19970093 Ver 1_Finding of No Significant Impact_20090811 (2)

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 10-0054 County: Lenoir Date Received:. 08/12/2009
Due Date: 9/8/2009
Project Description: Finding of No Significant Impact - Project near US 70 to 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. TIP #U-2928
his rojec is being reviewe as m ica e below:
Regional Office ' Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air _ Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
_
_ Fayetteville Water _ Coastal Management _ Water Resources
Mooresville Aquifer Protection _ Wildlife _ Environmental Health
_
_ Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Wildlife - DOT _ Solid Waste Mgmt
Radiation Protection
Forest Resources
Washington -
Other
Land Resources
Wilmington _
_
_ Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem
Water Quality
? aier Quality;'_DOTw?AV I D W A I lJW R 14 FfY

Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: (Date: IIn-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable) /- 1
No objection to project as proposed. ,No Comment t10
Insufficient information to complete review _ Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact n????t?/j?
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail] W V
Hut, t 9 2009
yg DENR ATE IIv
0
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 7, 2009
David Wainright
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear David:
SUBJECT: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Global TransPark Rail
Access (State WBS No. 41739, TIP No. U-2928), Lenoir County.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the subject project.
If you have any comments or questions concerning the FONSI, please contact:
Marc Hamel, Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1553
919-733-7245 ext. 270
Copies of this document are also being submitted to the State Clearinghouse,
resource and regulatory agencies, area-wide planning agencies, and the counties, towns,
and cities involved.
Sincerely,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Marc Hamel, Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
46,6,
Ntkeo
0
MLH/prk
Attachments
cc:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RAIL DIVISION
1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1553
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.BYTRAIN.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4644
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 7, 2009
David Wainright
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear David:
SUBJECT: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Global TransPark Rail
Access (State WBS No. 41739, TIP No. U-2928), Lenoir County.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the subject project.
If you have any comments or questions concerning the FONSI, please contact:
Marc Hamel, Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1553
919-733-7245 ext. 270
Copies of this document are also being submitted to the State Clearinghouse,
resource and regulatory agencies, area-wide planning agencies, and the counties, towns,
and cities involved.
Sincerely,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
-7/102 -t- 7_??
Marc Hamel, Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
a? ??Ob
1
??rF 1 <P009 V
MLH/prk
Attachments
cc:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RAIL DIVISION
1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1553
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WNW. BYI'RAIN. ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILONG
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
H
I
I
I
I
I
II
GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LENOIR COUNTY
FEDERAL AID NO.
STATE WBS NO. 41739
TIP NO. U-2928
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
Submitted Pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act
42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Rail Division
r11 Z?l0 ( C%")' G?----? .
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
6 -2_L1-09 ?,??_ -
Date David B. Fo ter, 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 B. 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]
I
GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LENOIR COUNTY
FEDERAL AID NO.
STATE WBS NO. 41739
TIP NO. U-2928
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact

June 2009
Documentation Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
1,
Date O
L
11
N
Paul R. Koch, PE, AICP
Project Manager
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
1t,,,,
????y9r''M
5 fl'.-1 c??
R.
Documentation Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RAIL DIVISION
612-
D ate
Marc Hamel
Rail Environme tal Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
GLOBAL TRANSPARK RAIL ACCESS
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LENOIR COUNTY
Federal Aid Project No. _
State WBS No. 41739
TIP No. U-2928
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.
Project Commitments Page 1 of 1
Finding of No Significant Impact
June 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
A. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... .............................1
B. PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................. .............................1
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................. .............................2
D. SELECTED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................... .............................4
E. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS ...................................................... .............................5
F. MEASURES TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE HARM ...................................... ............................9
G. COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................... ..........................10
H. PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................... ..........................13
1. WETLANDS FINDING .............................................................................. ..........................15
J. FLOODPLAIN FINDING ........................................................................... ..........................17
K. ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS ................................................................. ..........................17
L. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................ ..........................19
M. REFERENCES ......................................................................................... ..........................19
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Impacts for the Selected Alternative .............................................6
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Project Location ...............................................................................................21
Exhibit 2 Preliminary Alternatives ...................................................................................23
Exhibit 3 Selected Alternative .........................................................................................25
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Public Hearing Comments
I
1 A. INTRODUCTION

This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) describes the Selected Alternative for the
i proposed railroad spur that would service the multi-modal North Carolina Global TransPark
! (GTP). In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this FONSI
describes why the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and
concludes that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will therefore not be required (40 CFR
1 1508.13)
The information presented in this FONSI is a summary of the analyses contained in the
Environmental Assessment (EA), dated December 22, 2008 (NCDOT Rail Division, 2008). The
EA contains supporting project information, including background data on the purpose of and
need for the proposed project, a discussion of the affected environment, and a complete
description of the anticipated impacts of the Selected Alternative. To maintain brevity, the EA is
incorporated by reference [40 CFR 1500.40)].
As described in the EA, a unique permitting process was developed for the GTP that involved
the identification of potential impacts and associated mitigation upfront for the build-out
scenario. An area surrounding the GTP was established within which these anticipated impacts
would be calculated and mitigation needs developed. This area is refereed to as GTP Permit
Area.
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 the EA and for the Preferred Alternative
within this document will identify the anticipated impacts both inside and outside the boundary.
B. PROPOSED ACTION
n The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009-2015 Transportation
ll Improvement Program (TIP) includes the construction of a railroad spur that would connect the
i
existing North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) line to the GTP. The proposed project is TIP Project
No. U-2928 and is located within the city limits of Kinston in Lenoir County, North Carolina.
a Exhibit 1 shows the project location.
I
1
0
The project is referred to as the GTP Rail Access and is proposed to run perpendicular to the
existing rail line in a north-south direction, for approximately 5.7 miles roughly parallel to US 258,
before terminating with the GTP. The rail spur is proposed as a controlled access facility with the
exception of existing roadway crossings. No private driveway crossings will be allowed across the
proposed spur.
The purpose of this project is to create rail access between the GTP and the existing rail
network as well as providing rail access to the North Carolina Port at Morehead City. The
Selected 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 an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in 1997 for the
GTP (Federal Aviation Administration, 1997).
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This section addresses the various alternatives analyzed for the proposed action. Alternatives
that did not meet the goals of the project, created disproportionate adverse impacts, or were
considered impractical or noncompetitive, were eliminated from further consideration.
No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of
providing rail access to the GTP as it would forgo any railroad improvements to connect the
GTP to the existing NCRR Mainline.
Conceptual Alternatives (Western, Central, and Eastern Corridors) - Several potential study
corridors were evaluated for possible provision of rail access to the GTP. These conceptual
alternatives involved a Western Corridor, a Central Corridor, and an Eastern Corridor. 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 (GTP Rail Access EA, 2008).
Preliminary Build Alternatives - Three Preliminary Alternatives, designated as Alternative A,
B, and C, were developed in the Central corridor. Revised Alternatives D, E, and F were
subsequently developed as more detailed results from environmental investigations were
completed. Exhibit 2 shows all the Preliminary Build Alternatives (A-F). Brief descriptions of
these alternatives are provided below:
2
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 within the property for the Spirit Aerosystems Site which will be the initial user of the
rail access.
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
within the property for the Spirit Aerosystems Site which will be the initial user of the rail access.
Alternative C- Alternative C is the easternmost preliminary alternative. Its south terminus is a
Wye configuration intersecting the NCRR mainline just east of Alternatives A and B. From the
NCRR, this alignment runs due north until curving eastward as it approaches the Dobbs Farm
Road crossing. Alternative C then shares its alignment with Alternative B for a 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 within 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 C.F. Harvey Parkway.
Alternative D - Alternative D begins at a Wye configuration west of Hillcrest Road, curves
northwest around Barnet Park, and continues north across Hull Road, Dobbs Farm Road and
C.F. Harvey Parkway. For the segment between Hull Road and C.F. Harvey Parkway,
3
Alternative D is the westernmost of the Revised Preliminary Alternatives and runs along the
west side of the Dobbs School property. North of C.F. Harvey Parkway, this alternative is
parallel to the parkway before diverging from the roadway to run behind an existing industrial
building to its north terminus.
Alternative E - Alternative E shares a concurrent south terminus and alignment with Alternative
D to just 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 Parkway,
Alternative E shares a common alignment with Alternative D. The alignment of Alternative E at
C.F. Harvey Parkway is better than Alternative D for accommodating a future grade separation.
Alternative F- Alternative F shares a concurrent south terminus and alignment with Alternatives
D and E to just 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.
D. SELECTED ALTERNATIVE (Alternative G)
As documented in the EA, the development of alternatives progressed from three large
corridors (Western, Central, Eastern) to six Preliminary Alternatives within the Central Corridor
(Alternatives A-F). Based on close agency coordination and public input, elements of these
Preliminary Alternatives were eliminated and combined to result in a Recommended Alternative
(Alternative G). Alternative G, shown in Exhibit 3, was recommended because it was felt to
provide the best combination of avoidance of impacts while still satisfying the purpose and
need. As a result of comments received subsequent to the publication of the EA and the Public
Hearing, Alternative G is now the Selected Alternative.
The south terminus for the Selected Alternative 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, the Selected Alternative traverses a small eastern portion of the
4
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 and was determined to have "No Adverse Effect"
on the Dobbs Farm School property. The alignment was also designed to avoid residential and
business relocations, and wetland areas to the extent possible.
As described in the EA, the project crosses several existing roads: Hillcrest Road (SR 1552), Sand
Clay Road , Dobbs Farm Road (SR 1573), Rouse Road (SR 1572), Hull Road (SR 1557),
Shackleford Road (SR 1607), C. F. Harvey Parkway (SR 2010), and Airport Road. Each of these
crossings will be at-grade and none of the existing roads are proposed to be closed. Flashers,
gates and medians are proposed, as appropriate, for each of these crossings to ensure safe
crossing conditions for vehicles. In addition, trains using the rail spur will be required to sound their
hom in advance of each crossing to further warn motorists. The project is proposed as a controlled.
access facility with the exception of existing roadway crossings. No private driveway crossings will
be permitted across the rail spur.
In summary, Alternative G is the Selected Alternative because it meets the purpose and need,
while avoiding impacts to residential and business relocations and avoiding impacts to streams
and wetlands to the extent possible. Alternative G was aligned to minimize impacts to the
Dobbs Farm School historic site resulting in a No Adverse Effect determination from SHPO.
The alignment was also located to maximize the distance, where possible from existing
residential development both east and west of its corridor, thereby minimizing potential noise
effects. In addition to the alignment, several additional elements were incorporated to further
minimize impacts (described in Section E ).
E. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
Descriptions of the anticipated impacts are provided in the following section. Table 1
summarizes the impacts for the Selected Alternative.
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 corridor between SR 1573 (Dobbs
Farm Road) and the NCRR.
5
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Mainline Length - miles 2.83 2.83 5.66
Number of Roadway Crossings 5 3 8
Construction Cost --- --- $25,936,000
Right-of-way Cost --- --- $6,750,000
Total Cost
SOG(_OE_CONQMICF_AGTORSx ?!
Residential Relocations ---

0 ---
"°_,''
0 $32,686,000
fz
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
CULTU LRESOUR,CEFACTORS m
Potential Archaeological Sites 0

TBD 1

TBD 1

TBD .
Recorded Archaeological Sites TBD TBD TBD
Historic Properties Effected
?N?1?TUI2:4L R?SOURC FRCTORS
Protected Species Impacted 1

0 0

0 1

0
Stream Crossings 1 2 3
Upland Natural Systems - acres 5.0 18.7 23.7
Wetland/Aquatic Systems - acres 3.5 7.3 10.8
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
L b u s USE?F4?C TORS -. acres z
Residential 0.4

0 0.5

0 0.9

0
Commercial 0 0 0
Institutional 0 0 0
Industrial 25.8 0 25.8
Recreational 0 0 0
Agricultural 0 0 0
Open/Maintained/Undeveloped
PFlYS/CALF4CTOttS2

100-year Floodplain - acres 8.6

offizam"
0 24.9

5.5 33.5

5.5
Prime and Unique Farmland - acres 35 50 85
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 Build 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.
6
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 associated with
the Recommended Alternative.
Farmlands - No substantial adverse effects to existing and future farm operations are
anticipated as a result of 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 - As described in the EA, the 1997 EIS for the GTP
addressed indirect and cumulative effects (ICEs) for a large area, inclusive of the study area for
this project. The 1997 EIS anticipated ICEs based on several factors including the provision of
a rail spur into the GTP. The rail spur concept in the 1997 EIS was consistent with the
alignment and location of the Preferred Alternative presented in this document.
In addition, with the exception of existing road crossings, the project will be a controlled access
facility and will not be crossed by private driveways. Any new roadway crossings of the rail spur
would require application to, and approval by, the NCDOT Control of Access Committee.
Likewise, railway connection to this rail spur would be controlled by NCDOT. It is predicted that
the access control and associated approval procedure will minimize (but cannot completely
prevent) potential for development adjacent to the rail spur outside of the GTP. Additionally, the
investment by the State and local governments in the Global TransPark proper indicate a strong
direction towards locating future industrial development within the designated permit area of the
GTP.
Environmental Justice - The project would not create a concern for human health,
environmental, or other adverse impacts, to minority groups, as there are 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.
7
Air Quality - Lenoir County is in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
proposed project is located in an attainment area; therefore, 40 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.
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.
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 the area. Any runoff from
the proposed project will be accommodated in accordance with the Neuse River Basin Buffer
Rules and Best Management Practices to minimize potential impacts to surface water quality
within the study area.
Biotic Communities - The study area includes six terrestrial plant communities: Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), Nonriverine Wet 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 10.8
acres of wetland/aquatic systems and 23.7 acres of upland natural areas.
Waters of the United States - The Recommended Alternative is anticipated to 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. Results of a survey for the red-cockaded woodpecker; conducted after
publication of the EA, are provided in Section K of this document.
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.
8
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.
The SHPO in a letter dated January 12, 2009, recommended that no archeological investigation
be conducted for this project.
Hazardous Material Sites/Underground Storage Tanks - The presence of four geo-
environmental 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.
Preliminary Cost Estimate - The total cost for the Selected Alternative is estimated to be
$32,686,000. This total cost includes $25,936,000 for construction and $6,750,000 for right-of-
way.
F. MEASURES TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE HARM
Table 4.4.1 of the EA described specific avoidance and minimization measures that have been
incorporated in the project in response to coordination and comments received during the
development of the project. These measures included providing access to Barnett Park via
Sand Clay Road, minimizing visual impacts to the Hillcrest neighborhood via horizontal and
vertical design elements, and minimizing impacts to natural areas via coordination of the
alignment design with regulatory agencies.
In addition to the approaches described in the EA and mentioned above, the following
measures have also been incorporated:
9

• To minimize impacts to the Dobbs Farm property (eligible for the National Register) the i
alignment was shifted as far east on the property as feasible without necessitating
roadway alignment that would incur additional impacts. '
• There is one residence at the west end of Robinwood Road where the rail spur is in close ,
proximity to the residence and it is predicted to be within the noise impact area due to the
horn. The Rail Division is proposing to acquire right-of-way immediately west of this
property and create a berm using cut material from the project. This berm will provide a
visual screening from the proposed track and will provide some measure of noise ,
reduction for the vehicle noise, although it will not serve as abatement for the horn.
G. COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ,
The EA was signed December 22, 2008 and distributed in January, 2009. The review period for ,
the EA closed in March 2009. Comments received during this period are contained in
Appendix A. Substantive comments and where applicable, NCDOT Rail Division responses,
are provided below.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service - "The FEA states that surveys will
be conducted after leaf-fall for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Although it is unlikely that the
red-cockaded woodpecker exists within the study area, we agree that a study would be
prudent."
Response - A survey for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was conducted during
January of 2009. The survey resulted in a biological conclusion of "No Effect". A detailed
description of the survey is provided in Section J.
North Carolina Department-of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office -
"Based on the results of previous surveys in the area, as well as the location and topography of
the proposed project area, it is unlikely that archaeological sites which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed
construction. We, therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project."
Response- None required.
10
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - " Table 3.19.1 is also broken down into
impacts 'inside the GTP Permit Area' and 'outside the GTP Permit Area.' Page 3-26 of the EA
a describes the permit for the GTP project impacts under USACE Action ID#199202851 and
NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification #3184. While these previous permit actions for the
GTP have relevance to jurisdictional wetlands and streams, EPA is unsure that this
differentiation is needed for other human and natural resource impacts."
Response - Categorization of impacts inside and outside the GTP Permit Boundary is
provided for informational purposes as many local residents and other interested parties
have been following the establishment and progress of the GTP where the impacts and
mitigation to date have focused on activities within this boundary.
EPA - "EPA requests that the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) include a discussion of
the proposed mitigation bank, including the availability of surplus credits under the existing 404
permit."
Response - A discussion of the proposed mitigation bank and the availability of surplus
credits is included in Section H of this document.
EPA - EPA would recommend that the NCDOT Rail Division consider shifting Alternative G to
avoid bisecting any active agricultural fields and keeping to the edge of farmland property lines
' where reasonable and feasible. EPA also requests that prime farmland impacts be revised in
the FONSI to include what is actually converted within the proposed 100-foot right of way.
Response - The proposed alignment was designed to avoid bisecting agricultural fields to
the extent possible. Where alignments do not keep to the edge of active farmland, their
location is governed by avoidance of jurisdictional impacts. Table 1 of this document
presents an updated calculation of prime farmland impacts based on the currently
proposed right-of-way. This update reflects a reduction in the anticipated impacts to prime
and unique farmlands from 135 acres to 85 acres
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) - DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs
be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to surface waters. DWQ requests that the
11
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.
DWQ - This project is within the Neuse River Basin... Buffer mitigation may be required for
buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with mitigation" within the "Table
of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer
mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, must be provided to
DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification.
DWQ - Wetland areas within the riparian buffer areas will be required to be mitigated as
impacts to wetlands while the remaining impacts to the riparian buffer areas will need to be
mitigated as impacts to riparian buffers.
Response (for all DWQ comments above) - Following approval of the EA, the NCDOT
Rail Division has begun development of the plans and calculations for the Section 404
Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification, as well as the Sediment and Erosion
Control Permit. Towards developing these plans, the NCDOT Rail Division has initiated
coordination via meetings with the US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Division of Water
Quality, and NC Division of Land Quality. The coordination meetings are to ensure that all
impact and permit issues are addressed properly prior to submittal of the permit application.
All of the items described above have been, or are to be, addressed via these collaborative
meetings and incorporated into the plans, commitments, and/or specifications.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission - At this time we do not have any specific
comments, the document contains information requested from prior agency coordination and
therefore we concur with the EA for this project.
Response- None required.
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Division of Emergency
Management, Geospatial and Technology Management (DEM) - Any proposed
construction (including demolition) within the floodway or non-encroachment areas will require,
prior to construction, approval of either a no-rise study with a no-rise certification for projects
that do not increase base flood elevation or for projects that results in an increase in base flood
12
elevations, the approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. Following construction a Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required for each new crossing.
DEM - Construction of the in-water facilities may involve [temporary structures]. If structure are
expected to be in place during all or part of a hurricane season (June 1 through December 1),
they should be considered 'in-place' for the proposed condition of a no-rise evaluation.
DEM - Please consult the Lenoir County floodplain administrator for guidance on higher
standards for floodplain development as defined in local ordinances.
Response (for all DEM comments above) - The NCDOT Rail Division will conduct the
appropriate flood studies and coordination in the hydraulic design phase of the project. All
items addressed above will be incorporated and addressed during hydraulic design.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
An Informal Public Hearing was held on Thursday, February 19_2009 at the North Carolina
Global TransPark Center, Room 148 in Kinston, North Carolina. A total of 71 local citizens
attended the two-hour informal hearing to view maps of the Recommended Alternative
(Alternative G) and to ask questions of the project team. Four comment sheets, included in
Appendix B, were returned to the NCDOT project team.
• One comment sheet contained an attached letter from the Hillcrest Farm's Subdivision
Homeowner's Association. They requested that a vegetative barrier be placed upon a
raised berm to visually shield the track from their neighborhood in areas where the track
exits the woods.
Response - The NCDOT Rail Division will limit clearing within the proposed right of
way to the extent possible. However the track, as currently proposed is visually
screened from the Hillcrest subdivision for most of its lengthy as it is in a cut section
below the existing ground elevation. The track does not return to a grade where it
could be seen from this neighborhood until a location approximately 1,400 feet west of
Hillcrest Road. Due to existing vegetation in this area and the potential, according to
the current land use plan, for additional screening from future residential construction,
no further vegetative screening or berm construction is proposed in this area.
13
n

L
Another comment was received from a Hillcrest homeowner requesting a sound barrier
between the tracks and their subdivision.
Response - The proposed track is located approximately 1,100 feet at its closest point
from the Hillcrest neighborhood. Due to the dissipation of noise over distance, noise
abatement is not typically considered at distance greater than 1,000 feet from a noise
source. In addition, the majority of the track is proposed in a cut section effectively
screening it from the neighborhood. Due to the projected frequency and type of rail
traffic, and the location and elevation of the track, noise impacts are not anticipated in
this particular location. Therefore no sound barriers are proposed.
A homeowner on Crestwood Drive was concerned that the project would lower the
property value of his home.
Response - Homes along Crestwood Drive will not be directly impacted by the
proposed rail spur as they are located approximately 4,800 feet from this area.
Compensation to property owners directly affected by the project will be addressed
during the right-of-way acquisition phased, however no property value impacts are
anticipated along Crestwood Drive.
The final comment was from a property owner concerned that the proposed project would
prevent his property from being used for a storage trailer business.
Response - The project design team evaluated this specific location along
Shackleford Road following the public hearing. It was determined that shifting the
alignment to further minimize impact to this property would incur additional
jurisdictional wetland impacts as well as impacting a residence and a business.
Therefore, no further changes to the alignment are proposed in this location.
In addition to the comments described above, one business contacted the Rail Division during
and after the hearing to convey their concern over potential noise impacts. The BDI Farval site,
located within the GTP, expressed concern over the horn noise from the anticipated rail traffic.
Because this site is a commercial/industrial site located within the airport area, it was not
14
identified in this study as a potential impact. Coordination between BDI Farval and the NCDOT
Rail Division is ongoing and will be resolved during the right-of-way phase.
1. WETLANDS FINDING
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as-
defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3, 1987 Guidelines.
Wetlands are found in the transitional zone between terrestrial and aquatic habitats and are
influenced to varying degrees by both. Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to fill into these areas falls under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Wetland delineations were conducted in Summer and Fall 2008 and are
described in the Natural Resources Technical Report for Rail Access Spur to Global TransPark
(PBS&J, 2008).
Wetland impacts for the Selected Alternative total 10.8 acres. Jurisdictional stream impacts for
the Selected Alternative are 239 linear feet for Alternative G. Anticipated wetland and stream
impacts are also shown in Table 1. Impacts to Waters of the United States are regulated by the
USACE, in cooperation with the USFWS and .the USEPA, through the CWA Section 404
permitting process. Issuance of a federal Section 404 permit requires a state Section 401
Water Quality Certification, which is administered by the NC Division of Water Quality.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation for the proposed project would be provided under a
modification to the existing Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for the GTP. Impacts to
jurisdictional areas may 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 requested to provide offsite mitigation to satisfy the
federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
In addition, the GTP Authority (Authority) is proposing the development of a limited, single-user
mitigation bank (Bank) to be used for projects specifically related to the GTP (PBS&J, 2009).
15
The Authority proposes to incorporate existing, up-front wetland and stream restoration
investment with additional preservation property for the purpose of drawing credits to satisfy
mitigation needs for GTP. The Authority is working cooperatively with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and other
agencies, to develop a Bank considered suitable to compensate for existing and future wetland
impacts. Following coordination with these agencies, the Authority intends to modify the existing
CWA Section 404 permit to authorize the establishment of a Bank.
The proposed Bank is comprised of approximately 4,664 acres of on-site and off-site mitigation
areas located at three locations situated within the Lower Neuse River Basin in Lenoir and
Craven Counties. The Bank includes:
• Stonyton Creek Mitigation Area, a 336-acre site located within NCGTP boundaries along a
four mile reach of Stonyton Creek,
• Dover Bay, a 3,151-acre restored Carolina Bay,
• Frog Hollow, a proposed 1,100-acre preservation site located along the Neuse River.
The geographic service area (GSA) is the designated area wherein a bank can reasonably be
expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to wetland or other aquatic
resources. Currently, mitigation credits only apply for impacts within the designated 5,775-acre
permit zone. The proposed GSA includes the Neuse River Basin, 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit
(HU) 03020202, as well as two adjacent 12-digit HUs (030202030505, 030303030506). The
GSA area includes the lower Neuse River corridor extending from Goldsboro to Newbern,
several major tributaries including Bear Creek, Core Creek, and Swift Creek, and portions of
Nahunta Swamp watershed. The proposed GSA is needed to anticipate the logistical and
transportation infrastructure that the NCGTP facility will require. The Bank's GSA is consistent
with both state and federal guidance defining service areas.
This Bank is proposed for GTP-related projects only. It is understood that a project with adverse
impacts to wetlands within the proposed service area must obtain the approval of USACE, in
order to use the Bank as a source of compensatory mitigation. To receive approval to use the
Bank, an applicant must first obtain approval from the Authority. In addition, the applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the pertinent regulatory agencies that the project complies
with all applicable requirements pertaining to alternatives and mitigation sequencing and that
16
debiting credits from the Bank for compensatory mitigation would be in the best interest of the
environment. Specifically, a permit applicant must generally be able to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the involved regulatory agencies that: 1) the project is a GTP-related activity; 2)
there is no practicable alternative to adversely impacting wetlands; 3) all appropriate and
practicable measures to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands have been considered and
included in the project; and 4) all appropriate and practical on-site compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable adverse impacts is included in the project.
J. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
The Selected Alternative will traverse some areas of 100-year floodplains. The Selected
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 Selected Alternative will also bridge Briery Run with
an impact of approximately 5.5 acres to its Zone A flood hazard area. Zone A indicates anticipated
limits 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.
Construction of the Selected Alternative would not result in a substantial encroachment to
regulatory floodways and is not expected to increase the extent or level of flood hazard risk.
NCDOT Rail Division will coordinate with FEMA and local authorities in the final design stage of
the project to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain management ordinances and
permitting requirements.
K. ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS
The following items describe project-related information that has been addressed, revised, or
updated subsequent to the publication of the EA.
• Archaeology In a letter dated January 12, 2009, the State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection
with this project."
• Threatened and Endangered Species - A survey of suitable habitat (foraging or nesting)
for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was conducted in January 2009 (PBS&J, 2009)
following the publication of the EA. The results of the summary are listed below:
17
Foraging or Nesting Habitat Survey: Red cockaded woodpecker
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year round; November-early March (optimal)
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
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 mile.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect; An initial survey of suitable habitat (foraging or nesting)
within the PSA was conducted on foot in January 2009 following leaf-fall of hardwood
trees and shrubs. Tree aging (by increment borer) was performed within pine dominated
stands to determine habitat suitability. Foraging habitat consists of forested areas of over
fifty percent pines, the majority of which are over 30 years old. Nesting habitat contains
over fifty percent pines, including some that are over 60 years old. Neither habitat
typically contains a significant hardwood component in the shrub layer, subcanopy, or
overstory.
Both foraging and nesting habitat were found to exist within the PSA. Following a
thorough habitat determination, intensive field investigations were conducted both within
the PSA, as well as within an additional buffer of one-half mile surrounding the PSA.
These surveys were conducted by walking north-south oriented transects and looking
from east to west, with distance between transects determined by the distance biologists
were able to clearly observe candidate trees. Transects within habitat areas were
followed with the aid of GPS technology.
No cavity trees were identified within any portion of the PSA or within the additional one-
half mile buffer. NCNHP records (reviewed January 21, 2009), indicate no known RCW
occurrence within 1.0 mile of the PSA. This project is expected to have no effect on RCW.
M
Cost Estimate - An estimate of the right-of-way cost for this project was developed
subsequent to the publication of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA reported a
18
?a
?a
I

construction cost estimate of $25,936,000. The right-of-way estimate is $6,750,000.
Therefore the total anticipated project cost is $32,686,000.
BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the Selected Alternative
(Alternative G) will have no significant environmental impacts. This FONSI is based on the EA
(incorporated by reference), which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts
of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence
and analysis for determining that an EIS is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for
the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA and this FONSI.
M. REFERENCES
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division. 2008. Environmental
Assessment for Global TransPark Rail Access. Kinston, Lenoir County, NC. Federal Aid
No. . State WBS No. 41739. TIP NO. U-2928. Prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc. Raleigh, NC. (GTP Rail Access EA, 2008).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division. 2008. Natural Resources
Technical Report for Rail Access Spur to Global TransPark. Kinston, Lenoir County, NC.
Prepared by PBS&J. Raleigh, NC. (GTP Rail Access NRTR, 2008).

19
^Y My I�
r
e `r North Carolina R `
- airoaC
c-
noun La,ollna OetoiiMent at iranspaGLbe
a
Kinston Regional Jetpotl
IWAWti
Kinston
Legend Global TransPark Rail Access Preliminary
Study Area
City Limits City of Kinston Alternatives
County Limits Not To Scale
Lenoir County, North Carolina
Exhibit 2

I

07

a .?- A'

y
h
- i
r

'.
Kinston
,,,
'
?t... R} ;'?,?. ! ate •T ?.. s
?.
North Cdro
_ 4na R - - '
adroa • 9 v '? y ! _.
-

4/SO

• NOVs@

?n'er

of +? w .
SID
t i
' •

North Gaioina Department of TianspartaUan
- 4 - '? 'TT'.

Legend Global TransPark Rail Access
Study Area Preferred
City Limits City of Kinston Alternative (G)
Alternative G
Wetlands Lenoir County, North Carolina Not To Scale
Exhibit 3

I

1

u

C' r
1
4.
yL fS
. c

s
I N 5 T I T U rr
?
?m?} J r „' .µ%'r? ¦ ',? NtiLV_..r`i
y? 1,
?
av
I
, ,
O ? A

F. Er
?
-._-Y?
ll•?
,
`
L
•
\,
1 rr/r;
fi
?
I \ ?4Q
•si
' pG l'4
t
?p
.. B I: h1 1i0?

. N
! tilt.,„ ?.
•til ? 55.
CARrY.Hnvpihtl, a .. NCHq
M

PLAZA
+Ln'. r ,4 CI.,A Bum. o HLA, y.r r<N Rn ,•
8A'vKS G \ `
NCR .::. Ki
t
ns
on;
f ,

IV 'W4-S 1, - - i?
NGY
nN TO
W$JI J if it. AVF
y
?" _ i/
4 J
x,55 ?
;1!r;,
r
1
N
••?
,
?
,?
,
Z

FA S-r
C
l
n•ur lY
?
?J.
t,
r
I O 0
I FR
I
\.
1t
¦
f
r
?? P¢V
RI}. rr,.yy
r
. O
$J-?y 1
I11I
:Nl-RAI
CT
. (9 - - --- A , 11p
l ? l f •.. ?•
fC
\
Y
A`!E. ? /C 8S%? Ir
?
U
•
n,r rl
BAKI
Q \0
55 l `? cl ; RAWl!r..RRY o- '9 r
.0
DR
. i
a:?\F K?, „U GRA r:CH
t
T
J
-l
?
,\y
? P J z W H O
tJ
,o/" Kinston Area

"I'll, I!II1 ., I llil. : .:.

rr? .

Lenoir County Goldsboro 23 Project Location

N?
E r
l
'
?

v
f
.
?.-
l
Ninston .;
5
3
0
C
. -k
G L E N 0 1 R "l
'
? ?P=c. Q', I-
In
L ! N Cl.,,,.rr • u
North CamdmDepartment o}Tranaportatbn J 0 N
vivislan r? - a-
-

Legend Global TransPark Rail Access Project Location
Map
Study Area City of Kinston Not To Scale
Lenoir County, North Carolina Exhibit 1
I
I
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I
I
I
I
I
IF
I
I
0
I
I
0
D
I
I
I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 RALEIGH OFFICE
Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Date: February 17, 2009
Mr. Marc Hamel
Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1553
SUBJECT: EPA Review Comments on the. Federal Environmental Assessment for U-
2928, Global Transpark Rail Access, Kinston, Lenoir County
Dear Mr. Hamel:
The U.S..Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) propose to constructa rail spur that would service the multi-
modal North Carolina Global Transpark (GTP). The proposed new rail spur connection
would run perpendicular to the existing rail line in Kinston, Lenoir County, for an
approximate distance of 5.5 miles.
Based upon anticipated impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the proposed
project was not placed in the Merger 01 NEPA/Section 404 process. The Environmental
Assessment (EA) identifies the project's purpose and need in Section 1 that includes rail
access as part of the ultimate multi-modal infrastructure with the GTP. The EA
references the 1997 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the overall GTP multi-
modal objective. The initial rail user is anticipated to be the Spirit Aerosystems site at
the east of the Kinston Regional Jetp6rt runway. Planning and detailed design of a
western-side terminus will be prepared at a future date.
The EA identified three primary study corridors including the Western, Central
and Eastern Corridors. The Western and Eastern Corridors were determined not to be
reasonable. Within the Central Corridor three preliminary study alternatives were
evaluated, including Alternatives A, B and C. These preliminary study alternatives were
later eliminated because they did not avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. following delineations. Additional alternatives were evaluated including
a
I

Alternatives D, E, F and G. Alternative G was developed from Alternatives D, E and F '
and is currently the recommended alternative.
Other design issues are identified in the EA concerning Alternative G, including '
eight (8) at grade crossings of existing roadways, no road crossing closures are proposed
and no grade-separated crossings are proposed. The EA describes the environmental

impacts associated with Alternative G in Section 3 and in Table 3.19.1. Impact quantities '
to natural resources are based upon construction limits plus 25 feet and land use impacts
are based upon a 100-foot right of way. Impact quantities to the 100-year floodplain and
prime and unique farmland (Soils) are based upon the 200-foot corridor width. Table
3.19.1 is also broken down into impacts `inside the GTP Permit Area' and `outside the
GTP Permit Area. Page 3-26 of the EA describes the permit for the GTP project impacts
under USACE Action ID #199202851 and NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification '
#3184. While these previous permit actions for the GTP have relevance to jurisdictional
wetlands and streams, EPA is unsure that this differentiation is needed for other human
and natural resource impacts. EPA understands that the additional jurisdictional wetland '
and stream impacts outside of the `GTP Permit Area' will be addressed through permit
modifications by USACE and NCDWQ.. '
Project impacts to some of the key resources are estimated at 10.8 acres for
jurisdictional wetlands, 239 linear feet for jurisdictional streams, 0.9 acres for riparian

buffers, 1 residential noise receptor, 1. eligible historic property (i.e., Dobbs Farm School '
Property), 23.7 acres to terrestrial.forests, 9.4 acres to agricultural. land, and 135 acres to
prime and unique farmlands (Soils). '
EPA recognizes that Alternative G is being recommended to avoid impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams. EPA notes that the large wetland system north of
Hull Road has been routed to minimize the impact through the forested wetland located
there. Tables 3.9.4.A and 3.9.4B provide impact details for Alternative G to
jurisdictional streams and wetlands, respectively. EPA notes that the predominant
'
wetland impacts are to Wetland #W8 (0.95 acres), W9 (1.24 acres), W15 (3.05 acres)
W 18 (1.11 acres) and W27 (2.44 acres). According to DEM Wetland ratings provided in
Table 3.9.4B, none of these wetlands scored above 46. It appears that impact to the '
highest quality systems have been avoided and/or minimised. Under Section 3.9.4.6,
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts, EPA notes the Design Standards for Sensitive
Watersheds will be utilized. EPA also notes from Exhibit 3.10.1, Proposed Major '
Hydraulic Structures, NCDOT is recommending a bridge at the Briery Run crossing.
This bridge would also appear to be a minimization effort that is not described in Section
3.9.4.6. The EA describes compensatory mitigation and that there are potential surplus

credits under the existing USACE 404 permit for the GTP. We understand that GTP has ,
developed a mitigation bank prospectus for those surplus credits, and we will be involved
in the development of the Mitigation Banking Instrument. EPA requests that the Finding '
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) include a discussion of the proposed mitigation bank,
including the availability of surplus credits under the existing 404 permit. The EA also
cites that should additional credits be required, mitigation opportunities may be provided '
through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).

I
EPA notes that in Appendix A.3, NRCS Farmland Conversion Form (i.e., NRCS-
CPA-106), 145 acres was identified for Corridor (Alternative) G and that the total acres
of prime and unique farmland was estimated at 112 acres and the total acres of statewide
and local important farmland was estimated at 23 acres for a grand total of 135 acres.
Alternative G farmlands scored 191 points out of a possible 260 total points. From
Exhibit 3.1.1, Zoning Map and Exhibit 3.2.1, Farmland Soils and the aerial map overlay,
it appears that very little of Alternative G is in active, cultivated farmland. Nonetheless,
EPA would recommend that the NCDOT Rail Division consider shifting Alternative G to
avoid bisecting any active agricultural fields and keeping to the edge of farmland
property lines where reasonable and feasible. EPA also requests that prime farmland
impacts be revised in the FONSI to include what is actually converted within the
proposed 100-foot right of way.
n The EA has identified five species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List
u for North Carolina in Section 3.9:3.4. The five species were identified as follows:
Chinese privet, Kudzu, Japanese honeysuckle, Multiflora rose, and Japanese grass.
While Latin genus and species names were not provided, EPA is generally familiar with
the first four species. EPA is assuming that the fifth plant referenced is Japanese `stilt'
grass (Microstegium vimineuin). EPA located a copy of the NCDOT's Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the management of invasive plant species on the `NEU website'.
EPA recommends that NCDOT consider referencing this link in future NEPA documents.
In summary, EPA has no environmental objections to the proposed project and
requests that the NCDOT Rail Division continue with its active coordination with
-.'permitting and resource agencies through final avoidance and minimization measures and
4hydraulic design and permit review.. EPA requests a copy of the FONSI when it becomes
,available. Please keep Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetlands and Marine Regulatory
Section informed of Section 404 issues at 919-541-3062 or matthews.kathvna eya.gov.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and if you have any questions, please feel free
to call me at 919-856-4206.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
Merger Team Representative
NEPA Program Office

For: Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
EPA Re
ion 4 NEPA Pro
Offi
g
gram
ce
Cc: C. Coleman, FHWA
G. Thorpe, NCDOT-PDEA
W. Wescott, USACE-Wilmington District

I
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 3, 2009
Mr. Marc Hamel
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Rail Division
1553 Mail Service Center
.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-155-3
Dear Mr. Hamel:
This letter is in response to your January 14, 2009 letter which requested comments from the U.S. .
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the Global
Transpark Rail Access in Kinston, Lenoir County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2928). These .
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543)..
The Service believes that the FEA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources, the
waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these
resources. The Service also, finds the preferred alternative.(Alteriative G) to be acceptable. We do
not have any specific concerns or recommendations for this project: -- - -
There are two federally-listed species listed for Lenoir County: sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene
virginica) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The North Carolina Department of
Transportation has determined that the project will have no effect on sensitive joint-vetch. We
concur with this determination. The FEA states that surveys will be conducted after leaf-fall for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. Although it is unlikely that the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within
the study area, we agree that a survey would be prudent.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. Hyou have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis. Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
William Wescott, USACE,' Washington, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
RECEIVED
FEB 0 6 2009 1
NCDOT RAIL DIVISIOP
' ,p STATFa .
' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
'
Beverly Eaves Pudue, Gove or Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
rn Office of Archives and History
Linda P- Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffreyl. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
January 12, 2009
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Marc Hamel, Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
' Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
NCDOT
FROM: Peter Sandbeck P? ?a?
SUBJECT: Global TransPark Rail Access, Kinston, U-2928, Lenoir County, ER 08-1738
Thank you for providing copies of the public hearing maps for the project.
Out records indicate that two areas of archaeological survey-generated by Crescent Road, R-2719
(Bibliography #4095), and the TtansPark itself (Bibliography #3420)-overlap the project route. The recorded
" sites neatest the route-31LR112, 31LR152, 31LR173, 31LR189, 31LR203, 31LR204, and 31LR225-were
assessed as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and no further work was recommended at
them. We concurred.
Based on the results of previous surveys in the area, as well as the location and topography of the proposed
project area, it is unlikely that archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future
n communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
u
RECEIVED
JAN 23 2009
NCDOT RAIL DIVISION
Location: 119 Eastlones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

?F?? '
D
NC
W
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
'
February 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM

To: Marc Hamel, Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality '
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement related to the proposed Global .

TransPark Rail Access, WBS No. 41739, TIP U-2928, Lenoir County '
SCH #09-0197
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated December 2008. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based 'on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
All waterbodies within the project area are class C Sw; 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 surface waters. 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
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233. New development
activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin should be limited to
"uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233. Buffer mitigation
may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with mitigation"
within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A
buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, must be provided
to DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification.
The Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules are discussed on pages 3-26 and 3-27. With respect to
riparian buffer impacts, the text states, "These systems were originally delineated and approved as '
wetlands by the USACE, but have since been declared subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules by
NCDWQ." Current DWQ guidance is to consider the total riparian buffer areas first, whether they
have been delineated as wetlands or not, for,purposes of calculating total riparian buffer impacts. '
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Locatbn: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http:lm2o.enr.state,nauslncvve0ands/
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
NCDOT RAIL DIVISION
NoorthCarolina
Natura!!rl
i
O
fli,
However, for purposes of mitigation, applicants should subtract the delineated wetland areas from the
riparian areas. Wetland areas within the riparian buffer areas will be required to be mitigated as
impacts to wetlands while the remaining impacts to the riparian buffer areas will need to the mitigated
as impacts to riparian buffers.
General Comments:
4. Future environmental documents, as well as the 401 Water Quality Certification application, 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 211.0506(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.
5. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include designs that allow
for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales; buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
6. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
and written concurrence from the DWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on
° appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent
practical, the development of an acceptable Stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of
appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
1 7. The Rail Division is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or
h
ot
erwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
8. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the Rail Division 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.
9. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 211.05 06[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
Transoortetion and PermiRing Unit -
1650 Mail service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Ile
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ralegh, North Carolina 27604 ?OrthCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: 919-733
6893
-
?f f?yr?y//
Internet htt
lth2o
enrstate
nau
l
tl
d
t N
turally
p
.
.
ncwe
s
an
s
a
' An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
10. The DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
These concerns should be addressed by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
11. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
12. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
13. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
14. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
15. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. If temporary access roads are constructed, the site should be graded to its preconstruction contours
and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate
native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area should be cleared
but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized
equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and
minimizes soil disturbance.
19. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands should be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures should not be conducted in a manner that may result in
Transportation and Pemutting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]
Internet httpA2o.encstate.naus/ncwetlandsl
An Equal Opponunily 1 APUmaWe Action Employer

I
I
I
1
None Carolina
N hmallrf

I
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during'construction, please contact the DWQ for guidance on how
' to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
20. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate.
Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
' maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
21. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey .
Activities.
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual
such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
' 23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at (919) 715-34.15.
cc: Tracey Wheeler, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic)
Kathy Matthews, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic)
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic)
Garcy Ward, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carollna 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet httpIth2o.enr.state.nc.uslncwetlandsl
An Equal Opportunity 1ARrmative Action Employer
North Carolina
Naturally
02,23/2009 11:15 9195289839
PAGE 03
'

w

11
1
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources
FEB 2009
MEMORANDUM ?`' RErcn2
C1509
s V0A
TO: Melba McGec ,
Office o£Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR //I
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ??-
Habitat Conservation Program -? -?
DATE: February 23, 2009
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed construction. of a new location rail spur, Lenoir
County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-2928, SCH Project No. 09-0197
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish. and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT in coordination with the North Carolina Global TransPark (GTP) proposes to
construct a new location rail spur from the existing North Carolina Railroad to a point within the
GTP. Seven build alternatives were evaluated. The recommended alterative G was developed
as a "best fit" alignment to avoid and minimize impacts to a practicable extent resulting in 10,8
acres of wetland and 239 linear feet of stream impacts.
At this time we do not have any specific comments, the document contains iu£ormab.on
requested from prior agency coordination and therefore we concur. with the EA for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment if we can be of any further assistance please call me at
[phone],
cc: John Ellis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
David Wainwright, DWQ, Raleigh
Tracey Wheeler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Ralcigb, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: . [phone]
1..
I
I
I
„a SrATFv
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division. of Emergency Management
Geospatial and Technology Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Reuben F. Young, Secretary
H. Douglas.Hoell, Jr., Director
February 11, 2009 g1011121??
1'b
CO _
Ms. Valerie McMillian FEB 2009
State Clearinghouse REC(1/??
N.C. Department of Administration s s+ " . ..
1301 Mail Service Center DOA `ry
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301 ? ' y ?4L1?
Subject: Intergovernmental Review State Number: 09-E-4220-0197
Single-track railroad access from NCRR/NS main-line to Global Transpark, Lenoir County
Dear Ms. Valerie McMillian:
As requested by the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, the North Carolina Department of Crime Control
and Public Safety Division of Emergency Management Office of Geospatial and Technology
Management (GTM) reviewed the proposed project listed above and has provided comments herein. It is
our understanding that the NCDOT is planning to construct a new railroad spur that would connect the
existing North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) line to the Global Transpark (GTP). The project will cross
several creeks including Neuse River Tributary #2, Taylors Branch and Briery Creek with identified
floodplains. These floodplains are identified primarily on ncfloodmms:com digital flood map panel
numbers 4504, 4506, and 4517.
The GTM has the following comments:
1) The proposed project includes areas within the special flood hazard area of newly studied Limited
Detailed streams with delineated floodplains and associated non-encroachment areas. Any
proposed construction (including demolition) within the floodway or non-encroachment areas will
require, prior to construction, approval of either a no-rise study with a no-rise certification for
projects that do not increase base flood elevation or for projects that result in an increase in base
flood elevations, the approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. Following construction a
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required for each new crossing.
Mail: Location:
III??? 4719 Mail Service Center - 1812 Tillery Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 276994719 Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
w .NCCrimeControl.ore A Nationally Accredited Agency
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer _
Page 2 of 2
February 11, 2009
2) Construction of the in-water facilities may involve the placement of temporary cofferdams,
trench boxes or similar structures to facilitate installation. If the structures are expected to be in
place during all or a part of the hurricane season (June 1 through December 1), they should be
considered `in-place' for the proposed condition.of a no-rise evaluation.
3) Please consult the Lenoir County floodplain administrator for guidance on higher standards for
floodplain development as defined in local ordinances.
Thank you for your. cooperation and. consideration. If you have any questions conceming the above
comments, please contact me at [phone], or by email at kashe ,ncem.org or at the address shown
on the footer of this document.
Sincerely,
Kenner W. Ashe, P.E., CFM
Assistant Director
c: Randy Mundt, NC NFIP State Coordinator
Location: 1812 Tillery Place, Suite 105 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

APPENDIX B
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
I
1
1
1
0
a
a
PROJECT SIGN-IN SHEET
Informal Public Hearing
February 19, 2009
Name Mailing Address
u-FN S?n??r-?2u N
28S2>L/z
,C. A'?l

Name
4V
L ZD(14 b?7_ei,7'dp
Z wS U ?7e rn

5_?2
193 i-- )/C res
a ?-? ?0
X51-6 ?_

PROJECT SIGN-IN SHEET
Informal Public Hearing
February 19, 2009
Mailing Address
1
1
1
U O
IVC a Sz?Y
1i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1

Rail Arracc
PROJECT SIGN-IN SHEET
Informal Public Hearing
February 19, 2009
Name Mailing Address

ti

2:Ic

Z_ IGK , AJCL
1
1
PROJECT SIGN-IN SHEET
Informal Public Hearing 1
February 19, 2009
1
Name Mailing Address
1
?;-0 - ,2G L?rT 71, //off l a ? ??-_
e A N?T6? 1
?? ?{?' C? /r'1 l '1?l y,C.L.O?Cj/'P?l'A"'Gfi` ?F. ?\ /%?d'?t9il? /'?CdX.S??
L)L. ?2SD;_7, 1
-1-ri 5 AklsS n BgOZ Q es+war by, kI r/s4n m c a es? 1
?h A??rQ,E r ???? (??f? u S lfw y ? 58 ? • Ki ?s z N rU C ?- ? ? t
6KV(N wA-,? 1. 4 k 1
1
r
1
1
a
?a
a
a
u
RailAccess
PROJECT SIGN-IN SHEET
Informal Public Hearing
February 19, 2009
D
g Cr
?159d
7--86° 5
?4\115 WIC ?I?M Z°lD? Aron A D9. [<1 iQ oN Z oy

Name Mailing Address
J617W J_2 17fAKUI kF; /00/ 7YIaJ erg ki) /-(, ?-Am? 7 Q

RailAcross
PR NAWEET
-? Local Official's Meeting
Name/Agency

Mailing Address
ILtn1 ?Nt l6 1? C/fib i
/VS 11 41?k STvN
i
Toth
?l l/
C
Jfw. .}?C=ssC?--rte U4 ?T?3
i HOLLoWFLL- LENcbitz CcD

I Cnr IN.-. .. N NL?A
???J! Ascr173QEt/NF2 S/?lR(T
U9t? Gtil/?(?C?
?\) C GG N
11
1
PROJECT SIGN-IN SHEET
Informal Public Hearing
February 19, 2009
Name. Mailing Address
FREELY Sm.7-9 q30 76 31 1? &) 0:!;v AZ.1
?GOr? [.?? n n • ^? ?O ? y /?GMtG? /? ? ?%r+S ?On ??sD?
d'S'bc

COMMENT SHEET
Global Transpark (GTP) Rail Access
Informal Public Hearing
TIP Project No. U•2928B
Lenoir County
ADDRESS:
WBS No' 41739
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
e4z

Adkins
3509 Lakeview Trl
Wnston, NC 285048184
Comments may be mailed by March 9, 2009 to:
Mr. Jamille Robbins, Senior Public Involvement Officer
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Email: tarobbinstancdot.gov

1
February 25, 2009
1
Mr. Jamille Robbins, Senior Public Involvement Officer
' NCDOT-Human Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
I Dear Mr. Robbins,
' As? owners of homes in the. Hillcrest Farms subdivision in
Kinston, NC, we are directly effected by the current project U-
2928B that is to provide Global Transpark rail access. We
understand that every effort has been made to consider and
minimize the effect this project will have on our neighborhood
and property values.
At last Thursday evening's public hearing, after reviewing the
proposed project path with Mr. Marc Hamel, one additional area
of concern has been brought to our attention. While the rail
extension will pass through a wooded area and be entrenched at
that point, when it comes out of the woods and rises to level
ground, it will be in full view at the end of the field at our
northern entrance.
a We would like to request that a vegetative barrier of some sort be
placed in this area to screen it from view (and add a slight
a additional sound barrier) until it rejoins the wooded areas. In
fact, this would not be an unreasonable treatment of the rail all
0 along Hillcrest Road, whenever it emerges from the woods.
Planting atop a slightly raised berm, given the additional dirt
.0
1
available from the trench to be dug for the rail, is another option '
we would ask you to consider.
Thank you very much for. your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, ,

Dee
ent
y

Ned
Grar.
'
vice pres
ident
' ,
Hillcrest Homeowner
s
Association '

1

1
1
1

Robbins, Jamille A
' From: Joe Saracino ([e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:01 AM
To: Robbins, Jamille A
Subject: GTP KINSTON RAIL ACCESS
Importance: High
' As a Hillcrest homeowner I would like to ask that a sound barrier be built between the
railroad tracks and our development, such as a stone wall, as is seen in other areas where
trains or highways are near residences. At the present time the noise is deafening when a
' train passes. I imagine it will get worse when the new RR is built!! Please strongly
consider this suggestion. Respectfully, Joseph Saracino MD

1
1
I
I
I
.I
I
,0

I
0
1
u
TIP Project No. U-2928B
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS
. COMMENT SHEET
Global Transpark (GTP) Rail Access
Informal Public Hearing
Lenoir County
GLv^.(A llrI
QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed by March 9, 2009 to:
Mr. Jamille Robbins, Senior Public Involvement Officer
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit.
15,98 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Email: tarobbinsi<ilncdot.<,ov
WBS'Irs 41739

I
March 5, 2009

Dear Mr. Jamille Robbins,

This letter is in reference to the Global Transpark Rail Access plan proposed
' for my neighborhood. We did attend the last meeting on February 19, 2009
and asked questions if the rail would affect by property at 3402
' Crestwood Drive. We were told that it did affect my area. But we
respectfully say we deter will the gentlemen at the meeting. We live within
' one mile, of the proposed rail. Let me quote the gentlemen at the last
meeting that we are ;/4 mile of the rail. Our property is appraised at
$110.000.
' When the rail comes our property -will be appraised much lower. We will
hear the train whistle and sound of the train moving on the rail. Noise is a
major factor in the location of any property; it would not help if we later
decided to sell our property. The gentlemen at the meeting stated," There
would be at least three trains a week passing through at this time." But
' hopefully, the industry will improve and there may be three or more trains a
day. Would you like to live'/4 of a mile of train? Would you purchase a
' home 3/4 of a mile of a rail?
Those are the big questions we want you to answer. Weunderstand we need
the rail but not at our personal expense. Our home is the only thing that we
' have of worth and we consider it an investment for our family future. We
purchased our home twenty-one years ago and plan to used it toward our
' retirement. What are the procedures to be considered as a relocatee?
Please contact us to concerning this matter. We can be contacted after
5:00pm most days at our home 1(252) 522-5761.

' S, cerely, As 44-
erence and Iris so
I

COMMENT SHEET
Global Transpark (GTP) Rail Access
Informal Public Hearing
TIP Project No. U-2928B
Lenoir County
WBS No. 41739
NAME:
William H. Rouse Jr.
ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 6116, Kinston NC 28501
COMMENTS ANDlOR QUESTIONS:
We request that railway on the north side of Dobbs School Road be moved to the
south of the Ilse Rouse property. As drawn the railway will prevent our use of
the property for our storage trailer business The railway also will require the
destruction of our storage facility and equipment shelter. The alignment will also
also create an unusable remnant on the east side of Shackleford Road

Comments may be mailed by March 9, 2009 to:
Mr. Jamille Robbins, Senior Public Involvement Officer
NCDOT-Human Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]