19970093 Ver 1_Env Assessment_20090127 (2)

FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. _
STATE WBS NO. 41739
TIP NO. U-2928
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LENOIR COUNTY
Submitted Pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act
42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)

/ ? -.z.-Z /0'e-
Date
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Rail Division
John F : -
John F Sullivan, III, PE
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Date
415 ?j ?ry
, y?Ito
1qN p"* X00,9 David B Foster, PE
Rail Environmental Programs Manager
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document
Mr John F Sullivan, III, PE Mr David Foster, PE
Division Administrator Rail Environmental Programs Manager
Federal Highway Administration NC Department of Transportation, Rail Division
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27601 Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
[phone] [phone]

Comments must be received by Mr David Foster, Rail Environmental Programs Manager, NCDOT,
Rail Division, 1553 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 by

f
1
1
1
C?

1Z \?k%
Date
GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LENOIR COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO.
STATE WBS NO. 41739
TIP NO. U-2928
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
December 2008
Documentation Prepared by
Stantec Consulting Services Inc
L-L
Paul R Koch, PE, AICP
Project Manager
Stantec Consulting Services Inc
I
Documentation Prepared for
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RAIL DIVISION
Date
..•Y"12
Marc Hamel
Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
dot8eee:aeeo,e
e``?? ??? ? ee00
a a °
• R
Y `Ay'
d ? V ° w0 W
Isk
?O?i6°C C
?0?0*feeeoeW94?'?e
1
GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LENOIR COUNTY
Federal Aid Project No
State WBS No 41739
TIP No U-2928
r
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the Section 404 Permit Conditions, Nationwide Permit Conditions,
Regional Conditions, Section 401 Water Certification Conditions, and measures detailed
in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by the NCDOT Rail Division
The Rail Division will
1 Limit clearing on the Dobbs Farm School property to maintain visual screening
between the proposed rail spur and existing buildings
2 Construct gates and flashers on Dobbs Farm Road at the maximum feasible
distance from the Dobbs Farm School main entrance
3 Construct an earth berm with excess earthwork material in the right-of-way adjacent
the west end of Robinwood Road to provide noise and visual screening for the
residence at the end of that road
4 Due to the presence of suitable foraging habitat, Red cockaded woodpecker surveys
(for cavity trees within the study area and an additional buffer of 0 5 mile from the
study area perimeter) will be performed following leaf-fall when cavity visibility is
greatest

Project Commitments
Environmental Assessment
December 2008
Page 1 of 1

' EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

I

l

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009-2015
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes the construction of a rail spur
that would service the multi-modal North Carolina Global TransPark (GTP, see
Section 1 5 2) The proposed project is designated as TIP Project No U-2928 and
is located within the city limits of Kinston in Lenoir County, North Carolina Exhibit
1 1 1 shows the project location
The proposed project is a railroad spur that would connect the existing North
Carolina Railroad (NCRR) line to the GTP The new connection would run
perpendicular to the existing rail line in a north-south direction, for approximately
5 5 miles roughly parallel to US 258, before terminating within the GTP Exhibit
1 2 1 displays the project study area
The purpose of this project is to create rail access between the GTP and the
existing rail network providing access to the North Carolina Port at Morehead City
The Recommended Alternative ties to the existing NCRR east-west line paralleling
US 70 Provision of rail access is an integral component of planned infrastructure
necessary to support the functions of the GTP as addressed in the 1997 EIS
S.2 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
Construction of the Build Alternative would create wetland impacts, therefore it is
anticipated that an Individual Section 404 permit and an Individual Section 401
Water Quality Certification (WQC) would be required for this project, pursuant to
the Clean Water Act (16 USC 1344) Section 404 and 401 permits authorize
activities from the perspective of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
the NC Division of Water Quality Other federal, state, or local permits, approvals,
or authorizations may also be required
S.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and
need of providing rail access to the GTP as it would forego any railroad
S-1
EXECUTIVE improvements to connect the GTP to the existing NCRR Mainline within the project
SUMMARY I study area
Conceptual Alternatives (Western, Central, and Eastern Corridors) - The
Western Corridor would roughly follow an extension of existing SR 2010 (C F
Harvey Parkway) west from US 258 to the NCRR west of Kinston The Central
Corridor runs north-south from the NCRR line in the north portion of Kinston to the
GTP The Eastern Corridor would extend from the GTP to the existing CSX rail
line that runs along NC 11 on the east side of Kinston After a preliminary
evaluation, the Western and Eastern Corridors were eliminated from further study
because the Central Corridor provides a shorter more direct alignment with fewer
anticipated impacts
Preliminary Alternatives within the Central Corridor (Alternatives A- F) - Six
preliminary alternatives, designate as A through F, were developed within the
Central Corridor The alignments of these alternatives were evaluated as public
comments, agency input, and natural resources data collection were obtained
These alternatives were either eliminated or sections of each combined, in order to
avoid and minimize impacts to the extent possible Each of these six alternatives
was therefore eliminated from consideration as the Recommended Alternative
Recommended Alternative (Alternative G) - Following refinement of the
preliminary alternatives, Alternatives A-C were eliminated and segments of
Alternatives D-F were combined to form Alternative G Because it avoids and
minimizes impacts to the extent possible while satisfying the purpose and need,
Alternative G is the Recommended Alternative Alternative G has a southern
terminus along the NCRR at a point set as far west from the Hillcrest neighborhood
as feasible without directing the alignment towards impacting Barnet Park on its
west From the south, the alignment heads north to Hull Road and then northwest
to C F Harvey Parkway, enters the GTP and terminates well south of Stonyton
Creek
S-2

' EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY S4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Summary descriptions of the anticipated impacts for the Recommended Alternative
? are provided in the following section Table S 1 quantifies the impacts associated
with the Recommended Alternative
i
Land Use - The corridor is currently zoned primarily as low-density residential
Trends in the area suggest that development in and immediately adjacent to the GTP
will be industrial and commercial with residential uses continuing to in-fill along the
i
' corridor between SR 1573 (Dobbs Farm Road) and the NCRR
I
' The proposed project is consistent with the policies presented in the Future Land
Use Plan, Lenoir County, NC, 2001 and is in-line with the long-range goals of the
GTP
Relocations - There are no residential relocations and no business relocations
t associated with the Recommended Alternative
' Farmlands - A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form was submitted to the
NRCS for the Build Alternative corridors The rating indicates that some
' consideration should be given for protection None of the land within the study
corridor is zoned as agricultural and growth trends suggest that the area will
continue to expand in residential land use The Recommended Alternative impacts
portions of some small farming operations that are interspersed among
residentially-zoned land in the southern half of the study corridor No substantial
' adverse effects to existin
and f
r
t
f
t
t
t
d
l
f
g
u
u
e
arm opera
ions are an
icipa
as a resu
e
t o
this project

Community Facilities - No schools, churches, or emergency services facilities will
' be impacted by this project No parks or recreation areas (including Section 4f or
6f properties) would be impacted by this project
'
Indirect and Cumulative Effects - The proposed rail spur is an integral
' component of the GTP The potential effects associated with development of the
GTP were addressed in a 1997 EIS which described potential indirect and
-- -- -- cumulative effects (ICEs) of the full build-out of the GTP This full build-out

S-3
EXECUTIVE included extending a rail spur into the GTP The effects and mitigation
SUMMARY requirements associated with this action were, therefore, addressed in that
document Therefore, no additional ICEs beyond those described and addressed
in the 1997 EIS are anticipated with the currently proposed action
I
Environmental Justice - The project would not create a concern for human
health, environmental, or other adverse impacts, to minority groups, as there are
i
no residential relocations or other adverse social impacts associated with the
proposed project Noise impacts are not anticipated to disproportionately affect
minority or low-income populations
Air Quality - Lenoir County is in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards The proposed project is located in an attainment area, therefore, 40
I
CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable This project is not anticipated to create
any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area
i
Noise - One residential receiver is within the predicted impact area of the
Recommended Alternative Construction of an earth berm is proposed at this
location in order to minimize potential noise impacts
j Water Quality - The proposed project is a single-track rail spur on a gravel ballast
foundation which will not introduce a substantial amount of impervious surface to
I
the area Any runoff from the proposed project will be accommodated in
i
j accordance with the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules and Best Management
Practices to minimize potential impacts to surface water quality within the study
area
i
Biotic Communities - The study area includes six terrestrial plant communities
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), Nonriverine Wet
I
Hardwood Forest, Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype), and
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype), pine flat, and
disturbed/maintained land The Recommended Alternative impacts 10 3 acres of
wetland/aquatic systems and 23 7 acres of upland natural areas
I
S-4
I
' EXECUTIVE Waters of the United States - The Recommended Alternative is anticipated to
SUMMARY impact 10 8 acres of wetlands and 239 linear feet of jurisdictional streams The
' project also impacts 161 of linear wetlands which are considered to be DWQ
buffered streams
Rare and Protected Species - The proposed project would not adversely affect
' any federal or state protected species
' Riparian Buffers - The Recommended Alternative is anticipated to impact 0 9
acres of riparian buffer
Utilities - The Recommended Alternative is not anticipated to require substantial
relocation or impacts to utilities
Archaeological and Historic Architectural Resources - The survey found one
' potentially eligible property, the Dobbs Farm School, within the study area The
Recommended Alternative traverses the eastern edge of the Dobbs Farm School
' property, but impacts no structures, is shifted east to the extent possible to
maximize the distance from existing structures, and maintains an approximately
500-foot tree buffer between the track and existing buildings Therefore, the
' Recommended Alternative received a finding of "No Adverse Effect" from the State
Historic Preservation Office Archeological resources will be evaluated following
' selection of a Preferred Alternative
Hazardous Material Sites/Underground Storage Tanks - The presence of four
1
geoenvironmental sites within the project study area or immediate vicinity would
create low to moderate monetary and scheduling impacts No adverse
environmental effects are anticipated by the alteration of these sites
' Mineral Resources -There are no mineral production operations within the
' project study area, therefore, the proposed project does not pose any impacts to
mining or mineral resources
I Preliminary Cost Estimate - The total estimated construction cost for the project
is $25,936,000
S-5

TABLE S 1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (Alternative G)
EVALUATION FACTOR

@„O STRl1C;T19N ASSOCIATED IMPACT
Inside GTP Outside GTP Total Impact
Permit Area Permit Area
ti
Mainline Length - miles 2 83 2 83 5 66
Number of Roadway Crossings 5 3 8
Construction Cost --- --- $25,936,000
Residential Relocations 0 0 0
Business Relocations 0 0 0
Schools Impacted 0 0 0
Parks Impacted 0 0 0
Churches/Cemeteries Impacted 0 0 0
Receptors Impacted by Noise 0 1 1
'- ' CULTURi4L .RESOURCE FACTORS ^, ' , :.
Pfd
Potential Archaeological Sites TBD TBD TBD
Recorded Archaeological Sites TBD TBD TBD
Historic Properties Effected 1 0 1

_jTjQ_ff,A 12E?S?OUR,CEFACTORS`:??, usu
",
-?
Protected Species Impacted 0* 0* 0*
Stream Crossings 1 2 3
Upland Natural Systems - acres 50 187 237
Wetland/Aquatic Systems - acres 35 73 108
Jurisdictional Streams - linear feet 0 239 239
DWQ Buffered Streams - linear feet 161 0 161
Stream/Riparian Buffer Impacts - linear feet 161 239 400
Riparian Buffer Impacts - acres 04 05 09
'rLAND USE FACTORS -acres 2
Residential 0 0 0
Commercial 0 0 0
Institutional 0 0 0
Industrial 258 0 258
Recreational 0 0 0
Agricultural 0 0 0
Open/Maintained/Undeveloped
PHYSICAL FACTORS
100-year Flood plain - acres 86
_
0 249

55 335
,, . Y
55
Prime and Unique Farmland - acres 675 675 135
Hazardous Materials Sites (no adverse effect) 4 0 4
Number of Exceedances of CO NAAQS NA NA NA
Notes
1 Impact quantities based on construction limits of the Budd Alternative plus 25 feet
2 Impact quantities are based on the proposed 100-foot right-of-way
3 Category includes government, churches, and schools
4 Includes impacts to upland and wetland systems
5 Impact quantities are based on the proposed 200-foot comdor on farmland sods
* Red-cockaded woodpecker is "Unresolved" pending a survey following leaf-fall
S-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXE CUTIVE SUMMARY S-1
10 PUR POSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT 1-1
1 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1 2 PROPOSED ACTION 1-1
1 3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED 1-1
14 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE 1-2
15 PROJECT SETTING 1-2
151 General Characteristics of the Study Area 1-2
15 2 Global TransPark (GTP) 1-4
15 3 GTP Permit Area 1-4
16 SYSTEM LINKAGE 1-5
16 1 Existing Road System 1-5
16 2 Existing Rail System 1-5
16 3 Existing Air System 1-6
17 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 1-6
1 7 1 Existing Development 1-6
17 2 Future Development 1-6
18 TRANSPORTATION PLANS 1-6
1 8 1 NCDOT Projects 1-7
1 8 2 NCRR Project 1-8
19 SUMMARY 1-8
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2-1
21 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2-1
22 CONCEPTUAL BUILD ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2 2 1 Western Corridor 2-1
2 2 2 Central Corridor 2-2
2 2 3 Eastern Corridor 2-3

'
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont )
SECTION PAGE
23 INITIAL PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES 2-4
2 3 1 Alternative A 2-4
2 3 2 Alternative B 2-5
2 3 3 Alternative C 2-5
24 REVISED PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES 2-6
2 4 1 Alternative D 2-7
2 4 2 Alternative E 2-7
2 4 3 Alternative F 2-8
25 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE G) 2-8
26 OTHER ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
2-11
27 RAIL SPUR DESIGN CRITERIA 2-11

28 COST ESTIMATES 2-12
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1
31 LAND USE 3-1
3 1 1 Existing Land Use 3-1
3 1 2 Development Trends 3-1
3 1 3 Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Plans 3-1
32 FARMLANDS 3-2
33 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 3-4
331 Population Characteristics 3-4
332 Employment and Economic Characteristics
333 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion 3-6
3-7
334 Travel Patterns and Accessibility 3-7
335 Schools
336 Churches and Cemeteries 3-8
3-8
337 Emergency Services 3-8
338 Businesses 3-8
339 Parks and Recreation 3-8
3310 Specific Social Groups 3-9
34 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATION IMPACTS 3-9
35 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
n 3-9

'
TABLE OF CONTENTS(cont )
SECTION PAGE
36 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3-12

37 AIR QUALITY 3-13
38 NOISE ANALYSIS 3-133
39 NATURAL RESOURCES 3-15
391 Soils 3-16
392 Water Resources 3-17
393 Biotic Resources 3-19
3931 Terrestrial Communities 3-19
3932 Terrestrial Wildlife 3-22
3933 Aquatic Communities 3-22
3934 Invasive Species 3-23
394 Jurisdictional Issues 3-23
3941 CWA Waters of the United States 3-23
3942 CWA Permits 3-26
3943 Construction Moratoria 3-26
3944 N C River Basin Buffer Rules 3-26
3945 River and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters 3-27
3946 Wetland and Stream Mitigation 3-27
3947 Endangered Species Act Protected Species 3-28
395 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 3-29
396 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species 3-30
310 HYDRAULIC IMPACTS 3-35
311 FLOODPLAINS 3-30
312 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES 3-31
3 13 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES
AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS 3-32
3 14 MINERAL RESOURCES 3-33
315 ENERGY 3-33
3 16 VISUAL IMPACTS 3-33
317 UTILITIES 3-34
3 17 1 Electric Power Transmission 3-34
3 17 2 Water and Sewer Facilities 3-34
3 17 3 Natural Gas Service and Other Pipelines 3-34
3 17 4 Communications
ni 3-34
e
v
i
t
s
TABLE OF CONTENTS(cont )
SECTION PAGE
3 18 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 3-35
3 18 1 Air Quality 3-35
3 18 2 Noise 3-35
3 18 3 Water Quality 3-36
3 18 4 Maintenance of Traffic 3-36
3 18 5 Construction Materials and Waste 3-37
3 19 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 3-37
4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 4-1
41 SCOPING LETTER 4-1
42 KICK-OFF MEETING 4-1
43 MEETINGS WITH U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4-2
44 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 4-2
441 Mailing List 4-2
442 Newsletter 4-2
443 Citizens Informational Workshop 4-3
444 Comments Addressed in Recommended Alternative 4-4
445 Public Hearing 4-5
45 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETINGS 4-5
451 Lenoir County Transportation Committee 4-5
4 5 2 Kinston City Council Meeting 4-5
46 MEETINGS WITH GTP SITES 4-5
IV

I APPENDICES
A CO
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
ORDINATION
Scoping Letter
Agency Comments
NRCS Farmland Conversion Form
State Historic Preservation Office Concurrence
Public Involvement Materials
B NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT (NRTR)
B 1 Figures
B 2 Scientific Names
C REFERENCES
C1 References
EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit 1 1 1 Project Location 1-10
Exhibit 1 2 1 Project Study Area 1-11
Exhibit 1 5 1 Global TransPark Permit Area 1-12
Exhibit 1 8 1 Transportation Projects in Project Vicinity 1-13

Exhibit 2 2 1 Conceptual Alternatives 2-13
Exhibit 2 3 1 Initial Preliminary Build Alternatives (A-C) 2-14
Exhibit 2 4 1 Revised Preliminary Build Alternatives (D-F) 2-15
Exhibit 2 5 1 Preferred Alternative (Alternative G) 2-16
Exhibit 2 7 1 Typical Rail Cross Section 2-17
' Exhibit 3 1 1 City of Kinston Zoning Map) 3-39
Exhibit 3 2 1 Farmland Soils 3-40
Exhibit 3 8 1 Noise Impact Area 3-41
Exhibit 3 9 1 Natural Resources Overview 3-42
Exhibit 3 10 1 Mayor Drainage Structures 3-43
Exhibit 3 11 1 Flood Hazard Areas 3-44
Exhibit 3 12 1 Historic Resources 3-45
Exhibit 3 13 1 Hazardous Materials Sites 3-46
Exhibit 3 17 1 Utilities 3-47
v

TABLES
PAGE
Table S 1 Summary of Impacts for the Recommended Alternative S-6
Table 1 8 1 2009-2015 TIP Projects in the Project Study Area Vicinity 1-7
Table 2 5 1 Preliminary Alternatives Comparison 2-8
Table 2 7 1 Project Design Criteria 2-11

' Table 2 8 1 Build Alternative Construction Cost Estimates 2-12
Table 3 2 1 Prime, Unique, and Statewide Important Farmlands 3-2
Table 3 2 2 Farmland Conversion Impacts 3-3
Table 3 3 1 Population Trends 3-4
Table 3 3 2 Racial Characteristics 3-5
Table 3 3 3 Age Characteristics 3-5
1 Table 3 3 4 Occupational Data 3-6
Table 3 3 5 Economic and Demographic Data 3-7
Table 3 9 1 Soil Series in the Study Area 3-16
Table 3 9 2 A Jurisdictional Streams in the Study Area 3-17
Table 3 9 2 B Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area 3-18
Table 3 9 3 Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area 3-22
Table 3 9 4 A
Table 3 9 4 B Jurisdictional Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area
Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area 3-24
3-25
Table 3 9 4 C Federally Protected Species Listed for Lenoir County 3-28
Table 3 13 1 Listed Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area 3-32
Table 3 19 1 Summary of Impacts for the Recommended Alternative 3-38
Table 4 4 1 Recommended Alternative Response to Public Input 4-44

1
vi

Imaortant Points

TIP U-2928 -
Construction of 5 5
miles of rail spur
between the GTP
and the existing
NCRR east-west
line that runs
parallel to US 70
just north of Kinston,
NC

The 1997 GTP EIS
included rail access
' as part of the
ultimate
infrastructure
i !
i
i
F11

1 0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) includes the construction of a rail spur that would service
the multi-modal North Carolina Global TransPark (GTP, see Section 1 5 2) The
proposed project is designated as TIP Project No U-2928 and is located within the city
limits of Kinston in Lenoir County, North Carolina Exhibit 1 1 1 shows the project
location
This document was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 as amended It includes the disclosure of relevant environmental
information regarding the proposed project and is intended for use by both decision-
makers and the public The contents of this statement conform with the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines regarding the implementation of NEPA, as well
as the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) technical advisory, Guidance for
Prepanng and Processing Environmental and Section 4(17 Documents (FHWA, 1987)
12 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project is a railroad spur that would connect the existing North Carolina
Railroad (NCRR) line to the GTP The new connection would run perpendicular to the
existing rail line in a north-south direction, for approximately 5 5 miles roughly parallel to
US 258, before terminating within the GTP Exhibit 1 2 1 displays the project study area
1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED
The primary need for this railroad access is supported by current and anticipated needs
within the GTP The concept of the GTP is to allow real-time manufacturing and
shipping that can utilize air, roadway, and rail As the GTP grows, it will allow multi-
modal freight access for a variety of industrial and manufacturing tenants An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in 1997 for the GTP and describes
the anticipated uses, modal connections, and potential impacts The 1997 EIS includes
the proposal that rail access into the GTP will be necessary to support the ultimate
functions and goals of the GTP Therefore, rail access is an integral need to fully realize
the multi-modal vision for the GTP and remove sole pressure for ground freight from the
1-1

i Important Points surrounding roadway system '
This document
details the effects of
The initial user of the rail access is anticipated to be the proposed Spirit Aerosystems ,
the Budd Altemative site which will be located northeast of Airport Road within the eastern portion of the GTP
terminating east of
the existing runway
Because the location of the Spirit Aerosystems site is known, this Environmental
'
Assessment provides a detailed description of effects corresponding to the Build
Alternative terminating within the GTP east of the existing runway It is acknowledged '
that ultimately a rail extension is also anticipated west of the existing runway Planning
and detailed design of a western-side terminus will be prepared at such future date as a
The purpose of the rail-user tenant locates west of the runway
project ?s to provide
a rail access from
the NCRR line to the 1.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE
GTP
The purpose of this project is to create rail access between the GTP and the existing rail
network providing access to the North Carolina Port at Morehead City The '
Recommended Alternative ties to the existing NCRR east-west line paralleling US 70
Provision of rail access is an integral component of planned infrastructure necessary to '
I
support the functions of the GTP as addressed in the 1997 EIS
I
15 PROJECT SETTING
A
f th
St
d
t
l Ch
t
rea
e
u
eris
ics o
arac
y
1.5 1 Genera
As shown in Exhibit 1 2 1, the study area is situated between the NCRR mainline and
the GTP, on the north side of Kinston The City of Kinston is centrally located in eastern
North Carolina and has served as the county seat for Lenoir County since 1971 Kinston ,
is located between the cities of Raleigh and Morehead City, along US 70 In 1759 the
General Assembly of North Carolina passed an act to establish three tobacco inspection
warehouses in what was then Dobbs County It was at the site of one of these '
warehouses, located along the banks of the Neuse River, that "Kingston" was originally
? established The community was named for King George III of England In 1784,
following the end of the Revolutionary War, the people of Kingston requested that the
letter "g" be dropped '
In 1791, Dobbs County was reorganized yielding a Lenoir County, named for
Revolutionary War hero Gen William Lenoir Kinston was incorporated by the General

1-2

Important Points Assembly in 1826 By 1885, Kinston was home to a number of merchants, three
carriage factories, a harness factory, two turpentine distilleries, gristmills, sawmills, and
several doctor and lawyers
i
Several notable milestones for Kinston and Lenoir County occurred in the 20th century
and are listed below
¦
I Paving Queen Street with bricks in 1906,
The GTP was ¦ Arrival of the first car in 1906,
established in . The first World War,
Kinston in the 1990 . An aggressive road building program in 1915 and 1919,
¦ Building a public school system,
¦ The Great Depression,
¦ Buying land for an airport in the late 1930's,
¦ Developing a 640-acre site (now know as the Kinston Regional Jetport), for the
United States Navy Department, to use during World War II,
¦ Acquiring the air-field, by Kinston and Lenoir County, to serve as a public airport in
1947,
¦ Introducing air service by Serv-Air Corporation (1951-1957) and Piedmont Airlines
(1952- 2000),
¦ Re-naming the airport in 1953 to Stallings Field in honor of two Lenoir County
brothers who died in World War II while serving in the US Army Air Corps,
¦ Designating Stalling Filed as a regional airport in 1975,
¦ Opening a new 26,000 square foot terminal in 1978,
¦ Being selected as the site for the Global TransPark (GTP) in the 1990's, and
¦ Transferring ownership of the Kinston Regional Jetport to the GTP Authority in 1999
Throughout its nearly 300-year history, the Kinston-Lenoir County community relates
itself to the Neuse River, "Kinston is a community which keeps moving "
1
As listed above, the Global TransPark (GTP) was established in the 1990s The GTP
' was an economic initiative by the State for the purpose of boosting the economy of
eastern North Carolina The GTP centers around the Kinston Regional Jetport and
' ownership of the Jetport was transferred to the GTP Authority in 1999
' In order to provide a rail connection to the GTP, the proposed rail spur traverses a
corridor that is largely undeveloped but immediately adjacent to several neighborhoods
' The area is also interspersed with some institutional land uses and terminates within the
GTP which is primarily characterized by industrial land use A description of the GTP is
' provided below
1-3
Important Points 1.5.2 Global TransPark (GTP)
The GTP is a 2,400-acre industrial/airport site located at the Kinston Regional Jetport
north of US 70 and east of US 258 As described in the 1997 EIS, the GTP "is
envisioned to become a unique complex of transportation, manufacturing, and
commercial facilities dedicated to meeting the evolving business needs of international
trade and global manufacturing " At its ultimate build-out, the proposed GTP site is
projected to encompass an area of approximately 15,726 acres The composite aircraft
component manufacturer Spirit Aerosystems is an example of the type of high-
technology manufacturing sought by the GTP
According to the 1997 EIS, the GTP "includes the expansion of the existing Kinston

GTP t anal l /airpo airport t
indust

Regional Jetport from its present size of 1,255 acres to approximately 2,191 acres
site, projected to pursuant to a revised Airport Layout Plan This process would be accomplished over a
encompass an area
of 15,726 acres at
10-year period The expanded airport property is termed the "Cargo Airport" "
build-out
j To attain the build-out of the GTP, a variety of new and expanded industrial,
manufacturing, and commercial sites, along with the associated necessary
infrastructure, are anticipated to occur within and beyond the boundaries of the Cargo
Airport In response to these expectations, a Permit Area was developed and is

i described in the following section
1.5.3 GTP Permit Area
The 1997 EIS for the GTP identified both direct and indirect effects anticipated for the full
build-out of the GTP A unique permitting process was developed for the GTP that
The GTP Permit involved the identification of potential impacts and associated mitigation upfront for the
Area (Ex 151) was
j established to
build-out scenario Therefore as individual tenants move into the GTP, the already
anticipate impacts
predicted potential impacts are verified, and the appropriate mitigation is debited and
and mitigation ation
needs for build-out implemented from the full amount of mitigation already planned This permitting process
of the GTP
is applicable to the area referred to as the GTP Permit Area and shown in Exhibit 1 5 1
The Permit Area includes all of the Cargo Airport, initial surface transportation
improvements associated with the NCGTP, and the projected industrial, commercial,
and related land development build out that was projected for the first 10 years of the
NCGTP
1-4

Important Points

0

This document will
address effects both
within and outside
the Permit Area
i
i
I
i
1
i
As identified in the 1997 EIS, establishment of the Permit Area and the anticipated
mitigation needs were based on the assumption that the GTP would include the
following components beyond the boundaries of the Cargo Airport
¦ 1,502 acres designated for industrial/commercial development, which are
additional to those within the Cargo Airport,
¦ Development of the initial portion of a Spine Road (U-3341, Table 1 8 1) north
west of the new runway,
¦ Improvements to Airport Road, Benjamin Franklin Road, and other internal roads
to provide improved access to NC 58 and SR 2010 (C F Harvey Parkway),
¦ Development of an intermodal rail spur to connect the initial industrial area to
the North Carolina Railroad,
¦ An education and training center on a site of approximately 84 acres,
¦ 295 acres of land designated for wetland mitigation, and
¦ 631 acres of lands designed as additional open space
The proposed rail spur extends outside the boundary of this permit area and therefore
will have impacts that are both within and outside the Permit Area For this reason, all
direct impacts quantified for the Recommended Alternative within this document will
identify the anticipated impacts both inside and outside the boundary
16 SYSTEM LINKAGE
This section discusses the mayor elements of the transportation system traversing and
surrounding the project study area
1 6.1 Existing Road System
The GTP internal roadway system has adjacent access to US 258, C F Harvey
Parkway, and US 58 US 70, which is approximately 5 miles south of the GTP, is the
major east-west highway in this portion of the State The GTP links to US 70 via US 258
Secondary roads within the study area include SR 1573 (Dobbs Farm Road), SR 1572
(Rouse Road), SR 1557 (Hull Road), and Sand Clay Road
1.6.2 Existing Rail System
The North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) Mainline runs parallel to US 70 approximately five
miles south of the GTP This rail line provides service between Raleigh and Morehead
1-5

Important Points
i
GTP has no existing
rail access
Projected growth ?n
the Kinston area ?s
largely dependent
on the GTP
City, with connection to the North Carolina Port facilities at Morehead City A CSX line is '
located on the east side of Kinston, stopping at a point named Elmer approximately 5
miles from the GTP The CSX line begins north of downtown Kinston and heads north to ,
Greenville There is currently no rail connection between the GTP and any existing rail
line '
1 6.3 Existing Air System
The GTP is centered on the Kinston Regional Jetport The Jetport provides flight
operation for commercial, general aviation, and military flights The Jetport currently '
offers an 11,500 foot runway As described in previous sections, further expansion of
the Jetport is an integral part of the GTP master plans '
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The following sections describe existing and projected social and economic elements of '
the project setting
1 7.1 Existing Development
The majority of the area within the GTP and along US 258 is developed, with '
commercial and industrial properties comprising the major land use elements The study
area encompassing the rail access corridor is a mix of undeveloped land and residential '
subdivisions There are also some institutional uses along Dobbs Farm Road
1.7 2 Future Development '
Future development in Kinston is expected to follow guidelines contained in the Future '
Land Use Plan, Lenoir County NC, 2001 The overall mission of the County's plan is to
foster economic development and the creation of jobs for the county's residents and to '
place minimal constraints on individual and business decisions while enhancing the
county's environment and quality of life
1
The GTP is a major and critical factor in the long-range economic plans of Kinston and
the surrounding region of eastern North Carolina Therefore predicted development in '
the area is based in large part on the GTP and its ancillary growth
1 8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS '
This section describes planned and programmed improvements to the transportation '
1-6

?I

D

r Important Points
The Carey Road
Extension would
cross the proposed
rail spur
system in the general vicinity of the proposed action This includes projects planned by
NCDOT and others Exhibit 1 8 1 shows the planned and programmed projects in the
vicinity of the proposed action
1.8 1 NCDOT Proiects
The NCDOT 2009-2015 TIP includes schedules (planning, design, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction) for several projects in the general vicinity of the project
study area Currently the relevant programmed roadway and infrastructure improvement
projects in this area are listed in Table 1 8 1
TABLE 1.8 1
2009-2015 TIP PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA VICINITY
TIP
NO. LOCATION PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED
SCHEDULE

R-2553 Kinston Bypass, four-lane freeway on new
Kinston Programmed for
Environmental Studies
location Only
Improvements to stabilize and preserve the
E-4739 Kinston CSS Neuse State Historic Site on the Neuse In Progress
River
Kinston-Lenoir County Parks and Recreation
E-4976 Kinston Department and Lenoir County Renovation Under Construction
and construction of a 2200 square-foot visitors
center at the intersection of US 70 and US 258
FS New Route, proposed US 70 bypass to NC 11-
-
0802A
Kinston
58 Construct a multi-lane facility on new Feasibility Study In
Progress
location
U-3341 Kinston Global Transpark "Spine Road" Facility Multi- Currently Unfunded
lanes on new location

U-3618
Kinston Carey Road Extension, SR 1572 (Rouse Road) Programmed for
Environmental Study
to US 258 Multi-lanes on new location Only
Plaza Boulevard Extension, NC 58 (North
U-4018 Kinston Queen Street ) NC 11 North (Greenville N/A
Highway) Multi-lanes on new location
Of the projects listed above, the GTP "Spine Road"(U-3341) and the Carey Road
Extension (U-3618) are located within the immediate vicinity of the proposed action
The Spine Road is currently unfunded and due to its location would not be anticipated to
affect the rail spur As shown on Exhibit 1 8 1, the conceptual alignment for the Carey
Road Extension would cross the proposed rail spur It is anticipated that the road
extension would be constructed well after the completion of the rail spur So, the
1-7

Important Points planning and design of the Carey Road Extension will need to address the type and '
location of the railroad crossing
i
1 8.2 NCRR Project
Also within the general vicinity of the proposed action, the NCRR proposes to construct '
a Team Track, that will temporarily serve as a Transload facility for freight into the GTP,
along the existing mainline parallel to US 70 The general location of this proposed '
facility is shown in Exhibit 1 8 1

The Team Track for transloading, which is composed of a parallel railroad siding track
i
and adjacent vehicular roadway access, will allow rail freight to be off-loaded onto large
'
trucks, which can then transport freight via the road system to destinations including the
GTP It is anticipated that once the proposed rail spur is completed, it will reduce or
eliminate the amount of freight carved via roadways between the Team Track and the
GTP Completion of the rail access will therefore reduce freight truck traffic on the
diate vicinit
mm
th
d
t
,
i
y
e i
ways in
e
ing roa
exis
G TP rail access will Spirit Aerosystems is proposing to ship large composite airframe components to Europe ,
reduce pressure in oversized containers These containers will travel via the proposed rail spur and
from existing
roadways by shifting
NCRR to the port at Morehead City for shipping to Europe Spirit Aerosystems '
freight from truck to
rail anticipates these containers requiring shipment approximately one year prior to the
completion of the rail spur Therefore, the containers will move by road from the GTP to '
I
the Team Track in the short term
i
I
1.9 SUMMARY
1 The Global TransPark (GTP) is an existing multi-modal industrial facility that has been '
incrementally growing in accordance with a master plan and associated Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) since the 1990's The EIS anticipated potential impacts for the '
GTP and its associated infrastructure (including rail access) within a Permit Area shown
in Exhibit 1 5 1 Therefore, this document will address effects both within and outside
t is
d
b
d
d
tl
d b
GTP
i
way mo
es
u
y air an
roa
y serve
is curren
the GTP Permit Area The
lacking the freight rail access envisioned in its master plan, addressed in the 1997 EIS,
and currently required by tenant Spirit Aerosystems '
1-8

i
1

The proposed action will provide rail access from the existing NCRR line in Kinston to a
terminus within the GTP The study area for the proposed action is aligned north-south
from the NCRR line to the GTP This area encompasses an approximately 5 5 mile
corridor with predominantly undeveloped areas, bounded by residential subdivisions and
some institutional land use
Provision of this rail access will help fulfill the multi-modal vision of the GTP and will
relieve some freight pressure from the existing roadway system in the northern portion of
the Kinston area
1-9

To Farmvi!lr
J - / IiGATII
. ?_.
GRE 04
t COUNTY 58 R - RD "r 4,
t?R ?Pi 'y F?
0 RD.
INSTITUTE --- I -
Lc?UP ytr!rlinytun cSrON RD.
o'
c mQ". 1
`T n ar t • . ?J. a0' w n J'
u 4 _i
?5?, C f• E O?'T t«•GHi ?MI_. K0• ?/I S
Eh1Y HGTS ??`r
JJv
I i

PAULS 4 ?C A 4F, \.•,?
j 1, Lenoir\ CUN ?<c.?", .
Mem
H / CdRfy . Hospifol\, .I fl" ,
'. .. I ?PI.A 711. :O
BANKS SCHOOL D• o m ?e? Bl-VD.o F`?"'- DUNN, RD.1 may"
Use
NC RR M,: Kinston;-", ?.
N? V58SJ t? AVED
VERNO ;ti:.--:: Im /
, FV Plonc ariuni WAAVENGTON TOVI
'BEST i .,_ \ !'?O
170)
10
+' - R
I1.-
5 UN I -Y
0\.. EAS V'.ysc l e k' I?
T?. a r / WG, L, N L ' .
- f CO l0<<IFR J? Ir•noti NfFrBc,Iti, ,-J(J,
o
Commv n,ty
o R D. College
8FR `C
CENTRAL 'V ..i
v
AVE. w744 BAKER N? %lOa(/
5 _ o 0
15$; t}1110 1/ STRAWBERRY at d? ? •?
BRANCH DR. 1 i •\?O
In,
11 °?? r 58,
Kinsto
n Area
117
c9
0
L
m
i-
d
m
3
Z
O

c
z
end Global TransPark Rail Access
i??7s tudyArea City of Kinston
Lenoir County, North Carolina
Project Location
Map
Not To Scale
Exhibit 1.1.1

e r r

'
Institute Road
tp
? •?
p? q Wiz:
?
y
' - ' Y ?oo

k
. ?t

r,
•G3' ' vJ :'r .
•?
?-' 7 ,;
i
Asa ?.:
?
4_r f, h Harvey Pa kw y ?i
Y^
`

?.• yr O obs FJrm Foe {
YAMS
~
-
?? 1• e't eN PUS
?c
?
?
.
?
_
? £
??7:./G

cac,

410.
?, .
`
?
^"Lx,
•
? I :fit
. .. z
F . ,f A •F _,?.,. F ?? . •w .1 L_z
!
?
? k?• /.fC ? 1 'Y? ' _Yi?? ?Y:: ? ?,k Wis.
`ij ?[' ?.q?' t {?
¢4 Kinston _,.
.,? ,
a.t - tea, f t
North Carcl,na J?T,N ?+? ?;u
a y( C 7't. ?^ •, y
IWd
y
Q' .r.Y?
??
JA
[
rt7,
wr SM,:
, ?; ? "' s e "''?
111''1 `;
L
- y^'?. ' - ? .IFS
i 1 "1
? ` ?'•
0
K
? a i ?
?
?
.?
w
».r
.r????
y?
?s?,
?
'"

_ US 70 y`? ,: M1 Cit ?c,
?yn
it
ffir
•
/
.
W
, 1v

se?
SSSYy
r
.
`' tt
? 'M
??
r
ti'ta '
':
V
S
5
^r
1
S
}
?.
_
`?.
'k
?5
Nuth Carolina Dopartrnant of TrareportOw T-
PIVISIOO??

Legend Global TransPark Rail Access
Study Area Study Area
City Limits City of Kinston Not To Scale
county Limits Lenoir County, North Carolina Exhibit 1.2.1

I r -7
N (DD
a cD
D a
fD
m
Z
(D
c
0
(D
Z

3
3 ?
Ui

0
cr

r
0
3 ? N
0
O o

0 M N

0 3
70
n
m
o

0 ? ..
-
> o
F
0 0
/
0
N

M
O
w
I
A

J
O
0
? o
r
c. ?
I?
(D
O
W
\2
? Fo!l/n
00 9 Creek
co
O c
I
? A
m OUi
0 N
- O?
Q
N 0? ?
O
0
n
-a Z
tD O n
x .Z1
T -
To O G
?' 3

3
N
r.
0
3
O?
Fo
.:c
1 ?
c
l0
co
l0? a
N
m
`,.
Ui
Ln
0
0
m
m
t" I
a

m 'R :? j

0
X0.0 rzA
?
Q
-j2?
0<(D0
NA 3 fl
A
1

r
GD D) 3 r
:r 0
(D 3

?O I
a
0
Z
h
rF
0
3
I
A
w
i
cn
o \
? o
s ?
w N
0
R
oo'
0
v ?
0 00
C
CD
0
3
w
a
w
0
0
a
w
Ic,
0
C N

2 0 ALTERNATIVES
Important Points
i
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of providing rail access to
the GTP as it would forego any railroad improvements to connect the GTP to the existing
! The no-build
altemalve does not NCRR Mainline within the project study area
' meet the
transportation goals
of the NCDCT or the The No-Build Alternative would not be compatible with the transportation goals of North
transportation needs
of the GTP Carolina, which are to rovide and su
P support a safe and integrated transportation system
j
i that enhances the state, nor the goals and future needs of the GTP and the City of

I Kinston
I
The No-Build Alternative would avoid any adverse environmental impacts or residential
relocations, however adverse social and economic impacts could occur The GTP could
loose potential patrons due to the inaccessibility of rail and thereby port access for
h
I
ld
l
overseas s
ipping
t wou
a
so not meet the immediate needs of Spirit Aerosystems

' I
The No-Build Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the transportation
goals of the State of North Carolina, or the transportation needs of the GTP The No-
' j
i Build Alternative does, however, provide a basis for comparing the benefits and adverse
impacts of the Build Alternative
I
22 CONCEPTUAL BUILD ALTERNATIVES
' At the outset of this study, several potential study corridors were evaluated for possible
Three broad study provision of rail access to the GTP These conceptual alternatives involved a Western
' condors were
identified Eastem, Corridor, a Central Corridor, and an Eastern Corridor Exhibit 2 2 1 shows the
Central & Westem Conceptual Alternatives Each of these alternatives is described below

2 2 1 Western Corridor
' The Western Corridor would roughly follow an extension of existing C F Harvey
Parkway west from US 258 to the NCRR west of Kinston After a preliminary evaluation,
' and in comparison to the other conceptual alternatives, the Western Corridor was
eliminated from f
rth
r
t
d
f
th
f
ll
u
e
s
u
y
or
e
o
owing reasons

2-1
1

- - The rail alignment for this alternative would be approximately 1 2 miles longer
Important Points
The Western than the Central Corridor, considerably adding to the project cost and associated
Corridor was
eliminated from environmental impacts ,
further study due to An alignment following the proposed C F Harvey Parkway Extension would
greater length,

relocations, stream/
potentially cause nine relocations (residences and businesses) '
wetland impacts, A GIS screening indicates that the Western Corridor would impact 45 acres more
¦
and cost in
comparison to the hydnc soils (an approximation of potential wetland impact) than the Central '
Central Corridor
Corridor Due to the density of development in this corridor, efforts to avoid
these areas could create additional residential relocations
¦ Additional railroad bridges over roadways would be necessary This includes the
need for a bridge over US 258 north of C F Harvey Parkway In addition, due to '
the proximity of any railroad alignment to C F Harvey Parkway at SR 1001
(Pauls Path Road), a railroad bridge could be required over Pauls Path Road
These bridges would add significantly to the cost of construction and footprint
impact of the rail spur
f C F H
l
t
h
d
l
l
'
arvey
ignmen
o
e propose
a
spur a
ong t
¦ The inclusion of the rai
Parkway would require the redesign of the roadway in certain locations, including
changing the grade of the road to significantly increase the bridge clearance over '
the North Carolina Railroad to accommodate the large loads proposed by Spirit
Aerosystems Considerable additional cost to the C F Harvey Parkway '
Extension would result
¦ There may be significant impacts to multiple utilities along the Harvey Parkway '
corridor In particular, a water main northwest of C F Harvey Parkway would be
impacted and a water tower just north of Paul's Path Road associated with this '
water main would likely be impacted as well Relocation or modification of these

1 utilities would significantly add to the cost of the project '
22.2 Central Corridor '
The Central Corridor The Central Corridor runs north-south from the NCRR line in the north portion of Kinston
was selected for to the GTP During the preliminary evaluation, it was found that the Central Corridor
further study '
because 9 is the provides the shortest, most direct route between the GTP and the existing rail line, when
shortest, most direct
th th
l
ast
t compared with the other Conceptual Alternatives The Central Corridor also allows for
e wi
rou
e
e

anticipated impacts
perpendicular, rather than parallel, crossings of existing roadways Upon preliminary '
evaluation, the study area for the Central Corridor also exhibits less potential for impacts

2-2

to the human and natural environment (specifically residences, streams and wetlands,
Important Points
and historic properties), when compared to the other Conceptual Alternatives A GIS
I
1
' The Eastern
I
i'
Corndor was
eliminated from
further study due to
le length
' unreasonab
of rail travel and
h?gher poten
tial
impacts than
the
i Central Corn
dor

screening indicates that the Central Corridor would impact the least hydrnc soils (an
approximation of potential wetland impact) of the alternative corridors (45 acres less
than the Western Corridor, 115 acres less than the Eastern Corridor) This corridor was
also shown in the 1997 GTP EIS Therefore the Central Corridor was carried forward for
further study
2 2 3 Eastern Corridor
The Eastern Corridor would extend from the GTP to the existing CSX rail line that runs
along NC 11 on the east side of Kinston After a preliminary evaluation, and in
comparison to the other conceptual alternatives, the Eastern Corridor was eliminated
from further study for the following reasons
¦ The length of connection to the NCRR line was felt to be unreasonable The
GTP rail access must connect to the east-west NCRR line in order to reach the
North Carolina Port facilities in Morehead City As shown on Exhibit 2 2 1, the
CSX line on the east side of Kinston terminates several miles before it reaches
the NCRR line To meet the purpose and need, the rail spur needs to connect to
the NCRR line and ultimately the Morehead City Ports Making this connection
would either require new track construction through heavily developed areas on
the east side of Kinston, or using the existing CSX and Norfolk Southern lines
heading north to Greenville, west to Wilson, and south to Goldsboro before
i
i
i
I

connecting with the NCRR and heading to the Port Extension of the CSX line
south through Kinston was deemed unreasonable due to the high overall level of
potential impacts
¦ Using the existing CSX and Norfolk Southern lines in a northwest loop through
Greenville, Wilson, and Goldsboro would add approximately 105 miles of rail
travel when compared to the Western or Central Corridors In addition lateral
clearances along the track, and particularly beneath bridges, would need to be
provided to accommodate the oversize freight anticipated to go in and out of the
GTP Provision of these adequate clearances would potentially create additional
impacts from removal and replacement of structures For these reasons, the
Eastern Corridor was eliminated from further study
2-3
Important Points
Rail Altematives A,
B, & C are within the
Central Comdor
See Exhibit 2 31
Alternative A was
eliminated due
pnmanly to stream &
wetland impacts
¦ A GIS screening indicates that the Eastern Corridor would impact 115 acres
more hydnc soils (an approximation of potential wetland impact) than the Central
Corridor
2.3 INITIAL PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Three Preliminary Alternatives were initially developed within the Central Corridor
These alternatives, designated as Alternatives A, B, and C are shown in Exhibit 2 3 1
and described in the following sections Each of the Preliminary Alternatives is shown
on the exhibit as a 200-foot corridor to allow room for alignment shifts within the corridor
as design-level information is developed
2 3.1 Alternative A
Alternative A is the westernmost preliminary alternative Its south terminus is a Wye
configuration intersecting the NCRR mainline east of US 258 From the NCRR, this
alignment runs north and curves slightly west around the boundary of Barnet Park
Alternative A then runs almost due north before curving slightly to the northeast as it
approaches the GTP Alternative A includes crossings of Sand Clay Road, Hull Road,
Dobbs Farm Road, and C F Harvey Parkway Once it enters the GTP, Alternative A
runs parallel to C F Harvey Parkway and is intended to avoid impacts to the existing
runway lighting system that is necessary for instrument landing conditions at the jetport
Alternative A runs close to C F Harvey for most of its alignment until diverging from the
road as it comes to its northern terminus The north terminus is with the property for the
Spirit Aerosystems Site which will be the initial user of the rail access
As shown in Exhibit 2 3 1 the design of Alternative A best accommodates a possible
extension to the west side of the GTP as the purpose and need of the project is to
provide rail access to all potential tenants of the GTP As discussed in Section 1, the
western extension will not receive detailed design until a specific tenant-user is identified
within the west portion of the GTP
Alternative A was presented to the Public at the first Citizens Informational Workshop on
September 11, 2008 Alternative A was developed based on preliminary assessment of
streams and wetlands within the study area Detailed stream and wetland delineations
were conducted and coordinated with the U S Army Corps of Engineers in August of
2-4

ImportantPomts 2008 Once these detailed delineations were mapped, Alternative A was eliminated as a
Recommended Alternative because it does not avoid streams and wetlands in the study
area to the extent possible
' 2.3.2 Alternative B
Alternative B shares its south terminus with Alternative A The Alternative B alignment
' curves east and then back west near the Hull Road crossing in an attempt to further
minimize potential wetland impacts, based on preliminary wetlands assessment
Alternative B then heads east and runs concurrently with a segment of Alternative C
south of C F Harvey Parkway Alternative B includes crossings of Sand Clay Road,
' Hull Road, Dobbs Farm Road, and C F Harvey Parkway Once it enters the GTP,
Alternative B runs parallel to C F Harvey Parkway, but is located farther from the

' roadway than Alternative A The north terminus is with the property for the Spirit
Aerosystems Site which will be the initial user of the rail access
i A
h
E
h
b
t 2 3 1 th
d
f Alt
B
f
bl

Alternative B was s s
own in
x
i
i
e
esign o
ernative
accounts
or possi
e extension to
eliminated primarily the west side of the GTP as the purpose and need of the project is to provide rail access
i due to stream &
' wetland impacts to all potential tenants of the GTP As discussed in Section 1, the western extension will
not receive detailed design until a specific tenant-user is identified within the west portion
'
I of the GTP
i
i

Alternative B was presented to the Public at the first Citizens Informational Workshop on
September 11, 2008 Alternative B was developed based on preliminary assessment of
streams and wetlands within the study area Detailed stream and wetland delineations
were conducted and coordinated with the U S Army Corps of Engineers in August of
' 2008 Once these detailed delineations were mapped, Alternative B was eliminated as a
Recommended Alternative because it does not avoid streams and wetlands in the study
' area to the extent possible
2 3 3 Alt
t
C
erna
ive
Alternative C is the easternmost preliminary alternative Its south terminus is a Wye
i
' f
t
th
NCRR
t
t
l
t
t
f Alt
A
d B F
t
th
con
igura
ion in
ersec
ing
e
main
ine jus
eas
o
erna
ives
an
rom
e
NCRR, this alignment runs due north until curving eastward as it approaches the Dobbs
_
2-5

1
Farm Road crossing Alternative C then shares its alignment with Alternative B for a '
Important Points
segment south of C F Harvey Parkway before heading east parallel to the Parkway
Once its crosses the Parkway and enters the GTP, Alternative C shares a common '
alignment with Alternative B to the north terminus The north terminus is with the
property for the Spirit Aerosystems Site which will be the initial user of the rail access
Alternative C includes crossings of Sand Clay Road, Hull Road, Dobbs Farm Road, and
Alternative C was C F Harvey Parkway '
eliminated due to
stream & wetland
impacts and its As shown in Exhibit 2 3 1, the design of Alternative C accounts for possible extension to

proximity to existing '
residential the west side of the GTP as the purpose and need of the project is to provide rail access
I development
to all potential tenants of the GTP As discussed in Section 1, the western extension will
'
not receive detailed design until a specific tenant-user is identified within the west portion
of the GTP The alignment of Alternative C at C F Harvey Parkway is better than
Alternatives A or B for accommodating a future grade separation
i
'
on
Informational Worksho
n
bl
t th
f
t C
t
th
P
t
d t
C
p
ic a
irs
i
ize
s
e
u
e
was presen
e
o
Alternative
September 11, 2008 Because its south terminus is closest to the Hillcrest subdivision,
several verbal and written comments were received from residents at the workshop
stating it as the least desirable alignment of those presented Alternative C was also
developed based on preliminary assessment of streams and wetlands within the study '
I
area Detailed stream and wetland delineations were conducted and coordinated with
II
the U S Army Corps of Engineers in August of 2008 Once these detailed delineations '
were mapped, Alternative C was eliminated as a Recommended Alternative because it
does not avoid streams and wetlands in the study area to the extent possible Further '
development of alternatives also attempted to shift the south terminus further from

I existing neighborhoods '
2.4 REVISED PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Following the completion of detailed wetland delineations, the Initial Preliminary
Alternatives D, E, & Alternative alignments were all substantially revised to avoid wetlands to the extent
F were developed '
based on the possible The three Revised Preliminary Alternatives, designated as Alternatives D, E,
detailed wetland are shown in Exhibit 2 4 1 and described in the following sections Each of the
and F
delineations See ,

Exhibit 2 41
I
Revised Preliminary Alternatives is shown on the exhibit as a 200-foot corridor ,
i
2-6

' 2 4 1 Alternative D
Important Points
Alternative D begins at a Wye configuration west of SR 1552 (Hillcrest Road), curves
' northwest around Barnet Park, and continues north across Hull Road, Dobbs Farm Road
Alternative D was and C F Harvey Parkway For the segment between Hull Road and C F Harvey
' effectively Parkway, Alternative D is the westernmost of the Revised Preliminary Alternatives and
eliminated as ?t was
combined with runs along the west side of the Dobbs School property North of C F Harvey Parkway,
' segments of this alternative is parallel to the parkway before diverging from the roadway to run
Alternatives E and F
to develop a best fit behind an existing industrial building to its north terminus
alignment for
' avoiding impacts
This alternative, along with Alternatives E and F described below, was coordinated with
' the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to evaluate relative impacts based on the
stream and wetland delineations completed in August of 2008 The result of this
coordination was that segments of Alternatives D, E, and F could be combined and
' slightly revised to yield an alignment that best avoided stream and wetland impacts
I
' Therefore Alternative D, as a distinct alternative, was eliminated from further
consideration
' 2 4 2 Alternative E
Alternative E shares a concurrent south terminus and alignment with Alternative D to dust
' south of Hull Road Alternative E then shifts west to avoid a wetland area before
heading northeast to its crossing of C F Harvey Parkway North of C F Harvey
' effectively Parkway, Alternative E shares a common alignment with Alternative D The alignment of
eliminated as ?t was
combined with Alternative E at C F Harvey Parkway is better than Alternative D for accommodating a
t segments of
Alternatives D and F future grade separation
to develop a best fit
alignment for
' avoiding impacts This alternative, along with Alternatives D and F, was coordinated with the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to evaluate relative impacts based on the stream and
' wetland delineations completed in August of 2008 The result of this coordination was
that segments of Alternatives D, E, and F could be combined and slightly revised to yield
an alignment that best avoided stream and wetland impacts Therefore Alternative E, as
a distinct alternative, was eliminated from further consideration
2-7
Important
Points
i
Alternative F was
effectively
eliminated as ?t
was combined with
segments of
Alternatives D and
F to develop a best
fit alignment for
avoiding impacts
The preferred
Alternative (Alt G)
was developed ?n
coordination with
the USACE
I
2 4.3 Alternative F
Alternative F shares a concurrent south terminus and alignment with Alternatives D and
E to dust south of Hull Road Alternative F then shifts east and maintains a relatively
straight alignment across Dobbs Farm Road and the Dobbs Farm School property
North of C F Harvey Parkway, Alternative F runs parallel to the Parkway to its north
terminus The alignment of Alternative F at C F Harvey Parkway is better than
Alternative D for accommodating a future grade separation
This alternative, along with Alternatives D and E, was coordinated with the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to evaluate relative impacts based on the stream and
wetland delineations completed in August of 2008 The result of this coordination was
that segments of Alternatives D, E, and F could be combined and slightly revised to yield
an alignment that best avoided stream and wetland impacts Therefore Alternative F, as
a distinct alternative, was eliminated from further consideration
2.5 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE G)
The Revised Preliminary Alternatives (D, E, and F) were presented to the U S Army
Corps of Engineers during a meeting held on September 16, 2008 During this meeting
the alternatives were discussed and segments of each of the three Revised Preliminary
Alternatives were combined to yield an alignment that met the purpose and need,
responded to public comments to the extent possible, and avoided stream and wetland
impacts to the extent possible Table 2 5 1 shows a preliminary comparison based on
200-foot corridors for each alternative, overlain on mapping of delineated streams and
wetlands
2-8
TABLE 2.5.1
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
(stream and wetland impacts based on 200-foot corridors)

Important Pomts

I
Alternative G is the
' Recommended
Alternative
l
1

' Alternative G
crosses the Dobbs
Farm School site but
has a "No Adverse
' Effect" on this
eligible property

i

1

During this same time period, NCDOT Architectural Historians were conducting a survey
of potentially historic properties for the study area The results of this survey, described
in Section 3 12, identified the Dobbs Farm School as a property eligible for the historic
register and established its boundary Avoidance and minimization of this property was
factored into the development of an alignment as well as comments from the public
workshop Exhibit 2 5 1 shows the resulting alignment which is designated as
Alternative G and presented as the Recommended Alternative The Recommended
Alternative is described in the remainder of this section
The south terminus for Alternative G begins along the NCRR at a point set as far west
from the Hillcrest neighborhood as feasible without directing the alignment towards
impacting Barnet Park on its west From the south, the alignment heads north to Hull
Road and then northwest to C F Harvey Parkway, enters the GTP and terminates well
south of Stonyton Creek
As it crosses Dobbs Farm Road, Alternative G traverses a portion of the Dobbs Farm
School Property which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties The
alignment is designed so that it is located as far east on the property as possible without
necessitating realignment of Dobbs Farm Road If the alignment were shifted any
further east, it would cross Dobbs Farm Road in a curve which would prompt substantial
realignment of the road to achieve safe sight distance, reasonable superelevation levels,
and crossing conditions This road realignment would effect the Dobbs Farm School
property to a degree that would cancel any benefit of shifting the rail spur to the east
Within the Dobbs property, the rail alignment does not impact any structures and
maintains a tree buffer between the track and the buildings and associated actively used
portion of the property Therefore the alignment was determined to have "No Adverse
Effect" on the Dobbs Farm School property The alignment also includes several curves
in order to avoid wetland areas that are evident throughout the study area and shown on
Exhibit 2 5 1 Alternative G requires eight road crossings which are described below
¦ Hillcrest Road Crossing (and NCRR mainline) This existing crossing will remain in
its current condition The Recommended Alternative places no additional tracks
through Hillcrest Rd
¦ Sand Clay Road This City of Kinston access road will remain open to traffic and will
have an at-grade rail crossing It will need to be depressed somewhat in the area of
the crossing to meet acceptable railroad grades The City of Kinston Parks &
2-9
ImportantPomts Recreation strongly opposed closure as this access to the Barnet Park has heavy ,
use This position was also strongly supported by comments received during and
following the public workshop from citizens and park users '
¦ Hull Road The Recommended Alternative places the railroad in the middle of the
Alternative G roadway curve The roadway will need to be realigned to the north to minimize '
includes eight at-
grade crossings of roadway curvature and to provide a more level crossing A concrete surface,
existing roadways concrete median, and flashers and gates are recommended for this proposed at- '
grade crossing
¦ Dobbs Farm Road The Recommended Alternative crosses the roadway at the t
western end of a horizontal curve A concrete surface, concrete median,
and flashers and gates are recommended for this crossing Some minor roadway
'
alignment revision may be necessary to insure a level crossing and to provide the
I
needed width for a proposed median

¦ SR 1607 (Shackleford Road) This short dead-end road will have an at-grade '
No road crossing
closures are
crossing Asphalt and rubber rail seal crossing surface and flashers and gates are

proposed as part of recommended A median is not recommended '
this project
C F Harvey Parkway This divided roadway will be crossed at-grade as part of this
project, but provisions for a future grade separation are possible considering the '
distance of the crossing from the airport runway and its associated glideslope
requirements Concrete crossing surfaces, flashers and gates are recommended, '
I
signals on cantilevers will be considered Two gates per roadway approach are
recommended to provide closure of all lanes '

Rouse Road This roadway will be crossed at-grade and will likely need to be raised
¦
somewhat to meet the railroad grade A concrete median, lights and gates, and '
concrete surface are recommended
¦ Airport Road The railroad will cross the airport's main entrance road where the

No grade-separated
roadway is divided Concrete crossing surfaces are recommended A truck '
crossings are
currently proposed entrance will be relocated east of the crossing for the business south of Airport

as part of this '
project Road Both lanes will have flashers and gates, flashers are recommended for both
sides of the westbound lane due to curvature and sight distance
i
Alternative G was selected as the Recommended Alternative because it avoids direct
impacts to the maximum extent possible versus the other alternatives studied '

2-10

i?
? Important Points
I

' Clearances for
oversize rail cargo
will be evaluated
along the entire rail
line between the
' GTP and the
Morehead City Port

i
i
I
I

r

The track design
cntena are based on
a 25 mph design
speed for most of
the track and 10mph
near the north
terminus

I1
C

2.6 OTHER ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the rail spur addressed by this Environmental Assessment, other needed
and related actions are proposed outside of the study area Specifically, vertical and
horizontal clearances for existing roadway bridges over the railroad mainline will be
evaluated for necessary clearance improvements to clear the outsized shipping
containers Modifications to clearances regarding overhead wires, signage, signals,
signal bridges, and wayside buildings are also being evaluated It is not anticipated that
any of these activities will have any impacts on jurisdiction wetlands or waters
This evaluation will apply to the entire length of the rail line between the GTP and the
Morehead City ports Improvements, where warranted, will be implemented as
individual projects It is anticipated that the majority of these improvements will occur
within existing railroad and highway rights-of-way
These actions are proposed in order to fully realize the function of accommodating the
unconventional cargo size anticipated for the Spirit Aerosystems site, which will be the
first GTP industrial tenant to utilize the rail spur However, these improvements are not
required to support the ultimate purpose and need of the rail spur, which is to provide rail
access to the GTP for a variety of potential tenants
2.7 RAIL SPUR DESIGN CRITERIA
The track design for the proposed rail spur is based on a 25 mph design speed for the
majority of the track, with a 10-mph design speed near the north terminus Table 2 7 1
shows the general railroad design criteria used in setting the horizontal and vertical
alignment of the alternatives A typical section for the proposed rail spur is shown in
Exhibit 2 7 1
TABLE 2.7.1
PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA
10 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Speed
Horizontal Curvature (max) 10 degrees 10 degrees
Superelevation (max, actual) 1 0 inches 2 5 inches
Vertical Grade (max) 2 0 percent 2 0 percent
2-11
Important Points
I'2.8 COST ESTIMATES
The total estimated
construction cost for
the project ?s
$25,936,000
Table 2 8 1 shows the preliminary cost estimates for the Build Alternative
TABLE 2 8.1
BUILD ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

Railroad Track $8,127,000
Railroad Signals $1,780,000
Structures $4,020,000
Roadway $1,148,000
Civil & Drainage $4,380,000
Utilities $1,881,000
Engineering/Contingency/Mobilization $4,600,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $25,936,000
2-12

Important Points
I
I
I
I
i

Land immediately
adjacent to the
' Recommended
Alternative is zoned
primarily as low-
density residential
I

1
The proposed
project ?s consistent
with the policies
presented ?n the
Future Land Use
Plan, Lenoir County,
NC, 2001

1
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section of the report presents a discussion on the existing conditions and the
probable effects, both positive and negative, for the Build Alternative
31 LAND USE
The following sections describe the existing land use in the area, anticipated land use
trends, the consistency of the proposed action with local plans and policies, and the
potential effects of the proposed action
3 1 1 Existing Land Use
The project study area can be characterized primarily as a mixture of moderate-density
residential development, with some commercial and institutional development along the
mayor roadways There are large farming and undeveloped tracts in the middle and
southern portions of the area Exhibit 3 1 1 illustrates the existing zoning within the
project study area
3.1.2 Development Trends
Most of the project study area traversed by the alignment of the Build Alternative is
undeveloped However residential development is located within several subdivisions
adjacent to the corridor on both the west and east sides Industrial development exists in
the GTP around the northern terminus and there is some agricultural and industrial use
near the south terminus The comdor (outside the GTP proper) is currently zoned primarily
as low-density residential (City of Kinston, 2008) Trends in the area suggest that
development in and immediately adjacent to the GTP boundary will be industrial and
commercial with residential uses continuing to in-fill along the corridor between Dobbs
Farm Road and the NCRR Residential growth in along this corridor would be expected to
be limited by the extensive wetland areas and associated permitting issues within his area
31.3 Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Plans
The proposed project is consistent with the policies presented in the City's Future Land
Use Plan (Lenoir County, 2001) Further, it is the County and City of Kinston's goal to
foster economic development and the creation of fobs for the county's residents and to
place minimal constraints on individual and business decisions while enhancing the
county's environment and quality of life The proposed project is in-line with the long-
3-1
Important Points
i
I
I
An evaluation of
farmland impacts
j was based on a
200-foot comdor
range goals of the GTP, the county, and the region The majority of the undeveloped
portion of the corridor is zoned residential Therefore, to ensure compatibility between
the proposed rail line and potential residential growth, consideration for noise and visual
screening should be addressed as new developments are planned Based upon
precedent elsewhere in the state, rail lines do not preclude surrounding residential
development, even higher priced residential
32 FARMLANDS
In accordance with the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and State
Executive Order 96, the impact of the proposed action on prime, unique, and statewide
important farmlands has been assessed As defined by the US Council on
Environmental Quality (1976), prime farmland is land having the best combination of
physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops These soils have the quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to
economically produce sustained high yields of crops when properly managed Prime
farmland includes cropland, pastureland, rangeland and forestland, but not land ,
converted to urban, industrial, transportation or water uses Unique farmlands are those
whose value is derived from their particular advantages for growing specialty crops '
Statewide and locally important farmlands are defined by the appropriate state or local
agency Table 3 2 1 lists farmland soils in the protect study area (USDA, 1977) (USDA, '
1998) Exhibit 3 2 1 shows the soils within a 200-foot corridor of the Recommended
Alternative

To determine farmland impacts in rural and/or agricultural areas, the FPPA requires the ,
submittal of a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (US Department of Agriculture
[USDA] Form AD-1006) to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) The '
relative value of the site's farmland is determined by the NRCS on a scale from 0 to 100
This score is summed with site assessment points which rank non-soil related criteria '
such as the potential for impact on the local agricultural economy if the land is converted
to non-farm use and compatibility with existing agricultural use These points range from
0 to 160, therefore, a total cumulative rating of 260 points is possible Sites receiving a
total score of 160 or more should be given increasingly higher levels of consideration for
protection Sites receiving a total score less than 160 should be given a minimal level of ,
consideration for protection (7 CFR 658 4)
1
3-2 '

Important Points
1 ?
i
I

Coordination with
NRCS and
completion of a
' Farmland
Conversion Rating
Form resulted in a
total impact rating of
191 out of a
possible 260 points
I
I

?I
1
TABLE 3.2.1
PRIME, UNIQUE, AND STATEWIDE IMPORTANT FARMLANDS
?"'*yjyj??JJf ?*?:>r ?"??"• SDIa=,?9y;TYPE ?? ?;.'?"'->?? aq?'' FARMLr0.ND CO;DE'
Woodington loamy sand (Wn) S2
Lumbee sandy loam (Lu) P2
Goldsboro loamy sand 0-2% slopes (Go) P1
Norfolk loamy sand 6-10% slopes (Nc) P1
Norfolk loamy sand 0-2% slopes (Na) S1
Leon sand (Lo) U2
Rains sandy loam (Ra) P2
Stallings loamy sand (St) S2
Torhunta loam (To) P2
Pocalla loamy sand 0-6% slopes (Po) S1
Pactolus loamy sand (Pa) HYDRIC
Bibb soils (BB) HYDRIC
Pantego loam (Pe) P2
Murville fine sand (Mu) U2
Johnston soils (Js) HYDRIC
John sandy loam (Jo) P2
Kenansville loamy sand 0-6% slopes (Ke) S1
Portsmouth loam (Pr) HYDRIC
11 Wagram loamy sand 6-10% slopes (Wb) S1
1 P1 - All areas are prime farmland
P2 - Only drained areas are prime farmland
S2 - Only drained areas are farmland of statewide importance
A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form was submitted to the NRCS for the Build
Alternative corridors and is included in Appendix A 3 Table 3 2 2 summarizes the
anticipated farmland impacts for the Recommended Alternative's 200-foot corridor
Based on the construction limits of the proposed project, however, actual impacts to
farmlands would be less
3-3
Important Points
i
I
No land traversed
by Altemative G ?s
zoned as
agncultural and
I trends suggest
future growth will be
residential
No substantial
adverse effect to
existing or future
farm operations ?s
anticipated
Kinston and Lenoir
County experienced
a population decline
from 1990-2000
TABLE 3 2 2
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS
FARMLAND IMPACTED RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
Prime & Unique Farmland (ac) 112
Statewide Important Farmland (ac) 23
Total Farmland Acres in Corridor 135
Percent of Farmland in County to be Converted 0
Total Impact Rating (scale of 0 - 260 Points) 191
Wit Acreage is oasea on a zuu-toot cornaor Actuai construction impacts wouio iess man ine acreage
shown above
Source USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Form AD-1006
The total score for the project is 191 which indicates that some consideration should be
given for protection As previously described, none of the land within the study corridor
is zoned as agricultural and growth trends suggest that the area will continue to expand
in residential land use The Recommended Alternative impacts portions of some small
farming operations that are interspersed among residentially-zoned land in the southern
half of the study corridor However, the actual impacts based on construction limits
would be less than the total amount of farmland within the 200-foot corridors Therefore
no substantial adverse effects to existing or future farm operations are anticipated as a
result of this project
3.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
3 3.1 Population Characteristics
Lenoir County's total population was steady between 1980 and 2000 The City of Kinston
experienced growth decline during the 90's by about 6%, however since that time the
population decline has slowed to 4%
TABLE 3.3 1
POPULATION TRENDS
1980 1990 2000 2010= Y" 2020=? -

t F . ;
C y w #.,a+'
Lenoir 59,819 57,274 59,648 57,071 54,424
Kinston 25,234 25,295 23,688 .'.
North 880,095
5 6,632,448 8,049,313 9,491,372 10,966,139
Carolina ,
r GROWTH, GROWTH GROWTH G'ROOWTH
1980-1990 1990=2000 20005010 20b10=2020
Lenoir -4 25 -4%% -43% -460/6
3-4

Important Points
i
I Afncan-Amencans
represent 62 6% of
the population of
Kinston
i
The median age of
Kinston is 40 8
I years
I
i
Kinston 0.2% -6.4% 1.,?.a w# >
North
Carolina 128% 214% 179% 155%
SuuKCL North Carolina state Uata center, 2008
As shown in Table 3 3 2, Kinston's total population is approximately 62 6% African-
American This is approximately 22% higher than the African-American percentage of
the county and approximately three-times the state's population of Africa n-Amen cans
Other minority populations include Asian/Pacific Islanders, and a Native Americans both
with populations less than 1% Hispanics of any race comprise 1 1% of the total
population
TABLE 3 3 2
RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS
KINS TON LENOIR, COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
RACIAL GROUP POP % OF
TOTAL POP % OF
TOTAL POP s' % OF
TOTAL
White 8,354 353% 33,685 565% 5,804,65 721%
African-American 14,837 626% 24 115 404% 1,737,54 216%
Native American/
Alaskan Native
37
02%
24,115
404%
99,551
12%
Asian /Pacific Islander 136 0 6% 308 05% 117,672 132%
Other 156 07% 1,119, 19% 186,629 23%
Multi-racial 158 07% 391 07% 103,260 13%
Hispanic (of any race) 269 1 1% 1,891 32% 378,963 47%
JVUKG - uo t5ureau oT me l.ensus (uJesuc), zuuu
Table 3 3 3 contains age demographic data for Kinston, Lenoir County, and North Carolina
The largest age group in Kinston is the 45-54 range, which represents 14 8% of the total
population This age group is also the second largest in the county and the third largest in
the state data Kinston's population distribution is similar to the county and state however
they have a higher percentage in the 65-74 and 75-84 age groups
TABLE 3 3.3
AGE CHARACTERISTICS
KINS TON LENOIR COUNTY NORTH IGA
ROLINA
AGE,GROUP _
POP 0/6 OF s y
POP % OF K
POP _
0 of
' TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
Under 5 years 1,518 64% 3,913 66% 539,509 67%
5-9 Years 1,679 7 10 4,254 7 106 562,553 70%
10-14 Years 1,580 67% 4,266 72% 551,367 68%
15-19 Years 1,551 65% 4,059 68% 539,931 67%
3-5

Important Points
i
i
Approximately 28%
f of the workforce is in
j Education, Health, &
I Social Service
20-24 Years 1,190 50% 3,283 5 50 577,508 7 20
25-34 Years 2,445 103% 7,265 122% 1,213,41 151%
34-44 Years 3,446 145% 9,214 154% 1,287,12 160%
45-54 Years 3,509 148% 8,632 14 5% 1,085,15 135%
55-59 Years 1,162 49% 3,213 54% 400,207 50%
60-64 Years 1,141 48% 2,815 47% 323,505 40%
65-74 Years 2,389 101% 4,887 82% 533,777 6 6%
75-84 Years 1,627 69% 1 1 3,015 51% 329,810 41%
85+ Years 451 19%1 1 832 140/6 105,461 13%.
Total 23,688 100%1 1 59,948 100%1 8,049,31 100%
1

SOURCE US Bureau of the Census, 2000
The median age of Kinston is 40 8 years, which is a bit higher than the county value of 38 1
and the state value of 35 3 years ,
3.3.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics '
The top employers in Lenoir County are a combination of health and social services,
education, and home products manufacturing including the Caswell Center, Lenoir ,
County Public Schools, Lenoir Memorial Hospital, Electrolux Home Products, and
MasterBrand Cabinets Table 3 3 4 displays the occupational distribution for Kinston, '
Lenoir County, and North Carolina
TABLE 3.3 4 '
OCCUPATIONAL DATA

SOURCE US Bureau of the Census, 2000
3-6
PERCE NT OF WORK FORCE
OCCUPATION
Kins A In Lenoir
Count NORTH
'CAROLINA
Agriculture 13% 6% 16%
Construction 2% 7% 2%
Manufacturing 218% 207% 197%
Wholesale Trade 0% 31% 4%
Retail Trade 3% 109% 115%
ransportation, Warehousing and Utilities 0% 7% 6%
Information 14% 13% 3%
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0% 3% 60%
Professional Services 7% 6% 7%
Educational, Health and Social Services 282% 233% 192%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and Tourism 6% 62% 9%
Public Administration 6% 5% 1%
Other Services 68% 3% 6%

'
Important Points

i
I
i

No neighborhoods
or communities are
' directly impacted by
the proposed
project

I 1

As displayed in Table 3 3 5, the current unemployment rate for Kinston is 8 9% This rate is
higher than the North Carolina and Lenoir County unemployment rates The individual per
capita income in Kinston is 6% higher than the county average income and 14% lower than
the state average income
TABLE 3 3 5
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
KINSTON LENIOR NORTH
COUNTY CAROLINA
Current Unemployment Rate 8 gasp 72% 62%
Source US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000
Per Capita Income $17,779 $16,744 $20
307
Source US Bureau of the Census, 2000 ,
All Persons Living in Poverty 230% 166% 123%
Source US Bureau of the Census, 2000
% Adults with High School Education 687% 719% 781%
Source US Bureau of the Census, 2000
% Adults with College Education 166% 133% 225%
Source US Bureau of the Census, 2000
The percent of citizens with a high school education is 3 2% lower than the county
percentage and 9 4% lower than the state percentage, plus, the number of citizens with a
college education in Kinston is 3 3% higher than the county percentage and 5 9% lower
than the state percentage
3 3 3 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
The project study area contains several subdivisions, which are located either east or
west of the Recommended Alternative The Recommended Alternative does not bisect
or directly impact any existing neighborhoods or communities and there are no
residential relocations as a result of this project
No long-term, adverse impacts to the local neighborhood or community cohesion are
anticipated with the proposed project
3 3.4 Travel Patterns and Accessibility
The proposed project would not substantially alter travel patterns through the project study
area, as its primary purpose is to rail access to the GTP The rail access would cross
several existing roads, however none of these roads is proposed to be closed as a result of
3-7
I
Important Points
i
No Impacts are
anticipated to
schools, churches,
or cemetenes
Minimal delays to
emergency vehicles
could occur at
! railroad crossings
No businesses
would be relocated
due to this project
i
L
this action Potential closures were evaluated from a safety standpoint, but were not
recommended in response to public input In addition, the initial users of the rail access are
expected to be relatively short trains (less than 10 cars, so substantial delays for vehicles
are not expected at road crossings The project is anticipated to remove some freight truck
traffic from existing roadway by providing a rail alternative, which may provide some benefit
for travelers on the local road system
3.3.5 Schools
h
J

There are no schools within the protect study area All Kinston schools are located ,
southeast of the Global Transpark and will not be impacted by this protect
3.3 6 Churches and Cemeteries
'
There are no churches within the protect study area There is a small family cemetery
just sourth of Sand Clay Road that is not anticipated to be impacted by the protect
3.3.7 Emergency Services
Police services in Kinston are provided by the Kinston Police Department The Police
Department is located at 205 E King Street, southeast of the protect study area
The Kinston Fire Department serves the City of Kinston with three stations situated
throughout Kinston All three stations are located southeast of the protect study area
The Kinston Emergency Medical Service is locate at 2421 US Highway 258N, and is
located within a 2-mile radius of the protect study area
There are no police stations, fire stations, or other emergency management services
located in the protect study area or immediate vicinity Interruptions to vehicular traffic at
the railroad crossings, which could affect emergency response times, is expected to be
minimal due to the low frequency and anticipated short length of trains using this rail spur
3.3.8 Businesses
There are no business relocations anticipated as a result of the proposed action
3-8

' 3 3 9 P
k
d R
t
Important Points ar
s an
ecrea
ion
Section 4(t) Properties - Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT)
No Impacts to Act of 1966 states that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will not approve the
Section 4(0 parks use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl
are anticipated
refuge, or any significant historic site, unless a determination is made that there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and that the proposed action
'
I includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property Although Barnet Park is
just west of the Recommended Alternative, there are no direct impacts anticipated to this
park In addition, the crossing of Sand Clay Road is not proposed for closing This
consideration results from comments received at the September 11, 2008 workshop
' requesting this road remain open as it provide access to the park for a majority of its users
Based on the information presented, there are no Section 4(f) impacts to parks associated

' ? No Impacts to
Section 6(f)
with this proposed project
properties are
anticipated
Section 6(0 Properties - These properties are open space and recreation areas
' purchased with federal funds that are governed by the Land and Water Conservation Fund
No Impacts to (LWCF) Act of 1965 There are no properties within the study area that were purchased
specific social with LWCF funds Therefore, there are no Section 6(f) impacts associated with this project
groups are
anticipated
' 3.3.10 Specific Social Groups
No specific social groups would be impacted by the proposed project There are no
cultural centers or singularly ethnic neighborhoods located within the project study area
No residential or
business relocations 3.4 RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION IMPACTS
' are anticipated Anticipated relocation impacts were estimated by overlaying the Recommended

' A
Alternative on aerial photography and field checking the information The results of this
evaluation indicate that there would be no residential relocations and no business
relocations In the event that future unforeseen design changes were necessitated that
' would cause relocations, displacement impacts would be mitigated through
implementation
of the relocation assistance programs which would be administered by
' I the NCDOT Right-of-Way Division
I
I
35 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines indirect effects as "impacts on the
1 3-9
I
Imoortant Points
ICEs for this action
have already been
addressed, and
mitigation proposed,
?n the 1997 GTP EIS
as part of the GTP
build-out
I
I
i
i
environment which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 3 1508 8) Induced development or
altered growth patterns are typically the most common forms of indirect impacts The rate ,
and type of development however, usually coincide with other factors such as zoning and
the availability of electricity and water service Cumulative impacts are defined as those '
" which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or
nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 3 1508 7)
The proposed rail spur is an integral component of the GTP As previously described in
this document, the potential effects associated with development of the GTP were
disclosed and addressed in a Global TransPark EIS (Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1997) The 1997 EIS described potential indirect and
cumulative effects (ICEs) of the full build-out of the GTP which incorporated provision of
roadway, air transport and freight rail facilities Specifically the 1997 EIS anticipated the
construction of a rail spur from the NCRR line to the GTP and the present recommended

alignment coincides generally with the conceptual alignment shown in this EIS The
ICEs identified in the 1997 EIS for full build-out of the GTP include the following I
¦ Potential effects to groundwater, as lowering of the aquifer water levels would occur
at an increased rate due to increased pumping and loss of critical recharge lands to
development,
• Potential for increased surface and groundwater pollution from the point source
discharges of municipal and domestic wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) serving
the projected industrial development and induced increase in population,
¦ Potential for increased water pollution from three key non-point sources (1) nitrogen
pollution increases from failed or malfunctioning septic tank systems constructed to
accommodate induced population increases, (2) increased urban runoff from new
and expanded residential communities and their associated support developments
(retail centers, hospitals, schools, public facilities, etc ), and (3) increased sediment
bearing runoff from construction activities
To offset unavoidable impacts to wetlands and wildlife habitat, approximately 4,880
acres of habitat restoration (1,520 acres on-site and 3,360 acres off-site) is proposed as
3-10

Important Points
h
fL

7
Li

j The corridor
adjacent to the rail
spur ?s expected to
continue
development as a
i low-density
residential area

f
I
Land between GTP
and the NCRR line
adjacent to the Rail
Spur will not receive
' new rail access
I
i
n

11

part of a comprehensive wetland mitigation plan for the GTP which was developed
subsequent to the 1997 EIS
The GTP Master Plan associated with the 1997 EIS identifies key areas for growth and
development It was anticipated and desired that this development would occur in the
form of high technology industries, with connection to air, highway and rail linkages
These areas of growth would logically center around the core of the GTP - the runway,
existing industries, and JetPort This would minimize the need for infrastructure and
utility improvement, and provide synergy between inter-related technology industrial
developments Rail Access for the GTP would provide a means to bring in needed raw
materials, and more importantly provide a means to export items to bulky or heavy for air
or highway shipment As discussed above, indirect and cumulative effects for the entire
GTP development, assuming rail access, were addressed by the 1997 EIS
For the 2008 study of the rail spur, indirect and cumulative effects were evaluated for the
study area (Exhibit 1 2 1) to determine if additional effects should be anticipated within
the immediately adjacent corridor of land
In consultation with the City of Kinston and Lenoir County, it was determined that these
governing bodies foresee the area adjacent the rail access developing as residential
areas in the future Also as discussed in Sections 3 1 (Land Use) and 3 2 (Farmlands),
the majority of the land adjacent to the rail spur is zoned as low-density residential
These factors are consistent with comments provided by some large landowners
following the September 11, 2008 public workshop, expressing concern that the rail spur
may hinder plans for higher-end residential development within the corridor between the
GTP and US 70
The rail spur is proposed to provide direct rail access into the GTP, with no additional rail
access or sidings proposed in the corridor between the GTP and the NCRR line
Therefore the rail spur is not anticipated to change the land use or create opportunities
for new development within this corridor It is therefore anticipated that the immediately
adjacent land will continue on its current development trend of residential development
The studies conducted for this project indicate that due to the presence of streams and
wetlands, the development will most likely remain low-density The rail spur will utilize a
1 3-11
Important Points
No additional ICEs
beyond those
addressed in the
1997 GTP EIS are
I anticipated for this
action
portion of the existing upland area and it is reasonable to foresee that residential
development will desire a substantial undeveloped buffer between future houses and the
rail line Therefore, the rail spur may actually reduce the development potential of the
immediately adjacent corridor, a concern expressed by local landowners
Because it only provides access to the GTP, with no additional access points between
GTP and the NCRR, the rail access project is not anticipated to open up for
development any new land There are also no local plans or policies towards developing
rail-requiring industries along the rail spur
The proposed action of extending a rail spur into the GTP was envisioned in the master
plan associated with the 1997 EIS The rail spur provides no additional access to the
immediately adjacent land (currently zoned as low-density residential), and future
development of this land is somewhat constrained by the presence of streams and
wetland areas Therefore, no additional ICEs beyond those described and addressed in
the 1997 EIS are anticipated with the currently proposed action
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice to
Minority and Low-Income Populations and the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) Order 5610 2, Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations have been set forth to (1) avoid,
minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations
and low-income populations, (2) ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially
affected communities in the transportation decision-making process and, (3) prevent the
denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-
income populations (FHWA, 2000) In compliance with this EO, the following analysis
was conducted to ensure that no minority or low-income populations were
disproportionately affected by the proposed project
To determine the presence of minority populations within the project study area, 2000
US Bureau of the Census (USBOC) demographic databases were reviewed The '
USBOC database illustrates minority population variation within individual census tracts,
3-12

J
- --- which allowed for a more
recise anal
f th
t
t
d
D
t
th

Important Points p
ysis o
e protec
s
u
y area
escrip
ions in
e
following paragraphs conform to the terminology of the USBOC data classes

There are no
disproportionate Residences are characterized as a minority community in the area bounded by SR 1575
j effects to minority or
low-Income
(Poole Road), SR 1607 (Shackleford Road), SR 1573 (Dobbs Farm Road), and SR 1574
populations (Robinson Road) According to the 2000 Census, 100% of the 73 residents in this area
are African-American The area bound by SR 1572 (Rouse Road Extension), SR 1578
(Airport Road), and SR 1573 (Dobbs Farm Road) is also a minority neighborhood, all
nine residents of this area are African-American All other areas within the protect study
area, as demarked and tallied by the USBOC, have minority populations ranging from
' I 0% to 54% This range is lower than the City's total minority population average of 65%
No adverse effects As discussed in Section 3 4, there are no residential relocations associated with the
to air quality are proposed protect and therefore no direct disproportionate effects to minority or low-
anticipated
income populations Likewise, there are no disproportionate noise impacts to these
populations
? 3.7 AIR QUALITY
i
i
Section 176(c) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) requires that transportation
' plans, programs, and protects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation
plan (SIP) Lenoir County is in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards
i
' The proposed protect is located in an attainment area, therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93
are not applicable This protect is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attainment area
3.8 NOISE ANALYSIS
Train noise comes from the sound of the horns, wheel-rail interaction, diesel engines
' and vehicle cooling fans The train horn noise is the loudest of these factors Train
horns are installed on locomotives to warn motorists or pedestrians of an approaching
' train Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety standards require trains to sound
their horns as they approach every railroad crossing (FRA, 2006) Often automobiles
operate with the windows rolled up and air conditioning systems on and radios in use
FRA requires freight trains to sound their horns at 110 decibels in order to be heard
within the vehicles Other requirements include the following
3-13
' The horn noise level must be in the 96-110 decibel range at 100 feet in front of the
Important Points
train and 15 feet above the rail,
¦ Horns must be sounded 15-20 seconds before the train reaches a crossing, but not
beyond a quarter of a mile away, and
¦ The horn sequence must consist of two "long", one "short", and one "long" sound
before the train reaches the crossing (FRA, 2006)
Unfortunately, when the locomotive horn is loud enough to be heard within an
j approaching vehicle it can disturb those living or working near the railroad crossing,
particularly if there are a numerous trains per day sounding the horns For the proposed
rail access it is estimated that initially there will be 7 roundtrips per month (14
movements) for an average of 0 5 movements per day In the future there is estimated to
Exhibit 3 81 shows
the anticipated noise be a maximum of one round trip (two movements per day) utilizing the railroad
impact area based
on FRA guidelines
FRA's Horn Noise Model (FRA, 2006) was used to determine the noise impacts that
i
would occur as a result of the train horns in the future conditions with one roundtrip on
the railroad each day For residential areas, the new noise from the horns is computed
in terms of Ldn and is compared with prior ambient noise without horn blowing (Ldn or
i
Day-Night Sound Level, describes the cumulative noise exposure from all events over a
24 hour period, with events occurring between 10 pm and 7 am being increased by 10
dB to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise Ldn is the descriptor most
commonly employed in environmental noise assessments) According to the US
Environmental Protection Agency, the typical ambient level in a suburban residential
area is Ldn = 55 dBA The model assesses the impact of the change in the noise
environment categorizes the impacts as No Impact, Impact or Severe Impact Exhibit
3 8 1 shows the impact areas as calculated by the horn noise model
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is the only agency with an
existing standard for residential noise environment As a qualifying condition for funding
proposed housing developments, HUD defines what level of ambient noise at a
proposed location is acceptable for residential land use In the HUD Standards, Ldn
below 65 dBA is considered "Acceptable", Ldn above 75 dBA is "Unacceptable", with
ambient levels between Ldn 65 dBA and 75 dBA categorized as "Normally
Unacceptable" The Normally Unacceptable rating does not disqualify a site from
receiving HUD funds, rather the development planned in such an area must incorporate
3-14
t
1
r Important Pomts

I

Construction of an
earth berm ?s
proposed to
minimize noise
impacts to the one
residence located
within the impact
range

Natural resources
investigations were
' conducted ?n
Summer and Fall
2008

suitable mitigation measures to provide a satisfactory interior environment HUD has
forms that can determine which category the residence falls in based on calculations
involving the number of trains, number of train cars, speeds, horns, etc along with the
distance of the residence from the rail line (USDHUD, 2002)
The closest house to the project is located at the west end of Robinwood Road and is
approximately 240 feet from the proposed rail spur This location would be considered
to be within the impact range according to Exhibit 3 8 1 Because it will not be
accessible once construction is complete, the undeveloped land between this residence
and the proposed rail spur is proposed for acquisition as an area for storage of excess
earth construction material Therefore, it is proposed that the excess material be used to
construct an earth berm at this location to minimize potential noise impacts to this
residence
All other houses are outside the impact areas and are at least 280 feet away, placing
them within the "Acceptable" category using HUD standards Within the GTP, there are
some industrial sites within the potential impact zone However, the impact zone is
based on noise perception at residential receivers and would not typically be considered
a noise impact for an industrial site located adjacent to an airport In addition, the
NCDOT Rail Division consulted on-site with industrial sites, including BDI-Farval and
Hilco-Neil Medical Concerns regarding potential noise and vibration were discussed by
the site representatives and the Recommended Alternative design was refined to
maximize the distance from the existing building to the extent possible
39 Natural Resources
A natural resources study was conducted for the entire project area in Summer and Fall
of 2008 The study was documented in the Natural Resources Technical Report for Rail
Access Spur to Global TransPark (PBS&J, 2008) Exhibit 3 9 1 shows an overview of
the natural resource features of the study area, specifically stream and wetlands The
following sub-sections provide a summary of the Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR) Appendix B includes the figures from the NRTR which are also referenced
within this section Materials referenced during the preparation of the NRTR are listed in
Appendix B
3-15
Important Points
Table 3 91 shows
sod types within the
study area
The project study area is approximately 1,720 acres in size It extends northward from
an existing rail line located approximately 0 6 mile northeast of the intersection of US 70
and US 258 to NCGTP (Figure 2) The study area includes an abandoned logging
railroad bed (abandoned circa 1930) identified by NCDOT staff that originates at the
intersection of Hull Road (State Road [SR] 1557) and Rouse Road (SR 1572) and
terminates to the north at the intersection of Aviation Drive (SR 1607) and Poole Road
(SR 1575) The northern portion of the study area is located within the NCGTP permit
boundary, an area approximately 5,782 acres in size
The study area is located in the coastal plain physiographic region as identified in the
Lenoir county soil survey Topography in the project region is generally flat and
movement of surface water is slow on broad, nearly level divides and flat floodplains
The landscape elevation ranges from approximately 46 feet North American Vertical
Datum (NAVD 1988) at the southern extent of the study area to 116 feet NAVD along a
ridge bordering Hull Road The project vicinity consists of bottomlands and flats
supporting pine forest, hardwood forest, silvicultural land, agricultural land, and low-
density residential and commercial areas
3.91 Soils
The Lenoir County sod survey identifies 18 soil types in the study area (Table 3 9 1)
TABLE 3 91
SOIL SERIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Soil Series Mapping
Drainage?Class Hydric,Status_
Unit
Bibb soils BB Poorly drained Hydric
Johns sandy loam Jo Moderately well drained Nonhydre*
Johnston soils is Very poorly drained Hydnc
Kenansville loamy Ke Well drained
sand Nonhydnc
Leon sand Lo Poorly drained Hydric
Lumbee sandy loam Lu Poorly drained Hydric
Lynchburg sandy
loam Ly Somewhat poorly drained
Nonhydnc*
3-16
1
f Important Points
i
Table 3 9 2A shows
jurisdictional
streams within the
study area
Soil Series Mapping
Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status
Murville fine sand Mu Very poorly drained Hydric
Norfolk loamy sand Na Well drained Nonhydnc*
Pactolus loamy sand Pa Moderately well drained Nonhydnc*
Pantego loam Pe Very poorly drained Hydric
Pocalla loamy sand Po Somewhat excessively
drained
Nonhydnc
Portsmouth loam Pr Very poorly drained Hydnc
Rains sandy loam Ra Poorly drained Hydnc
Stallings loamy sand St Somewhat poorly drained Nonhydnc*
Torhunta loam To Very poorly drained Hydric
Wagram loamy sand Wb Well drained Nonhydre*
Woodington loamy
sand
Wn
Poorly drained Hydric
. Soils which are pnmaniy nonhydnc, but which contain hydnc inclusions
3 9 2 Water Resources
The study area is located within the Neuse River Basin in USGS Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03020202, NCDWQ subbasin 03-04-05 Briery Run is the only named stream within the
study area Briery Run carries the best usage classification of C Sw NSW Table
3 9 2 A lists all streams associated with the study area Locations of listed streams are
provided in Figure 3 (Appendix B)
TABLE 3.9 2 A
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Stream Name <
Map ID
Figdfe
DWQ Index Number Best Usage
C l .' ' 'l'o
assificatin
UT to Neuse River S1 3-1 27-(56) C Sw NSW
UT to Neuse River S2a 3-1,3-2 27-(56) C Sw NSW
UT to Neuse River S2b 3-1,3-2 27-(56) C Sw NSW
UT to Neuse River S3 3-1 27-(56) C Sw NSW
3-17
Important Points I
?I
I
Two ponds are
located in the study
area
Stream, Name
UT to Neuse River
UT to Neuse River
UT to Neuse River
UT to Neuse River
UT to Briery Run
UT to Briery Run
Briery Run

Map ID
Figure
DWQ Index Number iBes?t Usage,
?oA
Classification

S4 3-1 27-(56) C Sw NSW
S5 3-2 27-(56) C Sw NSW
S6 3-1 27-(56) C Sw NSW
S7 3-1 27-(56) C Sw NSW
S8 3-2,3-3 27-81-1 C Sw NSW
S9 3-3 27-81-1 C Sw NSW
S10 3-3 27-81-1 C Sw NSW
TABLE 3.9.2.13
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
i
I
i
i
i
I
There are no 303(d)
listed streams,
ORW's, pnmary
nursery areas,
ambient water
quality or benth?c
monitoring stations
in the study area
Map Bank Bankfull Water
Channel
Figure
Height Width Depth ? trj ,
Substrte Velocity Clarity
y,=
ID (ft.) (in.) r
S1 3-1 4 2 10 Sand Slow Clear
S2a 3-2 5 3 8 Sand, Slow Clear
gravel
Sand, Slow Clear
S2b 3-1,3-2 5 3 8 gravel
S3 3-1 3 2 8 Sand Slow Clear
S4 3-1 3 2 6 Sand Slow Clear
S5 3-2 4 3 10 Sand, Slow Clear
gravel
Sand, Slow Clear
S6 3-1 6 5 10 gravel
S7 3-1 5 4 10 Sand Slow Clear
S8 3-2,3-3 4 2 6 Sand Slow Clear
S9 3-3 8 3 10 Sand Slow Clear
S10 3-3 8 3 10 Sand Slow Clear
3-18

Two
onds (P1 and P2)
l
t
th
d
t
d
F
3
P
d P1
0 12
p
are
oca
e
in
e s
u
y area (
igure
)
on
(
acre)
Six terrestrial plant consists of isolated open water that is fed by high groundwater levels and has no surface
communities are
located in the water connection to any study area stream or wetland Pond P2 (0 28 acre) maintains
study area surface water connection to stream S8 and wetland W12
There are no 303(d) listed streams or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitted dischargers within the study area, or within 1 0 mile downstream of
' the study area
No waters designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
Section 3 9 31 (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-11) occur within 1 0 mile
descnbes plant downstream of the study area
' communities in the
study area
No primary nursery areas are located within the study area The Neuse River, located
outside of the study area, is the nearest stream designated as anadromous fish waters
No water bodies deserving of special attention as denoted under the federal Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 or under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 are
located within the study area

No ambient water quality monitoring stations, benthic water quality monitoring stations,
or fish community monitoring stations occur within 1 0 mile of the study area
1 3 9.3 Biotic Resources
3 9 3 1 Terrestrial Communities
' The study area includes six terrestrial plant communities (Figure 4) Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), Nonnvenne Wet Hardwood Forest, Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype), and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
(Coastal Plain Subtype), pine flat, and disturbed/maintained land Scientific names of all
species identified are included in Appendix B
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype)
Schafale and Weakely's Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina
describes this plant community as occurring along the floodplains of lower-order coastal
lain brownw
t
r
tr
h
B
R
d UT'
th
t
N
R
Th
p
a
e
s
eams suc
as
riery
un an
s
o
e
euse
iver
ey are
underlain by mineral soils that formed in alluvial parent material Representative canopy

3-19
_- - -- - -
Important Points
Section 3 9 31
i descnbes plant
communities in the
study area
species include bald cypress, swamp tupelo, and various bottomland hardwood species
such as swamp chestnut oak, water oak, willow oak, sycamore, black willow, and green
ash Understory species include ironwood, water ash, and American holly The shrub
stratum is typically sparse and consists of younger canopy species
Nonnvenne Wet Hardwood Forest
Schafale and Weakley describe this plant community as occupying poorly drained
interstream divides, and commonly develop over fine-textured mineral soils This
community often occurs on the margins of large peatlands on flats that are not flooded
by streams The canopy is dominated by many hardwood species characteristic of
bottomland hardwood forests, including swamp chestnut oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak,
yellow poplar, and sweetgum The understory includes species such as ironwood, red
maple, American holly, and pawpaw The shrub stratum is typically sparse, but may
include species such as swamp bay, highbush blueberry, dog-hobble, wax myrtle,
pepperbush, and spicebush Vines such as poison ivy, trumpet creeper, and cross-vine
may be common The herb layer commonly contains sedge, lizard's tail, false-nettle,
Japanese grass, and netted chain-fern
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype)
Schafale and Weakley describe this plant community as occupying the higher elevation
areas of floodplains and terraces adjacent to higher-order coastal plain streams They
are underlain by mineral soils that formed in alluvial parent material Canopy species
include swamp chestnut oak, willow oak, green ash, shagbark hickory, sugarberry,
American elm, and black walnut Understory species include ironwood, Chinese privet,
pawpaw, and American holly The shrub stratum is sparse to absent Vine species,
such as poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and greenbrier can be
abundant, especially in canopy gaps The herb layer is generally sparse and may
include flatsedge and false-nettle
Mes?c Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Schafale and Weakley describe this plant community as occuring on well-drained
uplands underlain by mineral soils Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is one of the few
upland natural communities observed within the study area Characteristic tree species
include American beech, yellow poplar, white oak, northern red oak, southern red oak,
and sweetgum Understory species may include flowering dogwood, American holly,
3-20

?lmpodantPo?nts hop hornbeam, Chinese privet, red maple, and swamp bay The shrub layer ranges
from sparse to dense, and includes species such as horse sugar, witch hazel,
' pepperbush, and buckeye Herb species include Christmas fern, partridge berry, and
sedge

Pine flat
This terrestrial community is not described in the Classification of Natural Communities
Section 3 931 of North Carolina It is an early-successional version of natural communities, including
descnbes plant Nonriverine Swamp Forest and Nonrivenne Wet Hardwood Forest These communities
communities ?n the
study area are dominated by pine trees (mostly loblolly pines) and often contain subcanopies and
understory layers of hardwoods They are generally located on mineral or loamy mineral
S soils Many pine flats consist of managed pine plantations, and all have undergone
regular logging rotations for many years Hydrology ranges from intermittent to
permanent flooding and sources include rainwater, high water tables, and/or stream
overflow Managed lands have sometimes been augmented with fill Plant species
present in pine flats are common to the more-mature communities in the project study
I
area, with an enhanced component of opportunistic, early-successional species (such as
sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, and loblolly pine) Vine and herb species are also
influenced by opportunistic or weedy species, with many colonizing the edges of the
forest from nearby maintained land or agricultural land These may include Japanese
honeysuckle, common greenbrier, wild onion, broomsedge, and thistle

' i
Disturbed/Maintained Land
This terrestrial community is not described in the Classification of Natural Communities
of North Carolina This community includes roadside shoulders, agricultural fields,
woodland edges, utility line corridors, NCGTP utilities and infrastructure, and
residential/commercial lots
Along roadside shoulders, agricultural land margins, utility line corridors, and
residential/commercial lots grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation Representative
species include Carolina cranesbill, clover, wild onion, dog fennel, dandelion, aster, and
fescue

Along woodland edges and utility line corridors the sapling and shrub layers consist of
_ individuals of red maple, eastern red cedar, sycamore, black willow, tag alder,

3-21
Important Points
Section 3 9 3 2
descnbes wildlife in
the study area
Section 3 9 3 3
I descnbes aquatic
communities in the
study area
I
I
I
blackberry, Chinese privet, and multiflora rose Vines are limited to Japanese
honeysuckle and trumpet creeper Representative herbs include Carolina cranesbill,
Brazilian vervain, dog fennel, dandelion, pokeweed, and fescue
TABLE 3.9.3
COVERAGE OF TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Community Coverage (acres)
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 143
Nonnvenne Wet Hardwood Forest 483
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods 836
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 1894
Pine Flat 3293
Disturbed/Maintained Land 1,0553
3.9 3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (wildlife directly observed or
determined to be present through evidence (tracks, scat) during field investigations are
indicated with an asterisk (*) Scientific names of all species identified in this report are
included in Appendix B Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and
stream corridors found within the study area include species such as eastern cottontail,
raccoon*, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed deer* Birds that commonly use forest and
forest edge habitats include the American crow*, blue day*, Carolina chickadee*, tufted
titmouse*, and yellow-rumped warbler Birds that may use the open habitat or water
bodies within the study area include American kestrel, belted kingfisher*, eastern
bluebird*, eastern meadowlark, and turkey vulture* Reptile and amphibian species that
may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include the black racer*, corn
snake, eastern box turtle*, copperhead, eastern fence lizard, five-lined skink, and
Northern dusky salamander
3 9.3 3 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the project
vicinity include Southern leopard frog, green frog, mud salamander, three-lined
salamander, two-toed amphiuma, carpenter frog, lesser siren, and greater siren
3-22

t

11
Important Points
Table 3 9 4 A shows
anticipated stream
impacts associated
with the
Recommended
Alternative
Aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles expected to occur within the vicinity include river
cooter, eastern musk turtle, eastern mud turtle, common musk turtle, painted turtle,
snapping turtle, banded water snake, red-bellied watersnake, mud snake, and
cottonmouth
No sampling was undertaken in jurisdictional streams of the study area to determine
fishery potential No identifiable fish were noted during the field visit A significant
fishery including anadromous species is found in the project vicinity Species that may
be present within area streams include striped bass, American shad, blueback herring,
hickory shad, gizzard shad, alewife, golden shiner, creek chubsucker, longnose gar,
bowfin, chain pickerel, yellow bullhead, margined madtom, tadpole madtom, pirate
perch, eastern mosquitofish, inland silverside, white perch, tessellated darter,
bluespotted sunfish, warmouth, bluegill, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass, black crappie,
yellow perch, swamp darter, and hogchoker
3 9 3 4 Invasive Species
Five species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found to
occur in the study area The species identified were Chinese privet (Threat level 1),
kudzu (Threat level 1), Japanese honeysuckle (Threat level 2), multiflora rose (Threat
level 1), and Japanese grass (Threat level 1) NCDOT will follow the Department's BMPs
for the management of invasive plant species
3 9 4 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
3 9 4 1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U S.
The study area is located within the Neuse River Basin in USGS Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03020202, NCDWQ subbasin 03-04-05 A total of ten jurisdictional streams were
identified within the study area The physical characteristics and water quality
designations of each jurisdictional stream are detailed in Section 3 9 2 Table 3 9 4 1A
summarizes jurisdictional characteristics of each stream within the study area, as well as
anticipated impacts associated with Alternative G USACE and NCDWQ stream
delineation forms are included in Appendix C All jurisdictional streams in the study area
have been designated as Warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation
3-23

Important Points
Table 3 9 4 A
shows anticipated
stream impacts
associated with
the
Recommended
Alternative
TABLE 3 9 4.A I
JURISDICTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
S1 1546 0 Perennial Undetermined Subject
S2a 2560 0 Intermittent Undetermined Subject
S2b 26479 229 Perennial Undetermined Subject
S3 8286 10 Intermittent Undetermined Not Subject
S4 10252 0 Intermittent Undetermined Not Subject
S5 1467 0 Intermittent Undetermined Not Subject
S6 5466 0 Perennial Undetermined Subject
S7 1813 0 Intermittent Undetermined Subject
Subject
S8 9590 0 Intermittent Undetermined (Downstream
of P2)
S9 21425 0 Intermittent Undetermined Subject
S10 4010 0 Perennial Undetermined Subject
LJ
A total of 31 Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area
(Figure 3, Appendix A) Wetlands W1, W6, W19, W23, W25, W26, and W28-W31 are I
located within the disturbed/maintained community Wetlands W2-W5, and W14 are
included within the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest Wetland W8 is located
within the Nonnverine Wet Hardwood Forest Wetlands W7, W9, W12, and W24 are
included within the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest W10, W11, W13, W15-W18, W20-
W22, and W27 are included within the Pine Flat community Descriptions of the natural
communities at each wetland site are presented in Section 3 9 3 1 Wetland data and '
anticipated impacts associated with Alternative G are presented in Table 3 9 4 1 B
3-24

Important Points
i
i
i
r?
i
i
i
I
' Table 3 9 4 8 shows
anticipated wetland
impacts associated
with the
Recommended
Altemative
i
TABLE 3 9.4.13
JURISDICTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Map
ID

Figure
Cowardin
Classification -
DEM Wetland
Rating
Area
$(acres) Area
Impacted by
Alternative
G (acres)
W1 3-1 PSS1J 32 12 010
W2 3-1 PF01 B 44 08 0
W3 3-1 PF01 B 67 09 0 05
W4 3-1,3-2 PF01 B 88 77 0
W5 3-2 PF01 B 48 1 7 0
W6 3-1,3-2 PSS1J 33 01 0
W7 3-2 PF01 B 35 41 0
W8 3-2 PFO1/413 35 178 0 95
W9 3-2 PFO1/413 39 576 1 24
W10 3-2 PFO1/4J 51 51 0 60
W11 3-2,3-3 PFO1 /413 39 436 0 45
W12 3-2 PSS1J 34 02 0
W13 3-2 PF01J 55 10 012
W14 3-3 P FO 1 B 96 223 0 54
W15 3-3,34 PFO1/4B 38 1372 3 05
W16 3-5 PSS1J 32 13 010
W17 3-5 PSS1J 32 13 0
W18 3-5 PFO1/413 17 215 111
W19 3-5,3-6 PSS 1 J 32 04 0
W20 3-3,34, PFO1/413 43 322 0
3-6,3-7
W21 3-3,3-6 PFO4B 38 171 0
W22 3-6,3-7 PFO1/4B 39 644 0
3-25
Important Points
i
i
Neuse Buffer Rules
apply to several
I streams and one
pond in the study
area

Map
gure

Fi
gure
Cowardin
Classification
DEM Wetland,
Rating
n
Area (acres) Area
Impacted,by
Alternative
G (acres)
W23 3-6,3-7 PSS1 J 32 06 0
W24 3-7 PF01/4B 70 103 0
W25 3-5 PF01 B 25 02 0
W26 3-4,3-5 PF01 B 25 07 0
W27 3-5 PF01/4B 46 156 2 44
W28 3-7 PF01/4B 25 10 010
W29 3-5,3-8 PF01/4B 32 208 0
W30 3-7,3-8 PSS1J 32 29 0
W31 3-7 PF01 J 41 1 9 0
3 9.4.2 Clean Water Act Permits
The NCGTP Permit Area was defined in the 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and approved as part of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit (Action ID
#199202851 and 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC #3184) This permit allows for
impacts to 871 acres of wetlands within NCGTP According to the USACE, the impacts
to jurisdictional areas within the study area as a result of this protect will be processed by ,
modifications to the existing NCGTP permit
3.9 4 3 Construction Moratoria ,
No anadromous fish spawning areas or other areas of special consideration have been
identified within the study area The Neuse River, located outside of the study area, is
the nearest stream designated as anadromous fish waters Therefore, no construction
moratoria are anticipated for the proposed project i
3.9 4 4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules I
Streamside riparian zones within the study area are protected under provisions of the
Neuse River Buffer Rules administered by NCDWQ Table 3 9 4 1A indicates which
streams are subject to buffer rule protection Wetlands within the NCGTP Permit
Boundary that are subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules are identified in Table
3-26

3 9 4 1 B These s
stems were ori
inall
del
n
nd
t
d
d
tl
th
d
b
important Points y
g
y
i
approve
ea
e
a
as we
an
s
y
e
USACE, but have since been declared subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules by
i
NCDWQ Furthermore, Pond P2 is also subject to the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
due to its hydrologic connection to a buffered intermittent stream (S8)
i
3 9.4.5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No waters in the study area have been designated by the USACE as a Navigable Water
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
I j 3 9.4.6 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
i
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
All s
rf
t
th
t
d
h
b
d
t
d
N
t
t S
W
t
t
u
ace wa
ers in
e s
u
y area
ave
een
esigna
e
a
u
rien
ensi
ive
ers
a
Therefore, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented during
project construction

I The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable in choosing a Recommended Alternative and during project
design At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or
design of the Recommended Alternative However, continuous coordination with the
' USACE has occurred throughout the study duration Likewise NCDWQ has been
! consulted on the alternative alignments and streams in the project area
'
Evaluation of
Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
compensatory The NCDOT, NCGTP Authority, USACE, and NCDWQ will finalize stream and wetland
mitigation will be
addressed via a
mitigation opportunities once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the
modification of the Recommended Alternative Impacts to jurisdictional areas within the NCGTP Permit
existing NCGTP
permit Area will be covered under a modification to the existing Clean Water Act Section 404
permit Impacts to jurisdictional areas within the study area that are outside of the
NCGTP Permit Area may also be covered by the surplus of credits available under the
existing permit Should additional credits be required, mitigation opportunities may be
! provided by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) In accordance with the "Memorandum of
Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U S Army
"
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(MOA), July 22, 2003, the EEP, will be

3-27

Important Points
j

j
j

Table 3 9 4 7 shows
Biological
? Conclusions for the
two Federally requested to provide offsite mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project
3 9.4.7 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of January 31, 2008, the USFWS lists two federally protected species for Lenoir
County (Table 3 9 4 7) A brief description of each species' habitat requirements follows,
along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area
Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best available
information as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence

TABLE 3 9 4 C

FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED FOR LENOIR COUNTY

'
i protected species ?n

Lenoir County A S, I
Federal Habitat Biological
Scientific Name Common Name .Y =#<
'
= Status** Present
Conclusion
Picoides borealis Red cockaded E Yes Unresolved
woodpecker
Aeschynomene
Sensitive jointvetch T No No Effect
virginica
" Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
E - Endangered, T - Threatened
Red cockaded woodpecker
1
i USFWS optimal survey window year round, November-early March (optimal)
i Habitat Description The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, ,
mature stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and
nesting/roosting habitat The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living
l pine trees, aged 60 years or older, and which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30
years of age to provide foraging habitat The foraging range of the RCW is normally no
more than 0 5 miles
j Biological Conclusion Unresolved ,
Suitable nesting habitat for the red cockaded woodpecker is very limited within the study
area due to the lack of pine trees aged 60 years or older with an open understory

Where older pine trees occur, they occur with a dense understory Other pines '
observed in the study area are only of sufficient age or density to provide suitable
foraging habitat Due to the presence of suitable foraging habitat, surveys for cavity r
trees within the study area and an additional buffer of 0 5 mile from the study area

3-28
1

- - - perimeter are required Red cockaded wood
ecker surve
s will be
erformed followin

Important Points p
y
p
g
leaf-fall when cavity visibility is greatest NCNHP records (reviewed August 25, 2008),

I indicate no known RCW occurrence within 1 0 mile of the study area
Sensitive iomtvetch
RCW surveys will be USFWS optimal survey window mid July-October
conducted following
leaf-fall Habitat Description Sensitive joint-vetch grows in the mildly brackish intertidal zone
where
lants are flooded t
l
d
Th
l l
f
th
h
d
t
p
wice
y
ai
is annua
egume pre
ers
e mars
an
e
ge a
elevation near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation, but can also be found in swamps and
on river banks Sensitive joint-vetch normally occurs in areas with high plant diversity
where annual species predominate, and can grow in sand, mud, gravel, or peat

I substrates Bare to sparsely vegetated substrates appear to be a microhabitat feature of
critical importance to this plant Such microhabitats may include accreting point bars that
have not yet been colonized by perennial species, areas scoured out by ice, low swales
within marshes, muskrat "eat outs" where this rodent removes all of the vegetation within
I a small portion of the marsh, storm damaged areas, and the saturated organic
sediments of some interior marshes that have local nutrient deficiencies In North
I
Carolina, stable populations have been found in the estuarine meander zone of tidal
rivers where sediments transported from upriver settle out and extensive marshes are
formed Additional North Carolina occurrences are also found in moist to wet roadside
ditches and moist fields, but these are not considered stable populations
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch exists within the study area due to its location
well upstream of any tidal influence In addition, disturbed open areas with little
herbaceo
s com
t
t
t f
d
th
th
t
d
NCNHP
d
d
u
pe
i
ion are no
oun
wi
in
e s
u
y area
recor
s (reviewe
August 25, 2008), indicate no known sensitive jointvetch occurrence within 1 0 mile of
the study area
' 3.9 5 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 10 mile of open water The study area contains no suitable nesting or foraging
habitat for bald eagle due to the absence of large open water bodies NCNHP records
(reviewed August 25, 2008) document no occurrence of bald eagle within 660 feet of the
study area No bald eagles or bald eagle nests were observed during field
3-29
Important Points investigations Based on field observations and NCNHP documentation, this project will
have no effect on bald eagle
3 9 6 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of January 31, 2008, the USFWS lists no Candidate species for Lenoir County
3 10 HYDRAULIC IMPACTS
The Recommended As discussed in the Natural Resources section (3 9), all of the streams crossed by the
Alternative has four
major drainage
proposed project are classified as C Sw NSW The only named stream crossed by the
structures project is Briery Run During the preliminary design phase, a hydraulic evaluation was
conducted to determine preliminary sizing of mayor drainage structures Mayor drainage
structures are considered to be any hydraulic structure greater than or equal in size to a 72-
inch pipe The preliminary hydraulic evaluation yielded four locations where mayor drainage
structures are proposed Exhibit 3 10 1 shows that single box culverts are proposed at two
locations in the southern portion of the project and a double-box culvert is proposed
towards the northern half of the project A bridge is proposed for the Briery Run crossing
3.11 FLOODPLAINS
Regulatory floodplains were identified in accordance with Executive Order 11988
Floodplain Management The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) determined the
i
regulatory floodways, floodplains, and other flood hazard areas for Lenoir County The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulates activities associated within
I
these designated areas
Alternative G Exhibit 3 11 1 details the flood hazard areas within the project study area These flood
impacts
approximately 5 5
hazard areas are adjacent to a Neuse River Tributary at the south terminus, Briery Run in
acres of 100-year
i
the middle of the area, and Stonyton Creek at the north end of the study area Potential
flood hazard area
impacts to flood hazard areas were calculated based on a worst-case 200-foot corridor
Once detailed designs are completed, the actual impact will be substantially reduced
Using the 200-foot corridor, the Recommended Alternative impacts approximately 0 5 acres
of the Neuse River Tributary Flood Hazard area which is designated as Zone X Zone X
indicates anticipated limits of flooding in a 0 2% chance annual flood event (500-year flood)
(NFIP, 1980) The Recommended Alternative will bridge Briery Run with an impact of
approximately 5 5 acres to its Zone A flood hazard area Zone A indicates anticipated limits

3-30

Important Points of flooding in a 1% chance annual flood event (100-year flood) (NFIP, 1980) The bridge at
this location will be sized to ensure that the 100-year flood elevation is not increased The
i north end of the project actually terminates before reaching Stonyton Creek so there are no
impacts to its adjacent flood hazard area
A historic
architectural survey
was conducted for
the study area in 3.12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES
2008 Information was requested, via letter to the State Historic preservation Office (SHPO), in
July of 2008 regarding the presence and likelihood of archaeological and historic
I
architectural properties The SHPO responded that there were four historic properties in
the general vicinity of the protect These properties are
¦ Tull-Worth-Holland Farm, listed in the National Register of Historic Places
¦ Moore-Foster House, determined eligible for listing, but reportedly demolished
¦ Rountree-Askew-Moseley Farm, determined eligible for listing and on State Study List
¦

I Dobbs School, determined eligible for listing, but reportedly demolished
j The SHPO r
m
d
d th
t
h
t
t
l h
t
th NCDOT
d
men
eco
e
an arc
a
i
ec
ura
is
orian wi
con
uct a survey of
the Area of Potential Effects Therefore a survey was conducted in August and September
r of 2008 The survey found one potentially eligible property, the Dobbs Farm School, within
the study area Exhibit 3 12 1 shows the Dobbs Farm School property and its historic
boundary in relation to Alternative G
i
The Recommended
Alternative traverses

Alternative G traverses the Dobbs Farm School property toward its eastern corner just
one historically
eligible property north of Dobbs Farm Road The alignment leading towards this segment from the south is
constrained by developed areas and wetlands on both the west and east sides rendering
j some impacts to the Dobbs Farm School property unavoidable The alignment of

' Alternative G was designed to shift the proposed rail spur as far east as possible to
minimize proximity to the existing buildings on the site If the proposed rail were moved
' any further east, it would cross Dobbs Farm Road in a curve which would cause sight
distance and associated safety problems with the crossing Therefore if the rail were
shifted east, Dobbs Farm Road would require some realignment to improved the crossing
configuration This road realignment would cause impacts to the Dobbs Farm School
property that would offset any benefit gained by shifting the rail alignment

The impacts of Alternative G on the Dobbs Farm School property were presented to the

3-31

Important Points
i
i
Alternative G
received a finding of
"No Adverse Effect"
on the Dobbs Farm
School property
i
I
i
Four (4) HazMat
sites were identified
within the project
corridor
SHPO on December 8, 2008 The proposed alignment impacts no structures, is shifted
east to the extent possible to maximize the distance from existing structures, and maintains
an approximately 300-foot tree buffer between the track and the existing structures 1
Therefore, Alternative G received a finding of "No Adverse Effect" from SHPO A copy of
the SHPO concurrence form is included in Appendix A 4

The need for an archaeological survey will be determined by the SHPO based on the
Recommended Alternative as presented in this document Determination and potential
finding of an archaeological survey will be described in the subsequent Finding of No '
Significant Impact document
3 13 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS I
The NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit completed a search of appropriate
environmental agencies' databases, a GIS search, and a field reconnaissance along the
project corridor on October 22, 2008
t
Four sites were identified within the proposed project corridors that are anticipated to
have low monetary and scheduling impacts The location of these sites is shown on 'r
Exhibit 3 13 1 Table 3 13 1 lists each of the sites and the corresponding databases
upon which they are identified The databases are described below the table
TABLE 3.131
LISTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Map #k ,Site Databases Listing this Site n
1 WEST PHARMACEUTICAL CERCLIS, RCRA NonGen, ICIS, FINDS, SHWS
2 GILBARCO VEEDER-ROOT UST
3 BASSETT WALKER PLANT UST
4 DOBBS FARM DUMP NCDENR Inactive Hazardous Waste Branch
sL)uKL& tnwronmentai uata Kesources, inc Hugust, Zuua
UST - Petroleum Underground Storage Tank database
FINDS - Facility Index System/Facility Registry System includes multiple databases for various permit and civil judicial
information related to hazardous material at these sites
CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabdty Information System contains data
on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies,
and private persons
RCRA NonGen - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for Small Quantity Generators includes sites which
generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA Non Generators do not
presently generate hazardous waste
ICIS - Integrated Compliance Information System contains information related to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES)
SHWS - Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory lists priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds along with sites
where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties
3-32

Important Pomts
The West Pharmaceutical Site has completed an environmental remediation process
i and is currently undergoing a monitoring program It is anticipated that due to previous
i
remediation and monitoring of this site, the proposed action will create no adverse
' environmental effects resulting from its alteration The Gilbarco Veeder-Root site has no
registered UST's or groundwater incidents associated with their site The Bassett Walker
Plant was assigned a ground water incident #21658 according to the UST section
registry The Dobbs Farm Dump site was unable to be located, however three
geotechnical borings were drilled in the suspected location and did not indicate waste
i
disposal No adverse effects are anticipated due to these sites
i 3 14 MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no mineral production operations within the project study area, therefore, the
proposed project does not pose any impacts to mining or mineral resources
315 ENERGY
Construction of the Build Alternative is expected to result in less total energy utilization
than the No-Build Alternative The proposed action will allow freight to be carried by rail
rather than being transferred from rail to truck and then transported via roadways A
continuous freight delivery by rail will increase overall fuel efficiency and result in less
energy consumption Construction of the facility would initially require the consumption
of energy and resources that would not be used if the project were not constructed
Operation of the facility, however, would compensate for the energy lost during
No adverse visual construction
effects are
? anticipated
' 3.16 VISUAL IMPACTS
The proposed rail access is a single railroad track on new location This project would
I
create new visual impacts for those viewing the facility from location adjacent to its
corridor The visual impacts of the Build Alternative primarily would include the loss of
vegetation due to the minimum clear-cutting required to construct the project The
corridor for a single track is relatively narrow, with a footprint of approximately 40-feet
depending on the track profile There are no distinct scenic, cultural, or historical visual
resources within the corridor and therefore no adverse visual impacts are expected
11
3-33
LJ
Important Points
I
I
No substantial
adverse effects to
utilities are
anticipated
i
317 UTILITIES

A number of underground utilities including water, sewer, telephone, cable and gas lines
may be present within the area The proposed project may require the relocation of ,
existing underground and overhead utilities with the possibility of short-term interruptions to
service during construction Each of the utilities is described in the following sections ,
3.17.1 Electric Power Transmission
The City of Kinston provides primary electric service to the project study area, supplying
service for street lighting as well as business and residential service throughout the ,
project study area Progress Energy also supplies electric service to areas outside of
the city limits Minor relocations at the proposed roadway crossings, which would be
determined during final design, may be required during construction Interruptions to
power service are not anticipated
3.17.2 Water and Sewer Facilities
The proposed project would cross sections of water and sanitary sewer lines located along
existing roadways Since the water and sewer lines are in areas of the existing street
system and are not anticipated to be relocated during construction of the proposed rail line,
the most important precaution would be to locate manholes and/or meters to ensure their
protection during construction The location and maintenance of these features would be
coordinated with the City of Kinston Public Works Department and with the Neuse Regional
Water and Sewer Authority Water and sewer lines crossed and their sizes are shown in
Exhibit 3 17 1
3.17 3 Natural Gas Service & Other Pipelines
There are no known natural gas or other types of pipelines located within the project study
area However, utility conflicts will be identified in detail during the design phase
3.17.4 Communications
The project study area contains both underground and aboveground wires for telephone
service, and a fiber optic line running long the railroad at the southern terminus These
lines may require relocation during the construction As a result, there is a possibility of
short-term interruptions to service during construction Utility conflicts will be identified in
detail during the design phase
3-34

318 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Important Points
The construction activities associated with building a new railroad track would create
environmental impacts These impacts, generally short-term in nature, can be
controlled, minimized, or mitigated through conformance with Best Management
' Construction Practices (BMPs) and standard NCDOT procedures
impacts will be
mitigated through
the use of BMPs 3.18 1 Air Quahtv
Construction activities could have a short-term impact on air quality, primarily during site
preparation Particulate matter (dust) is the pollutant of primary concern during the
construction period Dust would be generated during earth moving activities, handling of
cement, asphalt, or aggregate, and equipment travel over unpaved haul roads Wind
erosion of exposed areas and material stockpiles would also generate particulate matter
The amount of dust generated would vary, depending on the construction activity and
local weather conditions Where excess dust is anticipated to be a problem, effective
dust control measures would be implemented in accordance with standard NCDOT
procedures Dust control would be the responsibility of the contractor and may include
the following
j ¦ Minimizing exposed earth surface
• Temporary and permanent seeding and mulching
¦ Watering work and haul areas during dry periods
¦ Covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles
Excess dust is a
possible • Using covered haul trucks
I construction impact
The contractor
would be Emissions from construction equipment are regulated by federal standards Any burning
responsible for dust of cleared materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable state and local
' control
laws, regulations, and ordinances Specifically, a Burning Permit from the NC Division of
Forest Resources would be obtained for burning within woodlands or within 500 feet of
I
woodlands under the protection of the Division of Forest Resources
'
I 3.18.2 Noise
{ Construction of the Build Alternative would result in temporary increases in noise levels
within the vicinity of the project Noise would be generated primarily from heavy
equipment used to transport materials and to construct the railroad spur Sensitive
receptors located close to the construction activities may temporarily experience
3-35
17
Important Points
increased noise levels
'
i
Regulating the hours of construction and equipping machinery with noise reduction devices
Construction noise
can control construction noise Certain construction activities could also be limited during
can be minimized by
regulating the evening, weekends, and holidays Storage and staging areas would be located as far '
construction hours
and locating staging
from noise sensitive areas as practicable
areas far from
sensitive sites
3.18 3 Water Quality
Erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities would affect drainage patterns
and water quality In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act (15A NCAC 413 0001 through 0027), an erosion control plan would be developed and
res to control non-
meas
ld
t
l
Th
Erosion and u
incorpora
e
an wou
e p
implemented prior to construction
e control will
point source impacts as recommended in the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
adhere t to Best
' adhere

Management
Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997b) These Best Management Practices '
? Practices
include, but are not limited to the use of berms, dikes, silt barriers, catch basins, seeding
and mulching, and conforming with proper clean-up practices '
I
318.4 Maintenance Of Traffic
During construction of road crossings, all local and through traffic would be adequately
and safely accommodated All construction operations would be scheduled to keep
traffic delay minimized, and the contractor should conform to the standards of the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways Construction
would be performed to comply with all federal, state, and local laws governing safety,
( Maintenance of
tragic will conform to
health, and sanitation Procedures would apply all safeguards, safety devices,
the MUTCD and will protective equipment, and any other action reasonably necessary to protect the life and
be scheduled to
minimize traffic health of employees on the fob, the safety of the public, and the property in connection
delays with the performance of the work The following items would be utilized, where '
necessary, to maintain public safety and the flow of traffic

¦ Constructing and maintaining temporary detours, temporary structures, temporary
approaches, crossings, and intersections with streets and roads, as well as using '
aggregates for the maintenance of traffic and water for use as a dust palliative
¦ Furnishing flaggers, pilot trucks, and drivers
¦ Furnishing, erecting, and maintaining warning devices such as signs, auxiliary
?
- barriers, channelizing devices, hazard warning lights, barricades, flares, and reflective ;
3-36

t
Ll
I-- ^
Important Points
t
Impacts are
summanzed in
Table 3191
i
i
markers If a street must be closed to traffic, traffic control devices would be
illuminated during hours of darkness
318 5 Construction Materials And Waste
All construction waste material generated during clearing, grubbing, and other
construction phases would be removed from the project site and burned or disposed of
by the contractor in accordance with state and local regulations Litter and other general
trash would be collected and disposed of at local landfill locations NCDOT would require
contractors to conduct historic, archaeological, wetland and threatened and endangered
species surveys prior to approval and use of construction waste disposal and/or borrow
sites identified for the proposed grade separation
3.19 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Table 3191 lists the engineering factors and anticipated environmental impacts
associated with the Build Alternative These factors and impacts are based on the
preliminary railroad design
3-37

TABLE 3.19 1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (Alternative G)
EVALUATION FACTOR

CONSsTiRUC?TiION FAC?TiORS ?'
Mainline Length - miles ASSOCIATED IMPACT
Inside GTP;*, " Outside GTP tact
Permit Area Permit Area Total Imp
?;. ,?
2 83 2 83 5 66
Number of Roadway Crossings 5 3 8
Construction Cost --- --- $25,936,000

Residential Relocations 0 0 0
Business Relocations 0 0 0
Schools Impacted 0 0 0
Parks Impacted 0 0 0
Churches/Cemeteries Impacted 0 0 0
Receptors Impacted by Noise
CULTURAL RESOURCE FACTORS ?*?? ;?°''"
Potential Archaeological Sites 0
?,s'?? ??
TBD 1
_ `
TBD 1
? ''
TBD
Recorded Archaeological Sites TBD TBD TBD
Historic Properties Effected
NATURAL RESOURCE FACTORS

Protected Species Impacted 1

a .
.
91
0* 0

-
?
0* 1

"
Stream Crossings 1 2 3
Upland Natural Systems - acres 50 187 237
Wetland/Aquatic Systems - acres 35 73 108
Jurisdictional Streams - linear feet 0 239 239
DWQ Buffered Streams - linear feet 161 0 161
Stream/Riparian Buffer Impacts - linear feet 161 239 400
Riparian Buffer Impacts - acres
LAND USE FACTORS .=,2 Residential 04
0 05
0 09
0
Commercial 0 0 0
Institutional 0 0 0
Industrial 258 0 258
Recreational 0 0 0
Agricultural 0 94 94
Open/Maintained/Undeveloped
PHYSICAL FACTORS ?„'
100-year Floodplaln - acres 86
? ??
0 249

55 335

55
Prime and Unique Farmland - acres 675 675 135
Hazardous Materials Sites (no adverse effect) 4 0 4
Number of Exceedances of CO NAAQS NA NA NA
Notes
1 Impact quantities based on construction limits of the Budd Alternative plus 25 feet
2 Impact quantities are based on the proposed 100-foot nght-of-way
3 Category includes government, churches, and schools
4 Includes impacts to upland and wetland systems
5 Impact quantities are based on the proposed 200-foot corridor on farmland sods
' Red-cockaded woodpecker is "Unresolved" pending a survey following leaf-fall
3-38

u

Important Points
A scoping letter was
mailed on 7122108
,
i
I

Monthly Progress
updates have also
been d?stnbuted to
the agencies
A Kick-Off meeting
was held on July 31,
2008
40 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
4.1 SCOPING LETTER
A scoping letter was mailed out on July 22, 2008, to local, state, and federal agencies, as
well as the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, to solicit comments on the scope of this
environmental document The following agencies were solicited for comment
• City of Kinston
• Eastern Carolina Council of Governments
¦ Federal Highway Administration
¦ Lenoir County
¦ Norfolk Southern Railroad
• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
¦ North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Aviation
¦ North Carolina Department of Transportation Highway Division 2
¦ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
¦ North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
¦ North Carolina Railroad
¦ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
¦ U S Army Corps of Engineers
¦ U S Environmental Protection Agency
¦ U S Fish and Wildlife Services
The responses to this scoping letter are included in Appendix A 2 In addition, progress
update reports were distributed to the resource and regulatory agencies listed above on an
approximately monthly basis throughout the study These updates summarized the
analysis, coordination, and decisions that had been made during the month in order to keep
all agencies abreast of the project's progress
4.2 KICK-OFF MEETING
A kick-off meeting was held on July 31, 2008 to apprise stakeholders and regulatory
agencies about the scope and schedule of the project The meeting was held at the Global
TransPark (Building GTP-2) and email invitations were distributed one week in advance
Approximately 33 representatives of various stakeholders and agencies attended
4-1
Important Points
Three meetings
were held with the
j USACE during the
development of
alternatives
i
i
i
The project mailing
list contains over
2,000 names
I
43 MEETINGS WITH U S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The NCDOT Rail Division maintained continuous coordination with the U S Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) throughout the study This coordination included three distinct
milestones where meetings were held These meetings are listed below
¦ August 28, 2008 Meeting held at the NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Office in Washington, NC to discuss the preliminary alternatives (A-C),
environmental document, permit, and delineations All of the afore-mentioned items
were discussed to ensure that the project team and the USACE were in agreement
on the study approach and scope
• September 30, 2008 Meeting held at the USACE Office in Washington, NC to
discuss the preliminary alternatives (D-F) The revised alternatives reflected
alignment shifts to avoid delineated wetlands The USACE provided input on
individual segments of the alternatives for consideration in developing the
Recommended Alternative
¦ November 6, 2008 Meeting held at the USACE Office in Washington, NC to present
the Recommended Alternative and discuss hydraulic crossings
4.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The NCDOT Rail Division has made public its plan for the proposed project through the
following public involvement activities
4 4'.1 Mailing List
The NCDOT Rail Division developed a mailing list for the project that included area
residences, businesses, and other interested parties This list was used to distribute the
project's newsletter and notification of the Citizens Informational Workshop The original list
contained over 2,000 addresses obtained from the Lenoir County property tax database
The list was updated throughout the study as individual citizens requested addition to the
list
4.4.2 Newsletter
A project newsletter was mailed to over 2,000 addresses in August of 2008 A copy of the
newsletter, which contained information regarding the study alternatives and provided
contact information for additional questions or requests, is included in Appendix A 5 The
newsletter advertised the September 11th Citizens Informational Workshop
4-2

' 4.4 3 Citizens Informational Workshop
Important Poi n ts
A Citizens Informational Meeting was held on September 11, 2008 at the North Carolina
' Global TransPark Center The sign-in sheet included 136 names A total of 41 written
Informational nal comments were received during the workshop or mailed/emailed following the workshop
Workshop was held The purpose of this workshop was to initiate the project's public involvement program, to
on September 11,
n S provide information concerning the environmental study process, to receive comments
o
2008
' from the public concerning the project and to introduce the members of the study team
Maps showing three preliminary alternatives (Alternatives A-C), as well as potential road
' crossing closures at Sand Clay and Hillcrest Roads, were available The maps also
showed a typical section and how the location of the alignments may vary within the
200-foot study corridor
' Citizens in attendance expressed concern regarding access to Barnet Park and the
Hillcrest subdivision, potential road crossing closures, potential impact to wildlife areas,
and possible impacts to property value Of the 41 written comments received, five were
in favor of the project and 36 were against it Consistent with verbal input from the
workshop, most of the comments in opposition to the project were regarding the project's
' i proximity to the Hillcrest subdivision, or it's effect on access to Barnet Park However, a
common thread from the majority of citizens was broad support for the Global TransPark
' and the positive effect it will have on Kinston and the region
In response to the workshop advertisement, the Kinston/Lenoir County Parks &
The majority of Recreation Commission held a meeting on September 11, 2008 The commission
' comments unanimously passed a resolution stating the following points
expressed concern
regarding access to ¦ "The City of Kinston will maintain and operate Barnet Park at the western end of
Barnet Park, or
' j effects on the Sand Clay Road "
Hdlcrest . "The North Carolina DOT rail division will seek public input for the rail crossings at
Subdivision
' Sand Clay Road and Hillcrest Road "
¦ "The Recreation Commission opposes the closing of Sand Clay Road and Hillcrest
' Road "
"The Recreation Commission favors installing railroad crossings with arms on Sand
Clay Road and Hillcrest Road "
In addition, a petition was signed by 11 people requesting that Sand Clay Road remain
4-3
Important Points
I
i
I The Recommended
Alternative attempts
to respond to public
input to the extent
possible
i
open as an access to Barnet Park '
Individual property owners also expressed concerns regarding how their individual '
properties would be effected by the project
'
4.4.4 Comments Addressed in the Recommended Alternative Design
Throughout this study, alternatives were developed and refined in order to optimally
avoid impacts while accommodating public input to the extent possible Table 4 4 1 '
demonstrates how the Recommended Alternative responds to comments received '
during the process
TABLE 4 4.1 '
Recommended Alternative: Response to Public Input
f = -,'How Addressedzby Recommended
# Public Input - Alternative
Maintain access to Barnet Park via Sand The rail spur will cross Sand Clay Road at-
grade Sand Clay Road will not be closed
Clay Road and will remain as an access to Barnet Park
The southern terminus of the rail spur has
been located as far west from the Hillcrest
subdivision as possible without encroaching
on Barnet Park Alternatives that would
have located the corndor either much farther
west or east were deemed infeasible and
are discussed in Section 2 2
Impacts to Hdlcrest subdivision The proposed design has the alignment in
a cut section in the vicinity of Hillcrest So,
the track will be screened visually, and
from a noise perspective, by the
surrounding ground elevation
Hillcrest Road will be maintained as an at-
grade intersection with the railroad and will
not be closed
The alignment of the rail spur was
developed in close coordination with the US
Army Corps of Engineers and based on
Impacts to undeveloped natural areas extensive natural resource studies and field
work The alignment avoids and minimizes
impacts to wetlands and natural areas to the
extent possible
4-4
L
' -
Important Points l 4 4.5 Public Hearina
A Public Hearing will be held following approval of this document Alternative G will be
' A Public Hearing will
be held prior to
presented as the Recommended Alternative at the hearing Input received at the
publication of the
FONSI hearing will be described in the anticipated subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact
'
I (FONSI) document
' 45 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETINGS
In addition to the public meetings described above, the NCDOT Rail Division was also
' requested to present information on the project and the development of alternatives to
local officials from Lenoir County and the City of Kinston These meetings are described
' in the following sections
4.5.1 Lenoir County Transportation Committee Meetma
NCDOT Rail Division representatives met with the Lenoir County Transportation
'
The alternatives Committee on October 8, 2008 to discuss the project During the discussion, the
development of alternatives was presented, from conceptual corridors to the
were presented to
the Lenoir County Recommended Alternative Following the presentation, the Lenoir County TAC passed
' i Transportation
Committee on a resolution supporting the selection of Alternative G to be carried forward
October 8, 2008 and
to the City Council
' on October 9, 2008 4.5.2 Kinston City Council Meeting
NCDOT Rail Division representatives met with the Kinston City Council on October 9,
'
I 2008 to discuss the project During the discussion, the development of alternatives was
presented, from conceptual corridors to the Recommended Alternative
'
46 MEETINGS WITH GTP SITES
' Several meetings were held on-site with representatives of potentially affected industrial
Informal on-site and manufacturing facilities within the GTP The NCDOT Rail Division conducted these
meetings were held individual meetings to obtain input on detailed design concerns and considerations
' with several
?ndustnes within regarding the proximity to the rail spur and its possible effects on operations and access

' GTP at the various sites These meetings included coordination with the Bijur Delimon site on
N
2008
b
6
d
th th
El
P
lb
d G
N
b
0
2
ovem
er
,
, an
wi
e
i
erry an
i
arco sites on
ovem
er 1
,
008
Input gathered at these meetings was used to determine if any refinements to the rail
' spur design, particularly at the north end within the GTP, would need to be evaluated

' 4-5

E

A

APPENDIX A
COORDINATION

&S'- 4X'IS%
L
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WCHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 22, 2008
LYNDO TIPPEIT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Start of Study Letter for the Global TransPark Rail Access in Kinston, Lenoir
County TIP No U-2928, State WBS No 41739
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division has retained the firm
of Stantec Consulting Services Inc to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed
rail connection from the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern (NS) mam-line near
US 70 in Kinston to the Global TransPark (GTP)
The purpose of this letter is to provide notification of the start of study and to solicit
comments regarding potential concerns or data within the project study area. Please
submit written comments to Mr. Marc Hamel at the address below by August 31, 2008. If
you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hamel, at 733-7245, extension 270.
The following paragraphs provide a description of the project, the purpose and need for the
project, plus the general characteristics and natural resources of the project study area
Project Description
The proposed project is located near US 70 in Kinston and would provide a new single-track
railroad access from the NCRRINS main-line, north across Hull Road, Dobbs Farm Road, and
C F. Harvey Parkway to terminate within the GTP This rail access is proposed to carry large
aircraft components, at a relatively low frequency, to and from the Spirit AeroSystems site. The
approximate length of the project is 4 5 miles Exhibit 1 (attached) shows the project study area.
Purpose and Need
The State of North Carolina has recently announced that Spirit AeroSystems, Inc will be
constructing a new facility within the GTP This new facility is expected to provide economic
and security benefits at the local, regional, and national levels The purpose of this project is to
i create a rail access into the GTP Currently rail access to the GTP, which is necessary for the
proposed operations of the Spirit AeroSystems facility, does not exist.
' 1MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE. [phone] LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX 918-715-WO TRAN3PoRTATION BUILDING
RAIL EPARTN 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSffE WWW BY7RAIN ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1553

Global TransPark Rail Access, Kinston, Lenoir County
Start of Study
Page 2 of 3
General Characteristics of the Project Study Area
Exhibit 1 (attached) shows the project study area, which is located just north of US 70 in
Kinston, NC
Land Use - The project study area can be characterized primarily as a mixture of moderate-
density residential development, with some commercial and institutional development along the
major roadways There are large farming and undeveloped tracts in the middle portion of the
area
Natural Resources -- Surface waters in the project study area he within Subbasin 03-04-05 of the
Neuse River Basin and include portions of Stonyton Creek, Briery Run, and unnamed tributaries
of Stonyton Creek, Briery Run and the Neuse River Within the project study area, Stonyton
Creek, Briery Run and the Neuse River are classified by the NC Department of Natural
Resources (NCDENR) as a Class C NSW waterbodies Class C waters are classified for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish, and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
agriculture NSW waters are those in need of additional nutrient management due to their being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation In general, management
strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution control require no increase in nutrients over
background levels Stonyton Creek and Briery Run are also classified as swamp waters (Sw),
which is a supplemental classification intended to recognize waters with naturally occurring low
velocities, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen
An initial field screening survey identifies the potential for relatively large wetland areas
throughout the study area. Formal wetland delineations are currently underway with a
jurisdictional determination anticipated within the next month
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(HP) maintain a list of threatened and endangered species for Lenoir County. In accordance
with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the project study area will be evaluated
for protected species habitat. The table below presents the federal and state listed threatened and
endangered plant and ammal species potentially occurring in Lenoir County:
1
Global TransPark Rail Access, Kinston, Lenoir County
Start of Study
' Page 3 of 3
NOTES "FSC" denotes Federal "Species of Concern" (also called "Species at Risk„ - formerly defined as a species under consideration for
which there is insufficient information to support listing)
denotes Endangered (any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State's fauna is determined by the wRC to be in jeopardy) or (any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued
existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy)
"T" denotes Threatened (any native or once-native species of wild animal that is likely to become an endangered species
' within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion or its range)
"SC" denotes Special Concern
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare
"-L" denotes limited to North Carolina and adjacent states
"•"
denotes historic record - the element was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago
Archeological and Historic Architectural Properties - The need for an archeology survey and a
historic architecture survey will be evaluated durnig the course of the study-
Thanks you, in advance for your timely attention to this request for information If you have any
questions re
ardin
this
ect
ro
l
t
t M
H
g
g
p
j
, p
ease con
ac
arc
amel at 733-7245, extension 270
Sincerely,
Marc Hamel
1 Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planting Branch

MH/prk
' Attachment
cc* File
t

1

f

1

1

APPENDIX A.2
AGENCY COMMENTS

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 11, 2008
RECEIVED
Marc Hamel AUG 1,4 2008
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Rail Division NCDOT RAIL DIVISIOi
1553 Mail. Service Center
t Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1553
Dear Mr Hamel
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed Global TransPark Rail Access in
Lenoir County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2928) These comments provide information
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U S.C 4332(2)(c)) and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531-1543)
We do not have any specific concerns at this time, but we offer the following general
conservation measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife
resources
1 Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided -and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided Proposed rail projects should be aligned along or
adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed areas in
order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation,
' 2 Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems, should occur on a bridge structure
wherever feasible 'Bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage
along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife
passage should be employed,
3 Bndges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area,
4. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process,
5 Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30,
6 Best Management Practices (BMP) for Construction and Maintenance Activities should
be implemented; and
7 Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carved out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at httn•//nc-es fws.gov/es/countvfr html
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any
known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site The
NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does
not necessarily mean that such species are not present It may simply mean that the area has not
been surveyed If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species,
surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i e , likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arse and mm=ze delays in
project implementation In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:

r 1 A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project,
2 A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
3 A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected,
4 The extent and acreage of waters of the U S , including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining Acres of wetland unpact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetland boundaries should be determined by usmg the 1987
' Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U S. Army Corps
of Engineers,
5 The anticipated environmental unpacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in indirect and cumulative
effects to natural resources,
6 Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7 Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US, and,
8 If unavoidable wetland or stream
impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
' impacts of this project If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext 32
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
u Field Supervisor
S cc Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
e.aSNTgo? '
North Carolina
r Department of Administration
Michael F Easley, Governor
September 5, 2008 Britt Cobb, Secretary
Mr. Marc Hamel
NCDOT
Rail Division
1553 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
' Re: SCH File # 09-E-4220-0036; SCOPING; Proposed
project near US 70 & would provide a
new single-track railroad access from the NCRR/NS main-line, north across Hull Road,
1 Dobbs Farms Road & C.F. Harvey Parkway to terminate within the Global TransPark,
Lenoir County
' Dear Mr Hamel
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
' under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
Sincerely,
";,-
1 Valerie W McMillan, Director
RECEIVED State Environmental Policy Act
Attachments
sEP 0 9 io08
cc. Region P
NCDOT RAIL DIVISION
------------------------
' Mailing Address Telephone [phone]
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] Location Address.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Couner #51-01-00 116 West Jones Street
e-marl valerie w [e-mail] gov Raleigh, North Carolina
r An Egual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
C

Q
WA ;c
?p
y
Michael F Easley, Governor
North Carolina Department of Enviro mlent and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
August 12, 2408
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
To: Mr Marc Hamel, Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
NCDOT Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch AUG 14 200$
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 NCDOT RAIL DIVIS3
From- David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Quali jo
Subject Scoping comments on the proposed rad connector to the
Global TransPark near Kinston in
Lenoir County, State WBS No 41739, TIP U-2928
Reference your correspondence dated July 31, 2008 in which you requested comments for the referenced
' project Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area More specifically, impacts to

P
11
u

Project Specific Comments-
1 All creeks are at least class C,NSW waters of the State DWQ is very concerned with sediment
and erosion impacts that could result from this project DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these
creeks DWQ requests that the design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through
best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best
Management Practices
2 This project is within the Neuse River Basin Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
mmmuzed to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B 0233
' Transportation Permilbng Unit No
1650 Mall Samce Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
' Phone [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet httnJ/h2o enr state nc ustn
cwetlands ?
An Equal Opportune #Affirmaty a Acbon Emoiover- 50% Rp-r4o i m prof (% -- _-_ „_
Further Investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that airy jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests the NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project
General Project Comments:
1 Any environmental documents should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the
proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping If mitigation is
necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H 0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not
finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation Appropriate mitigation plans
will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
2 After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H 0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation
3 In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H 0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation
4 DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the unpacts.
5 Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible
6 Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters
7 If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site should be to its
preconstruction contours and elevations Disturbed areas should be seed graded
ordmulched to
stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species should be planted When using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers,
bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the
area to re-vegetate naturally and mmimizes soil disturbance

9 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands should be below
the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diamet
er greater than 48 inches,, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and a
uatic l
f
D
q
i
e
esign and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures should not be conducted in a manne
th
t
r
a
may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and dow
t
n
s
ream of the above structures The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium
is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ If th
is condition is unable to be met due to
bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ
for guidance on how to proceed and to d
t
e
ermine whether or not a permit modification will be
required
10 If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural strea
m cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate Widening the stream channel should b

1 e avoided Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of strictures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disru
t
p
s aquatic life passage
11. If foundation test borings are necessary, it should be noted in the document Geotechmcal work
is approved under General 401, Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit N
6 f
o
or Survey
Activities
1 12. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most rece
t
i
n
vers
on of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250
13 All work in. or adjacent to stream waters should
T ise
approved by NC DWQ Approved BYR measures from the m
t
os
current version of NC O
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used t
o prevent excavation in flowing water.
1 14 Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams
15 Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate com
ensato
i
p
ry m
tigation
16 While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) snaps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) ma
s and
l
p
soi
survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval
17 Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
' waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials

18 Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed
Thank you for requesting our input at this tune The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost if you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone]
cc William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Garcy Ward, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
1 1,

x,9/03/2008 11:45 9197253060
NCDENR
PAGE 01/0;
A
imp
HCDFNR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F, Easley, Gavemor
Wiliam G. ROS$ Jr,, Secretary
W-M-9RRA
TO:
FROM.
Valerie 1t cAltan
State Cleaunghause
Melba MaCree
Environmental Keow Coordinator
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources bas compteted its review, our
regional office within the geographic area of the proposed projects has identified permits
that may be required prior to project construction. For more information, the project
applicant should not&y the respective regional office marked on the back of the attached
permit foam
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1801 Mall Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] i FAX-IS ?WorlffiCm
. 919-716-3081) i Internet: www,anr.state,nc.urdENR/ hfta
M Equal OppRrpu* JATff? A ANen Emptoyer- 60 % RagdW 110 % Poet ConmwPeW UU MAY
Post It' Fax Wte 7671 la a Faes1ii-
7e?/A;- E i From 0.V
CO Dept CO
Phone N Phone 0
Fax p Fdi !#
09/03/2006 11 45 9197153060 NCDEW
PAGE 02/0c
State of North Carolina
DopaKrtlnetit of Environment and Natural Resources RevtewmgOfrrce
1:NTE, RCOVEPUNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS projcatNamw b -x00 .? f?]!ite Datr~
Altar revmw of this pradax it has been detornmod that the EN[t permli(q) aatd/pr apprO is rddremted may dead to he obtalned in order lr lhn prolca to amply with North
Carolina Lover Quosuoru regarding dWA poi mu should be addressed to the Relioaal Office mdtevAd an the ronme ofthe farm. All applicadoos rnfiamahba and gutdelales
rvlgGiva to these plans bed Permits are aver.labia rrom the same Reponal OftlM
PRRMIIS
SPECIAL rkPPUCATEON PROCF.1]URM or RaWReMENTS Normal Process time ,
(sruutory time In[;)
Parma to eonstiuet &. operate vr?stcwater tl+eahncnt
f at to rtieg, sewer 9y3mM t'cctansrons & sawcr tsystctra Application 90 ddYS $Pfare bdgm eonstrttaaon or awarE of totlsavaroa 30 days
not dwchorptng Into state suite waters, contram Or4te inspeWon Pest applicadan mehmc5l Cdrif?aree tet>xtl (90 days)
MOM - permit to docluuga into owk6e water wdlar Applimtion ISO days before begin activity On-site inspecknn. FrE•6p Alit dram
i7 permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities eenCerenea ususi Addmonatly obtain permit to comarunt wastevmtcr 90-120 days
disthargin8 into team surface watam, trp6ntnt facit$y gt?IStgd ai r NPL3?S Reply UmA 30 days after receipt of (QUA)
plane or Fsstre of NPDL-S pens tt-whtChever Is tm er
? water t1:e Peemlt ere-application technical canfcr,mca usua(Iy acoasl 30 days
(run)
0 Well Construdor Pa- n a Complete application mast bo roccived t nd perm tsm idd prtor to the 7 days
installa8on Ora well (14 days)
Application copy man be served on tacit adjacent rfparian properly avMcf
[;] Dredge and Full Permit On-trnc insliddhok prr-applicatian txnferertee asaat. Fiume may rcquim 55 d
Eaecriunt to Psi I from N C. Dbpoft ilmi. of Admmbntio 7 and Federal (9(1 d ys)
Drcdgo and Fill beanie
P9hilrt to odarruct & operue Air Pollution Abatemcxtt Application moat be aabmttkd and permit remved pner to
? tharlmes and/or E&haisian Sources as per IS A NCAC core mtcdon and operation of the sourm Ira pem111 rs r usrod nt ati
(2q 0100 dlru 20 0300) ' srea MMOUt local tormttg, then there are addlnanal .-apromonta and

timelmds (2 0113) 90
des

C7 Pamir to eonstruee & aperOtO rraeror+ Facility as
per IS A NCAC C2D 0800 MONO Appiitaa0n mm be submitted at least 90
? Ares b C4nstevetlan or
modification of rile soured 90 days
Any open btmnutg Wsoolaaed wtta subject proposal
must bo in compltanco whits 1$ A N(;XC 2131400
ot itronorrsnovsaansafsNtcelut43conauning
tosmatcnal inw1be in oomplianco with U A
F
C
C 201 t i0 (a) (l) which requires nonncation end N/A GO days
removal prior to demolition Cortina Asbestos Cannot (90 days)
reap 919-707-5450.
? Complelt Soured Permit: rt quint under 15 A NCAC
2D 0800
The Sedimentation Poll Won Control Apt at' 1973 must be pmpody ndieta6d for any landdrsturhing aatvily An erasion &
sedimentation control plat aril I be required if one or more acres M bed
tsi
b
d
P

13 a
r
e
.
lan Slid virtu pfopq Regional OP9ee (Land Quality
Six on) At least 30 days befism beginning activity A fad vf?65 for tile (irgt acrd ar 20 der
an
available wilt addinanat feed Y Part arm oclr An express ravrew option is ys
(30 days)

13 5edbmnmdon and erosion control m;;9lh4 addressed in aess dance with NCDOT's approved program, Pamcwxr Mendon should be giver to
design and installation of appropriate ponmaor ocdimom trWine devises as wall 68 Wo s
w
(30 days)
mom
eater eanvevimaeg Sad outlets s
dn-:1191rspsC110111 usual Surety bond Mod With RNR BoM atnOUntvsries
CJ Mtnlyg i'enliu wM We mine and number of acres of4=od land. Any= mmcd grcntar
h 30 days
t
an one Kno must be palnIMDd The appropriate bond must be rmdved
beforb the pan it am be issued (69 drays)
!_`1 North Csimlint Burning permit Omits m4=bon by N C, Division Fomst Rafts cs ifpeftit extends 4 days t day
(NJ4)

173 $Mdal Ground Clearlnee Burning Parmit - 22 On-,let inspecdon by N C. Division Farms Rooms= roqutrcd "If 11tora than
counties at causal N C Wft h organic Sotto rma acres 9(ground c[csnng acriviuca ac involved. ir,Mmtlaas shoo Id be i day
requested at least ten days bcfbrc serval bum is planned" (w{+)
U it R41-rrtn Faaldrem
NIA p0-120 days
(NIA)
If penult required, appiicarian 60 days beforebecc, «nthaurtraboh I?ppil+Ant

must hire N C qualified engineer to proprun ptam in,4pera aeesrjcUlm,
eeRdfy eanstruedon is according to M411 Approv
d
l '

?
Oem Silky permit e
p
ains May a] is requtrn
pearl udder mosquito central program, Ands du permit from Corte of
9n dn..9

1
09/03/2008 11.45 9197153060
S
PEPWITS
C3 Po-Aitto drill explor5toryOrl6e&ft wall
r7 Gmnphysical crplorahnn I ormit
? Sate L-d= Cpnsttucuon Fumit
PAGE 03/03
Normal Pro- Tung,
(atadlt0ry time limit)
10RJdays
A
10 days
N/A
1520 days
N/A
a01 WsierQual,yCMtngltlort
1-3 CAMA Pamrt for MAJ6ft dovel optmnt
1:1 LAMA PUTrat for MINOR devcltp n nt
$evcrel geedeSrC AtDppIRM11S Arc laented in ar
NGDEKR
SPECIAL APPLICATION P?,0Cr.D x--3 or REQUIREMENTS
File surety bond ofSS,000 With EENIt rancngto S -11C of NC conditional that
Any well opened by drill 0peramrshall, upon abandonment. In piuggad
accordrngto ENit rules Ind reguiations
Applreatlon filed uAth Vlt at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
Appiieadon by letter No standard appluadon four
Appllmdon few ed on sMrn= alts 15 charged Mutt tRlu_da desanp an
Rs drawsngs of mruimirc & prmrof ownership of rtpanan
nmr.r....
NM
V30.13D rac nw2t aceampuy applleanon
SSO 00 Cc.; to A accompany applicatiop
project atea IE atrf monument n a to be moved M dc=
t,C Gendana Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, WC 2781
I0 1 Atiandonnamr orany wells, ilrr quired must be In accordanca with Title i SA, Subchapter 2C,0100.

n

$1 days
(150 days)
22 days
(25 days)
? Noi 5*19"! 0Fkhe1r6par regional of#iee sregttested Irrorpltea' 11ndcrgrour,dstona8a tanks
(IIS1'S) an: d'uwvcred durins Any axcavatilon opcsadQn
? Co 1laneowiel ISANCAC2141000(CoasmlStarmt%mrizulra)ismqu, ed 45 days
Tar Punitao or Hcuse Rrporian Buffer Ruin required, RA)
>f er uammcnts (arrntir nddigonal ?g? ag nee?smy, bo ng xtisin vo Date caauncM a ontvl
]REGIONAL OF'F'ICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office tt iced below
r] Asheville Re ioxiii office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
(sag) 296-4500
10 Fayetteville Regional office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
FayetCeYrllc, NC 28301-5043
[phone]
11 lVlooresvine Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 25115
[phone]
0 Raleigh Regional Office
3 800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 276109
919) 791-4200
Washington Regional Ogee
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
0 Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardmal Drive Extenstan
Wilmington, NC 28405
(9I 0) 796-7215
? wwton-$alem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]
MCDEWR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F Easley, Governor
William G Ross Jr, secretary
August 6, 2008
Mr Marc Hamel RECEIVED
' NC Department of Transportation
Rail Division AUG 11 2008
1553 MSC
Raleigh NC 27699-1553 NCDOT RAIL DIVISIp?
Subject Start of Study Letter for the Global Transpark Rail Access in Kinston, Lenoir County
TIP No. U-2928, State WBS No 41739
Dear Mr Hamel
The Natural Heritage Program has no records of rare species, natural communities, or significant natural heritage are<
within the study area outlined on your map of July 31, 2008 Although our maps do not show records of such natur,
heritage elements in or adjacent to the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present it may simpl
mean that the area has not been surveyed The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actua
field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, c
priority natural areas
' You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www ncnhp org for a listinof
animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map g rare plants ar
Our Program also has a website that allows users to obtain nformation on element occurrences and significant natur
heritage areas within two miles of a given location http //nhpweb enr state nc,us/nhis/pubhc/gmap75 main phtml Th
user name is "public" and the password is "heritage" You may want to click "Help" to download the user's mane
' before you use the application This website gives you instant answers to information requests about specific location
without waiting for NM staff to respond
' NC OneMap provides digital Natural Heritage data, online for free This service
layers with Natural Herita a Pro provides site specific information on G3
g e rare Species occurrences and Significant Natural Heritage Areas The NC OneM,-
website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged
I contact the Natural Heritage Program for detailed information This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently g
site specific NHP data, without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by NB
staff For more information, visit www nconemap com, and then click on "FTP Data Download", and then "nheo zip
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at dataq@ncmail net for more information
NORTH CAROLINA
1601 Marl Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Natural
Phone [phone] Email misty [e-mail] 1 www ncnhp ora Heritage
An Equal Opportunity 1 Aifirmatve Action Employer- 50 % R Program
ecyded 110 % Post Consumer Paper SCIENCE GUIDING CONSERVATION
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information
Sincerely,
Al?'
Misty Buchanan, Botanist
NC Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone [phone] l Email, [e-mail] 1 www ncat) or-g
NORTH CAROLINA
Her?ral
Program
SCIENCE GUIDING CONSERVATIO

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORO
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIG14 NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP AUG2ow
DEHNR - COASTAL MGT
MEMM
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS $
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
EASTERN CAROLINA COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT. NCDOT
TYPE- National Environmental Policy Act
ERD• Scoping
xxallrrojc*?
fiAl
6 U? 4.10
'
STATE NM4BER. 09-E-4220-Q0 -V F0
DATE RECEIVED- AGENCY RESPONSE. t???OF"
REVIEW CLOSED 09/04/2008

,S _/Z41011
$Ata to9
DESC Proposed project near US 70 & would provide a new single-track railroad access
' from the NCRR/NS main-line, north across Hull Road, Dobbs Farm Road & C F. Harvey
Parkway to terminate within the Global TransPark, Lenoir County
1 The attached project has been submitted to the N. C State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone]
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
CO NTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY* A"
DATE 3 ?????

I z?

e
??'M?eaa?s
asw
N ichael F Easley, Governor
Lis4eth C Evens, Secretary
Jeffrey) Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 20, 2008
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
'Peter S Saadbeck, Administrator
RECEIVED

TO Marc Hamel
Rail Division
NCDOT Environmental and Planning Branch
FROM Peter Sandbeck "Cir'k Pdef so-'k 6j-
Office of Arclnves and %story
Dm=on of Ffistoncal Resources
David Brook, Dsector
AU G 2 6 2008
NCDOT RAIL DIVISION
SUBJECT Global Trans*Park Rail Access, Kinston, U-2928, Lenoir County, ER 08-1738
Thank you for youx letter of July 31, 2008, concerning the above protect
We have checked our maps and Rtes concerning historic buildings and identified the following properties in the
general area of the undertaking
LR 571 - Tull-Worth-Holland Farrtn, listed in the National Register of Historic Places
LR 796 - Moore-Foster House, determined eligible for listing, but reportedly demolished
LR 797 - Rountree-Askew-Moseley Farm, determined eligible for listing and on State Study List
LR 884 - Dobbs School, determined eligible for listing, but reportedly demolished
' The last survey of Lenoir was conducted in 1993 Given the passage of time since, we recommend that an
architectural historian with NCDOT conduct a survey of the Area of Potential Effects and report the findings
to you for review and evaluation
Out records indicate that two areas of archaeological survey-gen
exated by Crescent Road, R-2719
(Bibliography #4095), and the TransPark itself (Bibliography #3420)-overlap the study area More than thirtj
sites recorded during these surveys are located within primarily the central to north and northeastern parts of
the study area The majority of these sites were assessed as not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places and no further work was recommended at them We agreed,
Three sites, 31LR224&224**, 31LR143, and 31LR124 are
unassessed as to their eligibility Of these,
31LR224&224**, which is located between Crescent and Dobbs Farrti Roads, seems to have the greatest
potential to be affected by the proposed rail line Should the selected alternate be routed through this area, we
would recommend relocation and testing of 31LR224&224** to determine its National Register eligibility
31LR143 is to the northwest of 31LR224&224**, adjacent to the north side of Crescent Road 31LR124 is
north of the airport and would have the least likelihood of being affected by the proposed line
Locauoa. 109 East Jones Stree; Rat&& NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, RaleAgh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/F= [phone]/807-65
1
We have little info=aition on the area between the existing rail line and Dobbs Farm Road We will make out '
recommendation regarding archaeological survey once the selected alternate for the rid line is chosen
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulattons for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Th
k
f
an
you
or your cooperation and consideration If you have questions concerning the above cowmen
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579, In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number ,
cc Mary Pope Furt, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
SCH

09/03/2008 13 36 9197153050
b9/02/20ee 1d:20 9195289839

11

PAGE 02/03
PAGE 03
RE North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
MEMOR&NDUk
t0: Melba. McGee
,ce of Legtslatave arzd I-,Iwaovemmental Afni;?%, biel\'R
FROM: Travis Wilson, Hieway Projett Coordinato
Habitat Conservation proymn
DATE; September 2. 2008
SLMIECT Response to the start of study tiotzxteawn from the N C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) insardi a fllsb and wilalife concerns for the
ptaposed Global TaxasPaek r-Ail Access w Finston, lxnoir County, N*rth
Carolina. TIP No. U-2928
This memt7sa:ctdum responds to a request from the N(--DO'T for our concerns
regattaitigunpacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from -the subject project
Biologists on the staff of tic N. C "Wildlife Resources Coto-niss:c?n (NICW C') have
reviewed the ?z'(:19aaad improvenimts. Our comments are provided in attordazlce -%ith
certain provisruns of the National Environmental Policy Act (42. U S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish axed Wz.1d a Coordination Act (48 Sw 401, as amended; 16 U-S.C 651-667d)
At this time we da not Dave any specific concerns related to this project. To help
&dlitate docmdent preparation and the rcview pioctoss, cur se,-ieral infomadonal =4
are outlinedbelow;
1. Description of f fiery and wildlife resources v-tthi nz 1c project area,
including a kaung of federally or state desipatcc threatened, endangered.,
or spe0W concern species, Potential borrow areas to bit used for project
emseructlou should be includRd in the inventors. A. listing of dcsignatcd
plant species cam bo developed dumi$h cailg?3ieaiiotl «ith
NC Natural Hentago Program
Dept of Boviromne:ut & Natural Resources
1601 Mail Soivice Center
MQgb, NC 21699-1601
17l+WVdxmhv _Qr_g
and, -
Ma,164 A "reps: Division of fz:iand F-ma erm - 1721 Mail Service Ccnttt • Ralatgh'NC 27$99-1721
Tdcphent: (919) 707-Mo • Fax: [phone]
NCDENR
. . 05/03/2008 13 36 9197153060
09/02/2008 Id.29 9195289639
McLlio
NCDENR
2
NCDA Pliant Conservation Pxograrrn
P Q. Sax 27647
Meigh, Iii C, 27611
[phone]
September 2, 2,008
2. Dea ption of ,y streams or wetlands affected bye the prof cct. The need for
cliawteli?,tig of relocating Tsortto= of streams crossed and the extent of
soda. activities, '
PAGE 03/9,
PAGE gd '
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages mpacted by the prof 00.
Wctland acreagca should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic c"e as a result of tlitelung; otbcr dramage, or filling for
project constrae iota. Wctlatad ldc;itificahon tray be =conzplishedthrough
caardinadon with the U. S. Army Corps of Eagine%s (COE) Tf the COE
is not consulted, the lscrmn delineaw n g wetlands should be identified and
critetia listed.
4 Cover type araps shovnng acreages of upland vnifflu fe habitat impacted by the
proposed pmject. Potential borrow sites shoiiid be maluded
5 The extent to which the pproject will resu4 in loss. dcg adatiorl, or
*Mmentatian of wildlife- habitat (wetland,, cc up"- maids).
6 Wagation for avoiding, minimizing or compen siting fot- direct and iu&e ct
degradation in habitat gtWity as wall as qw ntitazwe losses.
7 A cumulative impact assessment seqtion winch analyzes the ervirozimontai
effacts of hi_s&way construction and quantin.:s the contribution of this
individual pm3act to onvimmnental dagradatian
8 A, discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources whist will result
from, secondary davelopmwn: facilitated by the =nprvved road access.
9. if construction of this facility is to be coordinated x-.nb other stage, municipal..
or private aovElopznent praj cots, a description of these projects should be
mcluded in the anvirowrim-dal document. and al; project sponwrs shoidd
be idwtified.
Thank you for the4oppQrwniry to provide input in the early lam w$ stages for this
project. Tfwe can farther sssist your office, please contact me at [phone]

LEI

17

APPENDIX A.3
NRCS FARMLAND CONVERSION FORM

09/24/2008 23:15 9199895659 JOH-,STON SWCD PAGE 02
U 7 RPARTMENT OF AWCUMIt6 MRCS -CRA? {06
Natural Resources Cor6atvetton servtce (l FA
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
rgKr t (TO +ea completed by Federal Agency) 3 Dace of eL nd' EValuation squeal "1298
sea t of
4 r3arnc of Prolecf GLOBAL TRANSPA17k RAIL ACCESS S. Federal ecn In 0
NC
Q)
9
R
9
11 I MSION
? Type of Protect RAIL 6 Coun end State
?' 1.FN01R NC
PART 11 (To be completed by NRt:S) t l70e1(eraet ecelyed by NRU 2. on C Form
!!ZZ
?CH
§
R
AH.
ROOK3
3 Does the com dar contaln brlnur. unique statewide at local Important farmland? a vereje arm e
th
YES m No 0
F
P
W no,
e
P
A does not apply . tap not complete oddhionat We of V43 term)
219
5 Major crop(s)

CORN 6, Farrmtue Land In Govemment ItimAtc on . Amount of F Defined In
FPPA
Acres. 220.389 % Acrssz 2Ug2dq k
5 Name Of Land E;;jluatbn yystGm Usad
L.EMOIR LE 9 Name of (.seal SlteAesesamentsystem
NONE U. Date L4hd Evaluation RaWmad by tRCS
0125106
PART ill (To be completed by Federbl Agency) Itarnau 0 Comdor For 5 e sent

A, 'total Acne To Be Canvsned Diractty CeV"dbr
145 Corridor 5 Corridor C t:o+ridor D
B Total 4eres To Be Converted Indlraetsy, Or To Receive Serncee
U Total Acres In Comdor 1 0 0
PART IV (To be completed by Nf s) Land Evaluadch Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Ueique Farmland 112
B Total Acres Watowlde And Local ilnponant Farmland 23
C Percentage Of Farmland In County or Local OWL Unit to 9e Converted 0
0 Percentage Of Farmland in Govt Jutlsdic8
VkM S
HI
on
ame or
etrlxerlswe Value T4
PART V (To bs cMpk*d by NPIM fend Evehmew *4 m Won cAlsridt, nwatrw
l
f F
I .
vs
ua o
&M
and to 11a SaVlced of Colt wiled re of Q • ItV Paints
PART VI (ra b* Compfetedby FedemtAgerroy) Con*for Maximum
Assessment Crlterle (these criteria pro expfalmOin 7CFP 658 S(c)) Points
1 Area in Nonurban Use is 9
2, Perunstor in Nanurben Use ' III
is

3 Percent Of CorrldorBeing Farmed
20
14 --
4 P W eCLOn Provided by State And Local Goverrment 29 20
5 Size of present Farm that Compared ;o Average
6 C
l
f 10 10
"Mi
on C
Nodarmaple Farmland 25 25
7 Aveti 11 Of Farts su sort Services S 3
8 On-Farm investments 20 10
9 Effects 0(Conysesion On Farm Support Serdcas 26 25
10 Compatibility With adsilng Agdculturat Use 10 7
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 129
O O
a
PART VII (To be co»?pfeted by Fedora! Agency) ,
ReNtIVO Value Of Fermierd (From Part V) too
Total Corridor Assessment (From Psr1 VI above N a Gael site
assessment} 169 1 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Tatel of stmava 2 f/naS) 2i9I y

i Corti r elect-67 12 Ta ACraS o Farmlands to be
Converted by Project. (
3 Datb OfSalectron u a o
4, WasALocal $It*Asssessment Used?
YES ? No ?
gn area error Cam sting s art E
h0 complete
a form for each segment with more than one Altomato Corridor

t

H

1

0

APPENDIX A.4
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONCURRENCE
1

+ elrrrti.[t l 1. M3Sir 1,098 r,rrrlW I , Ilk III
t t1\t( lJl{1{EN 17 Ft- KM F OR S.tiSI ?>?f 1 ?['I t tl Li [ 1 f_ PS
rluhal I'1411S',111% [ MOM Rdn Spir hom `CRR I Loc Kiiisirlll
t In DCA-1?rrtl`c ? "ONS Mitt 4cntau?'L? ll 'ltc
0 Noah C-iioha i [h pdrim(.nt of l l.ln,p,?l7at,?,tl ?( D( W,
I-` 1,1dl I l1`?hti? 114 1,hnlnl itaLINI 11 lift 11
' Norilt l irt.111110 `I ItL. I11"10IIt PftSt I V011-?n UIJILL d 1P( 11
t Allel
R(, rL WVI ncC SUFIL.s:' jle-OjeCL ,anti ,lgrt,t,tl
1 lim, art. no ?ffeci- on the Nam n 11 I{epter-listed pint,, rt,,'ptopcrti- kC.11L,l a 1111111
[Ilk l71t>t,,,i h .!ICJ 01 lit-lL.r111a1 L ffLL,I an,I IIStr d -,n 111,. IL;L l;e
I`I 1 lit rl dl. ]IL? CtfCCt, tul 11(. Naljonal Regi-,tei --Itk-WkI, wol ?-1 hloperri,, twC-,ALed will-il„
IhL_ il'O)Ct l , d-Ca Of I)WI- tt3l L11c.t I .9n<I IL?Ibfl ldl tilt: 1,I'LrtiL
I f1Lrt I, do k I ILC t on Iht Natt,,nal C{?t;r•.r, It?tvl n
r_)hclt%r p,I,IICI11, lu,<aL.t 111111, tilt:
1;hI j-, Lt % I1Cd Of 8011 1111,11 LffeL.t '[-ItL. p iop,Itvepio ero,. , nd tilt6 eiIccII` i art, I1stc.Ll on
he revu-'L.
Q I lltil : I-ZJO ..FtCLI on ihL Nal1011a1 1tL 'I:t?r- ll thle 11-01icrtti'I?tclpclLl., IO-L&Ld : iihin hL.
pi 1jet t , Ilea A ,I11CIIL1,11 .,-IIck1 1,11, I'r,iperl, 1prOllcrtl. , d7ld ire IlcOLd 0I1 Ih(
"I 1gntud
IZLl?I{.urlt.141' :, ti?fi')C} i -
1-1INV ? 'ioPtht• i)I, t,tt%n
L - 0
nI,traior tai otIiL,r I et aaI IP-CnL\
?IrL
Date
I(t.prL.sultalive I IPO 1
[I1stLlrlc: l'rL;Sllwratl,?n {)tfit.? r
I),t IL
47, - 8- c
Date,
Cc?trr;rt [ elw?n 111•'`S?,\t
Properm,s r llhln flit aica ---t potC-11t1.11 CHLO for s h)ch lhc1c. 1,, no eflt_. ]nclltdiL 11 1'%IODCtl , 1` ,
Nalwnal it uaj ,lt r-I)sted AR t o1 ttetc.rmnlul dl(_'1bl, (11W)
Nropcrtu,'%,ithtn the aIL-1 al Putc.if l,tl L I I L k I IOr %thltii I11U, 11 111 ettctt In.llcal? ptOiV-17% "Litt",
tLNIR ?t DI_) anc1 dcsctlbc IhLJfi,,.l
k obli, l arnl ?.hc of i DL(

RO-as 'lle "I h\' tlLc ?tk'n 1,. nol mhc,.;e - li ,111p11tt'hic I '
n
/ f-- t
rr ? S ! ?.L g ?'- - y, .t- ?_ .) ,-- •?. ?ll r; ;. ? vl ?., b !s '? ?, ! ?? -<-' C:+1-ter c ? l ?, ?- w «K _- -
FHINA intends to use SHPO's concurrence as a
:>>scs of a ' ,ie nltntl l1s' flnd)rg ro the r„
Initialed 11f111 W .1 f
{I

APPENDIX A.5
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MATERIALS

t

Gl

IJ

1

11

1

11
1
-?, North Carolina Department of Transportatbon
PROPOSED GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
TIP PROJECT NO U-2928
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA

1

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
Issue No 1 August 2008
Project Description What Is The Study Process? What Alternatives Are Being
The North Carolina Department of The proposed rail access is being Considered?
Transportation (NCDOT) Rail studied in accordance with the NCDOT Rail Division has
Division proposes the construction National Environmental Policy Act developed three conceptual
of a new single-track railroad (NEPA) in order to determine the alternatives designated as
access from the North Carolina potential impacts of the new rail Alternatives A, B and C The
Railroad/ Norfolk Southern access to the human and natural enclosed exhibit shows Alternative
Railroad (NCRR/NS) main-line, environments The general steps A (yellow) as the westernmost
north across Hull Road (SR 1557), in this process are alternative From the south,
Dobbs Farm Road (SR 1573), and Alternative B (red) starts at the
C F Harvey Parkway (SR 2010) to Step 1 Define Purpose and Need same point as Alternative A and
terminate within the North Carolina then shifts to the east Alternative
Global TransPark The Step 2 Identify Preliminary C (orange) is the easternmost
approximate length of the project Alternatives alternative Each of these
is 5 5 miles alternatives is currently shown as
Step 3. Evaluate Detailed Study a 200-foot corridor to allow for
Purpose and Need of Project Alternatives changes as more detailed designs
The purpose and need of the Step 4• Prepare Environmental are completed The actual width
proposed rail access is to carry Assessment of the track and its right of way will
freight into the TransPark for a be much less than the currently
variety of manufacturing and Step 5• Conduct Public shown corridor width
industrial facilities The initial rail
traffic will be aircraft components,
moving at a relatively low
frequency, to and from the
proposed Spirit AeroSystems
facility
1

Involvement
Step 6. Identify the Preferred
Alternative
Why Should I Attend The
Public Workshop?
The study team is asking for your
input regarding the alternatives
presented in this newsletter
Step 7. Hold Public Hearing
You may stop by the workshop
anytime between 5 00 and 7 00
PM and project team members will
be present to answer questions
and provide any additional
information you may need about
the project
Please plan to attend the
CITIZENS
INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP
Thursdaly
September 11t , 2008

I
5:00 to 7:00 pm
(Details on back page)
What's Been Done So Far?
The purpose and need for the
project has been defined and
conceptual alternatives have been
developed Detailed studies are
being conducted on these
alternatives for evaluation in the
environmental document As part
of this process a citizen's
Informational workshop is being
held to obtain input from area
citizens
1
GET INVOLVED!
In addition to participating in the workshop, you are invited to
Arrange small group meetings The study team is available throughout the study process to meet and discuss the project
through informal question and answer sessions with neighborhood groups and civic organizations
Call the study's toll-free hotline at 1-800-349-3721 (Hours of Operation 8am - 5pm, Monday through Friday)
Add your name to the mailing list If you would like to receive future newsletters or meeting notices, you may add your name to
the mailing list at the workshop or by contacting the study team
Call or write the study team Comments and suggestions will be documented and considered during the entire study process
You may contact the study team or the NCDOT at the following addresses
Mr Marc Hamel Mr Paul Koch, PE
NC Department of Transportation Stantec Consulting
Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
1553 Mad Service Center Raleigh, NC 27606
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 [phone]
[phone], ext 270 Toll Free [phone]
mhamel@ncdot gov paul koch@stantec corn
If you have transportation questions on other projects,
call our customer service office at 1-877-DOT-4YOU or visit our websites www ncdot org and www bytrain org
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2008
5:OOPM TO 7:OOPM
A Citizens Informational Workshop for the Global TransPark Rail Access is being held on Thursday
September 11th, 2008 between 5 00 and 7 00 pm at the North Carolina Global TransPark Center, Room 148
located at 3800 Highway 58 North in Kinston.
The purpose of this workshop is to provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the alternatives under
study in an informal setting Maps showing the alternatives will be on display at the workshop Members of
the study team will be available to discuss the project and answer questions The opportunity to submit
written comments or questions will be provided Interested citizens may attend at any time during the above
mentioned hours No formal presentation will be made.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop
to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive special services, please contact Mr Marc Hamel as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made
PROPOSED GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS (TIP U-2928)
GTpft,,a«u Mr Marc Hamel
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
Place Mailing Label Here
APPENDIX B.2
SCIENTIFIC NAMES
Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified In Report
Plants
Common Name
American beech
American holly
Aster
Bald cypress
Blackberry
Brazilian vervain
Broomsedge
Buckeye
Carolina cranesbill
Carolina laurel
Cherrybark oak
Chinese privet
Christmas fern
Cinnamon fern
Clover
Common greenbrier
Cross-vine
Dandelion
Dog fennel
Dog-hobble
Eastern red cedar
Flowering dogwood
False-nettle
Fetterbush
Fescue
Gallberry
Giant cane
Highbush blueberry
Hop hornbeam
Horse sugar
Hucklerberry
Japanese grass
Japanese honeysuckle
Inkberry
Ironwood
Laurel-leaf greenbner
Laurel oak
Lizard's Tail
Scientific Name
Fagus grandifolia
flex opaca
Aster sp
Taxod?um d?stichum
Rubus sp
Verbena bras?liens?s
Andropogon v?rg?nicus
Aesculus spp
Geranium carohn?anum
Kalm?a carohna
Quercus pagoda
L?gustrum s?nense
Polystichum acrosticho?des
Osmunda c?nnamomea
Trifohum sp
(Smilax rotund?foha),
B?gnon?a capreolata
Taraxacum off?c?nale
Eupatonum capd tbhum
Leucothoe axillans
Jun?perus v?rg?niana
Corpus flonda
Boehmena cylindrica
Lyon?a luc?da
Festuca sp
Ilex conacea
Arundinana g?gantea
Vacc?n?um corymbosum
Ostrya virg?n?ana
Symplocus t?nctona
Gaylussac?a baccata
Microsteg?um sp
Lon?cera japon?ca
flex glabra
Carp?nus carohn?ana
Smilax launfoha
Quercus launfoha
Saururus cernuus
Common Name Scientific Name
Loblolly bay Gordon?a las?anthus
Loblolly pine Pmus taeda
Longleaf pine P?nus palustr?s
Multiflora rose Rosa mult?f?ora
Netted chain-fern Woodwardia areolata
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata
Panic grass Pan?cum spp
Partridge berry Mitchella repens
Pawpaw As?m?na spp
Peatmoss Sphagnum spp
Pepperbush Clethra aln?folia
Poison ivy Tox?codendron rad?cans
Pokeweed Pytolacca amencana
Pond pine Prnus serot?na
Red maple Acer rubrum
Northern red oak Quercus rubra
River birch Betula n?gra
Sedge Carex spp
Southern red oak Quercus falcata
Spicebush L?ndera benzo?n
Stagger-bush Lyon?a manana
Swamp bay Persea palustris
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus m?chaux??
Swamp tupelo Nyssa b?flora
Sweetbay Magnolia virg?n?ana
Sweetgum L?qu?dambar styrac?flua
Sycamore Platanus occ?dentahs
Tag alder Alnus serrulata
Trumpet creeper Camps?s radicans
Thistle C?rs?um sp
Titi Cyr/la racem?flora
Virginia chain-fern Woodwardia virg?n?ca
Water ash Frax?nus carolm?ana
Water oak Quercus n?gra
Wax myrtle Mynca cenfera (Morella cenfera)
White oak Quercus alba
Wild onion Allium canadense
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Wiregrass Anstida stricta
Witch hazel Hamamehs virg?n?ana
Yellow poplar L?nodendron tulip?fera
Animals (Terrestrial)
Common Name
American crow
American kestrel
Belted kingfisher
Black racer
Blue day
Carolina chickadee
Copperhead
Corn snake
Eastern bluebird
Eastern box turtle
Eastern cottontail
Eastern fence lizard
Eastern meadowlark
Five-lined skink
Northern dusky salamander
Raccoon
Tufted titmouse
Turkey vulture
Virginia opossum
White-tailed deer
Yellow-rumped warbler
Animals (Aquatic)
Common Name
Alewife
American shad
Banded water snake
Black crappie
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluespotted sunfish
Carpenter frog
Chain pickerel
Common musk turtle
Cottonmouth
Creek chubsucker
Dusky shiner
Eastern mosquitofish
1 Eastern mud turtle
Eastern musk turtle
Gizzard Shad
Golden shiner
Greater siren

Scientific Name
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Falco sparvenus
Ceryle alcyon
Coluber constrictor
Cyanocitta cristata
Poecile carohnensis
Agkistrodon contortrix
Elaphe guttata
Scalia slabs
Terrapene carohna
Sylvdagus flondanus
Sceloporus undulatus
Sturnella magna
Eumeces anthracinus
Desmognathus fuscus fuscus
Procyon lotor
Beolophus bicolor
Cathartes aura
Didelphis virginiana
Odocodeus virgmianus
Dendroica coronata
Scientific Name
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alosa sapidisima
Nerodia fasciata
Pomoxis rngromaculatus
Alosa aestivalts
L macroshirus
Enneacanthus glonosus
Rana virgatipes
Esox niger
Sternotherus odoratus
Agkistrodon piscivorous
Enmyson oblongus
Notropis cummmsae
Gambusia holbrooki
Krnostemon subrubrum
Sternotherus odoratus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
S lacertma

Common Name Scientific Name
Green frog Rana clamitans
Hickory Shad Alosa mediocris
Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus
Inland silverside Menidia beryllina
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
Lesser siren Siren intermedia
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus
Margined madtom Noturus msignis
Mud salamander Pseudotnton montanus
Mud snake Farancia abacura
Painted turtle Chrysemys picta
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus
Pumpkin seed L gibbosus
Red-bellied watersnake Nerodia erythrogaster
River cooter Pseudemys concrnna
Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine
Striped bass Morone saxatdis
Southern leopard frogs Rana utnculana
Swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme
Tadpole madtom Noturus gynnus
Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Three-lined salamander Eurycea guttolmeata
Two-toed amphiuma Amphiuma means
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus
White perch Morone Amencana
Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natahs
Yellow perch Perca flavescens
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES

t

I REFERENCES
Federal Aviation Administration 1997 North Carolina Global TransPark Environmental Impact
Assessment (1997 EIS)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1987 Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents US Department of Transportation FHWA
Technical Advisory No T 6640 8A http //wwwcf fhwa dot gov/environment
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2000 An Overview of Transportation and Environmental
Justice Publication No FHWA-EP-00-013
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2000 Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects
Publication No FHWA-HI-88-054
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 1980 Flood Insurance Rate Map Definitions US
Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Insurance Administration
North Carolina Department of Commerce (NCDC) October 2008 Economic Development
Information System Raleigh, NC http //cmedis commerce state nc us/
North Carolina State Data Center (NCSDC) October 2008 LINC Database Data Services Unit,
Office of State Budget and Management Raleigh, NC, http //www linc state nc us
United States Bureau of the Census (USBOC) Census 2000 Gateway Accessed October 2008
http //www census gov/main/www/cen2000 html
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008 Local Area Unemployment Statistics Accessed Octoer
2008 http //data bls gov/PDQ/outside asp?survey=la
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1977 Soil Survey of Lenoir County, North
Carolina Soil Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1998 Important Farmlands of North Carolina
http //www nc nres usda gov/programs/soiIsurvey/pnmefarmland html
PBS& J, 2008 Natural Resources Technical Report for Rail Access Spur to Global TransPark
Prepared by EcoScience, a Division of PBS&J
Lenoir County 2001 Future Land Use Plan for 2001 Planning and Zoning Department
http //www co lenoir nc us/landuse html
City of Kinston 2008 Existing Zoning, Planning Department
http //www co lenoir nc us/landuse html
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 2006 Train Horn Rule Fact Sheet
http //www fra dot gov/downloads/PubAffairs/TRAIN_HORN_RULE_FactSheet pdf
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (USDHUD) 2002 The Noise Guidebook
http //www hud gov/offices/cpd/energyenviron/environment/resources/guidebooks/noise/
? '-
" ? ' ? r'.?er"" :ti Ala QYRoa s' • "?'.
F
r r r , tl

? 4 orb
'

J .

s n
' e 5?,r?r
&Ali

53

'k'l 4ld ,k.'t?'??"',

LL „t{ Kinston t

ad
North
arol.
aR
allro

i4
US 70
i
Evaluate Road Bus
t
p ,: n ti" e F r X
?
x"
Crossing Closure ` ,
ru rxf" ^Snyr??p^r
4
•r
• _
?t ? -
?, .. ?_-4, r?CC,r' I.e?seR i ,r'??,?d[ E,ti t
M- 1C) "Tf ..*Y
•„?
?
»
T?Tf %7' 3F
"
"•a?? ?
,
. - S-10 .
?
C'1
a'
d " ?
r

North
Carolina Oapartrnant of Transportation
ow45ia

Legend
Global
TransPark Rail Access Initial Preliminary
Study Area Build
City Limits City of Kinston Alternatives (A-C)
County Limits Lenoir County, North Carolina Not To Scale
Exhibit 2.3.1
Typical Railroad Track Section
Not to Scale
North Carolina 113"rtrnent of Transportation
PIVISIOW'4
Global TransPark Rail Access
City of Kinston
Lenoir County, North Carolina
Typical Rail
Cross Section
Not To Scale
Exhibit 2.7.1
�l err +►: '��
O �
pt1N g�VD P ALPHA DR
ERFTTE RD
`.7 SNP
1 Tj N
St
°o S
90
St
^,OBBS FARM RD
.'\_J'il`l \_ *� 40' . -, 1!'J
S1 Soils = 26.83 ac.
Hydric Soils = 15.37 ac.
r North Carolina Department o} Transportation
iL �ivisran��,
Soils map from USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Web Soil Survey
Legend Global TransPark Rail Access
P1 S2 Farmland Soils
P2 U2 TIP Project No. U-2928 Not To Scale
I• S1 ® Hydric Lenoir County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.2.1

7!Mrlr Q!imil 11

Gt00?0 G
OVnH
h *•
n
f &
Future E n
' C. F Hervey .. -:•s
yon
O
J•
1•
e
J k .?' ~7
J
.i f .:

Institute Rod - -

Ir. 0
i
77
? ^Prt
Sf0
'e` mac. Kinston Regional Jetport O?reek
4

.. Na

P` ? So
da ?• , 1t
'
Double Box Culvert .1?

'33
?,
Bridge
Bi eN P?? ?i
41

rri^ + t k? Grey A ?° ...
Possible B ox Culvert o

r

-- 'I ?: ro .?.; Y.. .•9 t•i..fir !' '?.

le r^t ..., i:rT r ? 7 3 ! a. ??
T .
North Carogna O"runant of TrdMportafion 4 ' g. rid ?? o ?n
Legend Global TransPark Rail Access
Study Area Proposed Major
City Limits City of Kinston Hydraulic Structures
Alternative G Lenoir County, North Carolina Not To Scale
"' 1•: Wetlands Exhibit 3.10.1
Legend
Study Area
St Global TransPark Rail Access Flood Hazard
City Limits Areas
Alternative G City of Kinston Not To Scale
100 Year Lenoir County, North Carolina Exhibit Scale
Floodplains 3.11.1
R.,. r
(• iR :rte t SAT-J '' •. ). N
.i t, Rey
. 41"
'°
Dobbs Farm School
Property Eligible for r k;
o ? t f J F'"
National Re ister of
g C. F. Harvey Parkway
Historic Places
?r
1 w J41
1 ,� YI
' as C
U)
FLAum E4vslon
C.F. Harv" parkw"
R4719A
I �
L
01)
Kinston Regional Jetport
7
IMF
F, Vie,
•;4 N'A
sus Lis 7
Ful
. kv
Kinston
V
-7,
'�!
>r
�4'.` Ci_IU
e e e
e
North Carolina Dquirtmortt ofTransportation
Source: NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit
Legend
Study Area
Global
TransPark Rail Access
Hazardous
City Limits
## County Limits
Site Listed in EDR
City of Kinston
Materials Sites
Not To Scale
(SeeTable 3 * 13 * 1)
Lenoir
County, North Carolina
Exhibit 3.13.1
Preferred Alternative (G)
I

rte- "oe u eT' + L -p5 n' N,t0i3 t
? ? ?
WS
?
•
?
J
?s .?' ? .+ C ,lye V r I ,.
oi?•• T, '
?? oa Y Ali
'r 4 F'

t- ? 4

<, I _ C

I
3
I '.,LL.
p ? ',l`

I ? U N
v i -' ???
I

Legend
Alternative A
Alternative B i
Alternative C .
r
6ir a .
so
0
m
.a,au
Conceptual Plan View showing how the location of the Track and ROW can vary within the 200' Study Alignment
Not to Scale
..'gy n. A-T.????.? I I
Global TransPark Rail Access GTP&WArons
TIP Project No. U-2928
Lenoir County, North Carolina

f APPENDIX B
I NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

7

APPENDIX B.1
FIGURES
Pmoa,ed By. P,.p.,.d Fur. D- By. F I G U R E
VICINITY MAP TAL Ckd .` NRTR Date: By.
MCG
? x Dais:
RAIL ACCESS SPUR TO GLOBAL TRANSPARK DEC 2008
A drvisinn -! '?
Rail Division LENOIR COUNTY NJCP7 C o.orv;s-3za.o5
-11
? N J 3
a
d Z J
2 W
p Q
Sy orr.? 7 N a W? N O D: ? Z
"W M
Y'r O u~ J O N ?' ~
1 ?T -1 a 2 O I- V7 a W
11¦^I .° ? 4 a ? ? w? LLJ
o w o _
la.l? a J a ? ? V)
IL .. ?c7 Z? z
od_M M M
;I 9 \
W ao 'ya+s ..' W I H
W 31 i W W
S :I 2 I` s 2
N N ?• I' ti' N
.?
o; rl I YYboll
611 ? J I',?,'
W b P?
N i' ?pPI
S s\ a
o.
--- - --- - --- - --- - ---
poe _F W W
N UI
1 1
I .\ W Q4
W
wl -
mI \
1 1 \
1 _
1 M
W
m 3
1 W o
° S c
ILara?aa y, •.. pN pVE N
? i4 itl
11 EIS ,?,e. ..?'°'.. °.,. O O
C oo /J U U
m c m E w
< m Q o 2 3
' ,,..=-ef.CB dA BSZiO ?Nr ?j N V a
t. 3y n a U m d m °v °v
p[E •6HW pV T?' ??M?AAZ •O .d U NO V E d E c c O
3 N? ? x?•x O ? O N m N V U
NITED 4? C a. Z 2 J= a CS C d !!J UJ
J 3
G
- a
q a o w? ? a ? ? ? ?? o' 1
Col V)
_ ? f ? 0.' J O H V O
IF - ¢ Q ? a F- J Z ?
Pei
east
x
N F
tin K.,
y
jaw
,// ?•` / j w K ? = ? 003
3 1?
• ? C 'O C O O
? .o U ? m d m m v v
e c (7 - °c o d ? m d ? ? t5
SIT 11 4)) Ul))
a. u
1 ,t. I 'I? J1.1 ? i ?n ! I z I I ??
r- ..?
i
?? wr- a Q 3
- Z s a ?? ? z Z n
• +o?,? N y a w? w o? O Q v
a o W? ?a N ?? v? o 1
t ,,: j=am ??
'n a M
o w o
c - V

is
3
i'
i?
i'
i'
i i•
i.
i
11

--'?51fT-?".kiO
y a?
`o E
3 t' ? c c
.0 .0
t 1 g N ED O C E N
Ilk- i ?e u3 a E D
1t ,y y?N gin ST, j V O
N
.. F a m a 0 !? aci aci m °v °v
? v g a m U ?? 'c d? 'c c c
}, 4ye . + w >a ° So o U co o v co m m a0i 4)
cc _j a- 0 a- co cn
0 010.
N Hu H6 C.)
J °
" J ; ! n z
a .9

W J 3
a
cz a
_ y N= j 0 N
Q W N O? F-
Q tt
LL
a
- M
s Z? N
a
c
¢ mac: Z? J?? ? ? - -
1
1
11
3
y;
N C N rail
m
d a U? c c -
?- o a E c E c o o
m
C d z¢ -1 a a a in in
Liu
4 ?
Her ,y .1P
-le
• a t e y ? t_'??, ? Ice ?Y,"`+
E G" y:
>• '? 1 r A
5 s g<
9 € ' I re"? J We 4 Y.. ''? > ATy /l
J?
o G 3 £ R R R 'I ;???''t ??. s! r ?.• L f 5 drn a? l*? /
1 411.' ? ! ? F . Sr ;'
tf oA J a
co .? 111 ':+?p "+TFtiF ??`/ * - 2
F
4 r
a
k' A
' j • 7 .
_arlI
la` -a 1 _ 1,11 r 1. 44TH •y? H , r
.006%0
1 ? I
M
N
N
O N J - ;
~ a Q
O(n
_ 0?9?,, yr z °w c0 ° H a
Q co
z W rn oQ v
M
Z?
3
II
II ,
I I
3 0
I

N (0
3

m O
E ro m
t° ? 0 0
j ? fn N _U U
y m O
Q ¢ C
O ?
N ? N

a o D ? ? `c o 0
? ? O - ? iu m? m v
o v
0

o?
d
E
E
c
C a` z 2 .? ? d- a (L cn to
d ..L
?• ' I
U
U
I I
I (n f Z

°
o

a 3 c

/T a! 2..
ooi
2
is a E
!
?
r9 Y
i

II
%i
N
I ? -
? ? ti :tom ? a?',' r
y ra v r %` t ?lu
y ,
"r 1-? I
w J 3
~ u a r a Q
_ • 0 da d ZJ Z - e.
a`?? N N Z N 0.' a0 ? O ? fn
£ C H W N O Q ~ Q
o o w? ?? N ?? `-'i M
i J Q m ? 2? O= y Q
e
r
`\ r
r
`\ r
r
r °
E m 6
r ? m o 0
r C ? (n U U
J
r N ?° O is y N
T
E
fA O V
?--.? a c c o 0
r -?Bi'U6g7Um6t%1?NC%d-------- a m U .? ° p -c c c
j o E E 0 0
C o U y o° m` m m d n
!r •? ? c a Z T 2 a O d d (n )
?
r%? M !
i 3 i• J ?.? °' U
'• i
I• m i ?
i
/ !, i 5 Fp
FG:u
$ t \ z gey
_' S o e
k 5? ooh
?'?i? ' Q??e ? •,.•,•,??? ??*? Jam?' ... ',° ??
%• v
i• 3 %.
M y
3 I• 1
,• N ... \
3
6
y.? 4
All
w c .fir _ ? .; / '? •`• ?1 \'\ 3 ?
E 00.
N
d
N t0
a 3
d
N CL
a E w
ca c c
0 0 0
(n N U U
m 0 0 E a
Q ?- tt o d
v H co U' 'E c zE c o 0
C a` z ? ? p n. (n in
?? w? a Q 3
a - ? z as as r? Z
3' ? O L y ? Z J Q 1
[Y o` u U UJ
?4 a o ?~ J u w ? ? o? 1
Zm c - M
r%
` E
0 0
ro o m E N % ?-. - o
? o. o a? m m o ? v v .i _
CL m U ?? c m? 'c c c ...
D °
° U m c o d m m y a d
C a zcr J C 5 a p 1? a co rn
J?,•! i in f I z E
E p o a , TxK,S
a3 $ga /
i
- - --- ?:
~:j O
N V) 'z O
N - -
4 y Q W N O? h Q ? r
a C'7
..............
i I
N /: y
( C
i 1 / 3 won m
m m v a
N , m C 0 N
. \ _ M ? ... O C p N m N
1 1 a Z m ° S a Q a 0 in
WTI
Cam): -6
I co
` 1 ? M , •'l? x'M E FCC'
-4,x.,1.11. SjgtlR? .. l..`•- ? . •V' I^'! ? ,, "- u E
rv1.. _ 1 f. as-
Hl
r 4 r l fli
i
I
- - 3 3 L... ..............•....
......
II,? 'I l Y J
I rl
IA?ataW?®4sJ I ? ?9ta?? uev- _ -
?, N;
' r
\\ . NCGTP
PERMIT
BOUNDARY
I r.
PROJECT
STUDY
AREA £ - -
..
ij4j, sr '
I1C-
Zy'
I:. ,1:
l?, _. - _ ? - - - -1 .h #? i, tllJr _ _ _ ' - - ? .,,.. ^:???? ? _. ? 5,.. -Iti i-IT?'? ?T ?. yl
- - i ,I' 1 ? ? +?' ji t'e ?.."-I y I?'?'-I-r?r ? ?- It ,? . • ,y . • .
I
,t I I 4•,) 1 1 I li?l. r, n -h r:? ) IF 111 1
0 1
MILE
SCALE: 1 e = 1 MILE
So-: USGS Topopmphlo Maps (Kinston, Deep Run, FaI11nB Creek end Rl-ont)
F'
Prepored By'. Prepored F.,
A divi5io" nf L
Rail Division
PROJECT STUDY AREA MAP
NRTR
RAIL ACCESS SPUR TO GLOBAL TRANSPARK
LENOIR COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

D- By: FIGURE
TAL
Ckd By
MCG
Dota:
DEC 2008
raj ecl No.:
06-325.05
i?ZAiE Carolina Department of Transportation
VIV15
PROPOSED GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
TIP PROJECT NO. U-2928
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP HANDOUT
Issue No. 1 September 2008
Welcome to the Workshop What Alternatives Are Being Thank you for Coming
The North Carolina Department of Considered? The project team appreciates your
Transportation (NCDOT) Rail NCDOT Rail Division has participation in the workshop this
Division is here this evening to developed three conceptual evening. Please contact us with
gather your input on the proposed alternatives designated as any additional concerns and
construction of a new single-track Alternatives A, B and C as shown comments.
railroad access from the North on the map on the back of this
Carolina Railroad/ Norfolk handout. Alternative A (yellow) is
Southern Railroad (NCRR/NS) the westernmost alternative. From
main-line, north across Hull Road the south, Alternative B (red) starts
(SR 1557), Dobbs Farm Road (SR at the same point as Alternative A GTP Rail Access
1573), and C.F. Harvey Parkway and then shifts to the east.
(SR 2010) to terminate within the Alternative C (orange) is the
North Carolina Global TransPark. easternmost alternative. Each of
The approximate length of the these alternatives is currently
project is 5.5 miles. Maps are shown as a 200-foot corridor to
available showing the three allow for changes as more detailed
alternatives being considered. We designs are completed. The
are very interested in your actual width of the track and its
opinions on the project in general right of way will be much less than
and the presented alternatives. the currently shown corridor width
Project team members are (see exhibit).
available to answer questions and
provide any additional information
7:4. 3
that you may need. The workshop
is informal and there will be no
formal presentation in order to
answer as many individual
questions as possible. You may
submit your concerns and
comments on the sheet provided.
Your comment sheet may be left
at the sign-in desk or taken home
and mailed or emailed to:
Mr. Marc Hamel
NC Department of Transportation
Rail Division
Environmental Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
[e-mail]
r m ? ? ? r i ? ? ? m r ? ? r ? r ? ?
I
r
N (D
It
? 3
CL I
t9
m

CD
G ?
?
r
0 CD ?
.,
a
a A
CD 2
N
3s o p ?.
°s

d 3
CD
0
Y?
S
C r^
CD
-
. -- ? V
O N
C:)
0
ED Z
0
(D
%
iI

O
a e I
? t-
?,- -_

?
r _ `gy
m

0
z2i
A;
0 -1
1rt
:r 0

IT"
? , . _ ; , -,•.?. ?-zt s ?? ? ?' ?
J` N
to ,? . -
J

- t /

J-? h _
'r y
y
?--r o l -
- -

z
a'
F

• N N
i
IA

D z O cn o0
D D O S?o
n w
- 00 0o
iv cp m M
1
CL
cn IV -? m v
o iv . r
.
rn rn n < _ w z
v O n
cD C-
-? =
<
° _r
0

1 =
K K
C 0 ° a Q
° o cu
n 2 ?
?
3
? o (D
N Vl
= -
r. °
o 3
? ? ?
?- Q- m -- 3
CD
_.I.

r cD cn ? O

o _ r Q c o --%

CL C: cn 0 O

?
n
IM
r•r
2
zn -
0
O
N
CD = = K `< `<
0 . O cn - v' cn o
D. `? C W N ° cn
CCD = .-r Q
?.
0 ;u iU
O
CD CD X N O C -t
cn 90
N n (
p N
v
O m
-1 x
w
, =3
M
CL
CD
•
00

_n
C/1 77 ?
C: (n
CD N cm
0
kON Q$ cn -?
3'3
0 a
.
Q03A

W C)
0
a1 0
?tD? 3

d (DD
cD
(D (a
Co CA
? ? Na
CL a c
n?
0 0 o
CL a
0 0 0
w
C
n
m
v
ID
0
O 3
-

iI 2
L

3
0
R,
00
3 N
'< -k N
Z?
0
00
3
m
o
0
0
-
o
3
0

n
(D

M 00 I
0
O
0
N N
s
r
a ?
CL
N
r'
a?
3

O

? O
O
3 ?

t

W
F ?
O
11
7
o ?
7
3
N
0
3

9
U?
a?
a
cn
Cn
0
N
N

N
mZy
x o
0
Q?
?
03
(D
N A
Na1?C
? (D 0)

0
r}
0