870 (Powell 1963). During the late nineteenth century, Lenoir County
had gradually increased its population, and many new businesses were
started within the area. By 1880, Lenoir County listed numerous
businesses including merchants, three carnage factories, a harness factory,
two boot and shoe shops, and several lawyers and doctors as well as
several grist mills, saw mills, turpentine distilleries, a bakery, and an
insurance agency (Cooper et al 1980). Although there was an increase in
business and industry in Lenoir County during the late nineteenth century,
agriculture remained a constant source of income for the majority of Lenoir
County citizens. In 1878, the Lenoir County courthouse was burned,
causing a loss of all the county's records prior to that time. Several
subsequent fires in Kinston during 1880 and 1895 also contributed to a
great deal of property damaged within the town (Cooper et al 1980).
Twentieth Century
During the twentieth century, Lenoir County has remained an
agricultural area for the most part. Although some industrial development
has been located within Lenoir County, farming is still a primary
occupation of much of the populous. The tobacco market which had
established a stronghold in the Kinston during the late nineteenth century
has prospered, as well. Several tobacco warehouses and stemmeries were
located in Kinston at the turn of the century (Powell 1963).
At the start of World War II, the United
land on which Stallings Field was established and
Auxiliary Airfield. This field was later acquired b
County to use as a training ground for Air Force
currently part of the proposed Global Transpark I
this area.
e. Field Methodology
Mates Navy acquired the
used it as a Marine
y Kinston and Lenoir
pilots. This airfield is
hat is being developed in
The archaeological survey was designed to locate and assess any
archaeological resources along the entire length of the project, using a
combination of survey techniques consistent with the guidelines issued by
the Secretary of the Interior (48 FR 44716).
The entire length of the proposed project corridor was covered by
intensive visual inspection and pedestrian survey. Ground surface visibility
varied from 2040 percent in the ekposed plowed field areas to 0 percent in
the wooded areas. No subsurface testing was conducted. The total field
time spent on this project with a three-person team was approximately one
and a half hours.
Results
Intensive visual inspection and pedestrian survey within the project
area revealed that the majority of the project's corridor has been impacted
by residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as being
27
timbered in some areas. The cultivated areas which were surveyed by a
pedestrian walk-over did not locate any significant cultural resources.
From US 70 to A Street, both the east and west sides of US 258
have been impacted by commercial and residential development. Visual
inspection was conducted of this 2400-foot section of the project area. No
significant, intact cultural resources are likely to be located within this
section of the project area.
From A Street to Sand Clay Road, commercial, residential, and
industrial development has also impacted both the east and west side of
US 258. A field, which is located on the east side of US 258 in this vicinity,
was planted with corn, and the surface visibility was approximately 80-90
percent. No significant archaeological resources were identified during the
pedestrian survey of this field. The west side of US 258 was impacted by
commercial and residential development.
From Sand Clay Road to SR 1554 there is residential development
on both the east and west sides of US 258. Part of the eastern side in this
section was wooded and had been timbered. The right of way extends up
to the treeline, which is adjacent to US 258, but does not extend beyond it.
No archaeological resources were noted in this area.
From SR 1554 to SR 1557, there is commercial and residential
development on both the east and west sides of US 258. A portion of this
section, on the east side of US 258, is also wooded. The area which was
cultivated in corn had 90-100 percent visibility; however, the right of way
extends to the edge of the field adjacent to the east side of US 258. The
field on the west side of US 258 at the intersection of SR 1001 and US 258
was planted in wheat and surface visibility was 0 percent. Again, the right
of way extends to the edge of the field on the west side of US 258.
From the intersection of SR 1557 and SR 1001 to SR 1575, the
northern terminal of this project, there is residential and commercial
development on both the east and west sides of US 258. The likelihood of
finding intact archaeological resources within this area is very minimal.
g. Recommendations
Due to the extensive residential, commercial, and industrial
development which has impacted the majority of the project area, the
likelihood of intact archaeological resources is very low. The existing 100-
foot wide right of way had been previously dedicated. Portions of this
highway have been ditched on both the east and west sides, as well.
Therefore, much of the area adjacent to both the east and west sides of
US 258 has been impacted by this disturbance. No archaeological
resources were located during the course of this survey, most likely due to
the extensive development and consequent disturbance within the area of
potential effect. Therefore, additional archaeological testing is not
recommended for this project. The State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) has concurred with the findings of the archaeology report, see
page B-8 in the Appendix.
28
2. Architectural/Historical Resources
a. Purpose of Survey and Report
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended. The Phase
I survey of the project area was conducted and the results were compiled
to document compliance with these laws.
Methodology
NCDOT conducted this survey, which adheres to the requirements
of FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A; the Secretary of Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic Preservation; 36
CFR Part 800; 36 CFR Part 60; and Phase I (Reconnaissance) Survey
Procedures for Historic Architectural Resources by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
A comprehensive survey of Kinston was conducted in 1981. Both
the National Register for Historic Places and the State Study Lists were
consulted, and no known historic properties were identified. During the
scoping meeting held on September 23, 1993, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) named three historical properties that are in
the project vicinity but are not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places: the Sutton House, the John Henry Poole House and the Smith-
Poole House. The project area was surveyed in the field on March 7 and
March 30, 1994, by a NCDOT staff architectural historian.
C. Summary of Results of Phase I Survey
Three properties over fifty years of age are located within the area
of potential effect (APE): the John Henry Poole House, the Smith-Poole
House, and an unnamed house to be referred to hereafter as Property
Three. The architectural survey determined that the John Sutton House, a
historically significant property located in the project vicinity and identified
at the scoping meeting, is outside the APE. The John Henry Poole House
and the Smith-Poole House appear to be unchanged since the last time they
were evaluated for significance. Property Three, located on the west side
of US 258 280 meters (305 yards) north of SR 1005, is a single story,
frame, gable roofed house with aluminum siding, replacement windows,
and a new brick foundation wall. There is a standing seam metal roof, a
wraparound and a rear porch with turned balusters, and numerous rear
additions. Two outbuildings at the rear of the property are not
contemporary with the house, which appears to date from the first or
second decade of this century.
The John Henry Poole House, the Smith-Poole House, and
Property Three are not eligible for the National Register because they are
not significant examples of the forms that they represent. The houses have
been altered by the application of exterior wall coverings, window
replacements, and modern additions and have no special historical or
architectural significance.
29
d. Conclusions
The NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration have
determined that there are three buildings older than fifty years of age within
the APE; however, because they are not significant, a Phase II Survey to
determine the eligibility of these resources for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places will not be necessary. No further compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act is required. The SHPO has
concurred with these conclusions; see pages B-9 through B-10 in the
Appendix.
D. Impacts to Natural Resources
Methodoloav
Prior to field investigations for natural resources in the project area, research was
conducted by NCDOT biological staff. Information sources used in this pre- field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
(Falling Creek, NC), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Falling Creek, NC),
NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200), and Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) soil map of Lenoir County. Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993) and from the N.C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
(Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Lenoir County). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the
U.S. 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
biologist Lane Sauls on July 6 and July 12, 1994. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Tactile
searches for benthic organisms were administered, as well. 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).
2. Phvsical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna
in any biotic community.
Lenoir County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Providence. The topography
of this County is characterized by gentle contours and medium to wide interstream
divides.
a. Soils
Soils located along the project corridor are mainly those associated with
nearly level to gently sloping topography and medium to well drainage classes.
The Pocalla loamy sand series dominates the area. This Arenic Paleudult has
30
moderately rapid infiltration and slow runoff, as with the other soils found within
the vicinity. Table 3 provides an inventory of specific soil types which occur in the
project area.
Table 3. Soils in the Project Area
MAP UNIT
SYMBOL SPECIFIC
MAPPING UNIT PERCENT
SLOPE HYDRIC
CLASSIFICATION
Go Goldsboro loamy sand 0-2 -
Jo Johns sandy loam 0-2 B
Ka Kalmia loamy sand 0-2 B
Kb Kalmia loamy sand 2-6 -
Na Norfolk loamy sand 0-2 B
Po Pocalla loamy sand 0-6 B
Pr Portsmouth loam 0-1 A
Ra Rains sandy loam 0-1 A
St Stallings loamy sand 0-2 B
To Torhunta loam 0.4 A
Wn Woodin on loam sand 0-1 A
Note: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major component.
"B" denotes- soils with inclusions of hydric soils or which have wet spots.
b. 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.
Stream Characteristics
The proposed project is located in the Neuse River Basin. Two
small watersheds, each containing one perennial stream, border the project,
but they do not cross the project at any point. These streams, Falling
Creek and Briery Run, are tributaries to the Neuse River. Two unnamed
streams are located within the project boundary and serve as tributaries for
Falling Creek and Briery Run.
The first, a perennial stream, originates near the western boundary
of US 258 between Sand Clay Road and the railroad crossing and flows
parallel, southward, to a point between the railroad crossing and US 70,
where it turns eastward and is carried under US 258 by a pipe. The stream
is characterized by very slow moving water, and the corresponding width
and depth are 1 to 3 meters (3 to 10 feet) and less than 1 meter (3 feet),
respectively. Sedimentation is evident and channelization is man-induced.
The stream is primarily used to drain the surrounding agriculture fields.
31
The second, an intermittent stream, originates near the western
boundary of US 258 between SR 1573 and SR 1001 and flows eastward
under US 258 by means of a pipe. The intermittent stream is characterized
by water flow only under heavy rain conditions during the wet season.
When visited, the streambed was dry.
ii. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Unnamed tributaries in
the study area carry the same best usage classification as the streams to
which they are tributaries. 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
Falling Creek C Sw NSW
Brie Run C Sw NSW
Notes: C - Aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
Sw - Waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are
different from adjacent streams.
NSW -Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or
WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1
mile) of project study area.
iii. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is a
basin wide study which 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.
Some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are reflections of
water quality.
The project site is located on the western boundary of the Kinston
City Limits. No specific BMAN information is provided for the small
perennial and intermittent streams located within the corridor, but there is
information provided for areas along the Neuse River in either direction
from the project site. The BMAN estimation for areas between two known
sites should remain the same if conditions are alike at both sites.
Information concerning BMAN ratings are cited below in Table 5.
32
Table 5. BMAN Ratings for Sites Along Neuse River
SITE NO. LOCATION RATING
H Neuse River near Goldsboro Good
I Neuse River at Kinston Good
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit.
The NPDES does not list any dischargers for the intermittent and
perennial streams which flow through the proposed facility nor the adjacent
watersheds containing Falling Creek and Briery Run.
iv. Summarv of Anticipated Impacts
Construction-related impacts include reduced water quality,
increased sedimentation, toxic runoff, alterations of the water level due to
interruptions or increases in water flow, and the destruction of natural
substrate due to stream channelization. Reduced water quality results from
changes in turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient limitation.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
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 in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or which are likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study
area: (1) man-dominated mesic pine flatwood community; (2) mixed pine-
hardwood community; and (3) the roadside community. Community boundaries
are frequently ill-defined; contiguous communities generally merge without any
transition zone between them. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
33
All of these communities occur on relative fertile sites. These sites were
cleared long ago for agriculture and rural streetscape settings. In addition, these
communities are quickly invaded by hardwoods due to suppression of frequent,
low- intensity fires. The floral and faunal components associated with such
terrestrial areas relate directly to disturbed (mowed) and edge-type species, while
interior species occur in some of the larger pine-hardwood stands.
Dominant upper canopy species observed include loblolly pine (Pins
taeda), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), white oak (Q. albs), water oak (Q.
nigra), willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styrac flua), and sweetleaf (Symplocos tincloria).
Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), two species of greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia and S. bona-nox), wild grape (Yitis rotundifolia), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), huckleberry
(Gaylussacia frondosa), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), sweet
pepperbush (Clethra abnifolia), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) are the
dominant species comprising the middle and lower canopies.
Species which were observed in the herb layer included bracken fern
(Pteridium aquilinum), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (O.
regalis), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), meadow beauty (Rhexia spp.), dog-
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), fescue (Festuca spp.), cudweed (Gnaphalium
spp.), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana).
Few faunal species were observed during the visit. Reasons of such few
sightings were the time of day, time of year, and weather. However, bird species
such as the downy woodpecker (Dendrocopos pubescens), yellow bellied
sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), and carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) were all
observed.
Mammal species that are likely to frequent the project area include the
virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis
parva), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridmius), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and the white-
footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus).
Reptile species likely to be seen are the eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), black racer (Coluber constrictor), corn snake (Elaphe guttata), rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and the eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulris); these
species are generally found in the project area.
Other species, including amphibians, that would occasionally be seen are
the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus), oak toad (Bufo quercicus), southern toad (Bufo terrestris), and spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer). These species are primarily found in woodland, grassy
areas at or near fallen logs and other debris.
34
b. Aauatic Communities
Only one aquatic community type, the roadside disturbed community with
drainage ditches, will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of the water body and condition of the water resource reflect faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a
water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Roadside drainage ditches are located throughout the entire corridor along
US 258 and the railroad tracks. These ditch banks were originally intended to
have small variable slopes to encourage the flow of runoff without promoting
erosion. Presently, the ditch banks vary from steep, channelized gullies to gradual
depressions, which cannot hold any increased volume of water. Sedimentation is
evident in some areas near residential homes and businesses. Floral and faunal
species differ greatly from terrestrial communities in these areas due to the
emergence of water for most of the year. Floral species observed mainly in these
drainage ditches included black willow, cattail (Typha spp.), and others not
identifiable due to recent mowing by road maintenance crews.
The intermittent and perennial tributaries will be minimally impacted since
seasonal water flow is primarily perpendicular to the road. Box and pipe culverts
contain the water flow and transfer it under the road.
C. Summarv of Anticinated_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.
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 the disturbed communities. Table 6
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities that are
expected to result from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using
the entire proposed right of way width of 30.5 meters (100 feet).
Table 6. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
CommuNITY AREA of ANTICIPATED IMPACT
Roadside aquatic Community 0.7(l.8)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Community 0.2(0.6)
TOTAL IMPACTS 9.6 (23.7)
are
Potential impacts to the aquatic environment include increased
sedimentation, nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff from construction-related erosion.
35
Organisms that utilize the intermittent streams in the project area to
complete their life cycles can be affected by increased sedimentation, nutrient
runoff, and toxic runoff from construction-related erosion. These factors act to
decrease successful reproduction in individual species and decrease community
diversity. Other species which utilize these streams to forage are affected through
biomagnification of pollutants and loss of prey species.
Impacts to biotic communities will be significantly decreased if
construction is planned during the driest part of the year (summer). For most of
the summer the intermittent and perennial streambeds are either dry or barely
flowing, which will help to prevent large amounts of sedimentation from
overwhelming these streams. This also proves to be a time when the least amount
of impact will occur to streambanks and biotic communities.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
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 Study Area Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. The proposed project
contains drainage ditches which run parallel to US 258 and the railroad
tracks. In some areas they have all three criteria needed to be classified as
a wetland. These ditches provide habitat for aquatic vegetation but do not
concentrate standing water for most of the year. They provide
passageways to channelize runoff during heavy rain and flood conditions.
These drainage ditches eventually flow into Briery Run and Falling Creek.
ii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed project has the potential to
minimally impact jurisdictional wetlands located in the study area.
Anticipated impacts of less than 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) are expected to
occur with the filling of roadside ditches associated with the widening of
US 258.
36
iii. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5 (A)14 should be applicable to project U-2542. This permit requires:
(1) that all crossings be from high ground to high ground; (2) the width of
the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing; (3) the
fill placed in waters of the U.S. is limited to a filled area of no more than
1/3 acre; and (4) the crossing is culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed
to withstand, and to prevent the restriction of, expected high flows and the
movement of aquatic organisms.
iv. Avoidance. Minimization, Miti ag tion
Since the project is a symmetrical widening of an existing facility
requiring the acquisition of minimal amounts of additional right of way and
easements, impacts to wetlands are minimal. The project does not involve
any wetland beyond the bank-to-bank impact area. No mitigation is likely
to be required as a condition of the Section 404 permit. However, if
mitigation is required, NCDOT will develop mitigation plans in
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
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. It is
important to determine why these declines take place so that man may better
understand how to coexist with natural systems. 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
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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 March 28, 1995, the
FWS lists only the red-cockaded woodpecker {Picoides borealis) as a
federally Endangered species for Lenoir County. A brief description of the
red-cockaded woodpecker's characteristics and habitat follows.
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered
locations throughout the southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 cm long
with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. The male has a small red spot
on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black, while the cheeks
and under parts are white. Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on
the back.
37
Nesting habitat consists of open pine stands (minimum age 60
years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine).
Longleaf pine (Pins pahistris) is most commonly used, but other species
of southern pine are also acceptable. The home range for a clan (a family
unit) averages about 200 acres and includes nesting habitat as well as
foraging habitat. This bird requires pine or mixed pine/hardwood stands
(50 percent or more pine) 30 years or older for foraging. Foraging habitats
must be contiguous with nesting habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No EFFECT
Possible red-cockaded woodpecker habitat does exist within the
study area. Surveys using transects were conducted on a north/south axis.
No birds or cavity trees were seen on a 0.5 mile radius of the US 258
corridor. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project will not impact
the red-cockaded woodpecker.
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.
ii. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 4 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Lenoir 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 North
Carolina Heritage Program's 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.
Table 7 lists federal candidate species and the species state status (if
afforded state protection). This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
38
Table 7. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Lenoir County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT NC STATUS
Procambarus medialis Albemarle crayfish N ---
Amorpha giorgiana Georgia leadplant N E
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap N SC
S orobolus teretifolius* Wireleaf dro seed N T
NOTES: "*": Population not documented in Lenoir County in the past
twenty years;
"E": Endangered. Any species or higher taxon of plant or animal
whose continued existence as a viable component of the State
is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T": Threatened. Any resident species of plant or animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC": Special Concern. Any species of plant or animal in North
Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of (the
Plant Protection and Conservation Act)(GS 19B 106:202.12).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program's data base of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the
project study area.
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The City of Kinston and Lenoir County are both participants in the National Flood
Insurance Program. Limits of the 100-year floodplain are shown in Figure 7. The floodplain
areas in the vicinity of the project are quite developed (primarily residential), and many of the
homes and other buildings in the floodplain appear from field observations to have floor elevations
below the 100-year flood level. Every effort will be made in final hydraulic design to assess in
detail the existing flood conditions and, to the extent practicable, to provide for measures to
reduce flooding. The proposed roadway will not have any significantly adverse impact on the
existing floodplain.
The Neuse River Tributary, which crosses US 70 and the US 70 westbound right-turn lane
near the south project terminal, is included in the detailed Flood Insurance Study for Kinston and
therefore has an established 100-year floodway at this crossing. This study indicates that the
US 70 westbound right turn ramp is currently just overtopped by the 100-year flood (but not by
the 50-year design flood). Raising the roadway grade to extend the existing culvert at this
location may require supplementation of the existing culvert or a floodway modification in order
to prevent a substantial increase in the 100-year flood elevation and the corresponding flood
hazards above the existing conditions. If a floodway modification is deemed necessary, NCDOT
will coordinate with the appropriate agencies.
39
F. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. These
soils are designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Land which has been developed or
which is committed to urban uses is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The proposed
improvement will occur largely within the existing highway right of way. Where the acquisition
of additional right of way is required, the land is zoned for industrial and businesses. Therefore,
no further consideration of potential impacts to farmland soils is required.
G. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of US 258
in Lenoir County on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels
in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise
levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project.
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway
traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
1. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants; and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the,
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBAs. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1 (see Appendix, page A-1).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
40
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that individuals
have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than others, and some
individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also
enter into an individual's judgment of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example,
noises occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more offensive than
the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an
unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background
noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car
horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals.
In a 60-dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible, while sleep might be
difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by loud
noises, while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix, page A-2). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which, in a given situation and time
period, has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same
energy content.
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels (see Table N3, page A-3 in the Appendix). The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq
noise level along US 258 as measured at 15 meters from the roadway ranged from 66.3
dBA to 69.4 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for comparison
with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 0.4
dBA to 2.9 dBA of the measured noise levels on US 258. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus
the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
41
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
in general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables which
describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA- RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model
uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and
height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was available for
use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the current two-lane highway to
a five-lane curb and gutter facility from US 70 to SR 1575. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents
the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level of service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were.used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2017. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30,
60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were determined by the changes in
projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The
result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4
(see Appendix, page A4 through A-8). Information included in these tables consist of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise
levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 (see Appendix, page A-9).
These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 108 residential receptors and 3 commercial receptors
were determined to be impacted by highway traffic noise. Other information included in
Table N4 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the
42
proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Table N6 (see Appendix, page A-9) indicates the exterior traffic noise level
increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level
increases for this project range from +3 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is
possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily
noticeable. A 10-dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the
loudness of the sound.
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 (see page A-2) value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing
noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion
of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category. There are 111 impacted receptors in the project area. A
noise barrier was considered; however, a noise wall would not be able to produce
sufficient reduction in noise levels in the project area. Therefore, the cost per benefited
receptor was too costly to recommend construction of a noise wall. Noise barriers are
further discussed in Section IV.G.5.c.
a. Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation
of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs.
The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider
the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental
parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a
matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas.
Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement for
this project.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and
time of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project,
however, management measures are not considered appropriate for noise
abatement due to their effect on the capacity and level of service on the proposed
roadway.
C. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate- anticipated traffic noise levels can often be
applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass,
attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise
emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls.
The project will not maintain any control of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residences will have direct access connections to
the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
43
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a
barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the
distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15
meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An
access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73- 7976-1,
USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments normally
require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic
noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities and, thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in their case. ,
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are feasible,
and none are recommended for this project.
6. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 47 residential and commercial
receptors would experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the
FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior
noise levels in the range of +2 to +6 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more readily
noticed.
7. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the
effects of intrusive construction noise.
8. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
44
H. Air Quality Anal
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common outdoor air
pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air
conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead
(Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major
source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The local
concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity
(i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background concentration is
defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the
local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air
Quality Staff using line source computer modeling, and the background concentration was
obtained from the DEHNR. Once the two concentration components were resolved, they were
added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with
,sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution
control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind
of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area
mix together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution
is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter
emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning of
regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is
added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters
45
burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The
overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.5 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite
average had dropped to 0.0025 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are expected to
decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or
lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected
that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology
For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a
level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors,
and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average
daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the CAL3QHC model was the highest
volume within any alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the
completion year of 1997 and the design year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source
Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.9 parts per
million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor # 106 at a distance of 23
m from the proposed centerline of the median. The "build" and "no build" one-hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1997 and 2017 are shown in the
following table.
Table 8. Air Quality: One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
NEAREST SENSITIVE BUILD NO BUILD
RECEPTOR
1997 2017 1997 2017
R-106 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.8
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum permitted for
1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of
these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can
be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al through A4
(pages A-10 through A-13 in the Appendix) for input data and output.
The project is located in Lenoir County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
46
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the greatest practical
distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also during construction,
measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
Hazardous Materials
1. Underground Storage Tanks
Based upon the field reconnaissance survey and the file search at the N.C. Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) Groundwater Section, five (5) facilities with the
potential for underground storage tank (UST) involvement were identified within the
project area:
RAILWAY LOUNGE (UST Owner. Unknown)
This facility (Facility ID unknown) is located on the west side of US 258
approximately 33.5 meters (110 feet) north of the Atlantic and East Carolina
Railroad/US 258 intersection. An abandoned pump island in front of the building
is approximately 19.2 meters (63 feet) west of the centerline of the highway.
There is some evidence to indicate that two USTs may have been removed from
this site. An area of disturbed soil is present on the south side of the building
where the tank pit is suspected. The vent pipes are still in place. No information
on the size, contents or construction of the tanks is available at this time.
FRESHWAY No. 776 (UST Owner: Freshway, Inc., Greenville, NC)
This facility (Facility ID 0-024845) is located in the southwest quadrant of
the intersection of US 258 and SR 1546 (Banks School Road). There are three
gasoline USTs (15.15-4000, 37.88-10,000, and 37.88-10,000 kiloliters-gallons)
and one diesel UST (15.15 kiloliters, 4000 gallons) registered with the DEM at
this facility. The gasoline USTs are located approximately 19.8 meters (65 feet)
west of the US 258 centerline. The remaining tanks are located 22.3 meters (73
feet) from the US 258 centerline and 61 meters (200 feet) south of the SR 1546
centerline. All tanks are of steel construction with no cathodic protection. Tank
installation was completed during October, 1986.
MoRoco (Abandoned Station; UST Owner: Unknown)
This facility (Facility ID unknown) is located in the northeast quadrant of
the intersection of US 258 and SR 1638 (Random Road). There is evidence that
one UST is present at this site. However, there is an area of disturbed asphalt and
soil in the location of the tank pit, possibly indicating its removal. The disturbed
area is approximately 22.6 meters (74 feet) east of the centerline of US 258 and
18.6 meters (61 feet) north of SR 1638. Behind the building is what appears to be
a fill cap, indicating the presence of an additional UST. A description of the
UST(s) contents, size, and construction is not available at this time.
47
SMITH AND BARROW (UST Oiviier: Mallard Oil Co., Killslow, NQ
This facility (Facility ID 0-002228) is located in the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of US 258 and SR 1005 (Smith Farm Road). Two gasoline USTs
(15.15-4000, 7.58-2000 kiloliters-gallons), one oil UST (15.15 kiloliters, 4000
gallons), and one kerosene UST (7.58 kiloliters, 2000 gallons) registered with the
DEM were present at this facility. In March, 1993 all tanks were removed. The
site is currently under remediation with four monitoring wells, installed in
September, 1993, in place. The monitoring wells are located west of the centerline
of US 258 between the roadway and the Smith and Barrow building. Distances
from the centerline to the wells range from 14.9 to 27.1 meters (49 to 89 feet).
FRESHWAY No. 774 (UST Owner: Freshway, Inc., Greetiville, NQ
This facility (Facility ID 0-002107) is located southeast of the intersection
of US 258 and SR 1575 (Poole Rd.). There are four gasoline USTs (15.15
kiloliters, 4000 gallons each) registered with the DEM at this facility. They are of
steel construction with no cathodic protection. The tanks are located south of the
Freshway building, approximately 24.7 meters (81 feet) east of the centerline of
US 258. Installation of the tanks was completed during April, 1980.
NCDOT will require some additional right of way from the abandoned Moroco
station (See Figure 3, sheet 3 of 6). NCDOT's Geotechnical Unit will conduct a site
assessment to determine if there is any soil or groundwater contamination within the
proposed right of way at this location before any right of way is purchased.
2. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The files of the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Sections of the Division of
Solid Waste Management were consulted to determine if any unregulated dump sites or
other potentially contaminated properties exist within project limits. Based on those
records and the EPA's Superfund list, there are no potential environmental problem sites
expected to affect the project.
Geotechnical Impacts
1. Phvsioaraphv. Relief, and Drainage
The project corridor is located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Relief is nearly level
to gently sloping, dissected by shallow drainageways with steep banks. Drainage in the
protect corridor varies from well to excessively drained soils in the southern half of the
project limits to somewhat poorly drained in the northern section. The project area is
drained by several small tributaries of Falling Creek. Stream flow is generally south-
southeastward. Seasonal high water table is at the surface in the vicinity of these creeks.
2. Geoloav and Soils
Subsurface structures are from the Peedee Formation, which is composed of
unconsolidated sand, clayey sand, and clay. The formation is massive, glauconitic, locally
fossiliferous, and calcareous, with patches of molluscan-mold limestone in the upper parts.
48
Soils within project limits are from three local soil associations: the Pocalla-
Wagram-Lakeland, the Kalmia-Johns-Kenansville, and the Torhunta-Lumbee. The first
two soil associations are characterized by gray and brown silty sands with various amounts
of clay. Torhunta-Lumbee soils are dark gray sandy silts with various amounts of fines and
organics. These soils are found primarily along stream banks.
Engineering properties throughout the project limits indicate a low shrink-swell
potential and a high degree of corrosivity to concrete. Excavated soils are suitable for
roadfill, except those removed from stream banks. The degree of limitations and soil
features affecting the usage for local thoroughfares is primarily slight. Poor drainage and
the potential for flooding increase these limitations in areas from moderate to high.
AASHTO classifications for soils within the project corridor are A-2 and A-4, with
varying degrees of prominence.
3. Mineral Resources
There are no mineral resources of economic significance known to be present
within the vicinity of this proposed construction.
4. Erosion Control
The potential for erosion is expected to be slight to moderate along the
project corridor due to high soil-water content. Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project in order to minimize impacts
to water resources in the study area.
5. Groundwater
The groundwater table throughout the project corridor is at depths of less than five
feet. Groundwater infiltration in excavated areas is expected to be moderate to high due to
the high soil-water content.
K. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following measures,
along with those already mentioned, will be enforced during the construction phase.
I . All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health and safety will
not be compromised during the movement of any materials to and from construction sites
along the project and that any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a
minimum.
2. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the safety and
general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or appearance of
any public or private properties.
3. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees, including those of the N.C. State Board of Health
regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid waste will be disposed of in accordance
with the Standard Specifications of the Division of Highways. These specifications have
been reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of
Health Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
49
4. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas provided by the contractor outside of
the right of way unless otherwise required by the plans or Special Provisions or unless
disposal within the right of way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste and debris
in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the
engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
5. An extensive rodent control program will be established if structures are to be
removed or demolished.
6. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in
service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before construction is started, a
preconstruction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the
Division of Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures. This
conference will include a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during construction
to minimize interruption of water service.
7. Prior to construction, it will be determined whether any existing utilities in the
project area need to be relocated or adjusted. At that time it will also be determined
whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this work.
8. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be burned, removed from the project, or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning is be done at the
greatest distance practicable form dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such
as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
9. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor before work is
started. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases of the work which
must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe construction practices and
temporary erosion control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow
those provisions of the specifications which pertain to erosion and siltation. These
contract provisions are in accordance with the strict erosion control measures as outlined
in the U. S. Department of Transportation's 23 CFR 650 Subpart B. Temporary erosion
control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as
needed.
10. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect on any
known district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in 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.
11. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to brief disruption
during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during and after construction.
50
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal. State, and Local A eg ncies
The project has been coordinated with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies.
Comments were received from the following agencies:
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) -
Office of Policy Development
N.C. DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B (see pages B-1 through B-
23).
B. Citizen Informational Workshop
A Citizen Informational Workshop was held on January 11, 1994 in the cafeteria of Banks
Elementary School, located on Banks School Road (SR 1546) west of the subject project.
Including representatives of the NCDOT, approximately 100 people attended the meeting. A
media alert advertising the meeting is included in Appendix C (see page C-1).
NCDOT officials presented the proposed improvements, widening US 258 to a five-lane
curb and gutter section from US 70 to SR 1575, and three alternative treatments of the crossing
of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad. The proposed right of way limits for an at-grade
crossing (the improvement recommended in this report), a grade-separation with a temporary
construction detour on the west side of US 258, and a grade-separation with a temporary
construction detour on the east side of US 258 were presented.
Each attendee was given the opportunity to review maps showing the proposed roadway
and to ask questions and make comments. In addition, handouts were provided to all meeting
attendees. Each handout contained a comment sheet which could be completed and submitted to
the Division of Highways. A copy of this handout is included in Appendix C (see pages C-2
through C-6).
Comments received on the proposed improvements were generally favorable. Most who
attended the workshop felt that the proposed roadway widening is needed. An article that
appeared in the Kinston Daily Free Press following the workshop is found in Appendix C (see
page C-7).
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the completion of this document to provide
additional information on the proposed project to local citizens and to gather further input.
MAD/plr
51

t i
I r. O
-00Z
con ? ?• a.
o.
? -n U3
CD 0 :3
-?
-i
-v o a z ?.
cQ•
-
ZC
c mom
,
zm-4 t
n
o o? m0
cn
°
o-?CA
01
C?Dooo CD
h 3
? n (D
om
00
NCj
Z al O
N
CIt
'?
O, N
? O

O ca
0

-n
G

r
m
z
O
n
0
C
Z
?-W???z
Department of Environment, Health, and Na •',rai- Rs-sources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: / Q Date Response Due (firm deadline):
d Q o?? e'' -J o? `G 6y 1 1
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
11 Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
?Groundwater
ildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster

? Wilmin
ton ? Coastal Management Consultant ?? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
g ? Others ?Kr6prn6ntal Management RECEIVED
? Winston-Salem PVVS iO-e , S w i h a r t
J??.. U. 1 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
1
r" eg?' 44-
V r
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
o objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
FAXED
HtIUKN IU:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104
-PHOTOS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 258, at Southern Terminal
(US 70), Facing North
US 258, at Atlantic and E2Gt Carolina
Railroad Crossing. Facing North

US 258, at Northern Terminal
(SR 1575), Facing South
TIP PROJECT U-2642
FIGURE 2
r ?--- ? E
I { 7
i? R k ''\ 1 r
k r CRESCENT
k k k R k ????? {{ r
3 k
k k k R R h k \\\?````` ?? `?
k k R k k k R R k \\pO\\\\\\ • j /\ ? tl tCn - ? ,`?,
R R R' R \\\\\\\ y• O E A r
I h? R ?, 1 r- e
! r R k k 1
a ,. k k R C e. E
k IF
k' N i +M p
R R , '
_ R t
W? k k R R k k R N e i ?? .? 1
1? 7 R h k R F
!k ? ' ?k kt k R k k k k k R IF R C k k k k- "E
k IF
R k k .:E
t k' IF
R R k '! r r '
IF
•: ? k R k s?
7 \
• E ` yC k R k R k k• wE fj
E ?rj R F k. R k t
R
R ? R k i
k ® 1
" r mat ?.!+?. R R ? i • E- e
a •t R R k k
yy t' R R -? R k k k
IF v
SMALL RD. E k -
i - ?s9 t ? ? j ka ?. ' 1 _
S {? S ?t RI r '" _? t I
r v ?: i.. r R1 r
z ?' .E i !? E R I RD
k k/ i
R
jk
k { R
t
k
t h
k +
r h
0
Imo-- ? •? ?
5
• e, e
20 z
t.n
z t '1 °?? ?? D g.
F
e
m
Q.
W
E O ?
E ?- N
- N
V
r ,
1
I .
1 '
?Ddti
i
(ro ,
t
-I
I
F I
I
Y L?
i
)77
C
r +I E ,r _
E

1? / S f r
R ? k ''•.y j ? __ - - WAIL RD. J G
AC
?: R R ? i Tp
11 IF
k 4+
r' k •
R k 'F ? e
/ ' R k k k ? _ i .. ?'C4
It `r t
IF 11 x
g 2 O? jp/r k R k IF G -1 0 -o{ .?M1 C
/1t _ ?-a-1 k m .'O m .?
?./J Z 3 1.1 ?1 R R k R k
rn
(yz, i
m o m o x l k k O z x z a x !t r
??
A r\ O n cp o IF
m a R R R R k R n n .. N O a r!
Z i m m GA k R ? ! R IF k R?. m C pp c r 1
1
Z I? OO +/n? R R R R O
D? m
co m m
Z-D X -n 6)
_ D =? = D ,. (= o off,, ?.R_.« .o °.?Ii!i; 14vQ 01111111 600 ICI.
/?
Z/,5 rn
W z , r 1¦ r{! i {??Il?t II;;I.+i !1 t t{ ?Ifnll?tl ?IIII? i t i?
f a7 = _- i ¦ o I e I t 1Jill
D?rn - ? ==g s t
ZD
_ . s sn
(D
I US 258
TIP PROJECT NO. U-2542
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRA FFIC ( 11000
YEAR 2000
WITHOUT GTP
100 600
ON EXISTING ROADS
(
)
('500
11400
2640 9280

6640
15400 (.
6990 122 3600
SR 1001
22901 (800 ??
\0
1 13670
2
104,0 J ?-o0
1300) ( 6660
SR 1554
15490
2970) 120 960
o?
h
6770 32001 240
15840
5220) (10280
27190
32250
SR 1575
SR 1573
1919 rss>
SR 1553
US 70
FIGURE 5A
i US 258
TIP PROJECT NO. U-2542
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
116160
YEAR 2000
WITH GTP
f ?? oso
(ON EXISTING ROADS)
SR 1001
2 o
171001
5380
6670
18390
8010 152 5180
3060
12050
2870)1(900
sa 1554
O
117500
3
131 00
ao5°
1500) (7 680
19270
140 1090
4660
fro
h
8770 3440 ) (270
18180
6160 )1 ? 10940
29210
33990
SR 1575
SR 1573
S,p r
SR 1553
US 70
FIGURE 56
20500
TIP PROJECT NO. U-2542 L
1100
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC N co 21 pp SR 1575
YEAR 2020 (1000 SQ' 153 RO•
WITHOUT GTP goo S Fp,FtM
I20600
2j p0??
(WITH R-2719A AND R-2553 IN PLACE)
6710
6670
(5810
200
SR 1001
Q ?
ON
WCE?
M
aW N
?c•o
a. w a
o: a-
0 E=
O
13230
6640 200) 4230
2020 ? (770
029
SR ? 554
SR 1546
7450
111590
160!) 200
2140) (2640
1 14570
2980) 1190
3540) (370
15310
o
c+?
!0
0
N
8140 ) 7930
9\
\ O
42,
1490
US 70
o 26110 25900
PROPOSED US 70 BYPASS
\ (TIP Project R-2553)
019 fss>
SR 1546
FIGURE 5C
US 258
TIP PROJECT NO. U-2542
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 133970
YEAR 2020
WITH GTP
(WITH R-2719A AND R-2553 IN PLACE)
11000
9570
( 11680
3050
ry0
w qO/ 11 28130
5950 l V1 S? 153 F;p'
SR 1001 11190 190) 6450
zo S F PRO
5$/ vo
so
r\
' (2sooo
1 lb,
a0)
W 0 N 3600) 200
'
0 Z 10 -??
1 4740 } /-
( 5300
?
w.^
°
a 554
SR 1
w
0- W ( 135240
Or F-
0-
SR 1546 856oJ 260
14800 4940) (530
31890
0
It
00
v
16450
J 13060
0 40820
\ ?- PROPOSED US 70 BYPASS
(TIP Project R-2553
? 1 )
37430
2090
US 70
sq ?
SR 1546
FIGURE 5D
a m
Om m CO
a Lij
cr-
O cm
clq LLI 0
p LL
W
7
O a 0
Oz
cc a
a a:-
co C)
?Q
7
LL
O
i-
2
C'3
Er
c)
z
x
w
0
0
O
N
+.
W
U
O
W
a
U.
N
of
m
Cfi
ri
ci
<p
O
N ??
v
H
W
s 2
LLI
N'a
CV v
?a
N z
? m
- w
e-
N ??
N

v T-
w

uj
_
I in C)

AL -7il- 4. z
oa
am
,..

°o v Z CD
%
co -0
CL a:
w
O
m m
a
0
z
z
u.i
0
LU
a
O
m
CL
z
O
F--
U
?w
V
J
Q
U_
a.
w
Cl)
0
I.d.
O
ac
CL
l
---?--
? i
! •I • \ Bible J
USGS FALLING CREEK QUADRANGLE Ch.
T . I . P . PROJECT U-2542 H;4I\
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY .? 1 BM END PROJECT
• ? ac
LEGEND
"Tay ors.
Proposed Widening / e 1
Floodplain Limits
I t ? 1
54
161V 1. M S-0
... j .. t X1557
V' ' (• , ` ??/q i ?, 1 ?, ??, 1 I ?, ?.? 1,
/ . ••• •• / :? ?%? ??? ?..• ,•? ?? 1/ ..• ? 1552. 1,
V- CernL
e 1 l_ __? ? ? i . •-??;;=^.Aemt011.0wEt8 ? ??, ?
(WIC - v _
X" SMIX .8 Ch\-
.•"?•r",• .29.8 •' ;.•;= /
-16
\ Church of the - ?. = Sewage Oispmal
15
165 • 6l - `
t - .?• __ . - .. ! A71AN>7C 5.4? _
LOU
ii _ ANp
.". am FA
I t 15x8d
??• 1552 ? • I
wesrAew
..??, t •.,,?
•fLb•?•-
'??. ? ? -? 1 \ .tai . ?• •e.-? '
`` 1 I! ^i `,f ??_ = a Temple Israel 1? ?,'3f• (1111Q
` Cem
70
rrr
• _ ' BEGIN PROEJCT
r ` J' ' 1 h TIP Project U-2542
er" Grow;
Approximate 100-Year
`h ' j ----Corn
Floodplain Limits
M? ; ?, :.,;` \- -_ - Figure 7
' r __ \.? ?c ? 111} `?. ?= e ? '- y . ? ` ' •\ `
LIM _ '? - ?•
1131 1 craavoedl w . ., ?" d 7
10 , ° ??`? ? I71? ^ -.'1' .ft J.1'2 11.41 ? Mi ?101 W" 1 / / 1!?3 .' ? tk109 \ ?- .7 119! ? 1?1• ?
rlw'e? =r ali / LM Q§.A >d 1331 y Ill , nav es J
112! ?? )1!1'' - KQ`y ,3 .r s
ink 12]2 .:L e 1112 a Sr0 / •tit' COj111 ' 11 14= 7a y `a5: `I 1701 110.
1.4 '° ?, 1, ' 1?i ?y2r Gaueadr ?Dle .1
1222 ° RL 117! 31 3 ? ir/ i `• t tJ'. 7?'? • UL. 11
t !{
1714
YdikM • 1Y3 31? ? ? ? SfoarnD Gwuaadi ?_
Kinston Regional jetport EA,
s •? i?'s sp-,i cam. r5 ?i • . . _
1 1.0 T
,.I..b9n,1 (Proposed GTP) ,
i i
117 ?114:.1 I; M ./? .r. ? 1 t • ,.6 1L y Crmroadr Sla,,.. ? i.
Jl2J ?iav 1i11 / ?! ]71,1¢ 'r ?o V ?
Proposed Crescent Road
' Proposed Crescent Road s''d 917 •.
4, (TIP Project R-2719A) IYI ?? ? ? ?z e`' ? y' (TIP Project R-27190)
° s I43R p + "' `? b ° ti Cif FUSE,
1lordial `° @ _
I .112?: /` 12i! L \ : ? 1 ro9. W ?%'
14.12 J - /
1348 a cV
.... ' 1411 ci',• ,? i' Uft
y -' Proposed Crescent Road ? . PAS PAS s .00
(TIP Project R-27198 9 A 13
Rua ,
V LM
r
'...6 '
Proposed US 258 w 1:R4 1
??, ?,, UWide
Project 2542g ,
N
t2? f
1 • i,
O? ? 1 17
coo
1221 _1324 yew/ God
Q a.1e? Dw•..ri4 • ,.. > 1 G.wwM 14a . e'c
KELLY 1!1 1 ? n -'•efw ' ?. r S ?c?.
Jain POND
HI ,t. as fi y/ YVr. frk ., .31 ,o -
4 ? 11H , .Q ?].?
1 W ?.
All i. .• r 1113 ` .u ?, sffiJI ' no tom'.
off, I IM
fs fir= 17ls yQ ti It!t ILA , ? I? loot l
aera. /- 0 /
iuz ' A14d11am j 1fII1 j '
Proposed US 7o Bypass '
10 0
slow ? .7 (TIP Project R-2553)
T-. Gooreed? ='• .11 lLR4 / 1411 1112 1 , 13L4
1I2k 112! v raf ' Wmipral I:e t, a 1 L7os M 1
1IN u ,
?lJ>! y 1111 1 ? t ! lRRt ? ? •;,3 .? J? '1002
llg ll>f .
?? -
lII d1 lust • JJI 1141 1?1 2
o ! 1. e• ?+_.... rfr ...am
? 1 r 0 d3?
ll ; LIP
1A L2 1"I
ink 1112 4s 1 ' \
_ 1>Z!
1=5
1L 1let 'J ~ un lg !ta • 1111 ,na GMft 1i'. o '
A 122
Ia1 Go /
1H2 law i ?
all un X131 Proposed US 258 Widening •,? Sam
It :+ (TIP Project R-2235) X4`0 ' - . „N ;. lal s
112! 117i 4 :r J]2t ? ti ?S 'A "q ,?.
UK .i o - "` i•
Proposed NC 11 Widening
(TIP Project R-2001)
- nt 1'!•
,, X24 "-

LM
1121 i
RIO
Other TIP and GTP Related
Projects in the Kinston Area
Scale: 1 inch = 2 miles
TIP Project U-2542 Fig. 8
< ? u mllll.? ?l??..?r -
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

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

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

90
D Diesel track 65 kmh 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Z Passenger car 80 kmh 15 a away MODERATELY LOUD

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

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
e
Sources: -World Hook, Rand McNally Atlas of the.•Suman Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. S. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Runt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A-1
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
.(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands,. properties, or activities not included in Categories A or H above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting roams, schools„ churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
S
Existing Noise Level Inc--ease in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels ,
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-2
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
US 258,Rinston, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project # 8.1200401, TIP i U-2542
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dRh)
1. US 25, 506 Meters North of SR 1526 Grassy 66
2. US 258, 182 Meters North of SR 1553 Grassy 66
3. US 258, 231 Meters South of SR 1557 Grassy 69
Note: The ambient noise level sites Mere measured at 15 maters from the
center:of the nearest lane of traffic.
A-3
TABLE N4
•
Laq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 258, Kinston, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project / 8.1200401, TIP 9 U-2542
1/5
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID i LAND USE CATEGORY NAME OLTMUCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIKUM INCREASE
??ddddd??dddA ddb ?ddd0 Od4Addddddd?? da?????
US 256, Prom US 70 to SA 1546
1 Business C us 256 35.0 L 61 US 258 35.0 L - - 68 + 7
2 Business C 50.0 R 58 to 50.0 R - - 65 + 7
2A Business C ^ 51.0 R 57 to 51.0 R - - 65 + 8
3 Business C to 25.0 L 63 to 25.0 L - - * 71 + 8
4 Business C " 26.0 L 63 to 26.0 L - - 70 + 7
5 Business C to 44.0 L 59 of 44.0 L - - 66 + 7
6 Residence B to 42.0 L 59 to 42.0 L - - * 66 + 7
7 Residence B to 32.0 R 61 to 32.0 R - - * 69 + 8
8 Residence B „ 31.0 L 62 to 31.0 L - - * 69 + 7
9 Residence B ^ 35.0 R 61 of 35.0 R - - * 68 + 7
10 Residence B to 32.0 L 61, to 32.0 L - - * 69 + 8
li Residence B to 33.0 R 61 to 33.0 R - - * 69 + 8
midence B " 32.0 L 61 " 32.0 L - - * 69 + e
13 Residence a to 34.0 R 61 to 34.0 R - - * 68 + 7
14 Residence B it 31.0 L 62 ^ 31.0 L - - * 69 + 7
/5 Residence B to 34.0 R 61 to
34.0
R -
- * 68
+
7
:6 Residence B of 37.0 L 60 to 37.0 L - - * 68 + e
:7 Residence B « 37.0 L 60 to 37.0 L - - * 68 + 8
18 Residence B to 31.0 L 62 of 31.0 L - - * 69 + 7
:9 Residence B to 38.0 R 60 to 38.0 R - - * 67 + 7
20 Residence B ^ 35.0 R 61 of 35.0 R - - * 68 + 7
21 Business C to 33.0 L 61 M 33.0 L - - 69 + 8
22 Residence B to 35.0 R 61 of 35.0 R - - * 68 + 7
23 Business C to 35.0 L 61 to 35.0 L - - 68 + 7
24 Business C to 50.0 L 58 to 50.0 L - - 65 + 7
25 Business - C to 78.0 R 53 to 78.0 R - - 60 + 7
26 Business C " 40.0 L 59 to 40.0 L - - 67 + 8
27 Business C to 117.0 R 49 N 117.0 R - - 56 + 7
_8 Business C of 174.0 R 44 to 174.0 R - - 51 + 7
29 Business C to 41.0 L 59 to 41.0 L - - 67 + 8
30 Business <.C to 20.0 L 65 to 20.0 L * 72 + 7
U Business C to 55.0 A 57 ^ 55.0 R - - 64 + 7
12 Business C ^. 74.0 R 54 to 74.0 R - - 61 + 7
3 Business C to 35.0 L 61 to 35.0 L - - 68 + 7
t4 Business C to 28.0 R 62 ^ 28.0 R - - 70 + 8
t5 Church E 57.0 L 56/<40 to 57.0 L - - 64/<40 + 8/0
5 0--siness C to 37.0 R 60 to 37.0 R - - 68 + 8
'-.E: Distances are from center of the existin g or proposed roadways. -L-,> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise im pact (per 23 CPR Part 772 ).

A-4
TABLE N4
(cont'd) 2/5
* Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 258, Tinton, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project 1 8.1200401, TIP Y U-2542
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR nmFd4ATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 4 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
sasmtaaaaaaae ss?maeaaos aa? aaaasassva?s e?.eowwaassoa away
US 258, From US 70 to SR 1546 (coat.)
37 Business C US 258 43.0 L 59 US 258 43.0 L - - 66 + 7
38 Residence B ^ 23.0 R 54 ^ 23.0 R - - * 71 + 7
39 Residence H ^ 48.0 R 58 ^ 48.0 R - - 65 + 7
40 Residence B ^ 47.0 L 58 ^ 47.0 L - - 65 + 7
41 Residence B ^ 45.0 R 58 ^ 45.0 R - - • 66 + 8
42 Residence B ^ 46.0 R 58 ^ 46.0 R - - * 66 + 8
43 Residence a ^ 38.0 L 60 ^ 38.0 L - - * 67 + 7
44 Residence B ^ 47.0 R 58 ^ 47.0 R - - 65 + 7
45 Residence a ^ 38.0 L 60 ^ 38.0 L - - * 67 + 7
46 Residence a ^ 46.0 L 58 ^ 46.0 L - - * 66 + 8
47 Residence B ^ 46.0 R 56 ^ 46.0 R - - * 66 + 8
48 Residence B ^ 46.0 R 56 ^ 46.0 R - - * 66 + 8
Residence B ^ 44.0 L 59 ^ 44.0 L - - * 66 + 7
_ Residence B ^ 50.0 R 58 ^ 50.0 R - - 65 + 7
51 Residence H ^ 45.0 L Se ^ 45.0 L - - * 66 + 8
52 Residence B ^ 45.0 R 58 ^ 45.0 R - - * 66 + 8
53 Residence B ^ 46.0 L 58 ^ 46.0 L - - * 66 + 8
54 Residence H ^ 47.0 L 58 ^ 47.0 L - - 65 + 7
55 Residence B ^ 45.0 R 58 ^ 45.0 R - - * 66 + 8
56 Residence B ^ 48.0 L 58 ^ 48.0 L - - 65 + 7
57 Residence B ^ 45.0 R 58 ^ 45.0 R - - * 66 + 8
58 Residence B ^ 45.0 L 58 ^ 45.0 L - - * 66 + 8
59 Residence B ^ 45.0 L 58 ^ 45.0 L - - * 66 + 8
60 Residence a ^ 43.0 R 59 ^ 43.0 R - - * 66 + 7
61 Residence B ^ 47.0 L 58 ^ 47.0 L - - - 65 + 7
62 Residence a B ^ 40.0 L 59 ^ 40.0 L - - • 67r + 8
63 Residence B ^ 42.0 R 59 ^ 42.0 R - - • 66 + 7
- 64 Residence B ^ 43.0 R 59 ^ 43.0 R - - * 66 + 7
65 Residence B ^ 42.0 R 59 ^ 42.0 R - - • 66 + 7
66 Residence B ^ 44.0 L 59 ^ 44.0 L - - * 66 + 7
67 Residence B ^ 40.0 L 59 ^ 40.0 L - - * 67 + 8
68. Residence a ^ 40:0 R 59 " .40.0 -.'R - - - * 67 + 8
69 Residence B ^ 40.0 R 59 ^ 40.0 R - - * 67 + 8
70 Residence + H ^ 40.0 R 59 ^ 40.0 R - - * 67 + 8
71 Business C ^ 37.0 L 60 ^ 37.0 L - - 68 + 8
72 Business C ^ 35.0 L 61 ^ 35.0 L - - 68 + 7
73 Business C ^ 42.0 ' R 59 ^ 42.0 R - - 66 + 7
lusiness C ^ 48.0 R 58 ^ 48.0 R - - 65 + 7
vOTE: Distances are from center of the existin g or Proposed roadways. -L-" Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels- -Y-.> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Categort E noise l evels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). ! ^> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-5
TABLE N4
(cont'd)
} Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 258, Kinston, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project 8 8.1200401, TIP X U-2542
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID Y LAND USE CATEGORY
?___===??YOOA NAME DISTANCE (m)
==?aYa000= LEVEL
=OO NAME
0Y4 DISTANCE (m)
O4R==OY
US 258, From US SR 1546 to SR 1554
75 Church E US 258 56.0 L 57/<40 US 258 56.0 L
76 School E " 78.0 L 53/<40 " 78.0 L
76A Playground a " 78.0 L 53 " 78.0 L
77 Residence B " 42.0 R 59 ^ 42.0 R
78 Residence B ^ 42.0 R 59 ^ 42.0 R
79 Residence B „ 43.0 R 59 " 43.0 R
80 Residence B " 45.0 R 59 •' 45.0 R
81 Residence B ° 42.0 R 59 ^ 42.0 R
82 Residence B » 42.0 R 59 ^ 42.0 R
63 Business C ^ 35.0 R 61 " 35.0 R
84 Residence 8 ^ 38.0 L 60 ^ 38.0 L
85 Residence B ^ 43.0 R 59 " 43.0 R
Residence B " 35.0 L 61 ^ 35.0 L
Residence a ^ 45.0 R 59 " 45.0 R
88 Residence 8 = 36.0 L 61 " 36.0 L
89 Residence a " 44.0 R. 59 " 46.0 R
90 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 ^ 37.0 L
91 Residence 8 '• 44.0 R 59 ^ 44.0 R
92 Residence B TM 35.0 L 61 ^ 35.0 L
93 Residence B " 44.0 R 59 ^ 44.0 R
94 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 ^ 37.0 L
95 Residence a ^ 44.0 R 59 " 64.0 R
96 Residence a ^ 36.0 L 61 ° 36.0 L
97 Residence B " 43.0 R 59 " 43.0 R.
98 Residence a ^ 36.0 L 61 " 36.0 L
99 Residence-- B 42.0 R 59 '• 42.0 R
100 Residence a ° 37.0 L 60 " 37.0 L
101 Residence B '• 42.0 R 59 „ 42.0 R.
202 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 37.0 L
103 Residence a 42.0 R 59 " 42.0 R
104 Residence B ^ 36.0 L 61 " 36.0 L
105 Residence a „ 35.0 •L• -61 ^ •35.0 L
106 Business C = 23.0 R 54 = 23.0 R
107 Residence a ^ 35.0 L 6l " 35.0 L
108 Residence B ° 43.0 L 59 " 43.0 L
109 Residence B '• 38.0 L 60 " 38.0 L
110 Residence B '• 47.0 L 58 " 47.0 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
OAYiil=O=?OYt=OQ
3/5
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
OdO==
- - 64/<40 + 7/0
- - 61/<40 + 8/0 .
- - 61 + 8
- - * 67 + 8
- - * 67 + 8
- - • 67 + 8
- - " 66 + 7
- - " 67 + e
- - * 67 + 8
- - 69 + 8
- - " 68 + 8
- - " 67 + 8
- - * 69 + 8
- - " 66 + 7
- - * 69 + 8
- - * 67 + 8
- - * 68 + 8
- - * 67 + 8
- - * 69 + 8
° - " 67 + 8
- - * 68 + 8
- - * 67 + 8
- - * 69 + 8
- - " 67 + e
- - " 69 + 8
- - * 6.7 + 8
- - • 68 + 8
- - • 67 + 8
- - * se e
- - " 67 + 8
- - " 69 + e
- * 69.., + 8
- - " 72 + 8
- - * 69 + 8.
- - * 67 + 8
- - * 68 + 8
- - * 66 + 8
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways- -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category 3 noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-6
TABLE N4
(confd)
' Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 258, Kinston, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project 9 8.1200401, TIP 3 U-2542
4/5
AMBIENT NE AREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID i LAND USE CATEGORY
YOO?OOOOA/t NAME DISTANCE (m)
i?/OYONO? LEVEL
????? NAME DISTANCE (m)
?O?OO?t?O?? -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
YO4 INCREASE
Y00??
US 258, From US SR 1546 to SR 1554 (coat.)
111 Apartments (2) B DS 258 43.0 L 59 US 258 43.0 L - - * 67. + 8
112 Residence B ^ 23.0 L 64 ^ 23.0 L - - * 72 + 8
113 Residence a " 48.0 L 58 ^ 48.0 L - - * 56 + 8
114 Residence B ^ 47.0 L 58 ^ 47.0 L - - * 66 + 8
115 Residence B ^ 45.0 L 59 " 45.0 L - - * 66 + 7
116 Residence B ^ 46.0 L 59 ^ 46.0 L - - * 66 + 7
117 Residence B ^ 38.0 L 60 ^ 38.0 L - - * 68 + 8
118 Business C ^ 47.0• L 58 ^ 47.0 L - - 66 + 8 -
US 2 58, From US SR 1554 to SR 1575
119 Residence B US 258 55.0 R 60 US 258 55.0 R - - 64 + 4
1 • Residence B ^ 33.0 L 64 ^ 33.0 L - - * 69 + 5
"- Residence H ^ 33.0 L 64 ^ 33.0 L - - * 69 + 5
122 Residence B '• 35.0 L 64 ^ 35.0 L - - * 68 + 4
123 Residence B ^ 34.0 L 64 ^ 34.0 L * 68 + 4
124 Residence B ^ 31.0 L 65 ^ 31.0 L - - * 69 + 4
125 Residence B ^ 32.0 L 65 ^ 32.0 L - - * 69 + 4
126 Residence 8 ^ 33.0 L 64 ^ 33.0 L - - * 69 + 5
127 Business C ^ 27.0 L 66 ^ 27.0 L - - 70 + 4
128 Business C ^ 102.0 L 54 ^ 102.0 L - - 57 + 3
:29 Church E ^ 62.0 L 59/00 ^ 62.0 L - - 63/00 + 4/0
_30 Residence B ^ 42.0 L 62 ^ 42.0 L - - * 66 + 4
" 1 Business C ^ 35.0 R 64 ^ 35.0 R - - 68 + 4
i
:.32 Residence H ^ 42.0 L 62 ^ 42.0 L - - * 66 + 4
-33 Residence B ^ 35.0 L 64 ^ 35.0 L - - * 68 + 4
_ J 4 Business C ^ 37.0 L 63 ^ 37.0 L - - 68 + 5
_35 Residence B ^ 21.0 R 67 ^ 21.0 R - - * 72 + 5
:36 Business C ^ 34.0 L 64 ^ 34.0 L - - 68 + 4
.37 Residence a ^ 32.0 R 65 ^ 32.0 R - - ' 69 + 4
.38 Business C ^ 28.0 R 66 ^ 26.0 R - - 70 + 4
39 Business C ^ 33.0 R 64 ^ 33.0 R - - 69 + 5
40 Business C ^ 98.0 L 54 ^ 98.0 L - - 58 + 4.
41 Business C ^ 89.0 L 55 ^ 89.0 L - - - 59 + 4
42 Residence B ^ 39.0 L 63 ^ 39.0 L - - * 67 + 4
.43 Residence a ^ 37.0 R 63 ^ 37.0 R - - • 68 + 5
ac -3istances are from center of the existing or Proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels . -Y-^> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-7
TABLE N4
(confd) 5/5
Leg TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 258, Kinston, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project N 8.1200401, TIP S U-2542
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAR EST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID ? LAND USE CATEGORY
wasaaaaaawa NAME
w?w DISTANCE (m)
oaaawa? LEVEL
aa- NAME
a?a DISTANCE (m)
ao--aaa -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
ews??aaasaaww INCREASE
sasa?w
US 2 58, From US SR 1554 to SR 1575 (coat.)
144 Residence B US 258 34.0 L 64 US 25 8 34.0 L - - ' 68 + 4
145 Business C ^ 37.0 R 63 •' 37.0 R - - 68 + 5
146 Business C ^ 37.0 R 63 ^ 37.0 R - - 68 + 5
147 Residence B ^ 38.0 L 63 ^ 38.0 L - - * 67 + 4
148 Residence B ^ 41.0 L 62 ^ 41.0 L - - • 67 + 5
149 Residence B ^ 40.0 L 63 ^ 40.0 L - - ' 67 + 4
150 Residence B ^ 37.0 R 63 ^ 37.0 R - - * 68 + 5
151 Residence B ^ 37.0 L 63 ^ 37.0 L - - * 68 + 5
152 Residence B ^ 37.0 R 63 ^ 37.0 R - - * 68 + 5
153 Residence a ^ 36.0 R 64 ^ 36.0 R - - ' 68 + 4
154 Residence B ^ 36.0 R 64 ^ 36.0 R - - " 68 + 4
155 Residence B ^ 37.0 R 63 ^ 37.0 R - - * 68 + 5
Residence B ^ 38.0 R 63 ^ 38.0 R - - ' 67 + 4
121 Residence B ^ 40.0 R 63 ^ 40.0 R - - • 67 + 4
158 Business C ^ 40.0 R 63 ^ 40.0 R - - 67 + 4
159 Business C ^ 34.0 L 64 ^ 34.0 L - - 68 + 4
160 Church E ^ 27.0 L 66/41 ^ 27.0 L - - 70/45 + 4/+ 4
161 Business C ^ 43.0 R 62 ^ 43.0 R - - 66 + 4
162 Business C ^ 41.0 R 62 ^ 41.0 R - - 67 + 5
163 Business C ^ 40.0 L 63 " 40.0 L - - 67 + 4
164 Business C ^ 38.0 L 63 ^ 38.0 L - - 67 + 4
165 Business C ^ 30.0 R 65 ^ 30.0 R - - 69 + 4
q
NOTE: Distances are from center of the e]C.sting or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other Contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 772).
A-8
' TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRI TERIA SUMMARY
US 258, Kinston, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project $ 8. 1200401, TIP R U-2542
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of impacted
Leg Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A 8 C D E

1. US 258, From US 70 to SR 1546 72 68 62 23m 42m 0 42 2 0 0
2. IIS 258, From SR 1546 to SR 1554 73 68 63 25m 45m 0 40 1 0 0
3. US 25tl, From SR 1554 to SR 1575 72 68 62 23m 42m 0 26 0 0 0
R17T.AL
0
108 3 0
0
NO'"O'B - 1. 15s, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest trawl lane-
2. 72 dBA and 67 d8A contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway-
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LI ?6L INCREASE SUMMARY
US 258, Kinston, From US 70 to SR 1575
Lenoir County, State Project i 6.1200401, TIP i U-2542
RECEPTOR ECfERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section C.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 2- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

1. US 258, Froze US 70 to 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1546
2. US 258, From SR 1546 to 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1554
3. US 258, From SR 1554 to 0 32 15 0 0 .0 •A 0 0 .•
SR 1575
TOTALS 0 32 135 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1; As defined by only a substantial increase (See bot,.om of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
A-9
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LI.M SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County RUN: US 258 . 1997, BUILD 70 KPH
DATE: 11/15/1994 TIME: 08:45:16.24
SITE s MEIZOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S zo • 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS 5 (E) AM - 60. MINUTES MMM - 400. M AM - 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH ERG TOPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
I XI Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VER)
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 872. 16.5 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 872. 16.5 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDI1am (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
8106 23m RT. CL RES -17.4 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County BUN: US 258 1997, BUILD 70 KPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE BANGS: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) 7=1
MAX ,2.9 -
DEGR. 6
A-10
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County RUN: US 258 . 2017, BUILD 70 XPH
DATE: 11/15/1994 TIME: 08:45:28.60
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
va - .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS S (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MDD3 - 400. M AMD - 1.9 PPM
LncK VARIABLES
Lnm DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
I X1 R1 X2 72 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) PER)
1. Far Lams Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1361. 10.7 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1361. 10.7 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
ODOBDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X 7 Z
R106 23m RT. CL RES -17.4 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County RUN: US 238 2017, BO=LD 70 XPE
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle eor-aspondinq to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles With Sams maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.9
~ DEGR. 6
A-11
TABLE A3
CAL3QBC: LINE SOURC: DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County RUN: US 258 1997, No BUILD 70 KPH
DATE: 11/15/1994 TIME: 08:45:55.13
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXB - 400. M AM - 1.9 PPM
LINX VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF B W V/C QUEUE
X1 n X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 872. 20.2 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 872. 20.2 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X 7 2
t. 8106 23m RT. CL RES -21.0 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County RUN: US 258 1997, No BUILD 70 XPE
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same ?r+?•?
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCIIPPRATICH
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 3.0
DEGR. 7
A-12
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCR, 1990 VLERSION
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County RUN: US 258 2017, No BUILD 70 KPR
DATE: 11/15/1994 TIME: 08:45:41.95
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLRS 5 (E) ATIM ; 60. MINUTES MnM - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION ( LINK cootmLa m (M) LENGTH ERG TYPE WE EF - B W WC QUEUE
I X1 T1 X2 T2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1361. 22.7 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1361. 22.7 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X T Z
+.. R106 23m RT. CL RES -21.0 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2542: US 258 Lenoir County RUN: US 258 2017, No BUILD 70 XPR
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with Sams maximum
concentrations, is indicated as saxi ,.A•
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX •3.$
DEGR. 6
11
A-133
APPENDIX B
Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO May 11, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North'Carolina 27611-5201
Dear-Mr. Vick:
L,
.00
C ? 1 j? v
MAY 12 M
2 '
ti DIVISION OF:
C? HIGHWAYS
This is in response to your letter of February 15, 1994, requesting our
comments on the initiation of a study of the project, "US 258, From US 70
to SR 1575, Kinston, Lenoir County, Federal Aid Project STPNHF-258(4), State
Project 8.1200401, TIP Project U-2542" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No.
199401615).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) perspective, our review and
comments focus on impacts to CE projects, flood plains, and other environ-
mental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed project would
not impact any CE-constructed flood control or navigation projects.
The proposed project study is sited in Lenoir County and a portion of
the jurisdiction of the city of Kinston, both of which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the January 1983 Lenoir
County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the roadway is not located within an
identified flood-hazard area.
Based on the June 1982 Kinston FIRM, US 258 forms the boundary between
the jurisdiction of Kinston and Lenoir County for approximately 1'mile,
extending northward from the US 70 intersection. From the FIRM, the road-
way borders the 500-year flood plain of the Neuse River Tributary near the
US 70 intersection. Although not identified on the FIRM, a review of the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topo map indicates that a tributary to this
stream comes within 100 feet of US 258, about one-half mile north of the
US 70 intersection. From the flood profiles for the Neuse River Tributary
contained in the December 1981 Kinston Flood Insurance Study report and a
review of the USGS topo map, it appears likely that US 258 may be flooded
by the 100-year flood in this area. We suggest that you coordinate with
the affected jurisdictional unit(s) for compliance with their flood plain
ordinances. Executive Order 11988 should also be complied with.
B-1
-2-
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has the following
comments. Prior Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required
for any alteration of wetlands, including excavation and/or the discharge of
dredged or fill material in waters of the United States. Our initial review
emphasis for North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will
focus on the impacts to waters and wetlands. However, if degradation to other
aspects of the natural environment, (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is
considered to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater
aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred. Current available information does
not address we-i.land -impacts. To allow us to daequateiy address eciv•irotimentai
impacts for the proposed project, you must identify the affected wetlands
areas by acreage and community type for each alternative. Any available maps
would be very useful.
Regarding processing of individual permit applications, on February 6,
1990, the DA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the
type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act,
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts
to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical
alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize
impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining
unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us
to process your application in full compliance with this MOA, we request that
you provide the following additional information with any individual DA permit
application you may submit.
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are
available only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging,
practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justi F i cat i on Zhat your ;e i actcd p l art i s the least.
damaging to water or wetland areas.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical
steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done,
especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed
construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
c. The MOA requires that appropriate and practical mitigation will be
required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate
and practical minimization has been employed. Please indicate your plan to
mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide
information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practical measures.
B-2
-3-
This information is essential to our expeditious processing of your
5 application, and it should be forwarded to us as early in the process as
possible. If you have any questions regarding DA permits, Mr. Norm Sanders
of our Washington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, may be contacted at
[phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be
of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, -
W .
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
B-3
c
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AIND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
April 7, 1994
Mr.. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
¦
TAKES
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
s?ss?
?GE1 V4?
APR 1 1 1994
S
Z? DIVISION OF
;G' HIGHWAYS
RONN1??'?P
This responds to your letter of February 15, 1994 requesting information on
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposal by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to widen US 258 from US 70 north
to the junction with SR 1575 near Kinston, Lenoir County (TIP Project U-2542).
The comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by NCDOT calls for the widening of US 258 along its present
path to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The construction of a railroad
grade separation at the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad is also being
considered. We estimate that the total length of the project will be
approximately 3.5 miles.
The Service has examined the proposed corridor on both the topographic map and
the National Wetlands Inventory map (Falling Creek quadrangle). Based on this
review the project area seems fairly developed with no major wetland areas in the
direct path of the project. There do appear to be some forested areas adjacent
to the current road, particularly in the northern portion of the proposed
corridor. There appear to be minor streams and/or drainage ditches near the
corridor. We would like to emphasize that it is responsibility of NCDOT to
determine the amount of wetlands to be impacteaNby this project, and to obtain
any necessary permits from the U:S. Arm Ccrps o:: z ny=nas:s. if t'==s ==='ec}
results in substantial destruction of wetlands, a compensatory mitigation plan
will be required.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) species which
may occur in the proposed project corridor. The only listed species which is
likely to be affected by this project is the red-cockaded woodpecker, an upland
species which requires mature and open pinewoods.
Because of the Federal trust resources (threatened /endangered species and
wetlands) potentially at risk, the environmental review needs to consider the
project's impact on all uplands and wetlands in the construction corridor as well
as additional areas such as borrow pits, temporary access roads, or equipment
storage areas which will be directly or indirectly affected.
'Re recommend that all potential project sites be surveyed for Federally-listed
species at the earliest possible time. All surveys must be conducted during the
seasonfand time of day when each species is most likely to be observed: We also
B-4
recommend that NCDOT survey for candidate species since these species could
become officially listed as threatened or endangered in the future. If new
The North
be required
.
species are listed for Lenoir County, a new survey may
Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species
under state protection. The various project alignments and construction
procedures must be considered for potential adverse impacts on any Federally-
listed threatened or endangered species.
If the proposed project will require the removal of pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted
for active red-cockaded woodpecker .(Picoides borealis) cavity trees in
" appropriate habitat within a half-mile radius of project boundaries. If red-
cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or active cavity trees
are found, the project has the potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded
woodpecker and you should contact this office for further information.
The environmental review of uplands should include a brief description of the
habitats! or forest cover types which will be eliminated by the project. This
should include the wildlife resources using these areas.
The wetlands part of the environmental review should include:
1. a description of the wetland types which will be impacted. This should
follow the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory;
2. the acreage of each wetland type to be impacted. Wetland acreages
should be.determined in accordance with the Federal Manual for
Ident<fvinc and Delineatinc Jurisdictional Wetlands; and,
3. the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
The environmental review should evaluate various alignments and construction
techniques that will be employed to minimize adverse environmental impacts. This
section should demonstrate the amount of impacts on uplands and wetlands for each
alignment and/or construction technique. For a road widening such as this
project, symmetrical versus asymmetrical designs should be evaluated. The
Service is particularly concerned about potential impacts on stream ecosystems
and associated wetlands within the project corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and construction of all stream crossing structures. This
section of the review should conclude with a statement of the selected alignment
and general construction techniques. The discussion should indicate that the
selected procedures are the least damaging to fish and wildlife resources or the
reasons for selecting the proposed alternative.
If the necessary funding and permits for this proj.,ect are obtained, we recommend
that the project contract specifications require the following measures during
construction in or near wetland areas:
1. When project construction is initiated, complete all work quickly to
minimize the period of environmental disturbance;
2. Minimize the disturbance or destruction of vegetation;
3. During and after construction, maintain existing elevations and natural
flow regimes in both flowing and standing water areas;
4. If construction of the existing roadway reduced or completely blocked
natural water flow patterns in nearby wetlands, restore these patterns
during the present-construction; and,
5. Follow all applicable best management practices to avoid increased
sedimentation in adjacent wetlands and waterways.

s
S B-5

t
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 Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520.
Sincerely yours,
L.K. Hike Gantt
Field Supervisor
Attachment

4
i
i
B-6
REVISED MAY 18, 1993

Lenoir County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Piocoide borealis) - E
'T'here 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"(C1 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 meanrtime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Wireleaf dropseed (Soorobolus teretifolius) - C2*
Georgia leadplant (Amort)ha reorriana ¢eor¢iana) - C2*
Albemarle crayfish (Procambarus medialis) - C2
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscioula) - C2
*Indicates no speciaen in at least 21 years frot this county.

1
t
t
i
1
B-7
2 0"1994,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
r^
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
Division of Archives and Histor
William S. Price, Jr., Director
September 16, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological Report, Widening of US 258 from US 70
to SR 1575, Kinston, Lenoir County, Federal-Aid
STPNHF-258(4), U-2542, ER 94-7339, ER 95-7208
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1994, concerning the above project. We apologize for
the delay in our response.
We have received the archaeological survey report for the above referenced project and will
place it in our files for informational purposes. Contrary to the statement on page 1 of the
report, we did not recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted for this project.
In our memorandum of April 7, 1994, we requested information concerning the width of
the proposed right-of-way for this project and recent aerial photographs so we could
complete our review.
While we concur with your finding that the project as proposed will have no effect upon
significant archaeological resources, we would like to point out that visual inspection of the
project area with no subsurface investigation was not appropriate for this entire project
area. The report also contained discrepancies concerning the percentage of ground surface
visibility within the project 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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DBalw /
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
a
109 East Jones Stre r• -cPaleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
s B-8
-, rArt N%

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Division or Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director

1994
16
b
N CIV
E
<G F
,
er
ovem ?
?
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
NOV 2 1 1994
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Gi???SIC^1 OF
v
HIGHWAYS
Re: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report for C?
FYVIRON ?A
US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575 (Poole Road),
Kinston, Lenoir County, Federal-aid Project
STPNHF-258(4), State 8.1200401, U-2542, ER
95-7854
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1994, transmitting the Historic
Architectural Resources Survey Report for the above project. In general the report
meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
Thank you for your letter of transmitting the survey report by concerning the
above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places for the reasons outlined in the report:
John Henry Poole House
Smith-Poole House
Property Three (House)
. We would like to note that there was a comprehensive survey of Kinston, not
Lenoir County, in 1981. A comprehensive countywide survey is on-going.
. 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.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
8-9
Nicholas L. Graf
November 16, 1994, Page 2
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.
erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: '-H. F. Vick
B. Church

B-1-0
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
115 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27503-80J, C E ' v
04-11-94 c
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS APR 13 1"
MAILED TO' FROM. Z? DIVISION. OF
AYS
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGET H?IGHW
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR `RONt
PLANNING E ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOU
HIGHWAY BLDG-/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 2581 FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
IN KINSTON TIP #U-2542
SAI NO 94£42200609 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 QUESTIONSI PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C-C- REGION P
t
i- -

8-11
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Office of Policy Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
John G. Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0609 - Scoping US 258 from US 70 to- SR 1575 in
Kinston, Lenoir County
DATE: March 24, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
M0?L
2 51994
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equol Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer SO%recycled/ IOw. post-consumer pcper
B-12
® 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 Projects C?nato
Habitat Conservation Program
(JGZI?
DATE: March 21, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575
in Kinston, Lenoir County, North Carolina, TIP No.
U-2542, SCH Project No. 94-0609.
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. The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has 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).
The proposed project involves widening existing US 258
to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility with a possible grade
separation at the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad
crossing.
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 y
8-13
i
Memo
Page 2
March 21, 1994
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:
_ The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator _
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. 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
1919) 733-7291.
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.

F B-14
•_
Memo Page 3 March 21, 1994
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
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
Projects Coordinator, at [phone].
CC: Bennett Wynne, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 18, 1994
1
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart????y,?Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0609; -Scoping Comments - NC DOT
US 258, From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston, TIP No. U-2542
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 channel ized/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. Piease 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.
B-16
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee -
March 18, 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.
10545er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
i
B-17
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • e
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ED F= H N FI
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
David W. Sides, Director
March 9, 1994
MEMORANDUM -
TO: Melba McGee C
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Proposed widening of US 258 near Kinston.
Project No. 94-0609.
The proposed project involves widening US 258 to a five-lane curb
and gutter highway from US 70 in Kinston to SR 1575.
Construction of a railroad grade separation will also be studied.
The Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime,
and important farmland that would be impacted by the project. A
wetlands evaluation should be included.
DH/t1
r
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carorma 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Ecuol Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 101% post-consumer paper
B-18 _
r •
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural -Resources.
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary cl Director
Project Number: Li -4 6 el ?J County:
Project Name: 0601
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
:Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Sox 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
? This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Cam` / rL ?i6 ?•M 2- - 2--3 a ( /
Reviewer D A-6 )F r? , `?
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require app va of erosion and sedimentation
- control plan prior to beginnin any land-dis- bing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be distu d.. V,
it U2 G?
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is 16cated within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
• - !?1/? /?? 02/22/9¢
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Balogh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opporunlty Affirrmatlve Action Employer
B-19
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources I Reviewing Ottice:
Washtnor
' INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
q 4- O (0 A IT 3 Izz3 I9
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestions recardino these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process:
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory time
timid
? Permit to construct i operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin Construction or award of 30 Days
facilities. sewer system extensions. b sewer construction contracts on-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-sate insoectiorl. 90.120 Days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre•acolicalion conference usual. Additionally. cotaln permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facifity-granted after NPOES Reply (N'Ai
time. 30 days atter'recerpt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever is later.
30 nays
Water use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
IN:AI
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the Installation of a well. 115 Caysl
Application Copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
r7 Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre•aoolication conference usual. Filling
L may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 190 eavs.
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
G Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
5A NCAC 21H
06
i
NIA 60 days
190 Ga
s:

.
ssion Sources . S per 1
Iacslits
es andiat Em
t
y
1
ny open burning issociatee with subject proposal
`i must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Oemof on or renovations of structures Containing
stns material must be in compliance with 15A 60 cis-, s
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Grotto
919.733.0820 19c Days,
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedtmentatro
? Control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect 1 at (east 30 20 days
davs before bedinnin actwrty A fee of S30 for the first acre and 52000 for eacn additional acre or can must accomoanv the Zia, 130 days
I The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the refetrenced Local Ordinance. l30 daysr
' 2 On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bone amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permrteo The appropriate bond /60 days)
must be received before the Dermot can be issued
? North Carolina Burring permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 Gay
exceeds t Gays (N.A)
Special Ground Clearance Bursting Permit . 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required `if more 1 Gay
? Counties e1 Coastal N.C. with organic sails than five acres of ground Clearing activities are involved Inspections (N!A)
should be requested at least ten days Ware actual bum is planned
90.120 Days
? Oil Refining Facilities NIA tN:A)
It permit required. application 60 Days before begin Construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 Days
? Dim Safety Permit inspect construction. certify Construction is according to EHNR acorov
ad plans May also require permit under mosquito control program And t60 days)
a t0a permit from CorpS of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
sary to verity Ha:ara Classification. A minimum fee of 520000 must aC•
Company the abolicalion. An adadional processing fee based on a
oercenia a or me total orolecf Cost well be required ucon Comotet,dn
rb w.
Continued on reveibe
R_?n
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
March 1, 1994
Do • =abli I
TO: Nancy Smith
Regional Manager
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Pat McClain
Assistant Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Washington Regional Office
RE: Project #94-0609
Review of Scoping Process
Statement
for Environmental Impact
N.C. Department of Transportation
Proposed US 258, From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston
Lenoir County
State Project Number 8.1200401
This project must be consistent with the N.C. Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973, as amended. Temporary and
permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and/or
devices must be utilized throughout the project to prevent
sediment from leaving the limits of construction and entering
adjacent properties, wetlands and natural watercourses.
Borrow and waste areas, along with other associated land-
disturbing activities, must be addressed according to the
Memorandum of Agreement between DOT and the N.C. Sedimentation
Control Commission. Periodic inspections will be made by
personnel of the Land Quality Section to ensure compliance.
B-21

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
April 7, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Hts oric Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: Widening US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575, Lenoir
County, U-2542, 8.1200401, STPNHF-258(4), 94-E-
4220-0609
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Ruth Little's comprehensive historic architectural survey of the Global TransPark
(GTP) study area includes a portion of the project area. We have conducted a
search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of historical
or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Sutton House. West side of US 258, 0.2 mile north of the junction with SR
1575.
John Henry Poole House. East side of US 258, 0.5 mile south of the
junction with SR 1575.
Poole-Smith House. East side of US 258 at the junction with SR 1001.
During our Section 106 review of the GTP, we determined that the three
aforementioned structures are not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Robbie Jones is currently conducting a comprehensive historic architectural survey
of Lenoir County. However, his survey of the portion of the county which
includes the project area is not scheduled for several months. If the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) project schedule cannot allow
for this delay, we recommend that an architectural historian for NCOOT survey the
portion of the project area not included in the GTP survey and report the findings
to us.

104 Fast Jones Stmt - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-'2807
B-22
H. Franklin Vick
April 7, 1994, Page 2
There are no recorded archaeological sites adjacent to the existing road; however,
the potential for historic period archaeological resources is high. As soon as
possible, please forward information concerning the width of the proposed right-
of-way and aerial photographs so we may complete our review.
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
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
B-23
APPENDIX C
Citizen Informational Workshop Information
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF US 258 NEAR KINSTON
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
Project 8.•1200401 U-2542 Lenoir County
.
A citizens informational workshop will be held-on
Tuesday, January 11, 1994 at the Banks Elementary School
Cafeteria located near Kinston on Banks School Road.
This will be an informal open house workshop held between the
hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those wishing-to attend may
do so at their convenience during these hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is_to present
information, answer questions and receive comments during the
early design stages of the proposed widening of US 258 near
Kinston. The proposed project consists of widening US 258 to
a five-lane curb and gutter roadway from US 70 to SR 1575.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending. Anyone desiring additional information about the
workshop may contact Ms. Missy Dickens, N. C. Department of
Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch,
P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at
[phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary
aids, and services for any qualified disabled person
interested in attending the workshop. To request this
assistance you may call Ms. Dickens at the above number
no later than seven days prior to the date of the workshop.
s
C-1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch

LENOIR COUNTY
US 258
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
KINSTON
T. 1. P. NUMBER U = 2542
JANUARY 11, 1994
Citizen Informational Workshop
C-2
CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
US 258
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NUMBER U-2542
CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
This workshop is being held to discuss plans to widen
US 258 from US 70 to SR 1575 in Kinston. Comments and
suggestions concerning the proposed highway construction are
appreciated and will be. considered during the project study.
The Division of Highways realizes individuals living
close to a proposed project want to be informed of the
possible effects of the project on their homes and .
businesses. However, exact information is not available at
this stage of the planning process. Additional design work
is necessary before the actual right-of-way limits can be
established. More detailed information will be available at
the public hearing to be held at a,later date.
A comment sheet is provided for you to write down your
questions or concerns so that the Division of Highways can
fully consider your ideas, comments, or suggestions. Please
complete this comment sheet and leave it with an NCDOT
representative. If you desire additional information or if
you wish to comment further on this project, please contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
calls for the widening of the existing two-lane US 258 to a
.five-lane roadway. The project is intended to alleviate some
of the congestion and improve traf-fic flow along US 258.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right-of-way acquisition i* scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 1995, and construction is'scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 1996. These schedules are subject to the availability
of sufficient highway funds.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Right of way
Construction
Total Costs
$ 740,000
53,520.000
$4,260,000
C-3
G
i
I
i

.i¦ in:Ltulo o..sen
_ nor
- I .. is Wsnge ,
iStan t
70
S5
?• L E ' O 1 R?
258
• . ` ink rill
•
000
!
77
• J

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 258
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY
r._a
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 258
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT U-2542
LENOIR COUNTY
JANUARY 11, 1994
(You do not have to answer all the questions on these
sheets, but please take the time to give us your
comments and concerns regarding this project. Please
continue any responses on the back of this sheet.)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT U-2542:
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
REGARDING OUR CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP PROCESS:
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU? WERE
NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR
EXPLANATIONS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS
CITIZEN'S CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED?
PLEASE EXPLAIN. .
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS:
C-5
:..sue..:... LZ. - ...._ _, -. ..._
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION IN YOUR AREA
AND NORTH CAROLINA IN GENERAL.
WHAT IS YOUR AREA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
WHAT IS NORTH CAROLINA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN YOUR AREA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
WHAT ROAD IN YOUR AREA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT? WHY?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN NORTH
CAROLINA? GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
WHAT ROAD IN NORTH CAROLINA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT? WHY?
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY z
TRANSPORTATION RELATED SUBJECT?
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. H. F. Vick, P. E.,
Manager of the Planning and Environmental Branch„ North
Carolina Department of Transportation, P. 0. Box 25201,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
C-6
?'-_
posed widening of U.S. 258. More than
Transportation Tuesday at Banks School.
DOT officials answer questions.
about plans* for widening U.S. 258
By Patricia Earnhardt
Staff Writer
Residents and business owners
on U.S. 258 took a look Tuesday at
the future of their highway.
More than 100 folks attended a
cittaeri workshop sponsored by
the North Carolina Department
ofTransportation at Banks
School to give them a chance to
see and discuss plans for widen-
ing the highway from U.S. M
north t6 SR 1575, Dawson Station
Pool Road.
The project is the first improve-
ment in the 1994-2000 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement
I Program for Kinston and Lenoir
I County.
'T'he project calls for widening .
258 from two lanes to five
i...es, and is intended to alleviate
congestion on the road and
I improve traffic flow.
Some who saw the picture-map
of the project were pleased with
the possibilities of a widened road-
way. Others shared their dissatis-
faction with the plan with NCDOT
representatives.
Howard and Mary Johnson,
who have rived near Daly Waldrop
Crossroads for nine years, said
they are not happy about the plan
because it is not needed.
"ICs a cut through road from
those who dolt want to take 70
through Goldsboro," Johnson
said. . .
Johnson, who said he has
watched the traffic pass by for
years, can tell that it is beach and
transport traffic that passes by his
home.
Johnson said the traffic comes
from drivers who prefer taking
U.S. 258 and going on to VV•ilson to
meet I-95, rather than stopping at
traffic lights on U.S. 70.
Building a bypass around
IGnston, which is in long-rage
plans, would reduce the traffic.
flow on US. 258, Johnson said.
"It doesn't make sense to put
this superhighway in a residential
area and then come back and put
in a bypass," Johnson said. "rd
rather my money go to try for a
new bypass fast.
"As they widen the road it
brings the traffic closer to our
house," he said. '
Other residents said widening
the road will make driving easier
for them.
"It suits me fine," said Robert
Merritt, who pointed out his
house on the map. "It should help
us out quite a bit."
Merritt said current conditions
make it difficult for him to enter
U.S. 258 from his driveway, but
adding lanes will allow more
space and time for residents to
enter the road.
The state has 100 feet of right-
of-way in which to do its work:.
The state owns 50 feet from the
center line on both sides of the
highway.
All of the widening should
be done within the state's
boundaries, said Missy Dickens,
a project engineer in the planning
and environmental branch of
the NCDOT Division of ..
Highways.
Dickens said the traffic volume
on the highway averages 12,000
cars per day and is expected to
increase to 20,000 over the next r
10 years.
Dickens said the state will com-
plete its environmental assess: `-.:
ment of the construction and they
hold a public hearing to give a
presentation of the design detail
for the project
Construction on the highway is
not scheduled to begin until fiscal
year 1996, Dickens said. It will
take two years to complete the '
project, she said.
?:.!`7?saY?dv :a1 -' ??.?=r??:a:_ «.;r.:...c ??... ...:?.X'??:??f.Y.:.-.,:.JVi?... .... .r;.?x?3.. J••-,.-".:+..raer.?LIQN:-'?
C-7
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF US 258 NEAR KINSTON
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
Project 8.1200401 U-2542 Lenoir County
A citizens informational workshop will be held on
Tuesday, January 11, 1994 at the Banks Elementary School
Cafeteria located near Kinston on Banks School Road.
This will be an informal open house workshop held between the
hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to attend may
do so at their convenience during these hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is to present
information, answer questions and receive comments during the
early design stages of the proposed widening of US 258 near
Kinston. The proposed project consists of widening US 258 to
a five-lane curb and gutter roadway from US 70 to SR 1575.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending. Anyone desiring additional information about the
workshop may contact Ms. Missy Dickens, N. C. Department of
Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch,
P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at
[phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary
aids, and services for any qualified disabled person
interested in attending the workshop. To request this
assistance you may call Ms. Dickens at the above number
no 1_ ater than seven days prior to the date of the workshop.
34. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL
SLIP DATE
Q _q1 q3-
/
!
TO: J'?i/V?•C..? ?G? • • R/ C?
_REF. NO.
Vi -! ?oY RV! r.lV
FROM:
l? ward 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 SEE ME A13OUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

?d ?SfATf o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkAd sPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERVOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 25, 1993
AUG 3 0199(3
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: o-? L. J. Ward, P. E., ManagerBr - tsJ?
Planning and Environmental ch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for US 258, from US 70 to
Dawson Station (SR 1575), Kinston, Lenoir County, State
Project #8.1200401, Federal Project #STPNHF-258(4),
T.I.P. #U-2542
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. September 23, 1993 at 2:00 P. 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 Teresa Hart, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
TH/plr Cr0?5?'? `: li Z 1
Attachment t
a
V
??i

5
1646 ? ?\?\?
QQ.O .?
A
¦ 16]1
1617
1m
?IJJ"
1547 R. 167 - -??
1.174. 07 p
1552
?pROJECI LIMITS

X
6 58

If?sr Insti 9
Dawson
O La Grange

CAROLIN ?3
A
I
2j 4
6 Caswell Memorial ) Z
d CSS Neese I
r ,
I3 55
L E 6 O ?
e Run
8
` 1 - 258
ink Hill
ton
+/,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
AL?' TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
li?ly PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY TO A
FIVE LANE FACILITY
US 258, US 70 TO SR 1575
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY
U-2542
0 miles 1/2
1 1 FIG. 1

PR OAT EC T S UO PI NG _ SEi EE T
Date August 25, 1993
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning 1993
Design 1996
TIP # U-2542
Project # 8.1200401
F.A. Project # STPNHF - 258(4)
Division 2
County Lenoir
Route US 258

Functional Classification Other Urban Principal Arterial
Length 2.7 miles
Purpose of Project: To provide additional travel lanes for
increased capacity and safety.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: The proposed project is to widen the existing
two-lane roadway to a 64 foot, five-lane, curb and gutter
facility from US 70 to Dawson Station (SR 1575).
Type of environmental document to be prepared: An Environmental
Assessment (EA) is proposed for this project and scheduled for
completion in April 1994. This document will be followed by a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which is scheduled to
be completed by October 1994.
Environmental Study Schedule: Begin complete
Planning FY 1993 FY 1995
Design FY 1995 FY 1997
Right of Way FY 1995. FY 1997
Construction FY 1997 FY 1999
Type of funding: This project is a Federal Aid funded project.
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: How and when will this be paid?
Page 1

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: Five lane, 64- foot curb and gutter roadway
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: Curb and Gutter
Interchanges None Grade Separations None Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: Five-lane, 64 foot, curb and gutter
roadway
Traffic: Current 11,800 Design Year o Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: Minimum of 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . $ 4,400,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition). . . . . . . . . . $ 740,000
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . S
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . $ 250,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,390,000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,520,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 740,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,260,000
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
r
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRE (X)
COMMENTS 5-lane C & G COST
_ Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
Widening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,090,500
X Resurface . . $ 2181000
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts.
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . .
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s 145,600
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 394,800
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 620,000
sub-Drainage. . . . . . . . . $
Structures: width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
New Bridge . . . . . . _. $
Widen Bridge X
Remove Bridge . . . . . X $
New Culverts: Size Length S
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . .
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht.
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . S
X Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $ 294,624
5" Mono. Conc. Island . . . . . . . . . S
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . .
X Erosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 27,000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62,000
Signing: New. . . . . . . . . . .
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Signals X New . . . . . . . . . . $ 35,000
X Revised . . . . . . . . $ 25,000
X RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
X With or Without Arms. . . . $ 80,000
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 55,800
Markers X
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . .
X Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc.. 799,676
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 3,848,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 552,000
PE Costs. $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subtotal: $ 4,400,000
X Right of Way:
X Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
Existing Right of way Width:
X New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost S
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost
X Utilities:
Right of Way Subtotal: $ 740,000
Total Estimated Cost $5,140,000
(I cl s R/w)
Prepared By: T. A. Hart Date: August 25, 1993
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
\ 1000
28.0
-- r -- -- - 2000
BM ° 2 6000--
i Dobbs Sch ALA?' I Z
?. • ` f k -!
-4-
isoo
END BM r..)' ?l1tie 5000
Bible Missionary \x^27 2 I.
PROJECT 1-
Hull Road Ch
32 Ch"
BM -?' =' \ \ 4000- _
32 a error -10 -
L -- - - - - - - _ kL[1j - 1000
.. ';. _ i 3000' --t- 900
r 800
?'.
4?"'"' • Hr91y Hill /. • ./? '!! / ?•' ?? i o100
I Ch Ce 2000 -
600
1'. iS54 /v V k 500
t _ BM `. , ,0 / - ! Taylors ._-1 - - 400
37.6 v
, ,000 _ 300
r - _ @?. - /`'? •t ? - 200
3"09 100
i t
-o}
- - _??
- - N o
i -. - \
Feet meters
` i
! i 1554 i 3048
J BM J 2 6056
yo BM ,350 1 3I .9144
! ? • . 34.1 17'30"
5 4 1.2192
1.5240
?.
s.
6I t.8288
3a \ i 21336
0
i , - 8 2.»384
i i
91 2.1432
/• - / - ? 08 10 3.0480
Cem
• • • i _ ?.Trailee To convert feet to meters
•' Park multiply by .3048
To convert meters to fee
multiply by 3.2808
1 /
RadjpITowers
' o ( S- FTE
WR<Y ??
Bethel 1 ?` • a ! r , 3° --
X 29.8
:29.8 1107
20
..99 :. -Sewage?Dispos i,?..
Church of the 20 POnd ?-
M - Nazarene .. ...__ o-_.,,• , -. -- ---s ...
BM 1.
77.2
16.5 _ A I,¦ BM - -.?
.TLANT/C ; 15 4
.. ;AND
_ „ p ! I 1I to rage BM EAST__ CARDUNA j -? ?06
y-_--T 1 - 6.6 -
.. 14 51i I ..
- Westview
Cam u `
Cem::
100 - ? I R
Tower.
I Temple Israel r ;? - i \ (W EL'S)
Cam
Pinelawn c
BEGIN
- ?=
Cem
?. PROJECT FALLING CREEK, N. C.
SW/4 KINSTON 15' QUADRANGLE
-= - N3515 - W7737.517.5

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
'fr : C- Cyr I a m b Alc .D Er NNR - A EM
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
o S l?? l l? „A foL£ 44=1
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER,OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
N4 . I
r d `"` STA7Fa?
V ,
;y D
F;
NOV -21993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
October 28, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Scoping Meeting Participants
FROM: Josh Holland
Transportation Engineering Associate
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for US 258,
From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston, Lenoir County,
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-258(4),
State Project 8.1200401, TIP Project U-2542
A meeting was held on September 23, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch conference room (room 470) to determine the scope of
work for the subject project. The following persons were in attendance:
Robin Stancil
Eric Galamb
Ed Latham
John Wadsworth
Jerry Snead
Dale Burton
Phil Williamson
Danny Rogers
Mark Sullivan
Betty Yancey
Laura Rice
Charles Mullin
Boniface Modu
Tom Padgett
Randy Turner
Wilson Stroud
Ed Lewis
Missy Dickens
Josh Holland
Missy Dickens
She stated that the
Missy announced the
NCDR-SHPO
NCDEHNR-DEM
NCDOT-Division 2 Construction
FHWA
NCDOT Hydraulics
NCDOT Location and Surveys
NCDOT Photogrammetry
NCDOT Program Development
NCDOT Rail Section
NCDOT Right of Way
NCDOT Statewide Planning
NCDOT Traffic Control
NCDOT Signals and Geometrics
NCDOT Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Planning and Environmental
opened the meeting by showing the location of the project.
TIP calls for the widening of US 258 to five lanes. Next
scheduling for the proposed widening. Right of way
G)
October 28, 1993
Page 2
acquisition will begin in Fiscal Year 1996 and construction will begin in
Fiscal Year 1997. The Environmental Assessment is due in April of 1994 and
the Finding of No Significant Impact Document is due in October of 1994.
Then she pointed out existing conditions on an aerial photograph, noting out
existing conditions on an aerial photograph, noting signalized intersections
and the railroad crossing. She stated that a 100-foot right-of-way exists
along US 258.
Laura Rice next stated that Kimley-Horn is preparing a master plan for
the Global Transpark (GTP); the master plan should be completed by December
1993. Laura also discussed plans for the proposed loop road around the GTP
and the proposed Crescent Road (TIP Project R-2719).
Missy explained that the city officials of Kinston thought the widening
of US 258 under Project U-2542 would extend up to SR 1536. Ed Latham did not
think widening to SR 1536 was justified. Missy mentioned that this segment
of US 258 had an overall accident rate of 459 accidents per 100 million
vehicle miles during the last three years, compared to the statewide average
of 261 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles on two-lane urban US routes.
The statewide average for 2-lane rural US routes is 173 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles. She noted that the intersection of US 70 and US 258
should be considered for realignment. Ed Latham identified drainage problems
associated with this intersection.
Missy identified two abandoned gas pumps on the project. One is located
at the northern terminal of the project on the west side of US 258 just north
of SR 1575, and the other is located on the east side of US 258 and north of
SR 1568.
Next Missy stated that the city is proposing to build a park on the east
side of US 258 in the vicinity of SR 1638. The city would like the NCDOT to
abandon part of SR 1638 so this section of road could be used as intra-park
transportation. Ed Latham mentioned that SR 1638, SR 1553, and SR 1639 were
in the process of being abandoned for this purpose.
A question concerning where proposed Crescent Road would cross US 258
was discussed. Laura Rice commented that Crescent Road may cross US 258 at
SR 1575 but that it was not "set in stone". The thoroughfare plan shows
Crescent Road crossing US 258 at the intersection of SR 1557, which is south
of SR 1575.
Wilson Stroud asked a question concerning the existing traffic volumes.
Missy stated that the 1992 ADT ranged from 9100 to 11800 vehicles per day
along the project length. The 1992 ADT is 6600 just south of SR 1536 (the
terminal preferred by the city of Kinston). Traffic volume projections for
the design year are not yet available.
Mark Sullivan commented that at the present, only two trains per day
utilize the railroad crossing of US 258. He added that the industrial site
might increase train traffic to four crossings per day. Laura Rice added
that the GTP Master Plan does have a rail component. At four crossings per
day, the.exposure index would be high enough to warrant a grade separation at
the crossing. However, right-of-way costs are anticipated be restrictive.
The difficulty and expense of maintaining traffic while raising the road was
October 28, 1993
Page 3
also discussed. Danny Rogers questioned the need for a grade separation
since the same rail line crosses US 70 Business (Vernon Avenue) at-grade to
the-east of the project. He added that right-of-way costs would be
substantial if the road is raised 23 feet to span the railroad.
Robin Stancil named three historical properties that are located in the
project vicinity but are not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places: the Sutton House, the John Henry Poole House, and the Smith-Poole
House. She requested that archaeological and architectural surveys be done
in the US 258 corridor.
Eric Galamb identified two crossings of Falling Creek which are
classified as class C, NSW and a crossing of Briery Run which is classified
as a class CS, NSW.
Jerry Snead commented that a 72 inch crosspipe would be required
approximately 2000 feet north of the intersection with US 70.
Phil Williamson stated that the metric base mapping would be ready by
February 1994.
The next point of discussion was the location of the utilities. Missy
identified the locations of the water, sewer, and gas lines. Betty Yancey
asked if the utilities were outside of the right-of-way. Ed Latham replied
that most of the utilities were encroaching on NCDOT right-of-way.
Wilson Stroud asked about the skewed alignment of Daly Waldrup Road. He
suggested that Roadway Design take a look at this intersection.
Due to the absence of Roadway Design, another meeting with them will be
scheduled.
JTH/sdt
Attachment
cc: Scoping Participants

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP AA
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
NGDGl4 tJ R -17EN1
FROM: BLDG.
REF. NO. ORROOM,
,
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

warm
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
February 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 258, From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston, Lenoir County,
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-258(4), State Project
8.1200401, TIP Project U-2542
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 258. The project is included
in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1996 and construction in fiscal
year 1997.
Preliminary planning calls for the widening of US 258 to a five-lane
curb and gutter facility. The construction of a railroad grade separation at
the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad (approximately 0.5 miles north of
US 70) will also be studied.
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
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by April 15, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Missy
Dickens, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
Ank
4
.
?•` .I'
I`
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 258
FROM US 70 TO SR 1575
KINSTON, LENOIR COUNTY
T.1. P. PROJECT NO. U - 2542
Y State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM
AIVIVA44
doft
?EHNR
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Developm
FROM: Monica Swihart?,?Water Quality Planning
.a._ t
UJ
' MAR 1 8 1994
WETLANDS
lit WATER 0?; '
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0609; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
US 258, From US 70 to SR 1575, Kinston, TIP No. U-2542
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 channel ized/ 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.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
March 18, 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.
10545er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb