19950203 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

: State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A4
[D F= F1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 18, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Charles Cox
NC DOT - P&E
Through: John Dorne
From: Eric Galamb 0/'
Subject: US 264 - Wilson Bypass Hand-out
R-1023
Wilson County
DEM has reviewed the subject handout from the July 15, 1993 permit review
meeting. The stream classifications in the Stream Crossing , By Alternative table
(page 5) should be consistent with stream classifications shown in the Wetland study
(page 4). DOT should demonstrate that the roadway has avoided to the maximum
extent practicable the water supply critical area. As presented, the handout shows
that Alternative A has 2 stream crossings in the water supply critical area with
Alternatives B and C only having 1 crossing each. In addition, Alternative C has 4
stream crossings of water supply streams, Alternative B has 7 crossings, and
Alternative A has 10.
The City of Wilson is attempting to increase their water supply reservoir and is
investigating several alternatives. DOT should contacted the city regarding this issue.
The final reservoir location may require a spanning structure for the new roadway.
The difference in wetland impacts is 18 acres with the lowest for Alternative C
and highest for Alternative B. A qualitative analysis of wetland values and' functions
would help DEM determine the best alternative. Information of this nature is extremely
important when wetland impacts between alternatives are similar in extent. Use of
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
t
Charles Cox Memo
August 18, 1993
Page 2
DEM's rating system would achieve this end. If DOT is unable to provide a wetland
rating for each wetland in all three alternatives, DEM could train DOT staff so they are
able to prepare wetland ratings for each wetland in the preferred alternative prior to
the design phase. This would enable DOT and DEM to jointly identify significant
wetlands that require bridging.
Due to the water supply and wetland concerns, DEM requires further
information to concur with DOT on Alternative A as the preferred alternative. Thank
you in advance for responding to our request. If you have any questions, I can be
reached at 733-1786.
wilson.com
cc: David Foster
*****************************************************************
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
August 10, 1993
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
TO: John Dorney- Supervisor- Wetlands and Technical Review
Group
THROUGH:jP',Kenneth Schuster, P.E. - Regional Supervisor
C--/-Yfimothy Donnelly, P.E. - Regional. Water Quality
Supervisor
FROM: Karl Shaffer - Soil Scientist
SUBJECT: U.S 264- Wilson Bypass
T.I.P. No. R-1023
DOT Planning and Environmental Branch Report
Wilson County
The RRO is in receipt of the referenced document for impacts
on the proposed Wilson bypass. The following comments are offered:
1. The three project alignments have similar wetlands impacts in
terms of acreage. There is not enough information to assess
wetlands quality, however, with the road crossings assumedly being
bridged, water quality concerns are somewhat minimized.
2. All erosion control and protection requirements during
construction are addressed and found satisfactory.
3. Some attempt should be made to avoid direct runoff discharge to
surface waters. This should be made a requirement in the watershed
critical area, but would be a good idea for the entire project.
4. Wilson is trying to expand their reservoir but has not been able
to identify an approvable plan due to endangered species concerns.
The final reservoir location may shift the construction of bridge
locations and critical area.
Please call if you have questions.
RBINN
121993
•v" Lr
kNU
V

US 264 - WILSON BYPASS
T1,wP NO. R-1023
WILSON COUNTY
JULY 15, 1993
Contents
Location Map
Water Supply Map
Project Summary
Wetland Report
Lu Z I fit. v
Q m U (} O -T - I Irk O, _ W O.
a: cc < a-
0 0 0 3: (n
Q ¢ Qw s o O I W °
2 IZ tt W U
O O O Z Q i! 6 EPS "? AO
p I W 'j
0 ' J
o P
.4 -Stral
:.. O
9 -1X3 nb
nvj nb? nb? - d
" (NCO
-Y FP J EXT: ' C • cam,
F A U ,cQ 2
d. :
7 QV
-4
Q v b
9?? URg - Exr:c
10
e f - J
O a
-1 O \ f? ` d
1 -
^. SY? r
tJ C l _ d
o ^ o
n ti
3W O NO.1 O
° of H
_ r
O t? ? ? Ot - j ^ y Z" wl
w / o h ; a C9
C7 r U -?
'V r •? (y -
10
LL-
.5 rte..
f AP :. '
/ O a
9 dA
_ Pl ?3
r
- r.
o ?
v o '?' a
•9 d
`° .9
C
Z z
c
F ? CO)

x z N
o
> °C
n T
3 c
mI--
dzzz Q z0
aaM
z0 Z

z O
W N
E
p r o
uo
z z
z
x
E-
nH U)1=C)i0
?
a
Z z
> ?O
y
U o
Z&-- C^ [=

CORRIDOR C

WATER SUPPLY INTAKE ?i
_..1 r
Z2 te'z 641 \ ??
? r a a END PROJECT

?e_
t, C C -` ---- --- -- ---- - --- --- -- ---- ------ -- -----t---Z
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
BRANCH
WILSON BYPASS
WATER SUPPLY AREAS
WILSON COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. R - 1023
_ .:.? _.j
0 mile 1 FIG. 2
9

LEGEND
Lake/Stream/Sound
O Mater Supply Watershed
[7 7 -7 1 Water Supply Critical Area
(Shading of entire watershed
denotes WS-1 Classification.)

R-1023
PROJECT SUMMARY
US 264 Bypass of Wilson
Wilson County
Summary of Basis of Alternative Selection
July, 1993
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In the process of the project planning study, three basic
alternative corridors (A, B, and C) were investigated in detail. All
three alternatives pass to the south of Wilson. Each consists of a
four-lane divided freeway with access at interchanges only.
A bypass to the south of Wilson is included in the adopted
Wilson Thoroughfare Plan. Corridor A most nearly follows the
location shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, and based on planning
studies is the location favored by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Statewide Planning Branch.
During the thirteen years of project studies most environmental
factors for the different alternatives were somewhat comparable.
This was also true for anticipated wetland impacts until the use of
the "1989" delineation guidelines. The restudy of wetland impacts in
the fall of 1990 was done under those guidelines (it is noted that
the "1989" guidelines are no longer valid) Ttte,.-I- t d he
spring of 1993 was completed in accordance with the current (1 7)
guidelines
During much of the project study in 1987 through 1989 Wilson
city officials, Wilson county officials, and several local business
groups favored Corridor B (Inner Loop) as it would maintain US 264
traffic closer to existing businesses. However, in December 1989 and
January 1990, respectively, the Wilson City Council and Wilson County
Commissioners passed resolutions in support of the proposed Corridor
A (Outer Loop). These resolutions of support for Corridor A by the
City and County still stand.
The project also stimulated a lot of public involvement.
Approximately 1690 letters and/or petitions were mailed to the NCDOT
Planning and Environmental Branch regarding the location of the
proposed bypass. The vast majority of those comments were in favor
of constructing Corridor A (Outer Loop).
At this time, no local governments or business groups are
supporting Corridor C. Several local groups and individuals still
support Corridor B (Inner Loop). However, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration,
local governments, and most public input support the recommended
Corridor A (Outer Loop).
2
II. ISTEA AND ITS EFFECT ON THE WILSON BYPASS
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
mandated that an interstate link between I-95 and I-40 in the vicinity of
Wilson and Goldsboro be constructed to ensure better rural access and to
promote economic development in this area. The US 264 Wilson bypass, a
proposed freeway facility, has now been designated as one section of this
I-95/I-40 link. The US 117 improvements from Goldsboro to Wilson, TIP
Project R-1030, also a proposed freeway facility, has been designated as
another section. The US 117 improvements, which will utilize the existing
alignment of US 301 in the vicinity of Wilson, will converge with US 264
at the proposed US 264/US 301 interchange.
III. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
A. Displacement of Families and Businesses
The estimated number of relocatees are as follows:
CORRIDOR A
Residences
Businesses
Total:
18
5
23
CORRIDOR B
30
3
33

CORRIDOR C
40
8
48
As can be seen, Corridor A relocates fewer residences and
businesses than either of the other corridors. Therefore, Corridor A
is considered the least disrupti.ve to man-dominated environments.
B. Farmland Impacts
All corridors are likely to result in an acceleration in the
change from agricultural land use to industrial, commercial, and
residential development which is currently underway in Wilson. This
change is taking place in the vicinity of Corridors B and C and is
expected to spread to the area around Corridor A. However, the
proposed facility will accommodate planned growth in the area and is
in conformance with the adopted Wilson Thoroughfare Plan.
The state office of the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service was contacted' concerning the presence of prime
and unique farmland in the area. Soil type and slope are used to
identify the categories of land suitable for farming. No unique
farmlands have been identified in the area. There is a total of
111,205 acres of prime farmland in Wilson County.
The total estimated acres of prime farmland identified by SCS is
listed below:
CORRIDOR A
CORRIDOR B
CORRIDOR C
325 ac. 285 ac. 305 ac.
3
Prime farmland, as defined by the SCS, is based on soil type and
slope is not necessarily land available for farm production.
Approximately 10 percent of the area designated as prime farmland
includes woodland, areas too small for active farming, and areas
already developed for other uses.
During design of the proposed project, care will be taken to
minimize the amount of prime farmland needed for right of way. It
will be unavoidable that some farmland will be split by the project;
however, consideration will be given during design to avoid the
division of property where feasible. Also, care will be given during
design to assure that farm drainage systems are not blocked or
interrupted.
The City of Wilson has been developing to the south and west,
especially in the vicinity of SR 1606 (industrial), NC 42, and Forest
Hills Road (office and institutional, commercial, and residential).
As this development continues, prime farmland in the project area
will, in all likelihood, be converted to other uses whether or not
the project is constructed.
C. Secondary Impacts
The three corridors under study for the US 264 Bypass project
will result in varying types and degrees of impact. Regardless of
the corridor selected, the following adverse effects are certain to
occur to the natural environment: direct loss of plants and animals
from clearing operations, destruction of foraging and protective
habitat for wildlife, loss of biological production on cultivated
land, siltation into streams during construction, and increased flow
of traffic through the area after completion of the project.
Secondary impacts of major highway improvements in this area are
expected to be those which give rise to planned area development.
This project, along with the existing freeway to Zebulon, and US 264
freeway towards Greenville, can be expected to increase industrial
and commercial development in this local area, as well as the entire
corridor served by US 264. Since manufacturing, trade, and other
occupations dependent on highway transportation account for
significant portions of the total employment, enhancements of further
development by improving transportation should insure orderly
economic growth.
The shift from agricultural to industrial and service-type
employment is now underway in the project area. The industrial park
off SR 1606 (Black Creek Road), the Regency Office Park on NC 42 at
SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road), and numerous commercial buildings,
subdivisions, and apartment complexes recently or currently developed
in the project area are examples of the growth now taking place to
the south of Wilson. Highway improvements are therefore not expected
to adversely affect the changes in lifestyles or community make-up
which are now taking place.
4
The economy of the area is normally affected by a major
transportation project in three ways: (1) loss of land, buildings,
etc. from the tax base; (2) increased value of remaining property
adjacent to the project; and (3) increased employment, retail sales,
and flow of money into the area due to the actual construction of the
project and increased development in the area. The latter two
impacts generally offset the loss of taxable property, resulting in
an overall positive economic impact.
D. Floodplain Impacts/Drainage Crossings
All three corridors cross the floodplains of Contentnea
Creek-Hominy Swamp and have similar impacts on wetlands. However,
the crossing of the Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp floodplain by
Corridor A will have more impact due to the crossings of Contentnea
Creek while Corridors B and C cross the northern fringe of the
floodplain.
Corridor A crosses the floodplain of Shepards Branch-Contentnea
Creek and Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp. Floodplain crossings at
Shepards Branch and Contentnea Creek are near 90 degrees, which will
involve minimal floodplain encroachment. However, due to the extent
and shape of the floodplain, involvement with Contentnea Creek-Hominy
Swamp is unavoidable.
Corridor B crosses the floodplains of Shepards Branch, Bloomery
Swamp, and Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp. As with Corridor A,
floodplain crossings are close to 90 degrees except at the Contentnea
Creek Hominy Swamp floodplain.
Corridor C crosses the floodplain of Bloomery Swamp and
Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp. Floodplain crossings are close to
90 degrees except at the Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp floodplain.
However, as with Alternatives A and B, due to the shape and extent of
this floodplain, encroachment is unavoidable.
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation and new pollutant inputs from highway runoff. The
number of crossings of major streams for each alignment are listed
below:
5 ?5

Stream Crossi s, Alternative
STREAM Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C CLASSIFICATION
Shepard Branch 2 3 WS-IV NSW
Tributary 1 WS-IV NSW
Blommery Swamp 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary # 1 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary # 2 1 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary # 3 1 1 WS-IV NSW
Mill Branch 1 WS-IV NSW
Contentnea Creek 2 WS-IV NSW
Tributary # 1 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary # 2 .1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary # 3 2 WS-IV NSW
Tributary # 4 1 1 WS-IV NSW C?
Tributary # 5 1 1 C SW NSW
Tributary # 6 1 1 C SW NSW
Hominy Swamp 1 1 1 C SW NSW
Toisnot Swamp
Tributary 1 1 1 C SW NSW
Total Crossings: 12 11 8
It is noted that even though Corridor A has the most crossings
of streams, Corridors nd C pose rea reat
Contentnea Creek an Wiggins Mill Reservoir from potentia
highway-borne toxic spi s y cro ing the critica areas o e
watershed.
E. Wetland Impacts
The wet d'impacts addressed in the Final EIS were identified
using the "Corps Methodology. The results were as follows:
CORRIDOR A CORRIDOR B CORRIDOR C
166.2
115
93.4
Because of the large difference in wetland impacts between the
preferred alignment, Corridor A, and the other two alignments, a
comprehensive study was undertaken by NCDOT. This study was
completed in June, 1993, utilizing the 1987 Corps Methodology. The
study yielded a much different scenario of wetland impacts. A
summary of the impacts are. listed below:
Anticipated Impacts to Wetland Classes
Community CORRIDOR A CORRIDOR B CORRIDOR C
Forested 80 ac 91 ac 85 ac
Scrub-Shurb 28 ac 27 ac 10 ac
Emergent 4 ac 1 ac 6 ac
Total: 112 ac 119 ac 101 ac
6
IV. Reasons for Selecting Corridor A
A. Transportation Plannin
Corridor A most closely follows the alignment shown in the
Wilson Thoroughfare Plan for a bypass of Wilson. The thoroughfare
plan was developed to meet anticipated growth patterns and
transportation needs and is based on all roads in the plan being
constructed in the approximate location designated. Corridor B would
superimpose a bypass on top of the existing corridors of NC 42,
Forest Hills Road, and other major routes. This would make a less
desirable transportation network than Corridor A and would not serve
as large an area for the given number of miles of roadway facilities.
Also, Corridor B would require several grade separations and
embankments along Forest Hills Road and Downing Street. These
embankments would impair driver visibility and would not be
particularly pleasing from an aesthetics standpoint in areas of
existing and planned development. Also, these embankments and grade
separations would bring additional traffic and its associated noise
into an already developed area, but would not allow this traffic to
directly access the impacted area.
B. ISTEA Considerations
As discussed in Section II of this report, ISTEA mandated that
an Interstate link between I-95 and I-40 be constructed. The
proposed US 264 Wilson Bypass and proposed improvements to US 117
from Goldsboro to Wilson (TIP Project R-1030) will form this link.
The proposed freeway to freeway connection of project R-1023 and
R-1030 will require full control of access. If Corridors B or C were
selected rather than Corridor A, greater environmental impacts would
result. The widening of US 117/US 301, along with the acquisition of
full control of access, would drastically impact the development
Paqugired US 301 between Corridor A and Corridors B and C. Approximately
mes and businesses would be relocated, unless service roads were
along US 301 between the Corridor A and the Corridors B/C
ings of US 301. In addition, the improvements that would be
to US 301 would involve an additional crossing of Contentnea
Creek (at the water supply intake) in the vicinity of Wiggins Mill
Reservoir increasing the threat of contamination to the town's water
supply.
In contrast, Corridor A best allows this I-40 to I-95 connection
and would minimize any additional impacts by keeping all new
construction south of the critical area of the Wiggins Mill Reservoir
and Contentnea Creek. Fewer residences and businesses would be
relocated.
C. Land Use
Because Corridor A is further south of Wilson than the other
corridors, it allows the city more room for orderly expansion.
Considerable development is currently taking place in the vicinity of
Corridors B and C. If the proposed bypass was located north of the
Wiggins Mill Reservoir, it would serve as an artificial barrier for
planned development to the south. Corridor A will allow Wilson to
develop further south in an orderly fashion while providing easy
access to the bypass.
D. Relocation of Families and Businesses
Corridor A causes the least disruption to the local area. It
relocates fewer residences and businesses (23) than either Corridors
B (33) or C (48).
E. Wetland Impacts
A comprehensive study was conducted to determine the wetland
impacts. Unlike earlier studies, the totals show that, instead of
Corridor A impacting over 50 percent more wetlands than the other two
alignments, there is not expected to be significant differences in
the magnitude of anticipated wetland takings among the three
alignments. In addition, Corridor A would impact the least acreage
of forested wetland communities of the three alignments.
F. Stream Crossings and Critical Watershed Areas
While Corridor A crosses more stream channels than either B or
C, Corridor A skirts the Critical Area surrounding Wiggins Mill
Reservoir, whereas, Corridors B and C pass through the Critical Area.
If Corridors B or C were selected, the upgrading of US 117/US 301
(TIP Project R-1030) to a freeway through the interchange with the
proposed US 264 Bypass would impact the watershed intake.
G. Wetland Impact Mitigation
The NCDOT is committed to minimizing or mitigating all wetland
impacts associated with the proposed US 264 Wilson Bypass. NCDOT
will comply with the regulations of the U. S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
memorandum of agreement, which was signed on February 6, 1990
establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation
to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines. A
conceptual wetland mitigation plan is as follows:
During design of the project, steps will be undertaken to
minimize impacts to wetlands, where practical. This could include
the reducing of fill slopes, lowering roadway grades in wetland
areas, or narrowing median and shoulder widths. In addition, strict
erosion methods and other best management practices will be employed
to protect wetlands and water quality from project-related impacts.
8
Remaining wetland impacts will be mitigated according to the
requirements of the DOA. Preference will be given to on-site,
in-kind mitigation involving restoration activities. Research has
demonstrated that it is quite feasible to restore the wetland
communities affected by this project if a suitable site can be
located. Given the large amount of hydric soils in the area, it is
likely that suitable mitigation sites will be available. Secondary
consideration will be given to off-site, in-kind mitigation,
including the possible use of an NCDOT wetland mitigation bank.
It is not practical to develop a final wetland mitigation plan
until design of the roadway is completed. This design will provide
the definite acreage of each affected wetland type, allowing NCDOT to
develop a mitigation plan which will fully compensate for these
impacts. It is a ction and acquisition of mitigation
sites will occur concurrently with right o way acquisi ion. T
will coordinate with t e appropria a regu a ory regu a ory review
agencies during this process to ensure that the final mitigation plan fi
will be acceptable when the permit application is submitted.
H. Public and Local Government Support
It is noted that after many years of local controversy regarding
the location of the US 264 Wilson Bypass, Corridor A is the alignment
supported by the City of Wilson, Wilson County, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and
the majority of the citizens of the Wilson area.
I. Only Practical Alternative
Based on all factors such as transportation planning, land use
planning, public involvement, impacts to the man-made environment,
impacts to the natural environment, and proposed mitigation, it is
the opinion of the NCDOT and the FHWA that Corridor A is the most
reasonable and prudent location for the US 264 Wilson Bypass.
Therefore, NCDOT feels that all practical measures have been
taken in order to protect the wetlands as much as possible as
required by Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
CRC/wp
R-1023
WETLAND STUDY
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS To WETLANDS
and WATER RESOURCES
by
THE PROPOSED WILSON BY-PASS
(R-1023)
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
July, 1993
I. INTRODUCTION
In an attempt to clarify likely wetland scenarios related to each of
three alternatives for the proposed Wilson Bypass, it was decided that a
single, comprehensive study would be undertaken. Previous wetland
analyses for this EIS-level project (Table 1.) have resulted in
ambiguities. The work previously undertaken either focused primarily on
NCDOT's preferred alternative, or relied on cursory methodologies.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED WETLAND IMPACTS, BY ALTERNATIVE
(Results of Previous Wetland Studies)
ESTIMATED WETLAND IMPACT AREAS

1 STUDY
DEI
-
a ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C
. S
1981 13 ha (32 ac) 13 ha (33 ac) 8 ha L19 ac)
2. 1989 Study, 23 ha (56 ac) 23 ha J56 ac) -*
3. 1990 Stud 45 ha (111 ac) - -
`"
4. FEIS-1990 67 ha (166 ac) 46 ha (115 ac) 37 ha (93 ac) 1849 ^^"
S. M3 112- 4C )19 a- 101 a c. 1.11911 ffiamwtx?-
Note: Values reported are in hectares (acres). a Cursory examination
which employed "best judgement" methodology; Cursory
examination; More detailed study, using 1989 delineation
methodology; Alternative C was the only line staked; not
evaluated.
II. METHODS
An assessment of anticipated impacts to wetlands by each of three
alternatives (A, B and C) for the proposed Wilson By-Pass required an
extraordinary commitment of manpower from three separate organizational
units NCDOT---Environmental, Hydraulics, and Location and Surveys. A
summary of each unit's involvement in this effort is presented below.
Location and Surveys
Centerlines were cut for each of the three L-lines. Stations were
identified at approximately 15.2 m (50 feet) intervals along Alternative
A. Station intervals were greater on Alternatives B and C, but lines were
easily located by the wetland delineation staff.
2 GCS 7 %? h1c1 ---
% ?50 /? e S
Environmental__ ?
Biologists from the Environmental nit identifie delineated each
wetland site which occurs within 45.7 (150 feet) o ea h L-Line. It was
assumed that study areas for proposed nterc
ge s encompassed all
la?
land bounded by proposed ramps and exten`Tc i ng 45.7 m (15 feet) to the
outside of Y-Lines. Study areas for several smaller ser ice'? roads were
limited to 9.1 m (30 feet) to either side of the Y-line.
Wetland-upland boundaries were flagged and data shee s were prepared
for each site. Wetlands identified in the field had to possess all three
necessary attributes of vegetation, soil and hydrology, as required by the
"1987 Methodology". Disturbed sites, from which vegetation had been
removed, were treated as atypical sites in accordance with the 1987
Methodology. Combinations of hydric soils and vegetation (dominated by
hydrophytes) were frequently encountered in the study areas. In many
instances, final determinations of wetland identity hinged on the
hydrological characteristics of the site. The presence or absence of
oxidized rhizospheres and their relative abundance in the soil profile was
often the most powerful evidence of hydrology (continuous saturation to
the surface [within 0.3 m of the surface] for 5% of the growing season).
Note: Staff who were utilized in the field identification and
delineation of wetlands are experienced field biologists, most
of whom have had ample hands-on experience in wetland field
work. At the outset of the study, each of the biologists spent
several days in the field with the senior investigator. During
this exercise, each investigator was challenged to defend
his/her decisions and group discussions/ collaborations were
encouraged.
Hydraulics
After the biological staff had completed the wetland delineations,
the Hydraulics Unit located/mapped each wetland site in the field,
utilizing GPS (Geographic Positioning System) hardware. To aid in
reconciling wetland sites with other fixed point features in the
landscape, data were also collected at Y-Line stations, secondary roads,
bridges, etc. Data (X and Y coordinates) were processed and graphics
prepared. Calculations of area for each wetland site was accomplished by
software:
Note: Resulting data were analyzed by Environmental Unit staff. Data
subsets, representing aggregates for each of several community
types, were contrasted among alternatives. Furthermore,
comparisons between delineation data, data taken from National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps (Bailey, Lucama, Saratoga, Wilson
and Winstead), and hydric soils data derived from the Wilson
County Soil Survey (May 1983) were made.
3
III. RESULTS
A comparison of anticipated impacts to wetlands by each alternative
is presented in Table 2. Stream Crossing data and water quality
information is presented in Table 3. The relative amount of wetland
community types likely to be impacted by each alternative is presented in
Tables 4-5. NWI-derived data and hydric soil data are presented in Tables
6-7. In many instances, due to space limitations, data in the following
tables have been rounded to nearest whole number. All values reported are
in hectares (acres).
A. Total Wetlands
Table 2. Anticipated Wetland Impacts, by Alternative Segment
SEGMENTS
A
AB
ABC
B
BA
BC
BAC
C
CB
CAB
TOTALS
WETLAND AREA per ALTERNATIVE
Alt. A Alt. B
26 ha (64 ac) -
15 ha (37 ac) -
5 ha (11 ac) -
46 ha (112 ac)
4 ha (10 ac)
15 ha (37 ac)
25 ha (61 ac)
5 ha (11 ac)
49 ha (119 ac)
Alt. C
11 ha (28 ac)
25 ha (61 ac)
5 ha (11 ac)
41 ha (101 ac)
B. Stream Crossings
A total of 16 streams are crossed by one or more alternatives. Major
stream systems include Shepard Branch, Bloomery Swamp, Mill Branch,
Contentnea Creek, Hominy Swamp and Toisnot Swamp.
It is important to note that one of Wilson's water supply reservoirs
is in close proximity to two of the proposed alternatives (B and C). In
fact, both alignments pass through the Critical Area (designated by DEHNR)
for the Wiggins Mill Reservoir intake. Water Supply Critical Areas are
among the most highly sensitive water resource areas in the state.
Development in these areas are possible only with severe restrictions and
limitations on construction activities.
Table 3 lists all streams, including tributaries, likely to be
crossed by either alternative. Best Usage Classifications (DEHNR) are
also cited for each stream.
4
Table 3. Stream Crossings, by Alternative
ALTERNATIVE
STREAM Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Classification
Shepard Branch 2 3 WS-IV NSW
Tributary 1 WS-IV NSW
Bloomery Swamp 1 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary #1 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary #2 1 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary #3 1 WS-IV NSW
Mill Branch 1 WS-IV NSW
Contentnea Creek 2 WS-IV NSW
Tributary #1 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary #2 1 WS-IV NSW
Tributary #3 2 WS-IV NSW CA
Tributary #4 1 T WS-IV NSW CA
Tributary #5 1 1 C Sw NSW
Tributary #6 1 1 C Sw NSW
Hominy Swamp 1 1 1 C Sw NSW
Toisnot Swamp
Tributary 1 1 1 C Sw NSW
TOTAL CROSSINGS 12 11 8
Note: Best Usage Classifications C and WS-IV designate these
classifications as suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture (C), and waters protected as water supplies which
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds;
point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted
pursuant to rules 0.0104 and 0.0211; local programs to control
nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are
required; suitable for all Class C uses; Supplemental
Classifications NSW, Sw and CA denote Nutrient Sensitive Waters,
Swamp Waters and Critical Area, respectively.
C. Wetland Community Impacts
Seven distinguishable wetland community types (Cowardin et al, 1979)
were encountered during the field investigation. Forested wetlands
represent the single largest wetland class likely to be impacted by either
alternative. Scrub-Shrub communities, quite often the result of some form
of disturbance (logging activities, etc.), represented the second-largest
wetland class and Emergent communities were the smallest component. A
comparison of anticipated impacts to wetland community classes by each of
the alternatives is presented in Table 4. Anticipated impacts to specific
wetland community subclasses are presented in Table 5.
5
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Wetland Classes
WETLAND CLASS AREA per ALTERNATIVE
COMMUNITY Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C
Forested 32.5 ha (80 ac) 36.9 ha (91 ac) 34.2 ha (85 ac)
Scrub-Shrub 11.0 ha (27 ac) 10.9 ha (28 ac) 4.0 ha (10 ac)
Emergent 1.8 ha ( 4 ac) 0.3 ha ( 1 ac) 2.5 ha ( 6 ac)
The seven Forested, Scrub-Shrub and Emergent wetland communities and
their NWI symbols are:
Forested:
PF01 Palustrine Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous
PF04 Palustrine Forested, Needle-leaved Evergreen
Scrub-Shrub:
PSS1 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous
PSS3 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Evergreen
PSS6 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Deciduous
Emergent:
PEM1 Palustrine Emergent, Persistent
PEM2 Palustrine Emergent, Nonpersistent
Table 5. Anticipated Community Impacts, By Alternative
WETLAND COMMUNITY AREA per ALTERNATIVE
COMMUNITY Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C
PF01
?) 21.5 ha (53 ac) 30.0 ha (74 ac) 31.5 ha (78 ac)
PF04?rkdkov 11.0 ha (27 ac) 6.9 ha (17 ac) 2.7 ha . ( 7 ac)
PSS1 7.9 ha (20 ac) 6.1 ha (15 ac) 0.8 ha ( 2 ac)
PSS3 1.6 ha ( 4 ac) 3.0 ha ( 8 ac) 2.9 ha ( 7 ac)
PSS6 1.5 ha ( 4 ac) 1.8 ha ( 5 ac) 0.3 ha ( 1 ac)
PEM1 1.2 ha ( 3 ac) - 1.9 ha ( 5 ac)
PEM2 0.6 ha ( 1 ac) 0.3 ha ( 1 ac) 0.6 ha ( 1 ac)
D. NWI Wetlands
In an effort to evaluate the value of NWI maps in early
determinations of estimated wetland impacts, a transparent overlay of the
Wilson By-Pass alternatives was prepared at 1:24000 scale and areas
identified as wetlands on NWI maps were traced onto overlay. Areas were
manually calculated.
6
I
Table 6. NWI Wetlands, by Alternative
WETLAND COMMUNITY AREA per ALTERNATIVE
COMMUNITY Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C
PF01 36.4 ha (90 ac) 23.1 ha (57 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac)
PF04 ;4W.01 8.5 ha (21 ac) - -
PF06 1.2 ha ( 3 ac) 0.4 ha ( 1 ac) 0.4 ha ( 1 ac)
PSS1 2.8 ha ( 7 ac) 0.4 ha ( 1 ac) -
PSS6 - 9.7 ha (24 ac) 9.7 ha (24 ac)
PUB 2.4 ha ( 6 ac) 5.7 ha (14 ac) 0.8 ha ( 2 ac)
R2UB 0.4 ha ( 1 ac) 0.8 ha ( 2 ac) 0.8 ha ( 2 ac)
TOTALS 51.7 ha (128 ac) 40.1 ha (99 ac) 29.1 ha (72 ac)
Note: PUB and R2UB denote Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom and Lower
Perennial Riverine Unconsolidated Bottom, respectively.
Note that the seven wetland community subclasses identified on the
NWI maps differ somewhat from the subclasses listed for the project
(Tables 5-6). The NWI designation PF06 (Palustrine Forested Deciduous),
for example, is used when bald cypress occurs in the canopy of an
otherwise broad-leaf deciduous forest. The riverine (R2UB) community
identified on NWI maps is located at the Contentnea Creek crossing east of
SR 1606. While stream channel area is reflected in the subclass values,
these relatively small areas were assigned the subclass designation of the
adjacent terrestrial wetland community, i.e., PF01.
E. Hydric Soils
Soils mapped as hydric in Wilson County were recorded on a tracing of
the alternatives for the proposed project. Areas of these hydric soil
zones were manually calculated. The totals derived can only be viewed as
one measure of the potential for wetland occurrence.
Table 7. Hydric Soils Distribution, by Alternative
POTENTIAL FOR WETLAND OCCURRENCE
HYDRIC SOIL Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C
Bibb 6.5 ha (16 ac) 11.7 ha (29 ac) 12.1 ha (30 ac)
Coxville - - 2.8 ha ( 7 ac)
Grantham 15.8 ha (39 ac) 15.8 ha (39 ac) 2.0 ha ( 5 ac)
Rains 36.0 ha (89 ac) 41.7 ha (103 ac) 39.3 ha (97 ac)
Roanoke 10.1 ha (25 ac) 3.2 ha ( 8 ac) 3.2 ha ( 8 ac)
Toisnot 6.1 ha (15 ac) 3.2 ha ( 8 ac) -
Tomotley 59.9 ha (14 8 ac) 19.0 ha (47 ac) 19.0 ha (47 ac)
Wehad./Chews 9.7 ha (24 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac)
Altavista 15.0 ha (37 ac) 10.5 ha (26 ac) 9.7 ha (24 ac)
Goldsboro 10.9 ha (27 ac) 12.6 ha (31 ac) 11.7 ha (29 ac)
TOTALS 169 ha (41 8 ac) 135 ha (334 ac) 117 ha (290 ac)
Y
7
r

?y
o-G
`rlo
IV. DISCUSSION
This study suggests that there may not be significant differences in
the magnitude of anticipated wetland takings among all three proposed
alternatives. While some earlier studies suggested that significantly
less wetlands occur along Alternative C, this could not be demonstrated
from the recent work.
Relative differences are apparent among the alternatives with respect
to cumulative impacts to one or more wetland class(es) and subclass(es).
Wor no a is a ess ottom an r re pine oo s
are likely to be impacted by Alternative A than by Alternatives B or C.
Differences do exist among alternatives with respect to total numbers
of stream crossings. Alternative A crosses more stream channels than
either B or C. Neither B nor C will cross the main channel of Contentnea
Creek near the east end of the project. However, the Critical Area issue
is one that must not be taken lightly. Water Supply Critical Areas are
highly sensitive resources which should be avoided except in the most
extraordinary circumstances.
For this project, correlations among (a) NWI-derived wetlands data,
(b) hydric soil-derived "wetland potential" data and (c) empirically
determined wetland data are not apparent.
However, as a tool during early planning intervals, prior to the
existence of sufficient design criteria to justify field delineation of
wetlands, NWI maps can provide "order of magnitude" estimates of potential
wetland impacts. In combination with some "ground-truthing", an acceptable
wetland estimate may be feasible. Further experimentation will be
required before this possibility can be confirmed or refuted.
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C
TOTALS (a) 52 ha (128 ac) 40 ha (99 ac) 29 ha (72 ac)
TOTALS (b) 169 ha (418 ac) 135 ha (334 ac) 117 ha (290 ac)
TOTALS (c) 46 ha (112 ac) 49 ha (119 ac) 41 ha (101 ac)?
L,f ?ree?eo?' .
RMT/pl r G) ?,?o ?
6°

b
a
CZ
`` S`, SrJ
C
N
0.'m G
?kv
?b
X\U//
?t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199201219
March 5, 1992
Mr. B. J. O'Quinn, Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. O' Quinn:
Reference is made to Mr. L. J. Ward's letter of January 27, 1992, which
included a "Summary of Basis of Alternative Selection" for the proposed
U.S. 264 - Wilson Bypass, Wilson County, North Carolina (State Project No.
8.1340301, R-1023, F-38-1(54)). Reference is also made to the meeting of
February 5, 1992, which was held to discuss concerns with your project
recommendations.
Based on our review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
project, dated August, 1991, and on the aforementioned alternative selection
summary, we cannot agree with your conclusions that Corridor A is the least
damaging and only practicable alternative corridor for the proposal. In
accordance with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines),
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps of Engineers and EPA
establishes sequencing procedures for evaluation of all Section 404 individual
permit applications. This MOA, as well as the Guidelines, first requires
avoidance of impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, then minimization of adverse
impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, and finally compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable adverse impacts which may remain. Based on the most recent
assessment of wetlands impacts associated with the project, utilizing the 1989
Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual, Corridor A will impact significantly more
wetlands than the other alternatives considered. After examining the reasons
provided for selecting Corridor A, we do not agree that this alignment
represents the least damaging alternative, or that the environmental
consequences of not using Corridors B or C outweigh the aquatic resource
impacts of Corridor A.

Based on the above, we foresee difficulties at this time in obtaining
ti/

-2-
Section 404 permit authorization for the preferred corridor. Although the
existing environmental documentation addresses impacts associated with the
proposal, it does not adequately address the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and
compliance with the requirements of the Mitigation MOA. Specifically, the
following comments are provided in response to your alternatives selection
summary:
a. Thoroughfare Plan: Although Corridor A "most closely follows the
alignment shown in the Wilson Thoroughfare Plan," wetlands were apparently
given little consideration during development of the plan. With our present
regulations and guidelines regarding wetlands and waters, this plan is
outdated at best, and cannot be construed to comply with the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines..
b. Land Use: The belief that Corridors B or C would create an artificial
barrier to development to the south is unfounded. In all major, developing
areas, such a beltline or bypass has not deterred further expansion beyond
such roadways when economic conditions were favorable.
c. Relocation of Families and Businesses: We acknowledge that less
relocations are associated with Corridor A than either Corridors B or C.
However, the additional relocations associated with Corridors B or C must be
considered in conjunction with their reduced wetland impacts.
d. Wetland Impacts: The low ecological value assigned to timbered
wetlands is only appropriate if these wetlands will not be allowed to
revegetate and function as wetlands. No doubt wetland values may be
temporarily diminished by such vegetative disturbance. However, these areas
will regenerate over time, and provide wetland functions during the entire
successional process. The percentage comparison of timbered wetlands to total
wetland impacts for each alternative is not relevant when such a significant
difference in wetland acreages exists between alternatives. And last, we
cannot concur with the indication that seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods
found along all corridors are of lower quality than permanently flooded
hardwoods found along Corridors B and C. These seasonally flooded wetlands
provide significant wetland functions and wildlife habitat, which equals and
may exceed those associated with permanently flooded wetlands in many cases.
e. Drainage Crossings/Public Water Supply: The preferred alternative,
Corridor A, will cross five major drainages, including two crossings of
Contentnea Creek. Corridors B and C only involve crossings of two major
drainages each. Corridors B and C are physically closer to Wiggins Mill
Reservoir than Corridor A and conceivably pose a greater threat to the

-3-
reservoir from highway spills. However, they (B and C) do not cross major
dainages to the reservoir and thereby provide the potential, through design,
of containment of potentially toxic highway spills. Corridor A crosses
Contentnea Creek just upstream of its confluence with the reservoir. Any
spill occurring into Contentnea Creek at this proposed crossing would be
extremely difficult to contain due to the volume of flow associated with this
creek.
In summary, we continue to disagree with your finding that Corridor A is
the least damaging alternative and that by selecting it, all practical
measures have been taken in order to protect the wetlands as much as possible.
Corridors B and C involve less wetland impacts, and still appear to be
practicable alternatives to the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and be involved in your planning
process. Mr. John Cameron is responsible for coordinating projects in Wilson
County, and can be reached at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Divisio of Environmental
M agement
N th Carolina Department of
V Environment, Health and
Natural resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. Diane Guthrie
Federal Activities Branch, 4th Floor
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Mike Crocker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Lee Pelej
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Robert Lee
District Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
„a STATE o
11< _ .
.Y CwuvUY .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor 1 829, Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
o ?„ o lanning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM Z rn
Fi
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse S[$???2
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 92-0163 - FEIS US 264 Bypass of Wilson, Wilson County
DATE: October 31, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the proposed US 264 bypass of Wilson in Wilson county.
There is still considerable concern among our agencies
regarding alternative "A" as the preferred alternative. When the
draft environmental document was circulated, approximately 10
years ago, the majority of the review agencies (both federal and
state) went on record opposing alternate "A". This alternative
contains:
-most acres of wetland
-most acres of prime farmland '
-most major drainages
-most potential impact to anadromous fish
-most acres of upland, timbered land
These facts are obviously of great concern to this
department. Over the past year, there has been considerable
effort by this department and by key individuals within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) toward early and continuous
coordination with our agencies. In spite of that effort, there
is no recorded involvement of our agencies with this project
until the receipt of the FEIS. While it is recognized that this
is a federal document, the lack of early and continuous
coordination with state agencies leads to expensive and
unnecessary delays at both the document review stage and the
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
permit stage. It would have been prudent to have circulated the
DEIS re-evaluation to state agencies three years ago when it was
submitted to FHWA, even though federal law did not require that
circulation.
In a spirit of cooperation, DEHNR will not request
additional documentation at this time. We do, however, ask that
the concerns of our agencies be dealt with in the permitting
process. This department will specifically be looking for a
formal evaluation of the involved wetlands to substantiate that
there is no practicable alternative and a mitigation plan
acceptable to both the Division of Environmental Management and
the N.C. Wildlife Resources commission staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. As this project
progresses to the final design and permit stages, we ask that our
review agencies be consulted.
MM: bb
Atta7John nts
cc. Dorney
Ron Ferrell
David Foster
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton JQA dl?. d
Assistant Director
DATE: October 9, 1991
SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Statement, US 264 Bypass,
Wilson County, North Carolina.
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has completed a
review of the proposed project including a review of the existing
wildlife and fisheries resources on the area and the possible
impacts of the proposed project. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the N. C. Environmental
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25), and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The WRC cannot agree with the route that North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has chosen for this project.
All of the environmental resource agencies t1Hat have previously
reviewed this project, i.e., WRC, the Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommended an alternative
route selection. Therefore, we do not feel that the selection of
corridor A reflects an attempt by NCDOT to minimize, to the
maximum extent practicable, the environmental consequences of
this project. Furthermore, we feel that a formal comparative
analysis of upland and wetland habitat values should be conducted
along the selected route, versus alternative routes. This
information should be submitted for agency review in a revised
EIS. Due to the magnitude of the environmental consequences from
this project the EIS should also contain a draft mitigation plan
which will specifically describe measures to offset the
unavoidable losses to wetland and upland habitats associated with
this project. While WRC will need to review and accept such a
Memo
mitigation plan, we
approximately three
Thank you for
project. If we can
us.
RBH/lp
Page 2 October 9, 1991
would recommend a compensation ratio of
to one for such losses.
the opportunity to review and comment on this
provide further assistance, please call on
cc: The Honorable Eugene Price
Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Steve A. Pozzanghera, Piedmont Region Habitat Biologist

M STATj a
"E_7
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor October 7, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
Regional Offices To: Melba McGee
Asheville
704251-6208 From: Alan Clark
Fayetteville Subject: Final EIS - US 264 Bypass of Wilson.
919/486-1541 EHNR # 92-0163
Mooresville Wilson County
704/663-1699
Raleigh The subject document has been reviewed by this
919/733-2314 office. The Division of Environmental Management is
Washington responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
919/946-6481 Quality Certification for activities which may impact
waters of the state including wetlands. The following
Wilmington
919/395-3900
comments are offered in response to the FONSI prepared
for this project.
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007 1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not
impact additional wetland areas due to the disposal
of excavated spoil material, as a source of borrow
material or other construction related activities.
2. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certifica-
tion will be required for this project.
3. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude
the denial of the 401 Certification upon applica-
tion if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
4. The statement that the preferred alternative
affects less valuable wetlands cannot be accepted
unless some type of formal (or even quasiformal)
evaluation method is used. The statement that tim-
bered wetland is less valuable than nontimbered is
too broad and may be inaccurate. Until such an
analysis is done, we are concerned that alternative
A would have more wetland impact that the other
alignments especially along Contentnea Creek.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pays
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
5. Mitigation should be done as much in-kind as
possible. Therefore, there should be separate
mitigation proposals for the pocosin, bottomland
hardwood forest and tidal marsh impacts.
6. Overall, alternatives B or C would have less
environmental impact. We are not convinced that
alternative A adequately minimizes environmental
impact especially to wetlands.
7. We congratulate DOT on its intent to control
access along the preferred alignment. This should
remove the need for yet another future Wilson bypass.
DOT should be encouraged to undertake similar access
limitations along all new bypasses near large to medium
sized cities.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be
directed to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Quality Planning
Branch.
USIFRVAN.927/REF1
cc: Ron Ferrell
a F 7ta
d•?l/ Cv
•UY awn1??
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
September 19, 1991
TO: Melba McGee, Planning & Assessment
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: Final EIS for the US 264 Bypass of Wilson in Wilson County
PROJECT: #92-0163
DUE DATE: 10-4-91
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1. From a forestry stand point, we are disappointed that Corridor A was
selected over Corridor C. Corridor A will impact the greatest woodland
acres. We do however, understand the reasoning for selecting A.
2. We suggest the contractor make all efforts possible to salvage
merchantable trees that have to be cut to permits construction.
3. We suggest the contractor take all precautions necessary to protect trees
outside construction limits from the following types of damages -
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a
practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging
substances over the root systems of trees.
DHR/la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Stanford M. Adams
Director
a f.
?? o
d
v
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: _- I a County:
Project Name: (I -?' 'Q (0!y k°Z2"
U,
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact _
Survey should be contacted
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 (919)
geodetic monument is a vio
?i - d l
i I(?- -l0 3 S=tdL-,,J PEA Pr
F-3g- I
geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
733-3836. Intentional destruction of a
Lation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) ? atb&KSA Mo_p WILL ?
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
CM A- -
Review Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than o e (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document1must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information ontact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
-17-2/
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
o Kz
I
- ? DW
\`?w a O of
N
O (,) w
tX_, O D . to _. 'c .9 ,A •'? ? ? ?.
z LA
- o 1.0 3 N 0- V o
7 m
y
v
0 'Z'
14 ?0"
?^ r v P X r- FAS v
N ti r' , D Do Z ?.
W z O cn
6' co m
.''P w r9? v t ° N
Lp -4
w 7 , `???• r O T
9 -# ti.ho N N C
OD ? m - 1.0 D c
o ? W a o, r y l3 r
? .. W MP, r
7J w
f D C
"' A r <" ?o -'- prJ '1X3 c•,;,-?n
?n D mG7, {'y ... ..1
_ m
1-0 ? r z ?. r N \::. I
I? ` f D o D cn Z
m= m
A?.. X r z` z?? iii :?•::'rn ?? T? t:.: ?:.1?
40 T
10
c? It M, X 1
1} ` Z Z Q-7
cn f X O
-TI m
RAi z
' c ad ?' X '
z c
i
T W ! , D• G
i ? ? r\z) ? G7,C r• ,c
-n i O £
A, W arm
r
o FAS to x
, C)
rums ?ti??. 4? . 5 00
co ?-.3
Un)
.::
o S t , :,• r::,:
N ??o? ? ? w..
X W
sda ?? 8 \
rn :F-
0 P X
N U
A
r
} D
N
Q Q (l.
l ` ? ? IA•
N
tr ?l ?r , ? •

'o? M su>f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor October 7, 1991
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
Regional Offices To: Melba McGee
Asheville
704/251-6208
From: Alan Clark
Fayetteville
919/486-1541 Subject: Final EIS - US 264 Bypass of Wilson.
7
EHNR # 92-0163
Mooresville Wilson County .
704/663-1699
Raleigh The subject document has been reviewed by this
919/733-2314 office. The Division of Environmental .Management is
Washington responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
919/946-6481 Quality Certification for activities which may impact
waters of the state including wetlands. .The following
Wilmington
919/395-3900
comments are offered in response to the FONSI prepared
for this project.
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007 1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not
impact additional wetland areas due to the disposal
of excavated spoil material, as a source of borrow
material or other construction related activities.
2. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certifica-
tion will be required for this project.
3. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude
the denial of the 401 Certification upon applica-
tion if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
4. The statement that the preferred alternative
affects less valuable wetlands cannot be accepted
unless some type of formal (or even quasiformal)
evaluation method is used. The statement that tim-
bered wetland is less valuable than nontimbered is
too broad and may be inaccurate. Until such an
analysis is done, we are concerned that alternative
A would have more wetland impact that the other
alignments especially along Contentnea Creek.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention;Pays
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
5. Mitigation should be done as much in-kind as
possible. Therefore, there should be separate
mitigation proposals for the pocosin, bottomland
hardwood forest and tidal marsh impacts.
6. Overall, alternatives B or C would have less
environmental impact. We are not convinced that
alternative A adequately minimizes environmental
impact especially to wetlands.
7. We congratulate DOT on its intent to control
access along the preferred alignment. This should
remove the need for yet another future Wilson bypass.
DOT should be encouraged to undertake similar access
limitations along all new bypasses near large to medium
sized cities.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be
directed to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Quality Planning
Branch.
USIFRVAN.927/REF1
cc: Ron Ferrell

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Re wc.k+nties
c
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form

? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm d:
3 ?L 9- 1,3- 1 1 /d -WR?e ( -e `-\
c- e-,

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
??`
? Fayetteville ? Air ///?
Coastal Management ? Water Planning

? Mooresville ? Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
? Groundwater *Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land:Ouality=Engineer V,Forest Resources ? Radiation-Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources David Foster

? Wilmington ,Z Coastal Management Consultant - Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
.

? W 00
?
r77777777`
inston-Salem
1

SEA' -17
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: ,

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
D Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(les) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
r{, NNEEPA and SEPA
LJ Other (specify and attach comments)
Cam- -,
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
PS-104
FHWA-NC-EIS-81-03-F
Federal Highway Administration
Region 4

US 264 BYPASS OF WILSON
WILSON COUNTY
Federal-Aid Project F-38-1(54)
State Project No. 8.1340401; R-1023
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(c),
Cooperating Agencies
U. S. Army Corps o Engineers
?
9119
ate o Approval
?--2- ? I
Date of Approval

i.. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?egional Administrator
ederal Highway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for additional information
concerning this document:
Mr. Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Telephone: [phone]
This document presents the need for a thirteen mile US 264 Bypass of
Wilson, N. C. The proposed bypass forms a link between the US 264 freeway
west of Wilson and the US 264 freeway east of Wilson. The project will
provide traffic relief to existing US 264 through Wilson, which is a
non-control of access, highly congested, and commercially developed
roadway. Alternatives are addressed which respond to the social, economic,
and environmental impacts which have been identified in the planning and
public involvement process.
US 264 BYPASS OF WILSON
WILSON COUNTY
Federal-Aid Project F-38-1(54)
State Project No. 8.1340401: R-1023
AL
a
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
August, 1991
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
' Ja ce Jackson
Project Engineer
Lubin V. Prevatt. P. E.
Rural Project Planning Engineer. Unit Head
SE
63i5 i "
i •
V.
SUMMARY
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by
The Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
w This is a Federal Highway Administration Administrative Action. Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
2. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and statement can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh. N. C. 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Federal Highway Administration
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Telephone: [phone]
3. Brief Description of Proposed Action
The proposed action is the construction of a US 264 Bypass of the City
of Wilson, North Carolina. The proposed project is a four-lane freeway
connecting the existing US 264 Freeway west of Wilson to the proposed US
264 Freeway to Greenville east of Wilson (see Figure 4). Corridor A. which
passes to the south of Wiggins Mill Reservoir, has been selected as the
recommended alternative. The length of the proposed improvements is 13.05
miles. The estimated cost for these improvements is $98,300,000 including
$20.600,000 for right of way. The cost estimate in the 1991-1997
Transportation Improvement Plan is $97,750,000. This facility will result
in eliminating a missing link of freeway between Zebulon and Greenville.
4. Action Required by Federal Agencies
Several stream crossings will require Section 404 permits from the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
i
5. Summary of Special Project Commitments
NCDOT proposes that no construction will be conducted in Contentnea
Creek between the dates February 15 and May 15 of any year without prior
approval of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of
Marine Fisheries (See page 14).
The anticipated wetland losses as a result of the project will be
i minimized through the use of best management practices. Wetland Mitigation
is discussed on page 34.
6. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The primary benefits include improvements to accommodate plan growth.
highway transportation. and safety benefits realized due to construction of
a four-lane divided freeway.to replace an inadequate facility.
Adverse impacts will result from taking homes, businesses. farmland.
woodlands, and other natural areas for highway right of way. Temporary
adverse impacts will result from some erosion and siltation and increases
in noise and public inconveniences during construction.
7. Summary of Major Alternatives
Three basic alternative corridors were studied as potential locations
for a US 264 Bypass of Wilson. All are four-lane divided freeways south of
Wilson: one passing to the south of the Hunt High School and Wiggins "fill
Reservoir and two passing to the north. Alternatives also considered were
improving the existing facility, the "no build" alternative. and
alternative modes of transportation.
8. Commenting Agencies
The following agencies were asked to comment on the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement. The agencies that responded are noted by an
asterisk and their comments are included in Appendix G.
*U. S. Department of the Interior
*U. S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
*U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Department of Agriculture
*Federal Aviation Administration
*U. S. Department of Commerce
U. S. Department of Transportation FHWA
U. S. Department of Health, Education. & Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U. S. Coast Guard
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Power Commission
General Services Administration
Interstate Commerce Commission
*Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
*N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
ii
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Region L Council of Governments
*Wilson County Soil Water Conservation District
Wilson County Board of Commissioners
Mayor. City of Wilson

i
9
9. Areas of Controversy
During much of the project study in 1988 and 1989 Wilson city
officials. Wilson county officials. and several local business groups
favored Corridor B (Inner Loop) as it would maintain US 264 traffic closer
to existing businesses. However. in December of 1989 and January. 1990 the
Wilson-City Council and Wilson County-Commissioners passed resolutions in
support of the proposed Corridor A (Outer Loop).
The project also stimulated a lot of public involvement. Approximately
1690 letters and/or petitions were mailed to the Planning and Environmental
Branch regarding the location of the proposed bypass. The majority of
those comments were in favor of constructing Corridor A (Outer Loop).
At this time, several local groups and individuals still support
Corridor B (Inner Loop). However. the NCDOT. local governments. and most
public input are in support of the recommended Corridor A (Outer Loop).
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
at

s
y
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Description of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Historical Resume and Project Status . . . . . 1
3. Description of Studied Improvements . . . . . 2
4. Summary of Recommended Improvements . . . . . 2
a. General Description . . . . . . . ... . . 2
b. Project Length . . . ... . . . . . . . . 2
C. Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
d. Truck Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
e. Proposed Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . 3
f. Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . 3
g. Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
h. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
J. Grade Separations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
k. Railroad Structures . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
M. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
n. Staging of Construction . . . . . . . . . 4
o. Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Need for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Characteristics of Existing Facility . . . . . 5
2. Traffic Data . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • 6
3. Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Benefits to State. Region and Community. . . . 7
7. Terminals of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Improvements to Existing Facility . . . . . . . . . 8
B. New Location Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Corridor A (Recommended) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Corridor B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Corridor C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Comparison of Alternative Corridors and Reasons
for Recommending Corridor A . . . . . . . . . 9
D. No Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E. Postponement of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . 10
F. Mass Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
,,,

s
III.
IV.
V.
s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Topography and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Ecological Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
a. Upland. Timberland . . . . . . . . . . . 13
b. Upland. Mixed Forest . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Upland. Hardwood Forest . . . . . . . . . 13
d. Upland. Pine Plantation . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Potential Impacts to Upland Plant
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Wildlife and Potential Impacts . . . . . . . . 15
5. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Water Quality and Potential Impacts . . . . . 16
C. Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D. Economic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
E. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Educational Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. Religious Institutions and Cemeteries . . . . 19
3. Recreational Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Other Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 20
F. Historic Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
G. Archaeological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 22
A. Scope and Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D. Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
E. Relation of Project and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 24
PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE
ENVI RONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A. Secondary Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B. Primary Impacts . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 25
1. Natural. Ecological and Scenic Impacts . . . . 25
a. Natural and Ecological Impacts . . . . . 25
b. Scenic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . .
a. Federally Protected Species . . . . . . .
b. State Listed Species . . . . . . . . . .
c. Potential Impacts to Protected Species
3. Floodplain Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
w
s
j
a. Wetland Plant Communities . . . . . . . .
1. Wetland, Timbered Land . . . . . . .
2. Wetland. Mixed Forest . . . . . . .
3. Wetland, Bottomland Hardwood . . . .
4. Wetland, Hardwood Forest . . . . . .
5. Wetland, Pine Plantation . . . . . .
6. Wetland, Open Water . . . . . . . .
b. Potential Impacts to Wetland Plant
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . .
d. Wetland Quality . . . . . . . . . . .
e. Only Practical Alternative Finding . . .
f. Wetland Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Social and Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . .
6. Relocation of Individuals and Families . . . .
7. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Religious Institutions . . . . . . . . .
C. Recreational Facilities . . . . . . . . .
d. Public Utilities . . . . . . . . .
8. Prime Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE AVOIDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . .
VIII. STEPS TO MINIMIZE UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PAGE
26
26
27
28
28
30
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
34
36
36
37
37
37
38
39
41
48
49
50
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IX. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
X. LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
XI. * INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
LIST OF FIGURES

1. Vicinity Map
2. Interchange Map
3. US 264 Wilson Bypass Alternative Corridors
4. Intrastate Corridor Map
5. Floodplain Map
6. Traffic Capacity Analysis
7. Existing US 264 Traffic Volumes
7A. Existing US 264 Traffic Volumes with Bypass
7B. US 264 Bypass Traffic Volumes
S. Thoroughfare Plan
9. Vegatative Communities and Wetlands
10. Typical Cross Section
APPENDICES

A. Relocation Report
B. Air and Noise Figures & Tables
C. Local Meeting Memorandums
D. Wilson City and County Officials Input
E. News Releases & Public Meeting Handout
F. News Clippings
G. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Description of Action
1. General Description
The proposed action is the construction of a US 264 Bypass of the
City of Wilson, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The proposed project
is a four-lane freeway connecting the existing US 264 freeway west of
Wilson to the proposed US 264 freeway to Greenville east of Wilson.
The freeway serves to fill in the missing link in the upgrading of US
264 between the coast and the central part of the state. Three
alternative corridor locations were investigated and are shown in
Figure 3. The recommended corridor is Corridor A.
2. Historical Resume and Project Status
The majority of existing US 264 between the project limits
existed before 1920 as a 16-18 foot wide soil road and was paved as a
two-lane roadway during 1924-1927. The section between NC 42 and US
301 was constructed as a 20-foot wide paved roadway between 1938 to
1940. Additional improvements between 1941 to 1969 widened the roadway
with cross-sections varying from a four-lane divided highway to a four
and five-lane curb and gutter roadway.
A bypass to the south of Wilson is included in the Wilson
Thoroughfare Plan prepared in 1969 and updated in 1974 and mutually
adopted by the City of Wilson on February 28, 1974 and by the North
Carolina Board of Transportation on April 4, 1974 (see Figure 8). The
Wilson Thoroughfare Plan is currently in the process of being updated.
The "US 64/264 Eastern Access Roads Corridor Study", completed in
April 1977, included the Wilson bypass as part of the recommended
improvements for the US 264 corridor from I-95 west of Wilson to
Washington, N. C.
In March, 1979, the North Carolina Board of Transportation
authorized planning and environmental studies to establish the
location for a future US 264 Bypass of Wilson.
In May 1981, the Draft EIS was approved by the Federal Highway
Administration and circulated to federal, state, and local agencies
for review.
16 A Corridor Public Hearing was held in Wilson in June, 1982.
Corridors A. B. and C were discussed at the hearing.
A Reevaluation of the DEIS was prepared by NCDOT and approved by
the Federal Highway Administration in February, 1988.
2
On October 11. 1988 representatives from the City of Wilson and
Wilson County introduced another concept (Phases 1 & 2) not discussed
in the DEIS. This alternative which included parts of Corridors B and
C was studied and presented at the public meeting March 15. 1989 in
Wilson.
On March 15. 1989 a Public Meeting was held at which all studied
Alternatives (A. B. C. and Phasing) were presented.
I"
On May 22. 1989 a meeting was held in Wilson to discuss planning
studies with the staffs of the City of Wilson and Wilson County. The
Wilson City Council and the Wilson County Commissioners were also
notified of the meeting.
In December. 1990 the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement Program
was approved. This project was carried over from the 1990-1996
Transportation Improvement Program. Right of way acquisition and
construction are scheduled for fiscal years 1993 and 1995 respectively.
This project is also included on the North Carolina Intrastate System.
3. Description of Studied Improvements
Three basic alternative corridors are covered in this study as
feasible locations for a US 264 bypass of Wilson. All alternatives pass
to the south of Wilson (see Figure 3) and begin at the existing US 264
freeway west of Wilson near US 264A and terminate east of Wilson where
the proposed US 264 freeway to Greenville intersects with NC 58. Each
of the studied alternatives were approximately 13.1 miles in length.
All are four-lane divided freeways on new location.
4. Summary of Recommended Improvements
a. General Description
I
The recommended alternative is Corridor A. Corridor A leaves
existing US 264 freeway near SR 1001. crosses I-95, crosses NC 42,
passes to the south of the Wiggins Mill Reservoir, crosses US 301
and US 117. and ties into the proposed Wilson to Greenville
freeway at NC 58.
b. Project Length
The project length is 13.05 miles.

C. Traffic Volumes
Estimates of the anticipated traffic volumes for the proposed
project have been made for the years 1990 and 2010. The average
daily traffic on the bypass is expected to range from 8,000 to
10.800 vehicles per day in 1990 and from 14.500 to 19.300 vehicles
per day in 2010. The projected turning movements at intersecting
roads are shown in Figure 7B.
3
r
C
d. Truck Data
1990 2010
Tractor-Truck. Semi-Trailer 712 vpd 1288 vpd
Dual Tired Trucks 534 vpd 966 vpd
e. Proposed Design Speed
The proposed design speed for the project is 70 MPH. The
proposed design speed reflects the geometric design of the roadway
and provides for a margin of safety for vehicle operation. It
should not be confused with the posted speed limit which is
anticipated to be 55 MPH along the proposed section of US 264.
f. Cross Section Description
The proposed cross section is two 24 foot pavements separated
by a 60-foot median. Twelve foot wide shoulders (2 feet paved)
are to be provided (See Figure 10).
g. Right of Way
Adequate right
cross section. The
intersecting roads.
construction limits
practical to minimL
h. Access Control
of way is proposed to contain the recommended
right of way width. excluding treatment at
generally is estimated to be 300 feet. Actual
and right of way will be reduced as much as
se environmental impacts.
Full control of access is recommended. Access to-the new
roadway will be allowed only at designated interchanges. Full
control of access will also be required on all crossroads and
ramps within interchange areas.
i. Interchanges
Interchanges will be provided at the following crossroads:

Existing US 264 west of Wilson
I-95
NC 42
SR 1163 (Downing Street)
US 301
SR 1606 (Old Black Creek Road)
NC 58
4

}
Grade-separations will be provided at the following
crossroads crossed by the proposed project:
j.y Grade Separations
SR 1136 Old Raleigh Road
SR 1162 Hornes Bridge Road
SR 1103 Old Smithfield Road
SR 1602 Old Stantonsburg Road
k. Railroad Structures
Four crossings over railroads will be required. Dual bridges
will be provided at each crossing. The clear roadway width of
each is to be 38' and.the estimated lengths are as follows:
Length
Carolina & Northwestern
CSX
CSX
CSX
1. Level of Service
180'
210'
210'
180'
For the purpose of capacity analysis, the US 264 Bypass was
divided into segments between the major interchanges. The analyses
were conducted along the proposed US 264 Bypass in accordance with
the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual for 1990 and 2010 estimated
ADT's. The cross-section that will be used is a four-lane median
divided facility with 12-foot shoulders. Figure 6 gives a summary
of findings of the capacity analysis performed for these segments
of the proposed roadway. The overall level-of-service'on the
bypass will range from A to B.
M. Cost Estimates
Construction $77,700,000
Right of Way $20,600,000

TOTAL $98,300,000
n. Staging of Construction
No staging of construction is proposed. The entire thirteen
mile project is anticipated to be constructed at the same time.
If funding or coordination with other projects becomes a problem,
stage construction could be considered.
s
o. Permits Required
The Wilmington District. Corps of Engineers, has reviewed the
proposed action and has indicated that permits will be required in
compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 as
amended. A Department of the Army permit will be required due to
placement of fill in wetlands. Permits will be required at both
crossings of Contentnea Creek, Hominy Swamp, and a tributary of
r Contentnea Creek.
A permit pre-application meeting was held on September 28.
1982 concerning this project. Shifting Corridors B and C were
discussed. However, shifting the Corridors would have a greater
impact on the wetlands of Wiggins Mill Reservoir. It was decided
that they should not be shifted.
B. Need for the Project
The State of North Carolina is in the process of upgrading US 264 from
its origin in Zebulon to Greenville as a freeway facility. The portion of
US 264 from Zebulon to the western terminal of this project was upgraded to
a freeway in 1978-1979. The section of US 264 from the eastern terminal to
the Greene County line has been upgraded to a freeway with full control of
access. The remaining section of US 264 to Greenville is scheduled for
construction (See Figure 4). Therefore, the construction of a freeway
facility to bypass Wilson conforms with the overall objectives of improving
the US 264 corridor to a freeway.
1. Characteristics of Existing Facilitv
US 264 through Wilson is a segment of a major east-west route
providing the major highway connection between Raleigh, Interstate 95.
Wilson. Greenville. and Washington. US 264 is classified as a principal
arterial in North Carolina's statewide arterial highway system. US
264 is also part of the North Carolina Intrastate Highway System.
Through the urban area of Wilson, a large portion of the existing
roadway has heavy roadside commercial and industrial development.
Traffic desiring to bypass the urbanized area of Wilson is subjected to
delays from posted speeds, traffic signals, and general urban
congestion. This results in an overall low level of traffic service
both for through traffic and local traffic.
The studied segment of US 264 to be bypassed is approximately 13.6
miles in length. The existing roadway varies from a four-lane divided
highway with shoulders to a four and five-lane curb and gutter roadway.
6

2. Traffic Data
The 1990 annual average daily traffic volumes on existing US 264
range from 13.300 vehicles per day west of I-95 to a high of 30,800
along US 264-301 near SR 1670 and down to 8900 east of NC 58. It is
estimated that design year traffic (2010) for existing US 264, if the
bypass is not built, will range from 23,000 vehicles per day to a high
of 49.400 and down to 16,100 east of NC 58. The estimated 1990 and
2010 average daily traffic volumes and turning movements for the
existing facility without a bypass are shown in Figure 7A.
3. Level of Service
Traffic on the existing facility ranges from 14.200 vehicles per
day to 30.800 vehicles per day. With these traffic volumes, level of
service ranges from a level of service B (near I-95) to level of
service E-F at major intersection along Ward Boulevard and US 301. By
2010, traffic is projected to increase to range from 24.500 vehicles
per day to 49,400 vehicles per day. If-a bypass is not built. the
level of service on existing US 264 will decline to level F along
almost the entire studied section.
4. Thoroughfare Plan
The thoroughfare plan for Wilson has been mutually adopted by the
municipality (February 28, 1974) and by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (April 4. 1974). The thoroughfare plan is currently
in the process of being updated.
A bypass to the south of Wilson is included in the plan (See
Figure 8). All three alternatives are considered to be compatible with
the conceptual location in the adopted thoroughfare plan. However.
Corridor A more nearly follows the location shown on the Thoroughfare
Plan, and is the location favored by the NCDOT Statewide Planning
Group.
5. Accident Analysis
The NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch prepared a traffic accident
analysis of the subject roadway. The study covers the period from
January 1. 1985 to June 30. 1989.
The following is a summary of the accident analysis:

Statewide
US 264 Urban Route
Total Accidents 1110 N/A
Fatal Accidents 11 N/A
Non-Fatal Injury Accidents 468 N/A
Total Accident Rate 288.11 142.0
Fatal Accident Rate 2.88 0.9
Non-Fatal Injury Accident Rate 121.55 55.2
(Acc/ 100` V.M)
7

The accident analysis shows that the studied segments of US 264 have
total accident. fatal accident. and non-fatal accident rates above the
statewide averages for similar US highway routes located in North
Carolina.
Further review of the accident data reveals that "rear-ends" and
"left and right turning vehicles". constitute the highest percentage
of the total amount of accidents occurring along this segment of US
264. The proposed improvements should help to reduce the number of
these types of accidents.
6. Benefits to State. Region and Community
The proposed project will result in significant benefits for the
state. region, and local community. The benefits will be primarily
economic in nature and consist of direct road-user cost savings due.to
more efficient vehicle operation and reduced travel-times and
distances. The removal of through traffic from the existing facility
should provide benefits to local residents in terms of better and
safer operating conditions on existing roadways as well as improved
access to shopping and other activities in the area.
7. Terminals of the Project
The western terminal of the proposed project is the US 264
freeway west of Wilson near SR 1001. The existing cross section
consists of two 24-foot pavements with 12-foot useable shoulders (4•
paved) and a 24-foot median. US 264 continues west as a-freeway to its
terminal with US 64.
The eastern terminal is at NC 58 and consists of two 24-foot
pavements with 12-foot useable shoulders (41 paved) separated by a
46-foot median from Wilson to the Greene County line and the remaining
section of US 264 to Greenville is scheduled for construction (See
Figure 4).

a
II. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Improvements to Existing Facility
The NCDOT concluded that widening the existing facility through Wilson
would result in an unacceptable level of disruption on the local community
due to the number of displaced families and businesses, when compared to
_ the option of constructing a US 264 bypass on new location. Also control
of access needed to provide for a freeway could not be provided at
reasonable cost along the existing corridor.
B. New Location Alternatives

In order to determine the best method of improving the US 264 facility
in the Wilson area. preliminary studies were conducted in the project area
to investigate the impacts of several alternatives. The studies reviewed
the utility. capacity, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the various
alternatives in relation to disruption on the local community, the
relocation of families and businesses, and the effects on the natural
environment.
The result of these studies was a determination that relocating the
existing road utilizing Corridor A offered the most feasible recom-
mendation. Three alternative corridors as shown on Figure 3 were studied.
A discussion of these alternatives follows:
1. Corridor A (Recommended)
Corridor A leaves existing US 264 in the vicinity of US 264-A
west of I-95. It crosses I-95 between SR 1001 and SR 1136, continues
south of the Hunt High School and the Wiggins Mill Reservoir, crosses
US 301-US 117, and ends at NC 58. The total length of Corridor A is
13.05 miles
It is noted that the proposed US 264 Bypass will sever existing
SR 1100 and US 117. As a result SR 1100 and US 117 will be connected
to US 301 on new location approximately 0.4 mile south of the
US 264-US 301 interchange.
As a result of the US 117 study (Project R-1030) full control of
access along US 301 immediately south of the US 264 Bypass may be
recommended. If full control of access is recommended along US 301,
other alternatives for providing access to SR 1100 and existing US 117
will be considered.
2. Corridor B
Corridor B leaves existing US 264 and crosses I-95 in the same
location as Corridor A. It then crosses SR 1001 north of the Hunt
High School, crosses NC 42, passes to the north of the Wiggins Mill
Reservoir, crosses US 301-US 117, and ends at NC 58. The total length
of Corridor B is 13.08 miles.
9
Alignment B2-C2 between NC 42 and US 301 as shown on Figure 3 was
chosen over alignment"B1-C1 for detailed project study as it will be
less expensive and cause less disruption of existing and planned
development.
3. Corridor C
As with Corridors A and B, Corridor C begins at the intersection
of US 264. west of I-95. Corridor C follows existing US 264 to SR
1158. then turns south and connects with Corridor B near NC 42, and
then follows the same location as Corridor B. The portion of existing
US 264 between the US 264 freeway west of Wilson to SR 1158. currently
R with no control of access. would be converted into a freeway with full
control of access. The total length of Corridor C is 13.14 miles.
In addition to the above mentioned alternatives a Phasing
Concept was introduced by the representatives from the town of Wilson
and Wilson County. This alternative included parts of Corridors B and
C. This concept was studied and presented at the March 15, 1989
Public Meeting and later dropped from further study.

C. Comvarison of Alternative Corridors and Reasons for Recommendin
Corridor A
In the process of this study, three basic alternative corridors were
investigated in detail. All three alternatives pass to the south of
Wilson. Each consists of a four-lane divided freeway with access at
interchanges only.
All corridors may cause an acceleration in the change from agri-
cultural land use to industrial, commercial, and residential development
which is currently underway in Wilson. This change is taking place in the
vicinity of Corridors B and C and is expected to spread to the area around
Corridor A. However, the facility will accommodate planned growth in the
area.
All three corridors cross the floodplains of Contentnea Creek-Hominy
Swamp. and have similar impacts on wetlands. It is noted that Corridor A
impacts the most acres of wetland; however, the wetlands and habitat
impacted along Corridors B and C are considered to be of higher quality.
Corridor A was selected as the recommended corridor for the following
reasons:
1. Because Corridor A is further south of Wilson than the other
Corridors, it allows the city more room for expansion. Con-
siderable development is currently taking place in the vicinity
of Corridors B and C. If the freeway was located north of the
Wiggins Mill Reservoir, it would serve as an artificial barrier
for development to the south. Corridor A will allow Wilson to
develop further south while still providing easy access to the
Bypass.
10
2. While all corridors are compatible with the adopted thoroughfare
plan. Corridor A more closely follows the alignment shown for a
bypass of Wilson (see Figure 8). The thoroughfare plan was
developed based on all roads in the plan being constructed in the
approximate location designated. Corridor B would superimpose a
bypass on top of the existing corridors of NC 42, Forest Hill
Road, and other major routes. This would make a less desirable
transportation network than Corridor A and would not serve as
large a total area for the given number of miles of roadway
facilities. Also the construction of a Bypass in Corridor B
would require several grade separations and embankments along
Forest Hills Road and Downing Street. These embankments would
t impair driver visibility and would not be particularly pleasing
from an aesthetics standpoint. Also these embankments and grade
separations would bring traffic and its associated noise into an
already developed area but would not allow this traffic to
directly access the impacted area.
3. Corridor A causes less disruption to the local area. It
relocates fewer residences and businesses than either of the
other corridors.
D. No Build Alternative
Existing and future traffic desires cannot be accommodated on the
existing facility. The congestion and capacity problems on the existing
roadway will only worsen unless major improvements are made in the study
area.
Traffic on the existing facility ranges from 14,200 vehicles per day
to 30,800 vehicles per day. With these traffic volumes, level of service
ranges from a level of service B (near I-95) to level of service E-F at
major intersections along Ward Boulevard and US 301. By 2010, traffic is
projected to increase to range from 24,500 vehicles per day to 49,400
vehicles per day. If a bypass is not built, the level of service on
existing US 264 will decline to level of service F along almost the entire
studied section.
The "no build" alternative would avoid some of the adverse impacts of
the proposed project such as the relocation of families and businesses, use
of additional land for highway purposes, loss of prime farmland and
wildlife habitat, erosion and siltation, and noise pollution. The positive
benefits of the project such as reductions in congestion. accidents,
delays, operating costs, and fuel consumption would not be realized. The
long term benefits of the new facility will more than compensate for the
unavoidable adverse impacts.
E. Postponement of the Proposed Action
Postponing the implementation of the proposed improvements is not
considered a prudent course of action. The existing facility is operating
at an undesirable level of service. Postponement of the subject project
would only result in further deterioration of the traffic service and
increased right of way cost.
11
F. Mass Transit
The use of mass transit as an alternative to the proposed improvements
was considered during the development of the project but eliminated due to
the characteristics of the project area. The majority of those using the
bypass will be through traffic. These vehicles would have highly scattered
and long distance origins and/or destinations. In order for mass
transportation to be a viable and competitive mode of transportation.
demand for transportation must be located in a densely populated corridor
with concentrations of origins and destinations. Therefore. mass transit is
not a viable alternative to the proposed action.
12
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Topography and Geology
The geology and physiography of the area are varied. The western part
of the county lies in the Piedmont province and the eastern portion in the
Coastal Plain province. The boundary between the two is not pronounced but
is thought to be in the area of US 301. Topography of the land to the east
• is more flat and corresponds closely to the floodplains of Contentnea Creek
and Hominy Swamp.
Nearly all of Wilson County and all of the area considered in the
report is drained by Contentnea Creek and its tributaries. The main
tributaries included in the area of study are Mill Branch, Sheppards
Branch. Bloomery Swamp, and Hominy Swamp. These flow in a generally
southerly to southeasterly direction. Drainage in the western portions is
better and the floodplains are narrower and drain better than the broad,
flat floodplains to the east that are often swampy.
Soil deposits in the area are generally less than 30 feet thick and
consist of sand, silt, or clay, but mostly clay. Corridors A and B cross
areas of Toisnot sandy loam soil between US 264A and I-95. Quartz pebbles
and gravel are also located in the area. Soft, weathered rock was
encountered at a depth of only three feet in some locations in the western
end of the area involved in this report. Weathered rock was also
encountered beneath 10-feet of sediments in the low floodplain of Con-
tentnea Creek. Rock is very evident in the creek below the Wiggins Mill
Reservoir with many large, rounded boulders exposed.
B. Ecological Setting
1. General Description
The majority of land in the project area is flat to gently
rolling and is fairly well drained. The sandy loam soils are quite
suitable for tobacco and corn cultivation and a large portion of the
project crosses cleared farmland. Deciduous hardwoods, mixed pine
hardwoods, and successional fields are the most conspicuous natural
associations in the area. Seasonally flooded bottomlands occur in
low-lying areas.
The climate in Wilson County is typical of other counties in the
Coastal Plain. Generally the winters are short and comparatively
mild. Temperatures range around the freezing point. Rainfall is
plentiful, averaging 48 inches annually. The project area is subject
to occasional effects of hurricanes, but most of these storms skirt
the coastline, remaining some distance offshore.
2. Plant Communities
Plant communities fall into two broad categories, uplands and
wetlands, based upon jurisdictional differences. Upland plant
communities within the study area are quite diverse floristically,
thus a complete description of each would be lengthy. The following
13
descriptions include only the dominant species in each vegetative
strata. The four upland communities found within the study area
are described below:
a. Upland. Timbered Land
The upland, timbered land community type found within the
study area has been heavily disturbed by the removal of the
canopy species that were originally present on the site. These
areas are densely vegetated with saplings of these plants and
numerous weedy invaders.
Dominant plant species found in this community type include
saplings and seedlings of sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
red maple Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
and loblolly pine Pinus taeda), and weedy invaders such as dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). poke weed (Phytolacca
americana). blackberry Rubus sue). goldenrod (Solidago sp.).
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), broomstraw (Andropogon virginicus), and
greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia).
b. Upland, Mixed Forest
The upland, mixed forest community type found within the
study area is dominated by such canopy species as sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), white oak ( uercus alba), southern red oak (Q..
falcata). post oak (Q stellata), willow oak (Q.. phellos), and
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa).
Dominant mid-story and shrub species include saplings of the
canopy species, and sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), American
holly (Ilex opaca), beauty berry (Callicarpa americana), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida).
The ground cover in this mixed forest is relatively sparse
and is dominated by seedlings of the canopy species, and
partridge berry (yitchella repens), grape vine (Vitis
rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
C. Upland. Hardwood Forest
The upland. hardwood forest community type found in the
study area is similar to the mixed forest, but it lacks pines in
the canopy. Dominant canopy species include sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Acer rub rum). white oak ( uercus alba),
willow oak ((2., phellos), black oak (Q.. velutina), and mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa).
14
The mid-story and shrub layer are dominated by saplings of
the canopy species, and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida),
sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum). American holly (Ilex opaca),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). red mulberry (Morus rubra),
privet (Ligustrum sinense). wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and
beauty berry (Callicarpa americans).
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grape vine (Vitas
' rotundifolia), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and seedlings of the canopy species dominate the
ground cover.
d. Upland. Pine Plantation
The upland, pine plantation found within the study area is
the least diverse floristically of the upland plant communities.
The canopy is dominated by loblolly pine (Pins taeda) and is
heavily encroached by a thick mid-story of sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), American holly (Ilex
opaca), and beauty berry (Callicarpa americana).
The ground cover is primarily pine mulch with occasional
herbaceous species such as partridge berry (Mitchella repens),
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and seedlings of the mid-story
hardwoods.
3. Potential Impacts To Upland Plant Communities
Direct impacts to upland plant communities in the form of habitat
removal will occur within the construction limits of the project.
These impacts to each community type are summarized for each corridor
in table 1. It should be noted that all acreages are approximate and
subject to change when the project limits are staked in the field.
Table 1: Summary of impacts to upland plant communities
CORRIDOR
CO`M'N, ITY TYPE A B C
Upland, TL 22.1 Ac 20.7 Ac 9.4 Ac
Upland, MF 11.8 Ac 20.5 Ac 11.1 Ac
Upland, HF 6.6 Ac 19.0 Ac 14.9 Ac
Upland, PP 7.7 Ac 7.7 Ac 3.3 Ac
Totals 48.2 Ac 68.9 Ac 38.7 Ac
TL=Timbered Land. MF=Mixed Forest. HF=Hardwood Forest
PP=Pine Plantation. All Values are in acres.
15
4. Wildlife and Potential Impacts
The various community types found within the study area support a'
myriad of vertebrate animal species. Mammals that were identified
during the field investigations (either through direct observation or
sign) include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray
squirrel (Sciurus caroliniensis). beaver (Castor canadensis). and
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Other common mammals that
may be found within the study area include racoon (Procyon lotor).
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and numerous species of small
rodents. Complete listings of mammals that may be found in this
region are reported in Webster et al., 1985.

Bird species that were identified during the field investigations
include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American woodcock
(Philohela minor), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens). blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), common crow
(Corvus brachvrhynchos), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American
robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), European
starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Complete listings of birds that may be found in this region are
reported in Potter et al., 1980.
Reptiles and amphibians that were identified during the field
investigations include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), slimy salamander (Plethodon.
glutinosus). water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivouous), and copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrine). Complete listings of reptiles and
amphibians that may be found in this region are reported in Martof et
al.. 1980.
No attempt to identify fish species was made during the field
investigations. Contentnea creek is known to support river herring
(Alosa aestivalis) and hickory shad (Alosa mediocris). These
anadromous fish make their annual runs during the late winter-spring
seasons. Other small streams and ponds may support a wide diversity
of aquatic species. Complete listings of fish that may be found in
this region are found in Menhenick. 1975.
Direct impacts to vertebrate fauna will result from the removal
of habitat associated with project construction. Organisms utilizing
this habitat will be displaced into new areas, increasing the
likelihood of inter- and intraspecific competition for resources.
The greatest impact is likely to occur to aquatic species that
may suffer from increased loads of sediments during construction
and/or new pollutants from highway runoff. Sessile organisms will be
the most heavily impacted of aquatic species.
In order to protect a critical life cycle stage of anadromous
fish. no construction should be performed in Contentnea Creek during-
the interim of February 15 to May 15 of any year. This 90 day window
should adequately protect the fishery without placing unreasonable
constraints on construction activities.
16

Numerous fish, reptiles, amphibians. birds and mammals, including
some species with specific aquatic or terrestrial- aquatic adaptations
may be expected to frequent wetlands and streams near project impacts.
5. Soils
Soils are an important feature in any area as their makeup often
dictates what types of vegetation may occur there. Of particular
interest are hydric soils, as they may pose limitations to
construction and are an indicator of jurisdictional wetlands. The
following hydric soils series (as classified by the US Soil
Conservation Service) are found within the study area: Bibb, Grantham.
Rains. Roanoke. Toisnot, Tomotley, and Wehadkee.
6. Water Quality and Potential Impacts
The study area falls within the Neuse River Basin and is drained
primarily by Contentnea Creek and its tributaries. Major surface
waters crossed by the project alignments are shown with their water
quality classifications in Table 2. Water quality classifications are
those assigned by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources and reflect "best usage" of these
waters. Water quality standards applicable to these classifications
are set forth in 15 NCAC 2B .0200, Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina.
Table'2: Major Surface Waters Crossed by Project Alignments
Surface Water Location Classification
Bloomery Swamp From source to WS-III. NSW
Contentnea Creek
Contentnea Creek From source to WS-III. NSW
dam at Wiggins
Mill Resevoir
Contentnea Creek From dam at C, Sw, NSW
Wiggins Mill to
Neuse River
Hominy Swamp From Source to C. Sw. NSW
• Contentnea Creek
Sheppards Branch From source to WS-III. NSW
Contentnea Creek
17
WS-III: Water supply segment with no categorical restrictions on
watershed development or discharges; Suitable for all Class C
uses.
C: Aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
secondary recreation.
NSW: Nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient
` inputs.
Sw: Swamp waters which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams.

In addition to the waters listed in Table 2. another tributary to
Contentnea Creek. Mill Branch. and the Wiggins Mill Resevoir, are located
in near proximity to the proposed alignments. The water quality
classifications for these waters are as follows: Mill Branch, WS-III, NSW;
Wiggins Mill Resevoir, WS-III, NSW.
Numerous unnamed perennial and intermittent tributaries to Contentnea
Creek are found along the alignment corridors, usually in association with
bottomland hardwood wetlands described in section 3,'page 33.
Potential impacts to water resources include increased sedimentation
loads and new pollutant inputs from highway runoff. With any new road
there is also an increased possibility of toxic spills. Table 3 shows the
number of crossings of major drainages for each alignment.
Table 3: Major Drainage Crossings for Each Alignment
Number of Crossings
Corridor A B C
Bloomery Swamp 0 1 1
Contentnea Creek 2 0 0
Hominy Swamp 1 1 1
Shepards Branch 2 0 0
C. Population Characteristics
The proposed project is located in a predominately rural setting. Due
to the proximity of the urban center of Wilson to the proposed project
site, some urban influences can be seen. The proposed project traverses
woodlands, open fields, and farmlands. At various locations, it passes in
proximity to populated areas such as rural residential developments and
rural commercial centers.
Based on 1980 Census data, Wilson County had a population of 63,132.
The largest urban area in the county is the City of Wilson, which had a
total population in 1980 of 34,424. This is over half of the total
18
population for the county. Recently the North Carolina Office of State
Budget and Management and Information Services completed what is commonly
referred to as North Carolina population projections: 1988-2010. Listed
below are population projections for Wilson County:
Year
1988
' 1990
1995
2000
2010
Estimated Population Projections
65,604
66,128
67,339
68,296
69.038
In the general area of the proposed bypass, the population is
approximately 22 percent black compared with an overall black population of
36 percent in Wilson County.
The elderly make up 8.2 percent of the population in the vicinity_of
the proposed corridors and approximately 7.6 percent of the households
contain six or more persons. Approximately two thirds of the residences
are occupied by their owners.
D. Economic Characteristics
In September. 1989, Wilson County had a labor force of 33.720. Of
this labor force. 32.210 were employed; and 1.510 were unemployed. making
the unemployment rate 4.5 percent. It can be surmised that improved
transportation facilities would make the area more attractive for in-
dustrial sites, thereby improving the employment situation.
Agriculture still plays an important role in the economic well being
of some Wilson County families. Care will be taken during the design phase
to minimize the amount of farmland acquired by the proposed project needed
for right of way.
E. Public Facilities
There are numerous public facilities located in the project study
area; however, only those in the immediate vicinity of the studied
corridors are identified in this report.
1. Educational Facilities
Four schools are located near the studied corridors. These are
the James B. Hunt, Jr. High School, the Greenfield Academy, the
Beddingfield High School, and the Wilson Christian School.
James B. Hunt, Jr. High School is located approximately 0.15 mile
southwest of the intersection of SR 1001 and SR 1136. The Greenfield
Academy is located on NC 42 approximately 1.0 mile west of it's
intersection with Forest Hills Road (SR 1165). The Wilson Christian
School is located on SR 1158 just north (0.03 miles) of it's
intersection with SR 1157. Beddingfield Academy is located on SR 1602
19
approximately 1.6 miles south of where SR 1602 intersects the Norfolk
Southern Railroad. ,
Corridor A passes 0.35 mile Southwest of the James B. Hunt, Jr.
High School. 1.3 miles southwest of the Greenfield Academy, 1.6 miles
west of the Wilson Christian School, and 0.45 mile north of the
Beddingfield Academy.
Corridor B passes 0.30 mile to the north of the James B. Hunt.
Jr. High School, 0.36 mile northwest of the Greenfield Academy. 0.5
mile south of the Wilson Christian School, and 0.45 mile north of the
Beddingfield Academy.
Corridor C passes 1.9 miles northeast of the James B. Hunt, Jr.
High School, 0.36 mile northeast of the Greenfield Academy. 0.58 mile
east of the Wilson Christian School, and 0.45 mile.north of the
Beddingfield Academy.
2. Religious Institutions and Cemeteries
There are several churches in the vicinity of the studied
corridors. The Jones Hill Church would experience noise levels above
FHWA design noise levels if Corridor A is constructed and the West
Wilson Church of God would experience noise levels above FHWA
standards if Corridors B or C are constructed.
If Corridor C is selected. the Milburnie Freewill Baptist Church
and the Trinity Baptist Church.-both located along existing US 264,
would be relocated.
There are numerous small unmarked family cemeteries throughout
the project area. One, located on NCDOT right of way at the western
terminal of the project, will be relocated by Alternatives A and B at
the interchange with existing US 264.
Possible impacts to any other small family cemetery by either
corridor cannot be determined until the final design phase of the
project. If a cemetery is impacted by any corridor it shall be
relocated in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 65-13.
3. Recreational Facilities
The Wilson Fairgrounds is located on US 301 just north of the
proposed interchange on Corridors B and C. The fairgrounds are owned
and operated by the American Legion and leased approximately twice a
month for various meetings and gatherings. The proposed project will
improve access to the Fairgrounds. No effects to the operation of the
fairgrounds should result from this project.
Two golf courses are located in the project area. Willow Springs
Country Club. a privately owned golf course, is located just north of
the interchange of Corridor A with US 301. The Wedgewood Golf Course,
owned jointly by Wilson County and the City of Wilson. is located on
SR 1602 approximately one mile north of all three Corridors. The
proposed project should improve local access to both of these courses.
20
The project is not anticipated to result in any effect to either golf
course.
The Moose Lodge, including a family recreation area, is located
on SR 1183 just north-of its intersection with SR 1165. This facility
includes a softball field, swimming pool, and picnic areas. Corridors
B and C pass just to the south of this facility.
' 4. Other Public Facilities
The filtration plant for Wilson's municipal water supply is
located on SR 1165 near SR 1166 at the Wiggins Mill Reservoir. It is
• located approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Corridors B and C and 1.0
mile upstream of Corridor A. Current stringent erosion and siltation
control measures will be employed in this area to minimize siltation
into the water supply. A waste treatment plant is located off SR 1602
approximately 2.3 miles north of all Corridors. The proposed project
will not have any effect on the operation of this facility.
F. Historic Sites
The survey to identify potentially significant structures included
field investigations, literature searches, consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer. correspondence with the principal in-
vestigator responsible for surveying Wilson, and a request for information
to the Wilson County Historical and Genealogical Society.
The comprehensive field investigation, which included a site visit to
every structure of architectural interest, literature searches, and
correspondence with the principal investigator of the Wilson County
Historical and Genealogical Society. failed to identify any property in the
project impact area listed in or eligible for the National Register.
One building, the Hinnant House, was identified by the State Historic
Preservation officer for consideration during the planning of this project.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred that the Hinnant
House is outside the area of potential environmental impact. Therefore.
the project will have no effect on the property.
• G. Archaeological
An archaeological survey of the alternatives was completed in August
1980. In that study, thirteen previously unrecorded sites were found and
recorded. Two of these sites were recommended for additional testing to
determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR
Part 63). The remaining eleven sites were found to be not eligible for the
National Register. based upon observable surface disturbance and alteration
of the natural and cultural deposits. Additional intensive survey and
testing of the selected alignment was also recommended in the 1980 report.
In 1983, the recommended survey and evaluative testing was completed.
Five additional archaeological sites were recorded along Corridor A. but
none of those sites were found significant. The testing of site 31 WL 45,
21
found during the 1980 survey (field site number 11). concluded that site
was not eligible for the National Register and required no further action.
Testing at site 31 WL 37 (site 1 and 2 in the 1980 report) confirmed that
site was eligible for the National Register under Criterion "D" (36
CFR60.6), in that it is likely to yield information important to the study
of prehistory in the Upper Coastal Plain Region of North Carolina. The
significance of the site lies in the data that can be retrieved through
appropriate archaeological data recovery excavations and analysis.
Those findings were reported to the State Historic Preservation Office
in March 1983. The SHPO concurred with the report findings and with the
determination by FHWA that, since preservation in place is not appropriate
• for this site (31WL37), Section 4 (f) of the Department of Transportation
Act does not apply to the site. The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation was consulted and agreed with FHWA's finding of "No Adverse
Effect" conditional upon the excavation of site 31 wL 37 under detailed
data recovery research design. The SHPO and the Advisory Council will
review the data recovery plan prior to its implementation.
An archaeological report summary and copies of correspondence
detailing the coordination with the North Carolina SHPO and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation can be found in the Planning and Environ-
mental Branch library.
A supplemental archaeological survey was conducted on proposed
improvements to US 117 from US 301 to US 70. One site was recorded in that
survey (31WL126) in the vicinity of the proposed connector. The small
amount of cultural material present at the site. and the obvious
disturbance of the site area, indicate that it is highly unlikely that
significant archaeological deposits are present. The site has little
potential for contributing to future archaeological research, and is not
considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO
reviewed the supplemental survey report and has concurred with the
findings.
a
22
IV. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Scope and Status of Planning
Three corridors for the proposed Wilson Bypass have been evaluated by
NCDOT. Wilson County and City of Wilson officials. As the local officials
have endorsed corridor "A". NCDOT's recommended alternative. this report
will be limited to the land uses and planning within its vicinity.
The corridor "A" alternative lies within the jurisdictions of Wilson
County and the City of Wilson. Wilson County has adopted the Wilson County
Land Development Plan: 1985-1995. The County has a zoning ordinance in
effect. though only portions of the county are zoned.
The City of Wilson has contracted with Edward Stone and Associates of
Wilmington to update its 1977 Land Development Plan. The update is now
underway, and has not yet been adopted by Town officials.
The Region "L" Council of Governments has published the Regional Land
Use Plan: 1977-2000. It has not been updated since its publication.
B. Existing Land Use
Most of the land within the proposed corridor and its vicinity is
comprised of woodlands and agricultural uses. Small clusters of single
family homes are located within the vicinity of the corridor, along SR 1156
and SR 1103 southwest of Wilson.
Two industrial areas are located along SR 1606 and SR 1602, near the
City of Wilson municipal limits. Many of the industries located in the
area are agriculture-based. Some single family housing is located in this
-area as well.
Small retail stores and other businesses are located on US 301, at its
intersection with SR 1103. Several single family homes are located in this
area, and a reservoir is located in the intersections northwest quadrant.
C. Existing Zoning
Most of the land around the proposed bypass corridor remains unzoned.
Those zoning districts established by the County, and intersected by the
proposed alignment are listed below:
= Agriculture-Residential (A-R) - land south of SR 1302 to the Norfolk
Southern Railroad; the area between SR 1136 and NC 42 and a small area east
of Hominy Swamp to SR 1602, This district is created to retain the open
characteristics of the land. Lots measuring less than one acre in size are
prohibited. The minimum lot size is more stringent than that described in
the County's land use plan.
Residential (R-20) - the only zoning district with this classification
near the proposed corridor is located on SR 1602, near the Norfolk Southern
Railroad crossing. This district is designed to encourage medium density,
single family residential development, with a minimum lot size of 20,000
square feet.
23
Light Industrial (M-1) - this area is located
portion of the county. facing the Norfolk Southern
1602. The district is adjacent to the proposed co
established for uses such as offices, warehousing,
industry which do not detract from the development
tracts.
in the southeastern
Railroad and split by SR
rridor. This district is
and other types of light
potential of nearby
The only zoning districts crossed by Alignment "B" are zoned Agri-
culture-Residential. These districts are located in the vicinity of Hominy
Swamp and SR 1602, and near NC 42, SR 1001. and SR 1158.
Alignment "C" crosses the same zoning districts as Alignment "B". as
• well as a Highway Business District (B-1) in Lamm, at the intersections of
SR 1001 and US 264A. Highway Business Districts permit most commercial
uses, as well as offices and services.
D. Proposed Land Use
Region "L" Council of Governments
According to the Region "L" Regional Land Development Plan: 1977 -
2000, the area from the northwest county line to the area west of I-95 is
classified as Rural. Region "L" defines rural areas as being unsuitable
for development, due to severe physical deterrents, such as soils un-
suitable for septic tanks.
The area from I-95 to Contentnea Creek, and land in the vicinity of US
301 are classified as Transition areas. Transition areas are those where
the provision of full urban services, including water and sewer, are
expected by the year 2000. The minimum density for Transition areas is two
persons per acre.
The floodplains and swamps immediately adjacent to Contentnea Creek
are classified as Conservation areas. Conservation areas are lands which
contain major wildlife habitats, watersheds, floodplains, recreational
resources. and large or prime tracts of agricultural lands.
Wilson Countv
According to the Wilson County Land Development Plan. most of the land
in the county is designated for future use as Agriculture-Residential. The
designation describes land uses which are predominantly farming and
forestry, with residential uses limited to single family dwellings on a
minimum one-half acre lot. No public water or sewer is available to these
dwellings. Some support services such as grocery stores and service
stations are expected in these areas.
The proposed corridor will traverse an area designated for Commercial
uses in the County land use plan. located in the vicinity of US 301 and US
117, and the Bypass' proposed intersection with NC 58.
The corridor is located near an area southwest of the City of Wilson,
between SR 1103 and US 301, designated for medium to high density
Residential uses. The medium to high density Residential designation
describes areas which are now, or are anticipated to be served by public
24
water and sewer prior to the year 2000. Single family and multi-family
residential developments are expected.
City of Wilson
In its Land Development Plan, the city's planning area was divided.
for purposes of analysis. into thirty-three districts. District twenty-four
contains the proposed Corridor A. A number of problems were identified
within that district. They included among others, heavy traffic congestion
and a poor street network.
The Bypass corridor south of Wilson enters an area designated as
• having a high potential for industrial development. This area is bounded
by the Seaboard Railroad to the west and Southern Railroad to the east.
E. Relation of Proiect?and Plans
The proposed corridor alignment is located in largely undeveloped
areas. The common goal expressed in the planning documents of local
agencies is to maintain that undeveloped status. This can be accomplished
by preventing the extension of public water and sewer services and denying
permits for development on soils not suitable for septic tanks. Although
the proposed roadway may increase pressure for development along certain
segments, this lack of basic public services will lessen that pressure..
The roadway should provide relief to the traffic congestion problems
that exist in the southern and eastern areas of Wilson along US 264.
particularly along Ward Boulevard and US 301. The high capacity-roadway
should also be a benefit in the development of the area, which the city and
county wish to see developed with both light and heavy industry. Roadways
which can accommodate high traffic generators are vital for industrial
development.
It is determined from this analysis that the proposed roadway and its
corridor is compatible with land use plans for the Wilson area.
4
25
V. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Secondary Impacts
Highway improvements may stimulate or induce indirect impacts which
are not directly related to the construction of the highway in a quanti-
tative way; however, the magnitude and extent can be generalized from
experience gained from construction of similar facilities in similar areas.

Secondary impacts of major highway improvements in this area are
expected to be those concerned with planned area development. This
project, along with the existing freeway to Zebulon and proposed US 264
freeway improvements towards Greenville, can be expected to increase
industrial and commercial development in this local area, as well as the
entire corridor served by US 264. Since manufacturing. trade, and other
occupations dependent on highway transportation account for significant
portions of the total employment. enhancement of further development by
improving transportation should insure orderly economic growth.
The shift from agricultural to industrial and service-type employment
is now underway in this area. The industrial park off SR 1606 (Black Creek
Road), the Regency Office Park on NC 42 at SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) and
numerous commercial buildings, subdivisions and apartment complexes
recently or currently developed in the project area are examples of the
growth now taking place to the south of Wilson. Highway improvements are,
therefore. not expected to adversely affect the changes in life-styles or
community make-up which are now taking place.
The economy of the area is normally affected by a major project in
three ways:
1) loss of land, buildings, etc. from the tax base;
2) increased value of remaining property adjacent to the project;
3) increased employment, retail sales, and flow of money into the
area due to the actual construction of the project and increased
development in the area.
• The latter two impacts generally offset the loss of taxable property.
resulting in an overall positive economic impact.
B. Primary Impacts
Primary impacts are those affecting the narrow band adjacent to the
highway. This section includes a discussion of such impacts.
1. Natural. Ecological and Scenic Impacts
a. Natural and Ecological Impacts
The three corridors under study for the US 264 Bypass
project have varying types and degrees of impact. Regardless of
the corridor selected, the following adverse effects are certain
to occur to the natural environment:
26
1) direct loss of plant and animal species from clearing
operations.
2) destruction of foraging and protective habitat for
wildlife.
3) loss of biological production on cultivated land.
• 4) siltation into streams during construction.
5) increased flow of traffic through the area after
completion of the project.

b. Scenic Impacts
Because of the relatively flat terrain and numerous wooded
areas, extensive views are not common in the study area.
Views from the road, therefore, would consist typically of
adjacent fields and woodlands in undeveloped areas. These views
are interrupted by occasional adjacent buildings along existing
roads.
These same conditions generally restrict views of the
roadway to immediately adjacent areas. The construction of a
major highway on new location will intrude on the scenic quality
of nearby adjacent areas. Careful attention during design to fit
the existing terrain and proper landscaping should minimize any
impacts that these roadway improvements will have on local scenic
quality.
2. Threatened and Endangered Species
a. Federally Protected Species
Plant and animal species with federal protection statuses of
Endangered (E). Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-1543).
Information was collected from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program regarding
the potential presence of protected species within the study
area. They are listed below.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - This federally endangered species is a
cavity nesting bird that requires living pines of at least 60
years of age for nesting. This highly specialized bird also
requires open stands of pine or mixed pine-hardwood (50% pine
minimum) of at least 30 years of age for foraging. No such
habitat is found within the study area. The project area was
surveyed on September 27, October 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, 25, 26, 30, 31
and November 1. 1990.
27

Michaux•s Poison Sumac - This federally endangered species is
listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially
occurring in Wilson County. This plant is most often found in
sandy or rocky open woods. No such habitat occurs within the
project area and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has
no record of this species presence within the study area.
b. State Listed Species
Species with the North Carolina status of Endangered (E).
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are protected by the
North Carolina Endangered Species Act (GS 113-331 to 113- 337)
• and by the State of North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (GS 196:106-202.12 to 106-202.19).
State listed species that potentially occur within the study
area are listed below. Species with non-protected statuses are
also reported in the event that their status is changed.
STATUS
SPECIES Federal State
Neuse River.Waterdog 3C* SC
(Necturus lewisi)
Carolina Madtom 3C* SC
(Noturus furiosus)
Pale Beakrush - C*
(Rhvnchospora pallida)
Water Arrowhead - SR*
(Saggitaria stagnorum)
3C=More abundant than previously thought
SC=Special Concern; C=Candidate forlisting
SR=Status Review
*Status which does not receive legal protection
Neuse River Waterdog - The Neuse River Waterdog is state-listed
as "Special Concern". This species is endemic to North Carolina
and is usually found in quiet sections of the main stream and
tributaries of the Neuse and Tar Rivers. This species has been
reported to occur in Contentnea Creek. No effort was made to
locate this species during the field studies.
Carolina Madtom - The Carolina Madtom is State-listed as "Special
Concern". This small fish is endemic to the Neuse and Tar River
Drainages in North Carolina. This species has been reported to
occur in Contentnea Creek. No effort was made to locate this
species during the field studies.
28
Pale Beakrush - The pale beakrush is a candidate for state
listing. This small sedge-like plant is most often found in wet
savannahs and sandhill seeps. No such habitat occurs within the
study area.
Water Arrowhead - The water arrowhead is state-listed as "Status
Review". This plant is found in blackwater streams and marshes of
the coastal plain. Potential habitat exists for this species in
• the Hominy Swamp portion of the study area.
C. Potential Impacts To Protected Species
No federally protected species will be impacted by the
project. The Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom are
protected under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act.
Potential impacts to these species from the construction of the
project include increased sedimentation and pollutant inputs.
Best management practices should be utilized during construction
to minimize impacts to these aquatic species. As discussed above,
no other protected species are known to occur within the study
area.
3. Floodplain Impact
Corridor A
Corridor A crosses the floodplain of Sheppards Branch-Contentnea
Creek and Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp (see Figure 5 for 100 year
floodplain). Floodplain crossings at Sheppards Branch and Contentnea
Creek are near 90 degrees which provides minimal floodplain
involvement. However, due to extent and shape of the floodplain.
involvement with Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp is unavoidable.
Corridor B
Corridor B crosses the floodplains of Sheppards Branch. Bloomery
Swamp, and Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp (See Figure 8 for 100 year
floodplains). As with Corridor A, floodplain crossings are close to
90 degrees except at the Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp floodplain.
• Corridor C
Corridor C crosses the floodplains of Bloomery Swamp and
Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp (see Figure 8 for 100 year floodplain).
Floodplain crossings are close to 90 degrees except at the Contentnea
Creek-Hominy Swamp floodplain. However, as with Alternatives A and B.
due to the shape and extent of this floodplain. encroachment is
unavoidable.
There are several existing structures crossing these waterways
near the proposed project. The existing structure at Sheppards Branch
is a box culvert. Bridges and their length follow:
29
Route Stream Length
SR 1162 Contentnea Creek 225 ft.
NC 42 Bloomery Swamp 59 ft.
SR 1158 Bloomery Swamp 68 ft.
SR 1163 Contentnea Creek 180 ft.
SR 1606 Contentnea Creek 165 ft.
SR 1622 Hominy Swamp 120.5 ft.
U
As described above, the floodplain involvement of all alter-
natives are similar in length. Both the City of Wilson and Wilson
County are participants in the regular National Flood Insurance
Program. The floodplains of Bloomery Swamp and Contentnea Creek have
been designated Floodways by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
However. the crossing of the Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp floodplain
by Corridor A will have more impact due to the crossing of Contentnea
Creek while Corridors B and C cross the northern fringe of the
floodplain. The encroachment on the Contentnea Creek-Hominy Swamp
floodplain is necessary due to the location of the eastern terminal of
the project (Proposed US 264 from Wilson to Greenville). The
extensive industrial development to the north of the proposed
corridors and the extent of the floodplain to the south leaves no
practical alternatives other than the crossing of this floodplain.
Therefore, all corridors are in compliance with Executive Order No.
11988 in that to accomplish the project aims. there is no reasonable
alternative to crossing the floodplains mentioned above. All
corridors require the minimum encroachment of the floodplains involved
consistent with the project aims.
Both crossings of Contentnea Creek will be bridged. At the
crossing near NC 42. the designated floodway is approximately 300 feet
based on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. At the crossing of
Contentnea Creek near SR 1606, the designated floodway is ap-
proximately 1000 feet. Both of these crossings may require placing
fill in the designated floodway which would require amending the
floodway map. The encroachment is not a significant encroachment as
defined by 23 CFR 650.105(8).
In other areas of floodway crossings, box culverts will be
provided in the main channel. A series of pipes will be employed
through the floodplain to maintain sheet flow in the wetlands. These
box culverts will be designed to accommodate a 100 year flood, only
allowing one foot of backwater (subject to amending floodways).
Due to the fact that the proposed project has full control of
access. the probability of encouragement of incompatible floodplain
development is slight.
Therefore, in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and Executive Order 11988, no significant impact on natural and
beneficial floodplain values is expected.
30
4. Wetlands

a. Wetland Plant Communities
Wetland plant communities within the study area are quite
diverse floristically, thus a complete description of each would
be lengthy. The following descriptions include only the dominant
species in each vegetative strata.
1. Wetland, Timbered Land
Wetland, timbered land, like the upland. timbered land.
has been heavily disturbed through the removal of canopy
species. The ground surface in these areas is often rutted
and scarred from the use of heavy equipment, and ephemeral
pools of standing water occur in these areas of compacted
soils.
This community type is densely vegetated with a
combination of saplings and seedlings from the original
canopy species and numerous weedy invaders. Dominant plant
species found in this community type include sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple Acer rubrum , sweet bay magnolia
(Magnolia virginiana), water oak uercus ni ra . Blackberry
Rubus sue, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), privet (Ligustrum
sinense , black willow Salix ni ra , giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), seedbox (Ludwigia spy, Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbriar Smilax
rotundifolia), grape vine Vitis rotundifolia), and poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
In the areas of ponded water common species include
bullrush Sci us cyperinus), cattail (Typha latifolia),
soft rush Juncus effusus , boneset (Eupatorium
perfoliatum). and numerous species of the genera Carex,
Juncus, Cyperus, and Eleocharis.
2. Wetland. Mixed Forest

The wetland, mixed forest community type found within
the study area is dominated by canopy species such as sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rub rum).
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), water oak ( uercus nigra),
southern red oak (Q_ falcata), willow oak (Q_ phellos).
white oak (0.. alba). and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica).
Dominant mid-story and shrub species include saplings
of the canopy species, and sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum),
American holly (Ilex opaca), sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia
virginiana), huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.), sweet pepper bush
(Clethra alnifolia), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
31
beauty berry (Callicarpa americana), and wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera).
The ground cover in the wetland. mixed forest is
dominated by seedlings of the canopy and mid-story species.
and grape vine (Vitis rotundifolia). Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica). greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and slender spike grass
(Chasmanthium laxum).
3. Wetland. Bottomland Hardwood
Bottomland hardwood communities within the study area
are usually found in association with creeks and
intermittent stream channels. Dominant canopy species in
this community type include sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rub rum), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica),
willow oak ( uercus phellos). water oak (0 nigra), and
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
Dominant mid-story and shrub species include saplings
of the canopy species, and sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia
virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca). pumpkin ash
(Fraxinus profunda), water ash (F. caroliniana), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), river birch (Betula nigra), privet
(Ligustrum sinense), giant cane (Arundinaria g_igantea).
sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia). and huckleberry
(Vaccinium sp.).
The ground cover is dominated by seedlings of the
canopy and mid-story species, and netted-chain fern
(Woodwardia areolata), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus),
false nettle (Bohemaria cylindrica). Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
southern lady fern (Athyrium felix-femina). royal fern
(Osmunda regalis), cinnamon fern (0. cinnamomea), grape vine
(Vitis rotundifolia), and greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia).
4. Wetland, Hardwood Forest
The wetland, hardwood forest found within the study
area is very similar to the bottomland hardwood community,
but is not located in topographical bottoms. The canopy is
dominated by the same species found in the bottomland
hardwood community, but the shrub and ground cover layers of
the wetland, hardwood forest are much less diverse.
Common shrub and ground cover species here include
sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana). privet (Ligustrum
sinense), beauty berry (Callicarpa americana), inkberry
(Ilex lg abra). giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), grape vine
(Vitis rotundifolia), strawberry bush (Euonymous
americanus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia).
32
5. Wetland, Pine Plantation
Like the upland, pine plantation the wetland pine
plantation found within the study area is the least diverse
floristically of the wetland plant communities. The canopy
is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and is heavily
encroached by a thick mid-story and shrub-layer of sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). red maple (Acer rub rum), American
• holly (Ilex opaca). huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.). sweet
pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia). and beauty berry
(Callicarpa americana).
. The ground cover is primarily pine mulch with
occasional herbaceous species such as cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), partridge
berry (Mitchella repens), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia).
and seedlings of the mid-story hardwoods.
6. Wetland, Open Water
The wetland, open water communities found within the
study area are man-made impoundments. these impoundments
often have a dense fringe of vegetation including such
species as cattail (Typha latifolia), Bullrush (Scirpus
cyperinus), soft rush (Juncos effusus), blackberry (Rubus
sue), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), goldenrod (SolidaAo
sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus guinquefolia), smartweed (Polygonum sp.),
and numerous species of the genera Carex, Juncus, Cvperus.
and Eleocharis.
b. Potential Impacts To Wetland Plant Communities
Direct impacts to wetland plant communities in the form of
habitat removal will occur within the construction limits of the
project. These impacts to each community type are summarized for
each corridor in table 4. It should be noted that all acreages
are approximate and subject to change when the project limits are
staked in the field.
Table 4: Summary of impacts to wetland plant communities
CORRIDOR
COIr M "ITY TYPE A B C
Wetland, TL 61.1 Ac 26.9 Ac 19.4 Ac
Wetland. MF 39.8 Ac 18.4 Ac 16.5 Ac
Wetland. BH 48.1 Ac 42.1 Ac 45.5 Ac
Wetland, HF 6.3 Ac 11.2 Ac 8.3 Ac
Wetland. PP 10.0 Ac 10.9 Ac 0.0 Ac
Wetland. OW 0.9 Ac 5.5 Ac 3.7 Ac
TOTAL 166.2 Ac 115.0 Ac 93.4 Ac
TL=Timbered Land. MF=Mixed Forest. BH=Bottomland Hardwood, HF=Hardwood
Forest. PP=Pine Plantation, OW=Open Water. All Values are in acres.
33
C. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. All wetland plant
communities described in this report, meet this definition and
thus fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of
Engineers. It is anticipated that both Nationwide and Individual
Section 404 Permits will be required from the Corps of Engineers.
d. Wetland Quality
. Although no formal analysis of wetland functions and values
* was conducted, some conclusions can be drawn about wetland
quality based on field observations.
The "wetland, timbered land" communities are heavily
disturbed systems and consequently of relatively low ecological
value when compared to the other wetland communities found within
the study area. Corridor A impacts 61.1 acres of timbered
wetlands while corridors B and C impact 26.9 and 19.4 acres
repectively. When compared to the total wetland acreage for each
corridor these impacts represent 37% of the total for corridor A.
23% for corridor B, and 21Z for corridor C.
Undisturbed bottomland hardwood wetlands generally provide
excellent habitat for wildlife species. Impacts to this
community type are relatively similar for each corridor (Table
2). In general, the bottomland hardwood wetlands found within
the study area are associated with permanent or intermittent
stream channels and experience seasonal flooding. Approximately
22.8 acres of permanently flooded bottomland hardwood wetlands
are found along corridors B and C in the vicinity of Wiggins Mill
Reservoir. These wetlands may be of higher quality in regards to
such functions as flood storage and water quality.
e. Onlv Practical Alternative Findin
Corridor A was chosen as the only practical alternative
based upon the quality of wetlands impacted (as discussed above
under Wetland Quality). Corridor A appears to be the least
damaging to high quality systems even though it has the largest
total wetland acreage. The presence of a large proportion of
lower quality wetlands may present desirable opportunities to
mitigate wetland losses through the enhancement of the areas
adjacent to the area of impact.
Based on proximity, corridor A may also be the least
damaging to the Wiggins Mill Reservoir in the event of a toxic
spill along the new roadway.
Therefore, NCDOT feels in accordance with the Executive
Order 11990. Protection of Wetland, that all practical measures
have been taken in order to protect the wetlands as much as
possible.
34
-qqq
f. Wetland Mitigation
Wetland impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the
sequential "step-down" proceedures outlined in the 1990
Memorandum of Agreement between the US Environmental Protection
Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers. Due to the large amount
of hydric soils found within the vicinity of the study area, the
potential for on-site mitigation is high. Wetlands that have been
heavily disturbed by timbering practices may prove to be
excellent sites for wetland enhancement. These timbered wetlands
are shown on Figure 9. Final decisions on wetland mitigation
will be made known in a wetlands mitigation plan to be prepared
* in conjunction with permit applications.
5. Social and Economic Impacts
None of the alternative corridors will result in division of
established communities or separation of institutional, recreational
or community service facilities from the communities which they now
serve. Except as noted under Secondary Impacts (page 29). no general
changes in local life-style, community composition, or economic status
are expected. Due to the scattered population in the project area and
the fact that no local roads will be terminated, and that no
minorities, elderly. disabled, or low income groups will be
disproportionately impacted.
Diversion of traffic from the existing roadway is generally
considered a disadvantage by many local business interests. This may
be true for certain businesses dependent of through traffic; however.
more local citizens may frequent businesses on the existing roadway.
Improved operating and safety conditions due to reduced traffic
improves accesses to these businesses, thereby making traveling to and
from local businesses easier.
6. Relocation of Individuals and Families
There will be an estimated 18 residences and 5 businesses
displaced along Corridor A. A relocation summary report giving a
demographic profile of the relocatees is included in Appendix A.
s
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable re-
placement housing will be available prior to construction of federally
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Trans-
portation has the following three programs to minimize the cost of
relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
OPOF"F-
35
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent. and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general. provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of ownership).
• the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program
will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify.
and up to $5.250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
s The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North-Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-17).
The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for
this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations. and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will so
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent,
safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a
90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation
of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less
desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities.
Rent and sale prices of replacement housing offered will be within the
financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and be
reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation
officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit
organizations. and farm operations in searching for and moving to
replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide
other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to
displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for
a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners. NCDOT
will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
36
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals.
and other closing costs. If applicable, the yCDOT will pay for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement
to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed
$22.500 combined total.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down
payment. including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a re-
placement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable or adequate replacement housing has been offered or
provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for
the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility
of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any
other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available or when it is unavailable within the
displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the
federal and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to
allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so
that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
It is not felt that this program will be necessary since it is used as
the name implies, only as a "last resort". There appears to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area. However, it
will be available if necessary.
7. Public Facilities
a. Schools
The Superintendent of Public Instruction for Wilson County
has reviewed the studied alternatives and offered the following
comments concerning the probable impact on schools:
"This is to respond to your recent letter soliciting any
A reactions that we may have regarding the above Project and the
Special Corridor Study. As I review the alternate corridors A
and B, I do not see any particular advantage or disadvantage that
one of the proposed routes would have over the other as far as
the Wilson County School System is concerned.
Corridor B, as proposed, would pass in front of James B.
Hunt High School and Corridor A would pass behind the school.
This is the only school in our county that would be in close
proximity to either of the proposed corridors.
37
Beddingfield High School would be fairly close to the point
where both corridors are projected to cross the Norfolk Southern
Railroad south of Wilson. Concerning the proposals-_as7they pass
near Hunt High School, our major concern would be that whichever
route is taken be so located that the noise from the freeway
would not interfere with school activities. It does not appear
that this would be the case. As long as none of the existing
major roads would be closed by the freeway. I really see no
M particular effect that either would have for us."
A preliminary assessment of the probable traffic noise
impact indicates that none of the alternatives will create noise
that would exceed FHWA design noise levels at the Hunt High
R School.
The Board of Trustees of the Greenfield School noted that
Corridors B and C would have an interchange approximately
one-half mile from the school.
They stated, "It is the feeling of the Board of Trustees
that this interchange will create more traffic and will be
hazardous to the children going to and from school". They
further stated "The Board of Trustees of Greenfield School would
like to go on record as favoring Corridor A".
b. Religious Institutions
The Jones Hill Church and the West Wilson Church of God may
experience noise levels above FHWA design noise levels, depending
on the corridor selected. one small family cemetery, located on
NCDOT right of way at the western terminal of Corridors A and B.
will be relocated by the interchange of either Corridor with
existing US 264. The possibility of relocating other small
family cemeteries exists with all three corridors; however, the
determination if and to what extent will be resolved during the
design phase of the project.
C. Recreational Facilities
No land from any recreational sites will be required for the
• construction of any of the corridors.
d. Public Utilities
All corridors will probably be involved with public water
and sewer line located by the Wiggins Hill Reservoir. The
Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, has
reviewed the proposed project and offered the following comments:
38
"We note that several water transmission and distribution
lines may be located in the path of and adjacent to the proposed
project which may be damaged or ruptured during the construction.
We are concerned that unless precautions are taken by the
contractor, damage to these lines may occur, which may result in
contamination of the water supply, thus creating a health hazard.
Disruption of the water lines may leave portions of the City of
Wilson without adequate fire protection in addition to creating a
health hazard."
"Therefore, we recommend that a paragraph be included in the
environmental impact statement to the effect that the contractor
r prepare a work schedule to minimize damage or rupture to the
water lines and interruption of water service which has the
concurrence of the Wilson water system officials; and that the
contractor, during construction, contact the appropriate water
system officials with regard to specific implementation of the
schedule."
All necessary precautionary measures will be taken to
prevent any significant disruption to water transmission and
contamination of water supplies including special provisions
incorporated into the construction contract.
8. Prime Farmland
The State Office of the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) was contacted concerning the presence of
prime and unique farmland in the area. Soil type and slope are used
to identify the categories of land suitable for farming. No unique
farmlands have been identified in the area. There is a total of
111,205 acres of prime farmland in Wilson County. The SCS has
identified approximately 325 acres of prime farmland within Corridor
A. 285 acres of prime farmland within Corridor B and 305 acres of
prime farmland within Corridor C. Prime farmland, as defined by the
SCS, is based on soil type and is not necessarily land available for
farm production. The acreage identified includes woodland, areas too
small for active farming, and areas already developed for other uses
(approximately 10 percent of the area designated as prime farmland).
During design of the proposed project, care will be taken to_
minimize the amount of prime farmland needed for right of way. It will
be unavoidable that some farmland will be split by the project;
however. consideration will be given during design to avoid the
division of property where feasible. Also care will be taken during
design to assure that farm drainage systems are not blocked or
interrupted.
The City of Wilson has been developing to the south and west,
especially in the vicinity of SR 1606 (industrial) NC 42, and Forest
Hills Road (office and institutional, commercial, and residential).
As this development continues, prime farmland in the project area
will. in all likelihood, be converted to other uses whether or not the
project is constructed.
39
9. Air Quality
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions
from internal combustion engines. The impact resulting from the
construction of a new highway or the improvement of an existing
highway can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to
y emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in
order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary.pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon
+r monoxide. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in
the project area. For these reasons, most of the analyses presented
are concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to
CO emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line
source computer modeling and the background component was determined
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were
determined separately. then added together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars
are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide.. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that
are of concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide.
Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease
r in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of
pollution control devices on new cars, and thus help lower ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources
of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions
of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in
the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this
type of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles,
California.
40
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide. highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial. commercial. and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars
are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the
x project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane
i rating of the fuel. New cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded
gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in
the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead
content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon and is estimated to
be 0.05 grams per gallon in 1990.
In the future. lead emissions are expected to decrease as more
cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on
the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway im-
provements. "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting
Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways And Arterial Streets" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors. and
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily traffic projections. The modeling analysis was
performed for a "worse case" condition using winds blowing paralle'1 to
the roadway. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated
for the years 2000 and 2010 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source
Emission Factors" and the accompanying MOBILE4 mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section. Division of Environmental Management (DEM). North
Carolina Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is
suitable for most rural areas.
The closest receptor affected by the "worst case" for the
proposed widening is R35 (residence). The predicted 2000 and 2010 one
hour average CO concentrations for the proposed widening are as
follows:
41
One Hour
Closest CO Conc.(ppm)
Alternative Receptor 2000 2010
Build 4-lane divided R35 (Res) 2.5 2.4
Highway
A
P
0
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum 1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour average - 9 ppm) indicates no
violation of these standards. Since the results of the "worst-case"
1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the
8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. (See Tables Al and A2
for input data.)
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Wilson County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this
project.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care
will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are
such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed
under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
10. Noise Analysis
A noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
construction of a proposed bypass around Wilson in Wilson County on
noise levels in the immediate project area (see Figure N1). This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land
uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic
noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise. appearing
as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Volume
7. Chapter 7, Section 3, of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual
(FHPM 7-7-3). If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
42
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise. is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust. drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
i pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly. a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A. B, C. or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
detected by the human ear (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured
using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report.
references will be made to dBA. which means an A-weighted decibel
level. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in
Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) the relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise, and
3) the type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors. it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
aroused to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individuals judgement of whether or not a
noise is objectionable. For example, noises occurring during sleeping
hours are usually considered to be much more objectionable than the
same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be much more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in
the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
43
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal con-
versation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
• which intrude into their lives. Particularly if noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise,
factory noise. railroad noise. and highway traffic noise. In relation
{ to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have
developed rapidly over the past few years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design,-of highways. A summary of the noise
abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2. The
Leq, or equivalent sound level. is the level of constant sound which
in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms-of a steady noise level with
the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken along SR 1136. NC 42.
SR 1103, US 301, US 117, SR 1606, and SR 1602 at representative loca-
tions using a GenRad 1988 Precision Integrating Sound-Level Meter and
Analyzer. The noise levels were recorded for a 20-minute period
during anticipated peak traffic periods. Traffic counts were taken at
each measurement site during the sampling periods and differences in
the measured noise levels are attributed to variations in site
conditions and traffic volumes. The locations and measured exterior
Leq noise levels are shown in Figure N2 and Table N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The existing roadway widths are predominantly 24 feet (2
lanes). The calculated existing noise levels were within 0.2 to 5.2
dBA of the measured noise levels for all of the locations for which
noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles due to signalized intersections
and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly spaced"
vehicles and single vehicle speed.
44
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at different
speeds through a continual changing highway configuration and
surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.

The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March. 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the
number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the
physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills. depressed,
elevated, etc.). receptor location and height, and, if applicable.
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary align-
ments were available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed
project alternatives include: 1) constructing a 4-lane divided highway
with a 60' median and 2) the no build alternative. The proposed
project was modeled assuming no special noise abatement measures would
be incorporated. Only those existing natural or man- made barriers
which could be modeled were included. The roadway sections were
assumed to be flat. Thus, this analysis represents "worst-case"
topographic conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during
the year being analyzed.
It was assumed that the greater vehicular volume between peak
hour volumes and level of service C volumes and corresponding speeds
for trucks and automobiles would result in the noisiest traffic
conditions. Thus, during all other time periods. the noise levels
will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which. during the
peak hour in the design year 2010, would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and those
land uses predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The basic
approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50. 100. 200,
400. 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane
" (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The locations of these
receptors were determined by the change in projected traffic volumes
along the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid
of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
Table N4 shows the maximum predicted noise levels and the noise
level increase for each identified receptor under study for this
project. Table N5 gives a summary for each alternative of the number
of these identified receptors that approach or exceed the FHWA Noise
45
Abatement Criteria, and points out the maximum predicted Leq noise
levels in dBA for a given section of roadway at 50, 100, and 200 feet
distances measured from the center of the nearest travel lane.
In addition. these tables show the contour distances measured
from the center of the proposed highway to a point where 72 dBA and 67
dBA can be expected. The 67 dBA and 72 dBA contour distances can
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
' remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in local juris-
diction and to prevent further development of incompatible activities
and land uses.
With implementation and construction of the recommended alter-
native (shown in Figure Nl), seven residences and one church over the
entire project area approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria. Furthermore, of these eight receptors, six are predicted to
experience a substantial exterior traffic noise level increase by the
design year 2010. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
just detect level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or
a halving of the loudness of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS AND ABATEMENT MEASURES.
Traffic noise impacts occur when a) the predicted design year
noise levels approach or exceed those values shown for the appropriate
activity category of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (see Table N2),
with approach values being 2 dBA less than shown in the table; or b)
the predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing
noise levels by 15 dBA or more.
. Consideration for noise abatement measures can be applied to
receptors which fall in either category. The FHWA requires that when
noise levels of a proposed federal roadway project approach or exceed
the Noise Abatement Criteria, various noise abatement measures must be
considered. The following discussion addresses the applicability of
these measures to the proposed project.
Alignment Selection
Alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. For noise abatement, alignment selection is
primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from
noise sensitive areas. The selection of alternative alignments for
noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise
impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. The
recommended alignment (see Figure N1) was selected in part because it
was located farther from residential areas than other alignments.
Changes in the vertical alignment of the proposed improvements are not
considered to be effective in substantially limiting noise impacts
because most of the impacted receptors are located along level
portions of the proposed roadway.
46
Traffic Svstem Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project. traffic management measures are
not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on
the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway. Past
project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10
mph would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2
dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3
dBA and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway
capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure. This
s and other traffic system management measures. including the
prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent
with the project's objective of providing a high speed, limited access
facility.
Noise Barriers
Noise barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the sound path
between a roadway and noise sensitive areas. This measure is most
often used on high speed. limited access facilities where.noise levels
are high and there is adequate space for continuous barriers. Noise
barriers may be constructed from a variety of materials, either
individually or combined, including concrete, wood, metal and earth.
A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project. The
evaluation was accomplished in two steps. First, a qualitative
barrier evaluation was performed for each impacted receptor which
considered source-receptor relationships (R8 and R31 were disregarded
from the barrier evaluation because their major noise source is
traffic from y-lines, SR 1336 and US 117, respectively), impacted site
densities (R10, R16, R23 and R35 were disregarded because they are
isolated; and barriers to protect them would not be cost effective by
past project experience), and the ability to have continuous barriers.
This evaluation resulted in the selection of only one reasonable and
feasible potential barrier location.
The second step of the barrier evaluation involved the computer
R modeling of noise barrier feasibility at the candidate location. The
analysis was accomplished with the FHWA's noise barrier simulation
model OPTIMA. The analysis was accomplished by developing barriers
with OPTIMA which would meet minimum noise reduction goals at the
impacted site, estimating the cost of the barrier. and determining the
cost per benefitted receptor. Benefitted receptors were assumed to be
all receptors, impacted and non-impacted, which would receive a noise
level reduction of at least 4 dBA. In order for a noise barrier to be
considered feasible, it must meet, among other factors, the following
conditions:
1. Provide a minimum insertion loss of 6 dBA for the receptors
which the barrier was designed to protect;
47
2. Reduce noise levels so that they do not approach the-FHWA
Noise Abatement Criteria; and
3. Reduce noise levels so that they do not constitute a
resultant impact greater than 14 dBA.
One consideration of the reasonableness of noise barrier
installation is that it costs no more than $25,000 per benefitted
receptor (those impacted or non-impacted receptors receiving 4 dBA or
more reduction).
Noise mitigation in the form of a concrete barrier was analyzed
f for a small cluster of residences (R2 & R6) in the vicinity where the
new bypass will cross existing SR-1156. An average reduction of 5.8
dBA (7.6 for R2 and 4.0 for R6) can be achieved with the construction
of a 14' high/16401 long concrete wall placed on the right-of-way
line. The cost of this barrier is estimated to be $266,500. Since
both receptors will experience a reduction of at least 4 dBA, the cost
per benefitted receptor is $133,250. Due to the cost of this
abatement versus the benefits provided, the barrier is not recommended
for construction.
"NO BUILD" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "No Build" alternative were
also considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads
in the project area should double, the future traffic noise levels
would only increase approximately 3 dBA. This small increase in the
present noise level would be barely noticeable to the people working
and living in the area.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading. and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and
those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. Overall. construction noise
impacts are expected to be minimal, since both alternative alignments
generally traverse through low density areas. However, considering
the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts
are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby wooded areas are believed to be sufficient
to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
SUMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise abatement is
reasonable or feasible along this project and none is proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of FHPM
7-7-3 and, unless a major project change develops, no additional
reports are required for this project.
68
VI. PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED
The construction of the proposed project will result in some adverse
environmental effects which cannot be totally avoided. There will be an
estimated 18 residences homes and 5 businesses relocated and the dis-
ruptions and inconveniences cannot completely be eliminated. Noise
pollution will increase with project construction. Increased air pollution
may also be associated with the proposed facility, but is considered to be
well within acceptable limits.
The proposed project will remove limited prime farmland from pro-
duction or the possibility of ever being in production. Care will be taken
during the design phase of the project to minimize, where feasible, the
amount of farmland needed for right of way.
Crossing of wetlands and floodplains will result in probable adverse
environmental effects. Crossing of these wetlands is unavoidable. All
corridors cross the subject wetlands and floodplains at the narrowest point
feasible.
In the final selection process, emphasis was placed on selecting an
alignment within the corridor that would achieve a balance, where feasible,
among the amounts of wetlands, farmland, wildlife habitat, and number of
relocatees necessary for construction of this project.
During the construction phase of the project, some erosion and
siltation of streams are likely to occur; however, with current erosion
control measures. the siltation is not anticipated to be significant enough
to adversely affect the environment. With the construction of the proposed
project, some natural wildlife habitat will be removed and/or disturbed,
thus disturbing natural plant and animal communities in the corridor.
1.
49
VII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY

0
The construction phase of the proposed project will cause limited
adverse effects on man's environment which are deemed to be of a short term
nature. There will be some siltation of local streams during construction;
however, careful attention will be given to these problems during design
and current stringent requirements for erosion control. siltation, and
pollution will be applied. These control measures, both temporary and
permanent, will minimize adverse short-term effects and avoid any
substantial long-term damage.
Another short-term effect will be the-displacement or relocation of
people; however. the Division of Highways' Relocation and Financial
Assistance Program will minimize this inconvenience.
The proposed project can certainly be classified as a long-term
productive facility. The project, with its desirable design charac-
teristics, will provide for safe and efficient vehicle operation for future
as well as present traffic volumes. The benefits such as reduced operation
costs, reduced travel time. fewer accidents. and general economic
enhancement of the area, should more than offset the short-term
inconvenience and adverse effects on man's environment.
U
50
VIII. STEPS TO MINIMIZE UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The probable unavoidable effects of construction of the proposed
project and steps that will be taken to mitigate these effects are:
A. The right of way needed for construction of the highway improvement
including the relocation of families and businesses is considered an
undesirable feature of the proposed project. The North Carolina
Division of Highways will pay the affected families a fair market
value for their homes and businesses which may also be supplemented
with a relocation assistance payment. This monetary reimbursement,
together with the assurance that safe. decent and sanitary housing
will be available, will minimize this undesirable environmental
effect.
B. Another portion of the right of way needed for construction of the
highway improvement is occupied by agriculture and woodland. Erosion
control measures and natural plantings, where feasible, will be made
to make the proposed project compatible with the surrounding
environment. Maintaining planting native to the area will be given
consideration for further enhancement of the landscape, alleviating
the possible harm to the existing environment by the highway im-
provements.
C. Any new construction will be designed to avoid, as much as possible,
the cutting off of small segments of farmland or important wildlife
habitat. This will minimize the impact of roadway construction on
area agricultural production and the suitability of available habitat
for various species of wildlife.
D. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, in accordance with
regular procedure, will be given the opportunity for consultation to
include all reasonable provisions for protection of the wildlife in
the area.
E. All precautionary measures will be taken during construction to
minimize soil erosion, siltation, water pollution, and air pollution.
The initiation of work will not begin until an erosion control
schedule is prepared by the contractor and approved by the N. C.
Division of Highways which outlines a continuous, effective sequence
of temporary and permanent erosion control practices. The Erosion and
Sedimentation Control program developed by Division of Highways was
approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission and adopted by
the Board of Transportation.
0
F. Clearing and grubbing will be scheduled and performed in a manner such
that subsequent grading operations and erosion practices can follow
immediately thereafter. Excavation; borrow and embankment operations
will be completed to final grade in continuous operation. If any
earthwork is to be suspended for any reason whatsoever, seeding,
mulching and temporary erosion control measures such as the use of
berms, dikes. silt basins, mats, netting, etc.. will be performed.
Suspension of work in any area of operation will not relieve the
contractor of the responsibility for erosion control in that area.
51
Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent en-
dangering the safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent
diminishing the value. utility. or appearance of any public or private
properties.
G. Live or impounded waters will be entered only at those locations where
construction operations are to be performed, and the deposition of any
construction materials or pollution agents such as fuels, lubricants,
bitumens. and sewage in such waters will not be permitted. All borrow
pits and ditches will be properly drained and care will be taken in
the placement of spoil to avoid sedimentation problems and the
blocking of drainage ditches.
` H. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining disposal areas for
waste and debris. These areas will be shaped to contours which are
comparable to and blend with the adjacent topography. Temporary
erosion control measures and final seeding an mulching of such areas
will be exercised to effectively control erosion and siltation.
I. The contractor will be required to comply with all local ordinances
governing water and air pollution control.
J. The drainage system will be planned and constructed to minimize
stagnant water. thereby minimizing any potential for creating breeding
area for mosquitoes.
K. The project will incorporate the necessary plans to avoid any
significant disruption to public utilities to the area residences and
to maintain a reasonable system of local traffic service and access
during the construction of the project.
L. If damages due to siltation, etc., occur during the construction of
the project to property outside the construction limits of the
project, the Division of Highways, or the contractor, if found
negligent, will assume its responsibilities and will deal with the
affected property owners accordingly.
M. Wetland impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the sequential
"step-down" procedures outlined in the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Due to the large amount of hydric soils found within
the vicinity of the study area, the potential for on-site mitigation
is high. Wetlands that have been heavily disturbed by timbering
practices may prove to be excellent sites for wetland enhancement.
These timbered wetlands are shown on Figure 9. Final decisions on
wetland mitigation will be made known in a wetlands mitigation plan tc
be prepared in conjunction with permit applications.
52
IX. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment was
requested from appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies. Copies of
letters received are included in Appendix G. Significant Comments are
addressed as follows:
Federal Agencies
1. U. S. Department of the Interior
General Comments: "All alternatives require crossing of wetlands
to varying degrees. Potential adverse effects on these wetlands
caused by altering drainage or hydraulic continuity will depend
on final bridge and approach designs. It is difficult to
completely assess the environmental consequences of any
alternative at this time without final designs."
"As the DES points out, Contentnea Creek hosts an
important anadromous fish run on a seasonal basis.
[I.] Every effort should be made to ensure. through erosion
control and seasonal limitations that any construction
involving crossing Contentnea Creek or its flood plain has a
minimal impact upon the fish or fishery.".
"Endangered Species coordination for this project has been
completed, as indicated by the Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS) letter of October 20, 1980, to Mr. Ronald E. Heinz of
the Federal Highway Administration. A biological assessment
was conducted and supported the conclusion of no impact,
with which we concur. The DES adequately addresses measures
to ensure protection of species of concern to the State
which occur within the project area."
"Additional comments and recommendations for project
modification by the FWS pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.) may be necessary if project implementation requires a
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers."
"The DES adequately addresses impacts on geological,
recreational, and cultural resources. Also, there are no
known potential or existing units of the National Park
System within any of the project corridors."
[2.1 "The final statement should include, however, correspondence
from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
commenting on the cultural resource surveys conducted. Any
further recommendations made by the SHPO should be
considered in the planning process."
53
(3.1 "Characterization of fishery resources present in Contentnea
Creek, Hominy Swamp, Sheppards Branch. and Bloomery Swamp
should be updated by contemporary sampling."
SPECIFIC CO`LMENTS
Page 20. Third paragraph.
[4.j "The scientific name of the water moccasin is
Agkistrodon piscivorous; Natrix sipedon is the northern
water snake. Both are probably present within the project
area. The correct scientific name of the copperhead is
Agkistrodon contortrix. These corrections should be
incorporated in the final environmental statement."
Page 57. Fifth paragraph.
"The FWS does not concur with the characterization of
seasonally flooded bottom lands on this page, and objects to
the sentence which reads: "Therefore, from a fish and
wildlife standpoint, these seasonally flooded areas are not
considered as valuable as are wetlands which are
(5.j inundated for longer periods of time."*While fish may not be
able to utilize seasonally flooded bottom lands on a
year-round basis. such bottom lands are required by some
species for spawning. Preventing access to seasonally
flooded bottom lands may result in reproductive failure
ultimately resulting in permanent losses to the fishery."
"Even though access by fish is limited to seasons when
flooding occurs, these areas contribute nutrients and fish
food organisms which are important in the maintenance of
sport fish populations. Seasonally flooded bottom lands
also often display a higher species diversity than adjacent
areas and are heavily utilized by game animals because they
are intermittently flooded."
SLMMARY COMMENTS

"Based on the number of wetland crossings involved and the
estimated amounts of wetland acreage required for con-
struction, the most acceptable alternative would be Corridor
C. Corridor C can be expected to have the least impact on
fish and wildlife resources, will affect the smallest
acreage of wetlands and wildlife habitat, and will have the
shortest flood plain encroachment. In addition, Alternative
C would not involve crossing Contentnea Creek thereby
minimizing any potential effects on anadromous fish."
[6.j "The final environmental statement should offer specific
alignment proposals. construction methods and measures
intended to mitigate losses to fish and wildlife resources.
54
The FWS will be pleased to consult with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation as proposals are developed, and
we suggest this is an appropriate project for further
discussion at future North Carolina Department of
Transportation "Scoping Meetings"."
"As this Department has a continuing interest in the
project. we would be willing to cooperate and provide
technical assistance in further project evaluation and
assessment. The field office assigned responsibility for
technical assistance about cultural resources is: Regional
Director. Southeast Region. National Park Service, 75 Spring
Street. Atlanta, Georgia 30303. For fish and wildlife
matters, please contact the Fish and Wildlife Service Area
Office, Plateau Building. Room A-5, 50 South French Broad
Avenue, Asheville. North Carolina 28802."
Response:
1. See Section III-4 (page 15)
Based upon the knowledge that anadromous fish utilize
Contentnea Creek and that their spawning runs coincide with
the late Winter-Spring seasons. it is important that the
planning process attempt to provide protection for these
fish species during a critical life cycle interim.-
Accordingly, in response to the USFWS'S appeal for "seasonal
limitations" to minimize impacts to anadromous fish. NCDOT
proposes that no construction will be conducted in
Contentnea Creek between the dates February 15 and May 15 of
any year without prior approval of the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and the Division of Marine Fisheries.
It is noted that these dates were selected after
coordination with individuals at both state agencies, which
claim some jurisdiction over anadromous fish issues. This
90 day window should adequately protect the fishery without
creating unreasonable constraints on construction
activities.
2. See Appendix G
3. The characteristics of these streams have not varied
significantly and it is unlikely that the fishery resources
discussed in Section III-B-4 have changed. Therefore,
further sampling does not appear necessary.
4. See Section III B 4 (page 15)
5. NCDOT concurs that seasonally flooded bottomlands serve
valuable wildlife functions and are particularly important
as spawning grounds for certain fish and invertebrate
55
populations. It is recognized that hydrological cycling
creates opportunities for increased diversity in flora, as
well as fauna. Life cycle events within various taxa depend
heavily on such environmental fluxes.
6. The NCDOT will employ the use of "best management practices"
in an effort to minimize impacts on the fish and wildlife
resources.

2. U. S. Department Of The Army - Corps of Engineers
Comments: "This is in regard to the preapplication meeting held
on 28 September 1982 at the Department of Transportation Office
in Raleigh, N. C. Listed below are the projects discussed during
that meeting and a summary of our comments relative to permit
requirements for each. Those projects, or portions thereof. that
qualify for authorization under either a nationwide permit or our
recently issued general permit SAWC082-N-000-0031 (copy enclosed)
are so indicated."
..d. "U. S. 264, Bypass of Wilson. Wilson County."
1. "Plans should be submitted for construction activities at
the Contentnea Creek crossings."
2. "Additional comments may be submitted on this project if and
when it is scheduled for construction."
3. U.S. Department Of The Army - Corps of Engineers
Comments: "Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment
on the subject report. We continue to recommend that wetland
destruction be kept to a minimum, and the selection of an
alternative reflects this concern. At this time alternative C
appears to have the least impact on wetlands."
"You are aware of the permit requirements for the placement of
fill materials into waters or wetlands (reference our 11 May 1979
and 20 July 1979 letters). A staff member from our Regulatory
Functions Branch will be available to delineate on site our
wetland jurisdiction."
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Comments: "I am writing to verify the official filing of your EIS
entitled: Draft: US 264 Bypass Construction Wilson to
Greenville. Wilson County, North Carolina (FHWA-NC-EIS-81-03-D)"
"This EIS was received by the Office of Environmental Review on
May 26. 1981. It has been determined the above document meets
the requirements for filing an EIS as set forth under Section
1506.9 of the CEQ Regulations. Accordingly, EPA has scheduled
56
publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register
dated June 5, 1981 and the public review period is scheduled to
terminate on July 24, 1981.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Comments: "We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the construction of US-264 Bypass of the
• City of Wilson in Wilson County. Our review suggests that each of
the three alternative alignments would involve a significant
encroachment on Contentnea Creek and the associated Hominy Swamp
wetland area. We believe this area is a valuable anadromous
fishery resource that should be protected."
[1.] "Alignment A crosses the Contentnea Creek floodplain near
its widest section. This alignment would traverse more than
2,000 linear feet of seasonally flooded bottomland hardwood.
Unless this alignment utilizes extensive bridging, it could
upset both the hydrological regime of the swamp and
biologically isolate portions of the swamp.
(2.1 Additionally, Alignment A parallels Contentnea Creek for
approximately 500 feet suggesting that the Creek would have
to be channelized to control its flow."
"Alignment C and B cross Hominy Swamp at its fringe and
wetlands cross Contentnea Creek higher in the watershed than
Alignment A. This would decrease the amount of wetland
involvement, required but still provide the same amount of
transportation utility."
[3.] "Additionally, for the preferred alternative the FEIS should
identify "approximate quantities of fill" and the length and
location of bridging to be used. This is consistent with
the recently signed Memorandum of Agreement between the
Corps of Engineers and Department of Transportation."

"Accordingly we have rated the Draft LO-2. i.e., we do not
have a significant objection to the highway project on
environmental grounds, but we need specific information to
complete our review. This rating is based on the selection
of either Alternative Alignment C or B. If Alignment A is
the preferred alternative. we would have continued
environmental reservations about the project."
Response:
1. See Section on Floodplain Impact (Page 28)
2. "Corridor A crosses Contentnea Creek at approximately 90
degrees in both locations and does not require a channel
change."
57
3. The approximate quantity of fill is estimated to be 7,072,
140 cubic yards. Corridor A crosses Contentnea Creek twice
with bridge lengths 2 @ 320' and 2 @ 330'.
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
Comments: "The following is our comments on the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement for US 264 Bypass of Wilson, North
Carolina."
(l.J "Our major concern is the impact of the proposed project on
prime agricultural land. Corridor "C" would have less
• impact upon prime agricultural land because much of the land
is already committed to urban use. Corridor "A" and to a
great extent Corridor "B" involves significantly more prime
agricultural land, in not only the amount of land directly
-affected by the proposed project, but also the indirect
committal of the land between Wilson and these two proposed
corridors. Much of the land in the area encompassed by
Corridor "A" and "B" are some of the best agricultural lands
in the State, and no doubt, the location of US 264 Bypass
will encourage the conversion of existing agricultural lands
to urban-industrial uses."
[l.J "The selection of either Corridor "A" or ^B" would have
significant impact upon existing conservation systems on
adjacent farms. Planning for the highway needs to assure
that outlets to farm drainage systems are not blocked or
interrupted. Overall, Corridor "A" has the greatest number
of farm drainage systems which are likely to be disrupted."
(2.1 "We would like to point out a potential soils problem with
construction in Corridor "A" and "B" from the project
beginning point to the proposed intersection I-95. These
proposed routes contain two units of Toisnot sandy loam
soil. These soils have a thick hardpan which will normally
increase construction costs."
"The Soil Conservation Service provides technical assistance
• to local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. We
understand that the Wilson Soil and Water Conservation
District has already prepared a report on the amount of
prime farmland that will be affected by the proposed
project. We recommend this be referred to when considering
prime farmland."
Response:
1. See Section V-B-8 (page 38). It is noted that the taking of
prime farm land for the three alternatives are similar
(325-285-305 acres).
58
2. See Section III-A (page 11)
7. Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration
Comments: "We have reviewed the project with respect to potential
environmental impact for which this agency has expertise. Our
review indicates there will be no significant adverse effects to
the existing planned air transportation system as a result of
this project."
8. General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Commerce
s Comments: "This is in reference to your draft environmental
impact statement entitled "U.S. 264 Bypass of Wilson, North
Carolina." The enclosed comment from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration is forwarded for your consideration."
9. U.S. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration -'National Ocean Survev
Comments: "The subject statement has been reviewed within the
areas of the National Ocean Survey's (NOS) responsibility and
expertise, and in terms of the impact of the proposed action on
NOS activities and projects."
"Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed
project area. If there is any planned activity which will
disturb or destroy these monuments, NOS requires not less than 94,
days' notification in advance of such activity in order to plan
for their relocation. NOS recommends that funding for this
project includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS
monuments. For further information about these monuments, please
contact Mr. John Spencer. Director, National Geodetic Information-
Center (OA/C18). or Mr. Charles Novak, Chief, Network Maintenance
Branch (OA/C172), at 6001 Executive Boulevard. Rockville,
Maryland 20852."
Response: The NCDOT will contact the National Geodetic In-
formation Center prior to construction.
10. Advisory Council On Historic Preservation
Comments: "The Council has reviewed the draft environmental
impact statement for the U.S. 264 Bypass, Wilson. North Carolina,
circulated for comment under Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act. We note that the undertaking could
affect several archaeological sites which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and
additional high probability areas along Contentnea Creek and its
tributaries remain to be intensively surveyed."
"Therefore, please keep us informed of the status of the
project as planning proceeds. and as further survey and
evaluation results-become available. If. in consultation with
59
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation officer. it is
determined that significant archaeological properties will be
affected by the proposed bypass project. then the Council
comments should be requested under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR Part 800."
Response: See Section III-F (page 20) and Appendix G
• 11. U. S. Department of Interior
Comments:
"The Service's review of any environmental document would be
greatly facilitated if the document contained the following
information:
[1] A description of the fish and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional rights-of-way and any areas, such as
borrow areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the
proposed improvements.
(2] Acreage and ecological characteristics of branches, creeks,
streams. rivers, or wetlands which will be filled as a
consequence of proposed highway improvements.
[3] Linear feet of any water courses which will be relocated as a
consequence of the proposed improvements.
(4] Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which will be
eliminated as a consequence of proposed highway improvements.
[5] Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement
wetlands.
(6] Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with
any of the proposed improvements.
[7] In particular, the Service is concerned over the potential
impacts to Great Swamp, Nahunta Swamp and Black Creek and their
wetlands and floodplains from any necessary expanded or new
project road crossing.
In addition, the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and the proposed endangered Michaux' poison-sumac Rhus
michauxii) may occur in the area of influence of this action.
The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) were detailed in
material sent to you previously. If you would like another copy
of this material. or if you have questions. please contact this
office at 9191856-4520 (FTS 672-4520).
60
The following species. although not now listed or officially
proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. are under
status review by the Service. "Status Review" species are not
legally protected under the Act. and are not subject to any of
its provisions. including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. These species
may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do for them."
Carolina madtom Noturus furiosus)
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula)
Pine barrens treefrog Hvla andersonii)
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis)
Response:
1. See Section III-4 (page 15)
2. The 404 Permit process includes collecting specific site
data that will more accurately describe these resources.
3. No water courses are proposed to be relocated.
4. See Section III-3 (page 14)
5. No stream channels are proposed to be relocated.
6. See Section V-4-f (page 34)
7. Wetland impacts are discussed in Section V-4 (page 30).
Floodplain impacts are discussed in Section V-3 (page 28)
12. U. S. Department of Interior
General Comments:
"This responds to your verbal request of November 20, 1990 for a
current list of Federally-listed endangered and threatened
species present in the area affected by the proposed project.
The N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
(NCDOT) is currently re-evaluating the proposed project.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E)
species in the area of influence of this action. It lists also
species which are under status review.
The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency under Section 7 of
the Endangered Speies Act of 1973, as amended, were detailed in
material sent to you previously. If you would like another copy
of this material, or if you have questions, please contact us at
[phone].
61
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) indicated
concurrence. by letter dated October 20, 1980, with the
Biological Assessment prepared by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for potential effects of the proposed
project on the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).
Obligations under Section 7 of the Act were therefore fulfilled.
unless: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
• manner not previously considered: (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner which was not considered in the Service's
review: or. (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Y
Specific Comments:
Since a new species has been listed which may be affected by the
proposed action. in accordance with provisions (1) and (3) above.
a determination must be made of whether the proposed project may
[lj affect Michaux' sumac Rhus michauxii). Further, the Service
believes that the Biological Assessment prepared for the
red-cockaded woodpecker must be revised to reflect current
requirements which take into account affects on the species in a
manner not considered during the original assessment.
Specifically. if the proposed project will be removing pines
greater than or equal to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood
habitat. surveys should be conducted for active cavity trees
within a 112 mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded
woodpeckers are observed within the project area or active cavity
trees found, the project has the potential to adversely affect
the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this office
for further information. The original Biological Assessment did
not consider the impact of foraging habitat loss upon any
colonies located outside the project alignment but within a 112
mile radius..
In view of the fact that almost 10 years have passed since the
NCDOT and FHWA issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the proposed project, the Service recommends strongly that a
revised or supplemental document be prepared for review. The
Service's initial review comments on the proposed project were
provided in the Departmental response dated June 21, 1981.
Concerns expressed in that response regarding anadromous fish
resources in Contentnea Creek and wetland resources affected by
the proposed project remain valid."
w
Response:
1. See Section on Threatened and Endangered Species (page 26)
62
State Agencies
1. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Comments: "The Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has reviewed the subject document and has the
following comments to offer at this time."
Wildlife Resources
"The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the subject project
is adequate in its evaluation of environmental impacts."
"There is. however, a need for a mitigative narrative which
describes the Department of Transportation (DOT) plans and
measures for preventing the direct run-off from approximately 13
miles of new highway from entering the streams in the project.
The run-off from roadside ditches and from the center median
should also be addressed, and measures discussed for terminating
such run-off structures prior to their reaching the run of the
stream."
"Table 2 presents a comparison of environmental impacts.
Corridor C is shown to have the least impact on floodplain
encroachment, wildlife habitat and wetlands; it also avoids a
crossing of Contentnea Creek. Also of importance. Corridor C
utilizes a significant amount of the existing US 264 highway.
This additional. information and analysis indicate that our
preference of alternatives is for Corridor C."
Response: At this time. only preliminary design has been
completed. During the design phase, consideration will be given
to the prevention of direct run-off from entering the streams.
Division of Forest Resources
(1) "Corridor C would have the least impact on forestlands of the
three alternatives."
(2) "Corridor A would destroy 35-40 acres of young pine plantation
and several acres of a commercial nursery."
(3) "Corridor B requires the most woodland of the three "new
location" alternatives, but very little more than Corridor A."
"Strictly from a forestry point of view, Corridor C would be the
most favorable."
63
Raleigh Regional Office
"Water trucks should be used to wet the roadway in order to
minimize dust from truck traffic and heavy machinery. North Carolina
State Implementation Plan for Air Quality has been addressed in the
document."
Response: See Section VIII-E (page 50)
2. N.C. Department of Cultural Resources

Comments: "We have received the notification from the State
Clearinghouse concerning the above project and would like to
comment."
"We agree with your opinion that the Hinnant House does not
appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. However, we would like to point out a concern
we have. Although our principal investigator in Wilson County
was contacted concerning this project. as stated in the Draft
EIS, her survey of the county had not actually begun. She
indicated that she or the county should be contacted at a later
date when more information was compiled. It is our understanding
that this later consultation did not take place."
"In terms of archaeological resources, we agree with the
statement included on pages 38 and 40 regarding the need for
additional intensive archaeological survey after an alternative
has been selected. However we request that a copy of the full
reconnaissance report be forwarded to this office in order that
we may evaluate the results of this initial survey. The summary
report found in Appendix B of 'the Draft EIS includes no specific
information on the individual sites located by the
reconnaissance. A great deal of additional information will be
necessary prior to our evaluations concerning the eligibility or
ineligibility for inclusion in the National Register of any of
the thirteen sites."
"We therefore recommend that this information be forwarded to
this office as soon as possible."
"The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106. codified at 36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order
11593. 'Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.'"
Response: See Section III-F (page 20)
64
3. N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Comments: "Thank you for your letter of January 11, 1983
concerning the above referenced project."
"We have reviewed the findings of your architectural historian
and the results of Ms. Kate Ohno's survey of Wilson County.
Based on these, we concur with your opinion that there are no
structures of architectural or historical significance within the
proposed project area."
"The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. and to Executive Order
11593, 'Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.'"
4. N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Comments: "Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1983 concerning
the above project and the enclosed survey and testing report. We
have reviewed the report and would like to comment."
"As you are aware, this survey conducted by Mr. Thomas Padgett of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation. resulted in the
discovery of five additional.sites and the testing of sites 31 W1
45 and 31 W1 37. We concur with Mr. Padgett's conclusions and
recommendations that these five sites (R-524-1, R-524-2. R-524-3.
R-524-4, and R-524-5), as well as site 31 W1 45, are not eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and
that no additional archaeological investigation of these sites is
warranted."
"We also concur with your determination that site 31 W1 37 is
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places under criterion "d." It is our opinion that this site is
significant for the information it is likely to yield concerning
(1) Early through Late Woodland occupation of the interior
Coastal Plain; (2) Early woodland seasonality and settlement
patterns: (3) cultural relationships between the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain during the Early Woodland period; and (4) the
change, or lack thereof, cultural patterns from the Middle to
Late Woodland periods. As noted in Mr. Padgett's report. this
information can be retrieved through controlled surface
collection and excavation of subsurface features."
"It is our opinion that preservation in place for site 31 W1 37
is not warranted. As your letter states that an appropriate data
recovery plan will be implemented at site 31 W1 37, after
consultation with this office we concur with your determination
of "no adverse effect". This letter, along with your comments,
should be forwarded to the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation for their comments."
65
"The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order
11593, 'Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.'"
5. Region L Council of Governments - Rocky Mount. N.C.
Comments: "Region L Council of Governments Board of Directors met
on June 16. 1981 and approved the DEIS. However, the Board
wanted to make it known that they were concerned about the
comments regarding the 264 project made by Mr. W. H. Farmer. Jr.,
District Conservationist of Wilson County and by the letter to
Mr. T. L. Waters. Manager of Planning and Research Branch. N. C.
Department of Transportation by the Environmental Protection
Agency. These comments are enclosed."
Are soils and topography suitable? Topography is very flat, less
than 2% slopes. Soils have seasonal wetness problems which could
cause ponding during and after heavy rainfall.
Sufficient drainage practices are needed to insure against these
wetness problems.
Response: See Section VIII-E and Soils Section (page 50 and 16)
6. Wilson County Soil and Water Conservation District
Comments: "Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
environmental impact of the proposed US 264 Wilson Bypass. We
have examined both proposed Corridors A & B in relation to prime
agricultural cropland conversion."
"As you know, conversion of land areas to non-agricultural land
uses has two immediate effects on soil and water resource
conservation. The first is the immediate conversion of the land
area involved in a project such as this to a permanent
non-agricultural use. This conversion represents an immediate
loss of food and fiber production if the land used is presently
in cropland use and a future potential loss of production if the
soils are suitable for food and fiber production."
"The second immediate effect is for every acre of prime agri-
cultural cropland used by such non-agricultural projects as this,
more pressure is placed on existing cropland to produce even more
food and fiber with less land area, and all too often, less
conservation of what's left."
[1.] "Therefore, we as supervisors, instructed Soil Conservation
Service and District personnel to use the Wilson County Soil
Survey and identify the subject areas (Corridor A & B) as to
prime agricultural farmland composition. Using the map provided
(understanding that this map depicts the general area of the two
corridors) we established the two routes on our soil survey maps.
66
After establishing these routes we found that Corridor A. with an
estimated 1700 acres involved has 38% or 659 acres which meet
prime agricultural farmland criteria. Corridor B, with an
estimated 1275 acres involved, has approximately 31Z or 394 acres
which meet prime agricultural farmland criteria."
"From a percentage and a total affected acreage of prime.
agricultural land standpoint, Corridor B would be the most
desirable route because this route would entail less prime
agricultural land being lost to non-agricultural uses."
"A completely different route so as to utilize existing 4 lane
roads would, in our opinion. be more desirable than even Corridor
B. An alternative that would use Ward Boulevard to the greatest
extent possible would cause less encroachment on agricultural
lands and provide a more business accessible route thru Wilson.
We don't feel that economics are all there is to it on this topic
since it's impossible to place a value on agricultural land 50
plus years from now. Therefore, we encourage you to look at
other alternatives even if these cause a little less convenience
to travelers."
"If this is out of the question, then our agency stands with the
Corridor with the least disturbance and conversion of prime
agricultural farmland. According to your map and our study, this
would be Corridor B."

Response:
1. The State Office of the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) was contacted concerning the
presence of prime and unique farmland in the area. Soil
type and slope are used to identify the categories of land
suitable for farming. No unique farmlands have been
identified in the area. There is a total of 111.205 acres
of prime farmland in Wilson County. The SCS has identified
approximately 325 acres of prime farmland within Corridor A.
285 acres of prime farmland within Corridor B and 305 acres
of prime farmland within Corridor C. Prime farmland, as
defined by the SCS, is based on soil type and is not
necessarily land available for farm production. The acreage
identified includes woodland, areas too small for active
farming. and areas already developed for other uses
(approximately 10 percent of the area designated as prime
farmland).
The NCDOT concluded that using Ward Boulevard would not be a
practical alternative. Additional construction along Ward
Boulevard would result in an unacceptable level of
disruption on the local community due to the number of
displaced families and businesses, when compared to the
option of constructing a US 264 Bypass on new location.
67

X. LIST OF PREPARERS
This report was prepared by the U. S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration, and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways.
PERSONNEL
TITLE & ORGANIZATION
QUALIFICATIONS
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Mr. Bob Lee District Engineer. FHWA
Mr. Thom Mull Area Engineer. FHWA
Mr. Wady Williams Area Engineer. FHWA
Highway Engineer
responsible for
the administration
of the Federal-Aid
highway program for
the eastern half of
N.C. BSCE. PE. 14
years experience.
Engineer responsible
for the administration
of the Federal-Aid
highway program for
several counties in-
cluding Wilson. BCE.PE.
30 years experience.
Engineer responsible
for the administration
of the Federal-Aid
highway program for
several counties in-
cluding Wilson. BSAE.
21 years experience.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mr. L. J. Ward
Manager of Planning
& Environmental
Branch, NCDOT
Highway Engineer
responsible for
highway planning
and environmental
impact analyses for
the NCDOT. BSCE,
PE. 26 years
experience.
Mr. L. V. Prevatt
Rural Project
Planning Engineer.
NCDOT
Highway Engineer
responsible for
rural highway plan-
ning and-environ-
mental impact
analyses for NCDOT.
BSCE. MCE, PE. 20
years experience.

68
PERSONNEL TITLE & ORGANIZATION
Mrs. J. S. Jackson Rural Project
Engineer, NCDOT
Mr. Thomas J. Padgett Archaeologist.
NCDOT
Mr. Steve Walker Noise and Air
Specialist, NCDOT
Mr. W. H. Dartt Community Planner,
NCDOT
Ms. Leza Mundt Community Planner, NCDOT
QUALIFICATIONS
Highway Engineer
responsible for
conducting planning
and environmental
studies on rural
projects for NCDOT.
BSCE. 5 years
experience.
BA. MS, Anthro-
pology and Archae-
ology. Responsible
for archaeological
resources-evalua-
tion and planning
as part of
environmental
impact analysis.
16 years experience
in archaeology and
cultural resource
management.
Associate Degree in
CE. Responsible
for noise and air
concerns for NCDOT.
15 years experience
in noise and air
section of NCDOT.
BA in Urban
Planning. BS in
Multidiscipline
Studies, BA in
Social Sciences, BS
in Human Services/
Planning. 30 years
in land planning,
thoroughfare plan-
ning, relocation,
appraising. land
acquisition and
construction.
BA-political
science. MS pending.
City and Regional
Planning. 7 years
experience,
69
PERSONNEL TITLE & ORGANIZATION QUALIFICATIONS
including 5 in
transportation
planning and 2 in
land use and
economic development.
s
i

Mr. W. H. Brock Community Planner, AB in Sociology.
NCDOT Master in Divinity.
23 years experience
including 9 years
as Community Values
Specialist with
NCDOT.
Ms. Barbara H. Church Architectural AB, Mathematics.
Historian, NCDOT MAH Architectural
History.
Responsible for
analysis and
compliance for
architectural
resources. 12 years
experience.
Mr. John Sacco Biologist, NCDOT BS in Forestry.
MS in Ecology.
Responsible for
biological
resources
evaluation,
planning and
wetland coordina-
tion. and
threatened
and endangered
species surveys.
3 years
experience
in environmental
research and
planning.
Ms. Laura Mitchell Biologist, NCDOT BS in Zoology, MS
in Wildlife Biology
Responsible for
biological resource
evaluation,
planning and
wetland
coordination, and
threatened and

ri

V
70
PERSONNEL TITLE & ORGANIZATION
Mr. M. Randall Turner Biologist, NCDOT
Ms. Susan Corda Biologist, NCDOT
Mr. Mark J. Pistrang Biologist, NCDOT
QUALIFICATIONS
endangered species
surveys. 6 years
experience in
forestry, and
environmental
research and
planning.
BS in Biology, MS in
Biology, 2 additional
graduate years in
coastal ecology,
extensive work in
coastal and mountain
regions. Responsi-
ble for biological/
ecological assess-
ments, including
wetland delineations/
evaluations, T&E
surveys, etc., as
part of transportation
planning/coordination
process. 6 years
experience in the
environmental field.
BS in Biology, MS in
Botany, 31 years
experience in environ-
mental research and
planning. Responsible
for biological assess-
ment and evaluation,
wetland determination
and delineation, and
threatened and en-
dangered species
studies.
BA in Biology, MEM
in Resource Ecology,
31 years in environ-
mental research and
planning. Responsi-
ble for biological/
ecological assessments,
including wetland
delineations and
determinations.
Threatened and En-
dangered Species
Studies, and general
Ecological Surveys.
71
INDEX
Page

a

Access Control 3
Accident Analysis 6
Affected Environment 12
Air Quality 39
Alternatives to the Proposed Action 8
Archaeological 20
Benefits to State. Region and Community 7
Characteristics of Existing Facility 5
Comments and Coordination 52
Comparison of Alternative Corridors and Reasons for
Recommending Corridor A 9
Cost Estimates 4
Cross Section Description 3
Description of the Proposed Action 1
Description of Studied Improvements 2
Ecological Setting 12
Economic Characteristics 18
Floodplain Impact 28
General Description . 1
General Description (Summary of Recommended Improvements) 2
General Description (Ecological Setting) 12
Grade Separations 4
Historic Sites 20
Historical Resume and Project Status 1
Improvements to Existing Facility 8
Interchanges 3
Land Use Planning 22
Scope and Status of Planning 22
Existing Land Use 22
Existing Zoning 22
Proposed Land Use 23
Relation of Project and Plans 24
Level of Service (Summary of Recommended Improvements) 4
Level of Service (Need for the Project) 6
List of Preparers 67
Mass Transit 11
72
Page
Natural. Ecological and Scenic Impacts 25
Need For the Project 5
New Location Alternatives 8
Corridor A (Recommended) 8
Corridor B 8
Corridor C 9
No Build Alternative 10
Noise Analysis 41
Only Practical Alternative Finding . 33
Permits Required 5
Population Characteristics 17
Postponement of the Proposed Action 10
Primary Impacts 25
Prime Farmland 38
Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 48
Probable Impact of the Proposed Action on the Environment 25
Project Length 2
Proposed Design Speed 3
Public Facilities 18
Educational Facilities 18
Religious Institutions and Cemeteries 19. 37
Recreational Facilities 19. 37
Other Public Facilities 20
Public Utilities 37
Railroad Structures 4
Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity 49
Relocation of Individuals and Families 34
Right of Way 3
Scenic Impacts 26
* Schools 36
Secondary Impacts 25
Social and Economic Impacts 34
Soils 16
Staging of Construction 4
Steps to Minimize Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 50
Summary of Recommended Improvements 2
Terminals of the Project 7
Thoroughfare Plan 6
Threatened and Endangered Species 26
Topography and Geology 12
Traffic Data 6
Traffic Volumes 2
Truck Data 3
73
Page

Plant Communities
Water Quality and Potential Impacts
Wetlands
Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Quality
Wildlife and Potential, Impacts
12
16
30
34
33
15
A

J
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
US 264 FROM WEST
OF I-95 NEAR SR 1001
TO NC 58
WILSON COUNTY
R-1023
VICINITY MAP
' os Fi g. 1
Cl.
p o
i oI N 1 ^??_ - a pS
cl? N L t 1
- N G ?W
II?? N h F•'
O V Q- w N C
??c
,q 00.
.? w Z ? 0 •O
Q m U 0a ° I - ?h O a ??
Z - N - 1° CL 00
0 0 o ou`) 4 T O ' z o
r cc 2 m w s. w ' $ •?
Iz m w U -- c a.
c
o o o z a .6 FPS I p?? i
p W
t db '?
o
O ?.. :A G
_ Su'arp
?. _ • -
9 O
1X3
0
X49 ?. 8b 'MIS °
0 C4 Go 1.3 nv:i nvi nd?
I v n dr ,l ? ? _o l/ •c
p
J ?' N N
i' a Y FP J EXT:'
I. F P Y 7 n b.,
J?0 ??Ud?id ?? `?r 1 r
` U-
b
L?j
co
cv URg : ExT!?. o
?. >o
4
CA.
10
..?' r+'r 4 N f h j O
Al 0
1 a {??` ` /? o 9 A
9' r
0 .9
8 ?'1 ?. SVd N
0b 6'
¦ l - '^ 0.1 0-
O 7 , O
? O.
-0. E O 3W o N NQ•t o? a
r - .7

m F- O'I j y Z'
C t t ! L 6
C
V
? o
a
r h P

o•

y CR
V
Q Q
0• tx
t = p r o
z -

? V E ,n
Q
N-
O c?
- N b m. iL h "-
f) V W
Co N - -

'
1 °
'? In n 9,1
-
9' I
bJd
•
d. c cn N N o 0 ")
0 0,

lO
^ ..
O O
Z
N
Y A.
.2 f in V . ° 10

10

GO
,;j

ol ?

'

6 CID
A.

0 r 8' b
I h
- 1 O
(7 p
U. x
O U ``N^
z LL
Z Q Y
w Cl
F m
CC Q
w Q Q C/) H
QZ=W Q Z
0- 0- cc CL :)
o --c xZ >- O N
¢F- LL Q m CU o
jazz Z Z'. E
Iz-Z - z O p cc
Lh Z (n
0 (<r -J J o
zl- oa
0 C4.
O'l 0)
OD \ O• 1 a P
0
i
o.
9
?•N
A O
u 0
3 ?
0
V
1Z
V
0
P

irf-
INK
1 F
I
I
I

r
t2l
G)
r
C) r? n z
0 0 0 d

H H H
d ? d
0 0 0
`. o ,a
C) w >
,f
R

Dy S

o { m Q z
[; ? 7 C
z F, z x
Vs zCC) 0T
00 1_ zzm
?ZZ w ?
I rt p i p N DT-.i?
2 C
W ?
Z D m = z

CD
O m D
-,
D -<
7J D

2
?
CO
T, D
z

W
x ?

2

? ?-hG ?yt a s i

? n $
? 4 ?
701
.

d U,

r
Intrastate Corridor
US 264

?i
l
JOHNSON '
Washington
W
R-1023 R-525 R-1022
ROW-FFY93 ROW-FFY90 ROW-FFY90
EX ML C-FFY95 EX ML C-FFY-96 EX ML C-FFY90 EX ML

S
ROW Right of way acquisition
C Construction
FFY-00 Fiscal Year - date shown is time of first ROW or C funding
R-0000 - Rural project identification number
1-0000 - Interstate project identification number
U-0000 - Urban project identification number
B-0000 - Bridge project identification number
A-00 Appalachian project identification number
UC - Under Construction
EX ML - Existing Multi-lane
11
This corridor connects the southeastern Piedmont with counties in the northern central Coastal
Plain. It is important to both economic development and tourism. The route connects Raleigh,
Zebu lon/Triangle East, Wilson, Farmville, Greenville and Washington.
Additional project information is available in the Highway sections for Divisions 2 and 4.
FIGURE 4
10 1J 0D
U
- o m ---
= 9s R -
cl-
A. 14
0 N 14 -'b
,p O O a
o
O
8 ~ a N - ?' - 1'q
o 9 8? °o OD of
o `N° o or o U > r) cn Z
O O ??• A 7 r'i
3 OD _ s 1.2 p cn
N
P
d L\ ! _ ?• ?Q 1J w O N H
O O N N w
N W N 0.
m v
CL
o ? I
AC, 1.6 _ 16 v ?,,,
p /1 4 1?' N QJ T -
- - - m b.
wo
w 3 n J T Z
1.2 a ?.50 ?? a N o ,,?
2 Z
OD N / p .7
P
0 0 .+t .? 9 7 1.1 a m
_ n
.2 C)
0 XI
O
J -
p P ° o r 9j a w w
O _ - 3 o
P _
r
1.0 ?_ o p'? c
N 3
o N 3 o
.7
o- o ?' ° 2 J iv 7
v
.O O
oil . I N
L
10
9 ` 1,3 a w ,.7
9 J? 9 °o ?? ~ G N
o N
_ V ? w
,,,, O CD N s _ ---? P ? _
? L
V N FAS U B
6 co V
`D
.(9
w
i o 7 i P
- ... a \
V
o =1
/ A Q 1.5 1.3 CD
, ddb P T :1 ., .'f•.• F„q? .? ?
V 4 t Rp 6b(t f ,, C 1
.., o FAU G
-
S aP) '? - nvj
OD PQ
o ` -AL FAU FAU C ?.1 URg v
Po BDY. .. fgU_EX7 BD
nL,tttLnl? ` c •d'' a '?? r 4 '° w? ?A 1 I
? v l
ol.
°D a ??\

O P \
v \ v '/

m

Otad

I

Sd 9'
a

a C)
C+
N
N m
C) T OD
N

j
d ? ?
1.7 UV

L v
-?
5 n _ v
' o
w V
? D D
3:) M
C7 W D
1T 'ln //? _? V 1
Ul 0 C M Z Z - C C
A A Ul m n n I w m
0
N N W ?j A 4 0 N N
o 01 O N N 01 01
0 -4 -1 O 1
N 01 W
-i O O O -I
-I -i O -A z O
L c
0 0 o w M n o
z to m c ? Ul
n m 0 ?' ?r N ?-f" N ?? I N
0 r 01 w 0 01 0 01
00 01 O O W W N .A
O 01 ?-? I
N ?? G7
z A
-i T
m o
m m
n
z Lo
I m
z
m I
m m
0
z

f+ h+ 1+ M+ 1-? r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 O
i.+ ?-L ?-+ f+ N f+ F+ f+ N N
00 00 O 0 0
A -j 0 -j 0 N 0 1.4
O O O O O O O O N O
?o
to
<
C
m m n m m m n m m
c n
m
IA

N N o
rn o
+ rn rn o
i L

m
m
0
N
W W N 0
w W N W 0 O

f+
f+ ?+ r r+ f+ t0
O O O 0 0 01 0 00 01 O
O
m
z

1
{
N
w a+ ?+ r 1'+ N N IA }+ O
00 00 t0 -1 00 -1 0 d r
O
Gl
C
?l

til w w N W N W N to
O O N 0 O 0 O 4 0 O

-1
N .,
Ui Ul Ut Ul Ul Ltl (!I 4 W O O
N N 0 r-' N 0 N 4 N
0
n
? to
n U!
?N
Z{
r?
NN
3
Y
rl
ry1
N
X'11
J
A

O Z A
CA A
N V1 W ?-+
Cn m
.? F+ I?pp
V O
r
r-?

W ?
CA Cn
A
.? O }O A

.s IN
m o r d
m Im N lao v. ay
O
d

?O Ol
V1 O
?o µ.n
A
l0
_
O o? 6

bl
n+
I ?
H
_ .
._.

b H
b ?
N + y O
?o m Cn m m C
H?
N
Cn

A E
m
d
to
r
C
d
Cn
N ? ?O
?A IN
m O\
W ? m
1-+ m a0
W
O I
W ? m rV
o.
y l0
O y p
y
CA N
W
O N
i
C C 'I
H N I
N W '
Cn O
I
I
I
I?
H? LA
m ? Y ? ?p I
W
m
m W M1^
to ?O O ? I'
A
n
O ?1V
W M.r m Mir '
„'? ,?ppp O ?(aa
V
A
Cl
CA
C
W
O

N ?P d Cn
CT N C=
CA

CT

N
?N
WV ?V
W ? N
V ?
W
? O
V m
W
O
lJ?
H
?o
c!? W CA
IO O
Cz)
?P CA
?o W N H
W N m ?j
M? m py
OO
H
_W ?fJ
.? 1?pNp
O
O
>c
6.n CA H
P Z
y 70 Z
? O
N ly tr ? °' y
CT CJ W ?17
W
H
W ?.f
V ?NO+
A
r
v
W ? rn
r y UU
'.1U
?+ O
m N ap 11??V+ pip H
N L+?O
H
N
to
to
N
N
?p
l0
? m

t"

o
b
o
to v
... go w
?pa

YA ?o H.r.

... W'

ra
-a
o
?y

H
?R
r
O
O
C3

A 9d
C

vo

N N Cn
N ytf
O
IV
IV

W

H
'Zr

r
ua

o? H
ao
m
?i

r
N'y OO

H
to ?W N y0
m C11 00
b0
H
?A

m

co
N co

ca
H
W ?
C?1 O N ?
?"? 7D
b0
t+ O H

C?1
?CS p
a • I~
N p?
N
_
W
O
W. ? O IOC C/a
7d

O I?-+ m ? ?--? 1^' ?o IN f+
N
lal •?
Cn ?C.?) V?
W
lr (ate I
?O N

? ? LJ•
W ? N'O O
m m
O
N
? CIS
V O
ca a V-.
V W Im m'lJ?
H ?
'10 ?O
?J
a ? +
C. `CN.
CA m
L+O W
O\ ?-+ N
IJ? V ??
\O
ca
r
W
r
b11
d y Im W
Ltl

W
CT
O
Cn

w
W
N m .???
W ?1.a? p
?O
W
W

W ?O
a

W N b
-- co Cl
'.O

o.

y W
SV
r O
o? .o
d
W
1-+ V
W
o

N p-+ va H

W r
a tai N
O\ N CA

O

W
N ??+ CA
:w
W MV V?'W W
O+
O
N ?+

m ?W
W CA

W ? Cad Ipp \O
N ??+
?
p
m ?
V
r
s•
7V
C4

y N_
O
cm
.o stn W by t=
I-
to

on
N

m
O

N p...
CD
O

O'p?
N `V m
H
w.]
N_
O?
r.
L-J
H
OH
c?:4 z
H£?
H rCrr??J TCT^:
V• Vt
>
d0?
O to h]
J
N I-3 H
000
F"
0zC
no
> ti
d Ln C
3
H co
H ? (A
z>
xHH
C H
M0 Ii 0?.r
N V
mEF3
In tH- w
oro
z>
En
H
t4
J
:to
z c=: x

m
d
N .i.
O? N
? .sue
C
0
N
.P

Fr IJ? W N
p? p? V ?O
W
Vl
N
W
H

70

to
an OO
O
A O
.s Va
?WJ M.+
r+ ?NOVD OD ?.?
O ??7 ?O ?
W W ?-+
N IOD
.? CD N H
7D
W
C.0
H
W_
•O ,O
O
C?o

L V
W 70
x
O F
wi ? 4
's

a
w An
z 1
z V
r-.
Ln V
m H
W
W V
?,/? IN
m I
o? W 70
bd
W
H

0
r
0
y
.ti ?f W w W
vu
o

N
O r? ????--++ w
am N ?+
.-+ o1 ca
aD y
V N F° mo
00
OV
H
N
•O w

N
Q ??..af
Nµn -a

w
0
r
0
A
A f
's
CQia A
N Ln N
o? m w
i V p
r

w ? cn erois
.r a 7o A

to to
m? N ? ? Ly

d
N

V m
N_ ?r
b
r
?
A
b '
O O? 4

.P M?
b VO
70 H

co p /?

N ? M?

•O ?
H
N
OD
H
.a en «a r
-?
•o bd "e x
s• v ? ca
(A ?--? ?-+ .? ?N w f+ N
i., C m
oo Io+ .-• o. cn Q
N t
O O ?"? N
N N

A ?+
? A
a n M? A
m
A
A
Q
CD
Q Q
CA iA
N w
rn o .P ?a

ter.
b N
.w. 70

pq
?O rn
V
?
.P lr O
•r?I.+ V\
W V
m ??
O? trn W

v.
N i
N V
W O
w
N

f']
N 7b

? aj
01 LV
N N O?
N ?y
O
tv
0
N HIV
_
?
N
~
N
J
CA
1-1

tit ?
b
70
.C

o? a.r. H
70
w

W

O
1"'
r

I 'S.
N
V b4

N
tJ? ?Lw1 N 'A
°°
H
W ?J

x
7a
W C1)
o. rp OC
N
H
W. ?+ 1.... 70

try w w
H
w p.a
1
W
ar f
O
D

Q
N
lao
.i N
C!
N
p? N
r

N
?
N
Y

+ I

P ?
N
N O? M? FO
D
its M. O
ar a'.
W V

s ?> H?
O I? N
70
O
a

~ ? O\
L O
H

yes

O
~+ ??I,.yn
p?
N Y?
m
N
W`
.o
m Ol ?o
tr
m o
W
CA
N
H+
+? W
70 ?o
~ri
m
N
I-+ I V 70
w
N m W ItJ? ?
N_
lp
"2

rA V r
1.11 ?.1
V O
w?'' N b

W H
.P V .O N 70
rn ? V Iao ?--' O
b
0
N
_

O

N N
Ln H
m ? 70
x
W r
N ? ? N r
O? ?
N N N

O
O

V
fr
N ?. cn
70
w k..s tr ?w W
O

m

w Ana 70
c.i

W to
m0 r
67 r
r
a pn
7R
w
y, v, ?s "'? MA o
r

br w
t7 N
M+?
r w µ? ? 0

W t
+s t
,.?
IoD p 0
7
H
H
acu C
°'°

r r2
0
7b
N M-+
O
70
O N H
a o

L-J
H
trJ z Ems-]
(/? H
H:c z
3 v?
> C.,
1-9
m 0
N
0 121
W
H
otnz
oON
F--I H
CD Zn
> C
d Ln O
H Oo ti
H CrJ ,'3'
z>t?
u) cn
xy
x :P-
z0H
t:JNH
cnr?c
cn ro
z 'In^
V`
ass

. .
s
-{ ' - .?'ia?•^ai _ ..232MM A990/2010 WT in NMCV DS -
•
. -a ,
(CMtRMM A)
US 264 BUS I-95 IBC 42 SR 1163

ra "I Z5 Ju
121 451 135 74 A
lu U z 8Il A U lII3 1fi 2 l?Q A u
192 67 13 145 9 56 186 28 4 180 14 30
US 264 2 A 12 11 2 12 13 2- US 264
BYPASS 4 11 31 25 4 22 23 4 BYPASS
-
.u Zii Z2 u
56 442 129 57 A
US 301 SR 1606 NC 58
2QS u 2A
A 379 70 134
21 u 21 lu 14 l? 14Q 21 2Z Al
177 52 51 193 25 18 180 52 49 162
US 264 24 M Z 1 a 1Z US 264
BYPASS 46 63 13 7 47 31 BYPASS

v A 25. Al
385 47 111
z
0
0
y
40
FIGURE 7B
1o07N - Ado?
I /
?. } }
-- -
/ may, ---------- - c
vl
Oil
. , -
Cl)
cun) ml
. ,? _ - ? ??`, ?.:• tic
N 42 .. :.? sc
.
i
Al
4-1 OD
I
S I ®®
Lan ???? ? ?. ,
uv
R R R x I ? .._-_.
0 !C
W O L n
C = ?'
M M'
D` I' I C P, O S C N W
o NWC D?C ??
z I ' '
A f Z . .A 4? ICI rl (' i m ?l • O
a 9 _ ?Q?xk?ll0u4?}}I I??a II
a ?.J <n D 1 ?ti y ?t 3 ?t t="'f i! t! t !'l! ! t t 1
.F > c (n to
n z N m Z a r e. {.":. 3 f
0 z O c`c N y a5z fit
V= - m r ? m Z
5 p
S _n o {d 3 e 6 Vs t i ?tL{ ?! "??I {{
Z .v ! I Q `?v1
N N N y
D aD N
r wl z ? r
M CO V_ W N M
co
w

r
r

H

Q

i
C1
cc '

N

N
J
Q
?D
N
z
O
H
U
Q
1-
N
z
O
U
D
W
N
O
CL
O
a
LL.
O
z
O
U
W
N
J
Q
U
a
O
T
W
M
a
ti
a
'RELOCATION' REPORT E.I.S. CORRIDOR, DESIGN
I: 0, f v-tn9? (circle type report) NC Dept. of Transportation
RELOCATION
i 77171
Mork Order Number F. A. Project Number County IUn
R[c,:
8.1340301 ------ Wilson Alternate -_of Alt"Te!L`J 1987
Description of Project:
nN
t ESTIMATED O L
_
INEY4
TYPE OF DISPLACEE OWNERS TENANTS TOTAL MINORITY 0-10M 10-20M 20-30M 30-40 40 UP
INDIVIDUALS
FAMILIES 13 5 18
r
BUSINESSES 4 1 5 0
FARMS
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
ANSWER ALL N
1. Will project have significant impact YES YO
2. Will project be disruptive to community YES NO
3. Will cosnwnity be cut off from services YES - 1
4. Will neighborhoods be separated YES -(6-0
5. Will special relocation services be
necessary YES - 0
6. Will schools or churches be affected by YES - 0
displacement
7. Will business relocation be detrimental
to community YES - NO
8. Will business services still be available
after project. YES
E) NO
Will any businesses be displaced
If so. indicate size. type. estimated
number of employees, minorities, etc. YES NO
10. Will relocation cause a housing shortage YES NO
U. Source for available housing - list
12. Will additional housing programs be needed YES - NO
" 13. Should Last Resort Housing be considered Y
C E -
NO
14. Is there a significant tKmber of large
families, disabled, elderly, etc.
on project YES CO)
AN.WER Tilt'SE ALSO FOR DrSIGlI
15. Will public housing be needed for project YES - NO
16. Is public housi a ilab YES - NO
17. Is it fel4te it uate DSS
housing ae ri elocation period YES - 110
18. Will thee be problem of housing within
financial means YES - NO
19. Are suitable business sites available
(list Source) YES - NO
1:1.4,. Nev. wbb
VALUE OF DWELLINGS OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE NOW
OWNERS TENANTS FOR SALE FOR RENT
0-10M 0 -S10O 0 0-IOM 0 0-$100 0
10-20M 1 S100-$150 3 10-20M 3 $100-$150 15
20-40M 1 $150-$250 2 20-401.1 54 $150-$250 _2 I
A40-6 5250-1400 a0-60 5250-5400
400-UP 60-UP $400-UP 1-17 1 13 S 280 68
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
All residential displacees treated as
families.
8. There are similar businesses providing
services in the area.
9. a) Antique Car Restoration - small busi-
ness specializing in restoring cars,
with approximately 2 employees
b) T b E Electric Co. - Large sales and
service; electrical company - 8 emplo,
ees
c) Wilson Lawn 6 Garden Equipment Co. -
small sales ii service business with
approximately 4 employees
d) Bissettes Fire Protection - small
sales 6 service of fire prevention
equipment; approximately 4 employees
e) Weyerhaeuser Machinery Sales - large
equipment sales b service business
with approximately 15 employees
H. Real• estate agencies, property managers,
newspaper and MLS.
13. As required under State Law.
Orioinal S I Coov - ttata Rolnratinn AaPnt
20. Number months estimated to complete Relocation
"?.&AMMAr 4W 00LOOaT10N REPORT E.1- S., ORRIDORe DESIGN
I: 0. 1 R-1023 (410,410 type roporl1 RELOUIt. of TransporE Lion
work Order Number F. A. Project Number county
Alternate..L .of -1 Alternates
Description of Project:
US #264 - Wilson Bypass

TYPE OF DISPLACEE OWNERS TENANTS TOTAL MINORITY 0-10M 10-20M 20-30M 30-40 40 UP
INDIVIDUALS
FAMILIES 19 11 30 6 2 9 10 6 3
' BUSINESSES 3 0 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLINGS DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE NOW
FARMS
OWNERS TENANTS
rOR SALE FOR RENT

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 0-10M -1100 0_10H O_$100
1. Will project have significant impact YES q`Nil)
2. Will project be disruptive to community YES
3. Will community be cut off from services YES NO
4. Will neighborhoods be separated YES 0
5. Will special relocation services be
necessary
YES - NO
6. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement YES NO
7. Will business relocation be detrimental
to community
YES - NO
B. Will business services still be available
after project.
ES >0

9. Will any businesses be displaced
If so. indicate size. type. estimated
number of employees, minorities, etc. -

YES NO
10. Will relocation cause a housing shortage YES NO
I;. Source for available housing - list
12. Will.additional housing programs be needed YES
13. Should Last Resort Housing be considered YES NO
14. Is there a significant nutber of large
families, disabled, elderly, etc.
on Prom

YES - NO
AtI?IWER THEE AL:O FOR OiS1G4
A
15. Will public housing be needed for project YES - NO
16. Is public housit,g avails YES - NO
17. Is it felt r wil quate OSS
housing av a 0,i elocation period
YES - NO
18. Will th a be problem of housing within
financial means
YES - NO
19. Are suitable business sites available
(List Source)
YES - NO
20. Number months estimated to complete Relocation
10-20M 100-5150 10-20M 5100-5150 15
20-40M 94 SI50-$250 20 $150-$250
40-60 $250-$400 $250-$400 2 0
-60-UP 400-UP V $400-UP
TOTAL 19 280 68
REMARKS (Respond py Number)
All residential displacees treated as
families.
8. There are similar businesses providing
services in the area.
9. a) Parker's Barbecue (a large restaurant
with approximately 30 employees;
b) Matthews Motel - a small to medium si:
motel employing approximately 6 people
c) Small country store - approximately
2 employees
11. Real estate agencies, property managers
newspaper and MLS.
13. As required under State Law.
r `"•
::09 ^I UAIE APPROVED DATE/ '/ /
10- 13-87 80,
0 RM 15.4, Rev. - 5/86
IELOCATION REPORT E. i. S. CORRIDOR, DESIGN
R-1023 (sirsle type repertl NC Dept. of Transportation
1: D. I RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
York Order Number F. A. Project Number County
8.1340301 ------------ Wilson
Alternate .L of 3 Alternates
Description of Project:
US 11264 - Wilson Bypass

Ma o L
UST LE) INL U(it LE
TYPE Of DISPLACEE OWNERS TENANTS TOTAL MINORITY 0-IOM 10-2014 20-30M 30-40 40 UP
INDIVIDUALS
FAMILIES 19
y BUSINESSES 9 0 VALUE OF DWELLINGS OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE NCw
FARM _
OWNERS
TENANTS
FOR SALE
FOR RENT

40h-PROFIi OPGwYiPATIOtis
2
0
2
0 -IOM
0 i -5100 1 0-ION 0 0-5100
10
20M
- 0 S1OO_$150 5 10-20M 4 $100-$150
1. Will oroject rave sicnificant impact YES NO 20-40H 5150-5250 20-40H 5150-$250 1 2-12
2. Will project be disruptive to community YES NO 40-60 1 5250-5400 0 40-60 9 1 5250-$400 2C
3. Will community be off from services YES NO
4. Wt:: ne1ghtprf)oA;S 6e separated YES NO 71
5. Will s4?cia? reli„-ation services be
necessary YES NO
6. Will schools or churches be affected by NO
YS
displacement
7. Will business relocation be detrimental
to comrx,n:ty YES NO '
8. Will business services still be available
after project. YES NO
9. Will any businesses be displaced
If so, indicate Size, type, estimated
number of employees. minorities. etc. YES NO
10. Will relocation cause a housing shortage YES - O
1+• Source for available housing - list
12. Will additional housing programs be needed YES NO
41K0u.u last resort noastng be considered YES NO
14. Is there a significant number of large
fanmlles, disabled, elderly, etc.
on project YES -
AULWER T+tt ,E ALSO FOR D,-,1G;+
15. Will public housing be needed for project YES - NO
- 16. Is public houifits availA YES - NO
17. Is it feAsi
uate DSS
/Id 1 eq
housing in relocation period YES - NO
18. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means YES - NO
60-UP 2 5400-UP 0 60-UP 13 2 $400-UP )c
TOTAL 1 1 80 E
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
All residential displacees treated as fam__ _
6. Two (2) churches would possibly be :- -
volved. They are: First Weslyan Ch _=
and Trinity Baptist Church
8. There are similar businesses providi__
services in the area.
9. a) Patterson Grocery b Grill - small
Convenient store with 6 employees
b) Old Colony Candles - small candle s-=-
with 1 employee
c) A small used car lot with one empl_-
d) Unical Convenient Store with approx = -
mately 6 employees - (medium size)
e) Parker's Barbecue - a large restau_ -
with approximately 30 employees
f) Matthews Motel - a small to medium
size motel employing approximately
6 people
g) Country Store with approximately 2
employees
h) Convenient Mart - medium size - app = -
mately 6 employees
11. Real estate agencies, property manage
newspaper and MLS.
19. Are suitable business sites available 13. As required under State Law.
(List Source) YES - NO
20. Number months estimated to complete Relocation
OC ION DATE APPROVED DATE
u _ - - S-8i
ORM IS.4, Rev. 5/86
T18LI Li
CALM: CALM11I1 U1E SOOtCI 31SPUSION MODEL - SIPTWII. 1979 711SION
JOB: 110:3 VI:.SOI BTUSSIVILSOI COUNTY 10: 2010 DesigII Year Traffic t SS MPH
I. SITE VAIIABLIS
7 : 1 NIS CUS : 6 (11 VS : 0 CM/S ATIM : 60 MI UTIS
BIG : I DIMIS :0 : 10 3 VD : 0 CM/S AMB : 1.9 PPM
MI3 : 100 M
TIMP : 31 of
II. Lill VkIIAELIS
Lllt DE502I?11:01 * - L:1I COOIDIIATIS W * U11 LIIGTI LIII BIG TYPE VPH SP H '1
* n Ti 12 T2 ' (I1 (DIG) (G/MI) IM) (M)
....-..« ................*........... «.« ........... :„.«.»...... »..................... ..................
A. 1-LAIC DMID HUT * 0 -1000 0 1000 * 2000 360 AG 1930 6.535 0 C
III. IICIPTOR LOCATIONS AID MODEL USOZTS
11CUM ' COOINUTIS IM1 • CO
• i T i * 1!!II
. .................•---_•-:_......_._._??._?.__.......?---..?
1. 135 its 17011 • -51.1 0 1.1 1 2.1
0
TABU A2
CILIT13: CALI.'011IA LM SOOICE DISPEISION MODEL - SEPTEMBEI, 1919 VEISION
JCB: 110:3 VILSOM 3IPASS/11IL501 CODITT 1DI: 2000 Desna Year Traffic 1 55 MPH
1. SITE MUMS
7 : i Us CUS : 6 (!) 7S : 0 CM/S ATI1 : 60 XIMS MIIH : 100 M
$ BIG : I DEGIEIS :0 : 10 CM VD : 0 CM/S 1MB : 1.9 PPM :IMP : 31 °P
r
II. U1I VAIIABLIS
LINE DISCIIMON • LINt COOIDIIATIS IM) • Lilt LIIGT3 LIII BIG TYPE VPH IP a U
• II Ti 12 T: * (11 (D15) (51MI) (M) (M.
........... ..............r.«........ .........._......._._r........................... ............................
A. 1-LANE D:TIDED HVT ' 0 -1010 3 ICCO * ::00 360 14^8 :933 6.988 0 4Z
I:I. 2IC:Y'0I LCCATICIS UD MC:IL IIS"OLTS
UCIPM ' COtDIIATIS (M! * CC
* I T z • (PPM)
...............?.__ _-_-.-_----- ----- ____-------- ........
1.-13S 113 17011 . - * •51.8 Z'S. -- - -
V L07 O ;001 4 n- I=! Law Jk /
A ,i! o
? - •
4 lift u ? AM
U ?
trap r v.
•. ' \ suvew JI
LAXI UK am CRT um Lw C-A
UK ? . liY IML
S ? /• ?` • SL! 1? . ?!•.?. •.-. l7Y .1H, swt ? ,.rte
Ldn
sib •ma J ... an ^ 1W I„L )
LAM U11 L" IMP
JAW
I,Y ,V \? r1 !J4 , 1 • ^ lfi• '• ,I 1.11
tt i w....r H". ,
Um cx
13 Du
? 1Jr ? llu ? © ? w _
•
BEGIN PROJECT _ ,•? •
Um Ma
.7 ga
J .? i ? .J ,Vv; R J
? . }_ , ! Its li ` v
t? 1 • _ 11M
UAL
rW ?? O
r w 17,i ? ., \ i
-, / ? 't ' O
U „
, 7 m 1w
Q/??' r -- ••?
>16 lip ,
LIU
A13 A
),. END PROJECT v
...? , • { 'Ask , lit! ? i
uu ? ` 11tt 1 _ AD • ? ? • till
U?w
1 „p 1AM lafl t V .. ,r ? v_.
• •? • Lux u!
? ? r. r• ? r J
_ w
G J + JAM lYl
ttL , / 1
IAN
Ififf AM ?40C - U,i?
?•? v , T 1lSL ,D JYiw FAY I , ,)
fi?Dlr,l J? 3 T - tw 1 / Q U! / V
• - `/ • LAU
LUL
= D ` u . stwc ti .?
two U
M ion
u. i
1A tut
• ,., ?;
ua ?
?' ? ? 1aH _ \ ? NHL / ?Yt / ? ??
LML
W A Y N E E? c O U N T Y
WILSON COUNTY
FIGURE N1 - PROJECT LOCATION
US-264/Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
Project # 8.1340301, R-1023 LM , m
TABLE N1
Hearing: Sounds that bombard us daily

140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff Pain
Motor test chamber Human ear pain threshold
or 130

Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music Uncomfortably loud
110

Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory Loud
90

D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away Moderately loud
B 70

E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office Quiet
50

Household refrigerator
Quiet office Very quiet
40

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
Average person's threshold of hearing
Whisper Just audible
Z 10

0
0

0

Threshold for acute hearing
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J.
B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt
and published in the Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic
by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2

NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
(Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds,
(Exterior) active sports areas, parks, residences,
motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities
(Exterior) not included in Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
(Interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals, and auditoriums.
z Source: Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual 7-7-3. Procedures f-qr
o Abatement ? Highway Traffic Noise ? Construction Noise.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, August 9, 1982, revised November 20, 1986.
I
? CAW 4
IAIL ua
C-
V
/ ( 1!e tat 1
o Lt! u+t • r
•S \`'S/LVCR I`i! ?' 1J IML IN7 l ,ti I+ I? Tw. r \! ?R
Gw. y.
„' \ `[.flfE a 1114 , 1414
_ n. crry
?/ - „! ?.,..:`??'-\?JJ??? T ?' » (•. • 1901 .• ta. \ r +J
N - J'7 j .71•• i . M 1991
? IaiL '? •?
S ' 141) - • Il)i?J 1 _ fit •Lit!
JN u • J -L1A
.80 JAK
Q 'w ?- '• ' 13M _ _,L,.' Iflt Lill'
f•1
t,wr Jal , ,` ? ?.? ? Q'• ? ?+?? O tat \
••1•a, !•r % to jx - ?? •.? 1 ?r ?k ,? ISSI Lin 1. z \
70111 !?V 1 1 17R. ?i` >• l?? /'II?JtL A.M? l -i , T Ulf
I L-. ri_ fem. ? 11 - 1 Y 1rwR. /1? .
t T L- J J IO..^?ilY yrr" •? b LW J Q L I I ,?_
JIM Vik"
I.L7! 7 - 1\ I ? L .1 ! ?) lfil 1 L1Y
. BEGIN PROJECT' II ii\ ?T
ilk
? •? ?. Ir ix 177! 1
Lw-
J 1LI ? ? e ••? • tin:i ? lril 1Li v !IL Jm m ?
A. ? ! / ma ! Lm .17E 17
LLAF- IM
ILI&
`, slat r ?w .,,9 ..•.iy. /„?:. . . ',? !.? ..? : un ' LJU ;,01
• II7L I • ]I • q ® ?••
1 • .a 4 J A ";3 so ^ Lan +
Usk ? 1 ••,
WRSCH It ?= q•IM
r.f UAL - ,? b 1/.3• '? A - '+ tit !1 j o Gw•o
l
Ima
nla ttat 181
t
? u s I . .? • i
FI
1A ? 11? s1.
J t Soft
ua ,? J L. a 1Ltt t r -,3. ??..-
J.U1 -7,
LAU lift
u°^ 111! !!II • . ,?!.Ll). .? ,. IJ latt ,?r . Ilan
LAU
1111 ENO PROJECT +y v .19: u7
• 111E 11IS Y"n 1V • ,. ? 1 • !• I ? ?,
Lin I's
Lug Ima 11L • I S1ti 1fiL Jala 1 I]7
- ' IAN - • I1a •an 3T 'lx
LAn \ 10 Ialt ••• !y !au r /
_lw Lm
AAA v ^ ,• /tf y 121E TD 11111^ ?. ` Cmw • r...r / 1 , uaL
G.?IAJAL t 7 ror. Sal •, PI
J t ? 110 / Q 1!? ' y
ta/t
A LAW Um
Y
1a1i 1 Liu LCf..
an
• LS • ST v - !I7L? fir/ Slat _l
Lim
Jot V . • s T • CG 1*0 1111 • IJ ;
IT } ' r '? r J/ ;•1 ~ ?1 / /I
LYL ^
7 n i INt?V 1611 R lay :+ 1t11t Ia IT
• __ Ire `~. Iyr - \ 1? ? ? ??
-b JAU
\ - - _ • 7.77'
I
I ? n I Ls1t
W A Y N E C O U N T 'f 2 o
0
WILSON COUNTY
FIGURE N2 - AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SIT'r.
US-264/Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
Project # 8.1340301, R-1023
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
` US-264/Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
Project # 8.1340301, R-1023
4-LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY, 70' MEDIAN
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
---- ------------------------------ -------------------- -------
1 SR-1136 at SR-1159 Grassy Area 60
2 NC-42, 0 .2 Mile S of SR-1001 Gravel Area 62
3A SR-1162 - Used SR-1103 53
3 SR-1103, 0.8 Mile E of SR-1164 Grassy Area 53
4 US-301, 0.6 Mile S of US-117 Grassy Area 66
5 US-117, 0.1 Mile E of SR-1613 Grassy Area 68
6 SR-1606, 0.4 Mile S of SR-1692 Grassy Area 59
7 SR-1602, 0.4 Mile S of Railroad Grassy Area 53
7A NC-58 - Used NC-42 62
A SR-1156, 0.6 Mile N of SR-1154 46
B SR-1159, 0.4 Miles S of SR-1136 45
C SR-1612 @ Plant Nursery 54
n
v
i
n
0
O
1
{
NOTES:
With regard to traffic volumes and the type of facility, Sites 3A
(SR-1162) and 7A (NC-58) are similiar to Sites 3 (SR-1103)
and 7 (NC-42), respectively.
dBA levels at numbered sites were measured at 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic.
dBA levels at lettered sites were measured for ambient baseline levels.
TABLE 14
Leq TRAIIIC BOIS1 RIPOSURRS
US-264, Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
State Project 8.1340301, 1-1023
4-LANK DIVIDED HIGHWAY, 70' KBDIAN
Dist. To Atbient Dist. To Predicted
Receptor Receptor Receptor Nearest Nearest Noise Proposed loise Level
ID 10. Land Use Category Roadway Roadway Level Roadway •L- -Y-
Beginning of Project (US-264) to I-95
: Residence ? SR-I:56 30' L 46 40' L
2 Residence B 80' L 46 200' L
3 Residence B ' 80' R 46 0'
4 Residence B 80' R 46 130' L
5 Residence B 80' L 46 380' L
f 6 Residence B 80' R 46 _ 260' L
I-95 to NC-42
7 Residence B SR-1136 60' L 59 940' R
! 8 church 6 " 60' L 59/49 1030' R
9 Residence B 160' R 51 800' R
1 10 Residence B SR-1159 80' L 45 240' R
11 Residence B 11 80' L 45 500' R
12 Residence B SR-1136 160' L 51 100' L
13 Residence B 110' R 55 400' L
14 Residence B 110' R 55 510' L
1C 42 to US 301
15 Church S NC-42 160' R 53/(40 920' L
* 16 Residence B SR-1162 120' R 48 200' R
17 Residence B 240' R 42 580' R
18 Residence B 80' L 50 460' R
19 Residence B 80' L 50 540' R
. 20 Residence B SR-1103 100' L 49 320' R
Residence B " 80' R 50 400' R
22 Residence B 80' L 50 460' L
23 Residence B ' 880' R 42 200' R
S 24 Business C 160' R 45 300' R
25 Business C 120' L 48 280' L
1/2
Max. Pred. Noise
Noise Level
Level Increase
................ RIW-----------------
-- -• 64 +18
................ R/W.................
................ R/W-----------•-----
-- -- 51 +11
-- •- 62 +16
41 62 62 + 3
46 62 62/52 + 43
48 54 '.5 + 4
64 46 54 +19
-- -- 52 + 7
----- ------- ----R/W--------- --------
58 58 61 + 6
55 58 59 + 4
47 63 63/43 +10/3
66 51 66 +18
53 44 53 +11
56 53 58 + 8
54 53 57 + 7
60 49 61 +12
58 53 59 + 9
56 53 58 + 8
-- -- 66 +24
...... .......... R/W--------- --------
------ ---------- R/W--------- ----..-.
y.OM : Distances Are ?rat Center Of dxisting or Proposed Roadways. Category R noise levels are shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. ! => Approach or exceed criteria (1HPK 7-7-3, para. 4g)
-Y- => Noise level frot all other contributing roadways. t => Substantial noise level increase (PHPK 7-7-3, para. 4q)
-L- => Proposed roadway's noise level. contribution. * => Keets both criteria for itpacts (1HPK 7-7-3, para. 4g)
TABLE 14
Leq TRATTIC NOISE EIPOSU11S
US-264 Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
State Project 8.1340301, 1-1013
4-LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY, 701 MEDIAN
2/1

Dist. To Adient Dist. To Predicted Max. Pred. Noise
Receptor Receptor Receptor Nearest Nearest Noise Proposed Noise Level Noise Level
ID No. Land Use Category Roadway Roadway Level Roadway -L- -Y- Level increase
1
US-301 to US-111
26 Business C US-301 160' L 6o 200' R ............ .... R/W-----------------
27 Business C 100, R 64 320' R ............ .... R/W-•--------•--•---
28 Business C 80, R 66 120, R ............ .... R/W-----------------
29 Business C 140' 1 56 380' L ------------ ---- P./W-----------------
30 Business C 160` R 60 560' L ----•------- ----R/W-----------------
US-117 to US-264 East of Wilson
1 31 Residence B US-117 90' L 65 660' L 51 69 69 + 4
32 Residence B 240' L 56 420' L 57 60 61 + 6
33 Business C SR-1612 601 L 54 I801 L -- •• 67 +13
34 Residence B - SR-1606 120, R 53 440' R 57 60 52 + 4
* 3S Residence B 1840, R 44 170' R -• -- 61 +23
36 Residence B SR-1602 80' R 61 880' R 47 63 64 + 3
37 Residence B 160, a 56 4801 L 55 58 60 + 4
38 Residence B US-264 150, R 53 940' L 47 58 58 + S
13
13
v
0
4
50TES: Distances Are Troi Center of Existing Or Proposed Roadways. Category E noise levels are shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. ! => Approach or exceed criteria (IHPK 7-7-3, para. 4g)
-Y• Noise level fros all other contributing roadways. # _> Scbstantial noise level increase (IHPK 7-7-3, para. 4g)
-L- => Proposed roadway's noise level contribution. * _> Meets both criteria for ispacts (IHPM 7-7-3, para. 4g)
TABLE 15
PHWA NOISI ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
,
r
Segment
Beginning of Project (US-254) tc I-95
I-95 to MC-42
WC-42 660 US-301
US-2C1 t0 "WS-117
US-117 to US-264 East of Wilson
US-254 Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
State Project No. 8.1340301, TIP No. R-1023
Maximum Predicted
Leq Noise Levels
dBA
50' 100' 200'
75 72 68
76 73 69
76 73 69
76 73 69
76 73 69
Contour Approximate Number Of Receptors
Distances Approaching or Ex ceeding PHWA
(Maximum) Noise Abatement Criteria
72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
104' 166, 0 2 0 0 0
116' 186, 0 1 0 0 1
116' 186' 0 2 0 0 0
116' 186' 0 0 0 0 0
116' 186' 0 2 0 0 0
TOTAL
Motes:
S . 501, 100', and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
0 7 0 0 1
TABLE 16
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMART
4
US-264 Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
State Project No. 8.1340301, TIP No. R-1023
T
1 I NUNBER OF
R E CE P'. 0 R E I T I RIO R N O I S E L I VI L I N C I I A S E S SUBSTANTIAL
SEGMENT i INCREASES
r-0 1-2 3-4 5-6. 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22.23-24 >- 25 >-15 dBA
I ?
I BEGINNING OF PROJECT I
IUS-264) TO 1-95 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
1-95 TO NC-42
I 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 f 1
j AC-42 TO US-301 I 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 i 0 0 1 0 2
US-301 TO US-117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
( US-117 TO OS-264 EAST 1 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
OF WILSON
i
10
Z
0
0
TOTAL 1 0 0 7 3 4 3 3 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 6

C T
A.a AAlro
?lfr M
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
JAMES E HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
File
October 17, 1988
Janice Jackson
Wilson Bypass, R-1023, Wilson County
w
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS. P E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
A meeting on the Wilson Bypass was held on October 11, 1988 in the Planning
and Research Conference Room at 2:00 p.m. The following persons were in
attendance:
Edna E. Boykin
Russell Rawlings
John Byrd
Ralph Ramey
J. P. Harrell
Garry C. Mercer
Cy Brooks
L. P. Fleming, Jr.
David E. James
C. A. Gardner
E.466e?Beasley III
Jim Greenhill
Lubin Prevatt
Janice Jackson
City Council & Chamber of Commerce
Wilson Daily Times
City Council
Mayor of Wilson
Chairman County Commission
County Manager
City Manager
Chamber of Commerce
Chairman of Chamber Trans. Commission
NCDOT Division 4
Chamber of Commerce
NCDOT Planning and Research
NCDOT Planning and Research
NCDOT Planning and Research
Mr. David James opened the meeting by giving brief background information
on the Wilson Bypass. He discussed that initially the Chamber of Commerce
endorsed the most southern alternative (Corridor A) they believed that develop-
ment would expand to the bypass however, they feel this is no longer true. At
this point he introduced their recommendation for a corridor study. Mr. James
explained that the new corridor study followed corridors B and C for the most
part with only a small diversion (see attached map). It was also mentioned that
this corridor be presented for comparison purposes at the public meeting for this
project. Mr. Greenhill indicated that the corridor was legitimate and would be
investigated, but would delay the planning study. There were questions raised
concerning differences in cost estimates between the alternatives. Alternative A
went from most expensive (DEIS-1981) to least expensive (REEV-1988).
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
co" - "cow
co" - NCOOT
Of w
i CITY OF WILSON
O,y f'O
:N. 74A eamlina
?"ORfM G mcoro"no ,*a.
27M
O/•iCt OF TMt
CITY MANAGER

May 12, 1989
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cyrus L. Brooks, City Manager
SUBJECT: U.S. 264 Bypass

M-066-89
The North Carolina Department of Transportation planning staff out
of Raleigh is going to meet with City and County staffs to discuss
the pros and cons of the proposed inner and outer loops of the U.S.
264 Bypass. This meeting will be held in the Training Room at the
Operations Center.
The City Council members and the County Commission members are
invited to be present if they wish. I personally would encourage
your attendance if it is at all convenient, in order that you might
be briefed on the matter by the Raleigh Office of DOT. This
meeting will be at the regular staff meeting time at 3:00 p.m. on
Monday, May 22, 1989.
CLB/aih
CC: Charles W. Pittman, III
Garry C. Mercer, Wilson County Manager
Lubin Prevatt, NCDOT

r.
P.O. BOX 10. WILSON. NORTH CAROLINA 27893 [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
COPY - "COOT
e..SWto

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
File
Lubin Prevatt
US 264 - Wilson Bypass
Wilson County, Project R-1023
M
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS. P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
On May 22, 1989 a meeting was held in Wilson. to discuss the subject project
and planning studies with the staffs of the City of Wilson and Wilson County.
Also members of the Wilson City Council and the Wilson County Commissioners were
notified of the meeting.
Those in attendance at the meeting were as follows:
Name

City Staff - City of Wilson
Cy Brooks
Charles Pittman, III
William Bartlett
Burt Gillette
Charles Whitley, Jr.
Gordon Baker
Bruce Rose
Paul Walters
City Council - City of Wilson
Ralph E1 Ramey
Ashton P. Wiggs
A. P. Coleman
Edna E. Boykin
John Byrd
May 23, 1989
Office
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Director of Public Works
Recreation Department
Director of Utilities
Finance Director
Fire Department
Support Services Director
Mayor
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
An Equal opportunity /Affirmative Ac;+on Employer

Page 2
May 23, 1989
copy - "COOT
0
County Staff - County of Wilson
Garry Mercer
Edward Phillips
NCDOT
C. A. Gardner,
Susan Klemm
Len Hill
John Sacco
Lubin Prevatt
County Manager
Planning Director
Jr. Division Engineer - Division
Statewide Planning Group
Roadway Design
Planning and Research - Env.
Planning and Research
Representatives from NCDOT presented information that had been gathered and
studied regarding alternatives for the project since the public meeting on March
15, 1989. The project has evolved to two basic alternatives, Alternative A
(outer loop) and Alternative 8 (inner loop). The City and County elected
officials are on record as supporting the inner loop. The County staff also has
supported the inner loop. The NCDOT staff and the City staff support the outer
loop.
Detailed discussion was held regarding the two alternatives regarding cost,
economic impact, environmental impact, impacts on existing development, future
development, and various studied options. Extensive discussion was centered on
the impact that the inner loop would have on existing development along Forest
Hills Road by embankments, structures, and access control. The advantages of the
outer loop from a transportation systems standpoint was also discussed at length.
The possibility of building a future interchange along the outer loop at Downing
Street was presented, as well as discussions about upgrading Forest Hills Road,
NC 42, and roadways connecting to Airport Road.
As a result of the meeting, those in attendance seemed to be better informed
of some of the problems and impacts associated with the inner loop. There also
seems to be a little more acceptance of the outer loop if appropriate connecting
roadway improvements are made.
LVP/sdt

COPY - NCDCYT
r

July 11, 1989
Memorandum To: File
From: Lubin Prevatt
Rural Project Planning Unit
Subject: US 264 - Wilson Bypass
Project R-1023
On July 10, 1989, Lubin Prevatt made a general
presentation of the subject project study to the Wilson Home
Builders Association. The presentation was made at the WHBA
monthly meeting at the Holiday Inn in Wilson.
The meeting was attended by approximately 40 members.
The project did not seem to be controversial to those
present. The proposed "Outer Loop" seemed to be the
appropriate alternative to most of those in attendance.
Most of all the WHBA seemed to support the early construction
of the project regardless of location.

COUNTY OF WILSON
Dun NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE MANAGER
P.O. BOX 1723. WILSON, N.C. 27894-1728
919-237.6600
.
1836 WILSON COUNTY COURT HOUSE 19"
January 8, 1990
Mr. J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. D. 0. T.
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Greenhill:
:j
i C. 'r

The Wilson County Board of Cannissioners, meeting in regular session Monday,
January 8, 1990, considered the location of the US 264 By-pass through Wilson
County. After deliberation, the Board approved, a motion endorsing ti-'e cute
loop as a location for this highway.
Please notify the necessary staff accordingly.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call.
ly, [,
?Meroer
County Manager
GCM: rnm
4t
901-008

COVy - "COOT

11 J
k
? ? ?P c ?T

?E Z CITY OF WILSON
\ORrA Gr INCOMONATio 1040
27893
oFYICE OF TNF
CITY MANAGER
January 4, 1990
Mr. J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Greenhill:
CLB-90-001
Re: U.S. 264 - Wilson Bypass, Wilson County Project R-1023
The City Council of the City of Wilson at its regular meeting of
December 21, 1989, adopted Resolution R-081-89 endorsing the outer
loop of the U. S. Highway 264 Bypass project. A copy of this
resolution is attached for your records.
Please notify the necessary staff accordingly. Thank you for your
assistance on the above.
Sincerely,

CITY,-OP WILS
Ana I. Heder
Secretary to
Cyrus L. Brooks,
Attachment
City Manager
P.O. BOX 10, WILSON. NORTH CAROLINA 27893 [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
copy - W.00T
RESOLUTION R-081-89
r
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILSON
ENDORSING THE OUTER LOOP OF THE U.S. HIGHWAY 264 BYPASS
WHEREAS, for several months the Department of Transportation
for the State of North Carolina has been debating as to the precise
location of constructing a bypass for U.S. Highway 264 around the
City of Wilson; and
WHEREAS, there has been considerable debate among the citizens
of Wilson, and the City Council has heretofore recommended the
inner loop as the preferred route; and
WHEREAS,-Eddie Price, Commander of the American Legion Post,
has appeared before City Council and presented additional facts and
requested the City Council to reconsider and go on record as
recommending the outer loop as the preferred route; and
WHEREAS, after listening to the presentation and after further
consideration,. the City Council now recommends the outer loop as
the preferred route.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WILSON that it recommend to the Department of Transportation of
the State of North Carolina that the outer loop for the U.S.
Highway 264 Bypass be the preferred route; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby
directed to notify the Department of Transportation of the State
of North Carolina of this recommendation.
DULY ADOPTED this the 21st day of December, 1989.
CITY OF WILSON

Charles W.
City Clerk
copy - M0007
copy - m=T
J
U.S. 264 WILSON BYPASS RESOLUTION
N
WHEREAS, the construction of U. S. 264 Bypass in Wilson County is
needed to meet the state's needs for safe, speedy travel through the
area and since this bypass can be utilized by Wilson County for total
development without much additional cost to the state; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the resolution on the location of the bypass
previously adopted by this body included a proposal for staging the
development in order to reduce the initial cost and to hasten the
construction of the most needed part of the bypass; and
WHEREAS, it now appears that sufficient highway funds will be
available to con lete the construction of the entire section of U. S.
264 through Wilson County; and
WHEREAS, it is still believed that the U. S. 264 inner loop
designated as corridor B is the location of the route, that would be
most beneficial to the total development of Wilson County; and
WHEREAS, a need exists to connect the bypass to the northern part
of Wilson County, specifically including the Wilson industrial air
facility; and
WHEREAS, the availability of development at the new intersection
of controlled access Highways I-95 and U.S. 264 is essential to Wilson
County;
IT IS NOW, THERE DRE, RESOLVED that the Wilson County Board of
Commissioners does continue to fully support the joint request of the
City of Wilson, Wilson County Chamber of Coameroe, Won Econamic
Development Council, and Wilson on the Move that the N. C. Department
of Transportation designate the inner loop route as the corridor to be
used in completing U. S. 264 through Wilson County, and consideration
be given to the construction of service roads accessing the new
intersection at I-95 and U. S. 264.
This 3rd day of April, 1989.

4
Attest:
Board of County Commissioners
IJ A, C.
copy - NWOT
r
US 264 WILSON BYPASS RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the construction of a US 264 Bypass in Wilson
County is needed to meet the state's needs for safe speedy
travel through the area and since this bypass can be utilized
by Wilson County for the total development without much
• additional cost to the state; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the resolution on the location of
the bypass previously adopted by this body included a
proposal for staging the development in order to reduce the
initial cost and to hasten the construction of the most
needed part of the bypass; and
WHEREAS, it now appears that sufficient highway funds
will be available to complete the construction of the entire
section of US 264 through Wilson County; and
WHEREAS, it is still believed that the US 264 Inner Loop
designated as Corridor B is the location of the route that
would be most beneficial for the total development of Wilson
County; and
WHEREAS, a need exists to connect the bypass to the
northern part of Wilson County, specifically including the
Wilson Industrial Air Park, and
WHEREAS, the availability of land for development at the
new intersection of controlled access Highways I-95 and 264
is essential to Wilson County;
IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Board of
Directors of the Wilson County Chamber of Commerce does
continue to fully support the joint request of the County of
Wilson, City of Wilson, Wilson Economic Development Council,
and Wilson On The.Move that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation designate the inner bypass route as a corridor
to be used in completing US 264 through Wilson County and
that consideration be given to the construction of service
roads accessing the new intersection at I-95 and US 264.
This 12th day of April, 1989.
By:
Wilson County Chamber of Commerce
COPY - NCOOT
U.S. 264 WIL" BYPASS RESOMTICN
0
WHEREAS, the construction of U. S. 264 Bypass in Wilson County is
needed to meet the state's needs for safe, speedy travel through the
area and since this bypass can be utilized by Wilson County for total
development without much additional cost to the state; and
W MEAS, a portion of the resolution on the location of the bypass
previously adopted by this body included a proposal for staging the
development in order to reduce the initial cost and to hasten the
construction of the most needed part of the bypass; and
WAS, it now appears that sufficient highway funds will be
available to complete the construction of the entire section of U. S.
264 through Wilson County; and
WHEREAS, it is still believed that the U. S. 264 inner loop
designated as corridor B is the location of the route that would be
most beneficial to the total development of Wilson County; and
WHEREAS, a need exists to connect the bypass to the northern part
of Wilson County, specifically including the Wilson industrial air
facility; and
%IMPEAS, the availability of development at the new intersection
of controlled access Highways I-95 and U.S. 264 is essential to Wilson
County;
IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Wilson County Tourism
Development Authority does continue to fully support the joint request
of the City of Wilson, County of Wilson, Wilson County Cher of
Commerce, Wilson Economic Development Council, and Wilson on the Move
that the N. C. Department of Transportation designate the inner loop
route as the corridor to be used in completing U. S. 264 through Wilson
County, and consideration be given to the construction of service roads
accessing the new intersection at I-95 and U. S. 264.
This 3rd day of April, 1989.
Chairman
Wilson County Tourism Development Authority

COMMISSIONERS
J. PRESTON MARRELL, CHAIRMAN
RAkvc E ENOwr. VICE CHAIRMAN
C CHARLES BARNES
JOSEft NE F. EDWARDS
RAEFORo L_ FLOWERS
some O. JONES
RoeERT L. VICK
September 14, 1989

The Honorable James G. Martin
Governor of North Carolina
Office of the Governor
State Capitol Building
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Governor Martin:
t

ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES
101 K GOLOSSORO ST.
P.a Box 1728
WILsoN. NC 27894.1728
919237.6600
SEP 2 8 .:, . .
i
Several months ago, Department of Transportation officials told us &.e opinion
of local government leaders would be given the highest priority when decisions
were made about the proposed-four laning of Highway 264 in Wilson County.
On more than one occasion the City Council and County Commissioners have
expressed their support of the Inner Loop through Wilson County. Also, the
largest business organizations in our county have been unanimous in their
support for the Inner Loop.
Yet, your administration has chosen to ignore us. We have received little
explanation on why your department is proceeding with the Outer Loop. The
Outer Loop will:
1. Be of economic benefit to few.
2. Create a hopscotch sprawl type growth in our county.
3. Place considerable additional strain on local resources.
4. Fail to relieve our inner city traffic problems.
5. Take transportation access and services away front our existing
ecorxmic developrent assets, such as our airport.
With the Outer Loop, Wilson would be the only county in North Carolina with
four-lane limited access North-South and East-hest thoroughfares that do not
touch the city limits of its primary business community. We are bypassed by
I-95 now. If the Outer Loop is constructed, U.S. 264 will miss us also.
Please don't allow that to happen.
COVV - NCOOT
coot ACT
0:
1 '
The Honorable James G. Martin
September 14, 1989
Page 2 '

We feel that expressed in tube department's position runs counter to the policies
Past--gov?eznment as close to the you have
gvvenmient efficiency, and small people as possible,
community economic development:
In to the Outer Loop, the Inner hoop enhances existing
?ts• The Inner Imp is less of a burden on Wilson County taxpayers. . Thee
Inner Loop ties in mach better to our existing highway and road network,
connecting twig many. The Inner Loop requires less state expense for improvements
of
roads.
We request the opportunity to meet with you about this project, which is also
inPortant to our county's future. We hope you will reevaluate your
? administrations support of the Outer Loop.
We look forward to hearing from you.
incerely,
J• 0-s!on Harrel??
Chairman
Wilson County Board of Caamissioners
JPH: ntm
R
7
7
7
Z
n
0
0
891-223
COPY - r4CQOT
ail- 0?1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OCT 0 5 1989,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH 27611 -p
V
JAMES G. MARTIN October 2, 1989 HHARRINGTON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
Mr. J. Preston Harrell, Chairman
Wilson County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 1728
Wilson, North Carolina 27894
Dear Mr. Harrell:
As Governor Martin has been out of state, I am responding to your
letter regarding the US 264-Wilson Bypass.
The comments in your letter of September 14, 1989, as well as
your resolution of April 3, 1989, and the comments you made at
the public meeting on March 15, 1989 are being given most serious
consideration by myself and the NCDOT professional staff.
The improvement of US 264 in Wilson County is one of the top
priority projects in-the state and is a significant part of North
Carolina's Intrastate Highway System.
Due to the strong local interest in this project, and also the
varying opinions as to its exact location, special attention has
been given to the project's planning study. In addition to
normal and legal requirements for public involvement, extra
-coordination-has been exercised in. the past year. As you are
aware, a special public meeting was held in Wilson on March 15,
1989 at the Forest Hills Middle School which was attended by over
300 persons. On May 22, 1989 a special meeting was held in
Wilson by the NCDOT state office staff to present the technical
details of the project study to the Wilson City staff (8 members
o present), Wilson City Council (5 members present), the Wilson
°, County staff (2 members present), and the Wilson County
Commissioners (none in attendance).
41
The NCDOT staff has also held meetings with local groups in
Wilson County upon request, has made available public information
sheets on the project study, has been regularly interviewed by
the local news media, has had numerous contacts with local civic
leaders, and has been involved in one of the largest public
involvement programs in NCDOT history. As a result of this
special involvement, hundreds of letters have been received from
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
ooaw , u,-,

Mr. J. Preston Harrell
October 2, 1989
Page Two
the government leaders, civic leaders, and individual citizens.
It is noted that the comments received on the project have
covered the entire spectrum ranging from strong support for the
"Inner Loop" to strong support for the "Outer Loop". It is
further noted that several business groups and the County
Commissioners have supported the "Inner Loop", while the majority
of the comments received from the general public and professional
staffs have been in favor of the "Outer Loop". All these
comments, and all alternatives, must be considered in the
planning process.

At this time, the NCDOT Planning, Design, and Environmental
staffs are continuing to study the project, its location, and its
impacts. It is anticipated that a Final Environmental Impact
Statement will be published for the project in December of 1989,
that a Design Public Hearing will be held in the spring of 1990,
and that a Record of Decision will not be approved until the
summer of 1990. You will be sent a copy of the environmental
document for your review and comments, and will be given personal
notice of the public hearing.
As the planning process continues, your continued review of the
project is welcomed. Please contact me or the NCDOT staff at any
time you desire additional information concerning this project.
-Yours - ruly,
4 Z? ?
es Harringt
JEH/lvp
cc: Governor James G. Martin
Jack Bishop, Member, Board of Transportation
C. A. Gardner, Division Engineer
Jack Ward, Manager of Planning and Research
Z
0
0

1091 IN . .0 ,
w?• - hbLNt .
James G. Martin, Governor
"COOT
00
?
s
North Carol
lent of Trar
` James Harringoon,
k
MAR 0
.1=
00
PpsF_ 28 Feb. 1989
?
Release: Immediate 'P%
Paul Worley [phone] istribution: 98
Contact:
Release No: 0104
16
PUDLIC: MEETING SET FOR WILSON BYPASS
RALEIGH -- The N.C. Department of Trali_?portat. ion will hold a'
public meeting an Wedne?sd?ty, March 15, to discuss propo-icd ruute?>
for the US-264 Wilson Bypass.
The meeting will be held at *7 p.m. at Forest Hills M'ddlr
School in Wilson.
constr uctioTi has be•err :=,cheduled i,i the, Transpor tat ?r,n
Improvement Program (TIP), NCDOT's planninq document for highway
projects, for a four-lane divided highway beginning in Fiscal
Year 1996. Four alternative routes are beinq studied.
The public is invited to attend the informal meeting, ask
questions, make comments or recommendations and submit material
about the proposed project. DOT officials are askinq interested
citizens to meet with tlietn on a one-to-one basis. This will give
the department a better opportunity to understand citizens'
attitudes about the proposed project.
Other written material may be submitted to J.M. Greenhill,
Manager of Planning and Research, N.C. Department of
Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 27611.
**DOT**
David Prather
Public Affairs Office Director of Public Affairs
P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh. N. C. 27611
[phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Attirmative Action Employer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
.
Planning and Research Branch

C7

US 264
(WILSON BYPASS).
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WILSON COUNTY
• MARCH 15, 1989
Public jl0eet'in

PUBLIC MEETING
US 264
Wilson Bypass
Wilson County
Project R-1023
C
PURPOSE OF MEETING
This meeting is being held to review proposed alternatives for the
Wilson Bypass. Any comments or suggestions concerning the proposed
highway improvement or areas of environmental concern in the study will
be appreciated. All comments and suggestions received during the project
study will be considered in determining a recommendation for the project.
Request for additional information or written comments should be
addressed to:
Mr. J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1989-1996 Transportation Improvement Program calls for a
four-lane divided facility on new location.
PROJECT RESUME
A bypass to the south of Wilson is included in the Wilson Thorough-
fare Plan prepared in 1969 and updated in 1974 and mutually adopted by
the City of Wilson on February 28, 1974 and by the North Carolina Board
of Transportation on April 4, 1974. The Wilson Thoroughfare Plan is
currently in the process of being updated.
The "US 64/264 Eastern Access Roads Corridor Study", completed in
April 1977, included the Wilson bypass as part of the recommended im-
provements for the US 264 corridor from I-95 west of Wilson to
Washington, N. C.
In March, 1979, the North Carolina Board of Transportation
authorized planning and environmental studies to establish the location
for a future US 264 Bypass of Wilson.
In May 1981, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
approved and circulated. This document included an environmental study
of corridors A, B, and C.
A Corridor Public Hearing was held in Wilson on June, 1982.
Corridors A, B, and C. were discussed at the hearing.
A Reevaluation of the DEIS was prepared by NCDOT and approved by the
Federal Highway Administration in February, 1988.
On October 11, 1988 representatives from the town of Wilson and
Wilson County introduced another concept not discussed in the DEIS
(Phases 1 & 2). This alternative has been studied and is being presented
at this meeting.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1992
with construction scheduled for fiscal year 1994. This schedule is
• tentative and subject to availability of funds.
EXISTING FACILITY
The studied section of US 264 is approximately 13.6 miles in length.
US 264 varies from a four-lane divided highway with shoulders to a four
and five-lane curb and gutter roadway.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Four alternative routes are being studied. All alternatives pass to
the south of Wilson and begin at the existing US 264 freeway west of I-95
near US 264A and terminate east of Wilson where the US.264 freeway to
Greenville intersects with NC 58.
The proposed improvements will result in a four-lane facility
divided by a 46' median. This will require a right of way approximately
300' wide. Location of the four alternatives are shown on the attached
Figure.
0

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
(R-1023)

Y

COST ESTIMATES
CONSTRUCTION R/W TOTALS
ALTERNATE A $79,200,000 $20,250,000 $ 99,450,000
ALTERNATE B $74,900,000 $25,100,000 $100,000,000
ALTERNATE C $78,400,000 $32,700,000 $111,100,000
ALTERNATE B (PHASE 1) $40,900,000 $21,950,000 $ 62,850,000
ALTERNATE B (PHASE 2) $41,700,000 $ 5,600,000 $ 47,300,000
ALTERNATE B (PAHSE 1&2) $82,600,000 $27,550,000 $110,150,000
WETLANDS
CORRIDOR A CORRIDOR B CORRIDOR C
32 ACRES 33 ACRES 19 ACRES
Loss of Wildlife Habitat
ores 384 400 309
Loss of Prime Farmland
ores 325 285 305
RELOCATEES
CORRIDOR A CORRIDOR B CORRIDOR C
RESIDENCES 18 30 40
BUSINESSES 5 3 8
CHURCHES 0 0 2
=NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC MEETING IN WILSON, N. C.
March 15, 1989
y
y

s
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 264, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT
R-1023: WILSON COUNTY
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED US 264 IMPROVEMENT MAY ALSO BE MAILED TO:
MR. J. M. GREENHILL, MANAGER OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, P. 0. BOX 25201, RALEIGH,
N. C. 27611
"DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ?-"`
P +
in-
c0 O
o m \. t~ -
a 3: co
0 -0 r, rr- 01
o ff _ P o n cn ?: Z 0 P
41 U)
3 01
q ?+ -- a ca O U -
• 1J W -- P Q° N C/1 CD
3 t,
1.6
cb ).6 co
10 7-
ZI 01 U)
1.2 >
1
0 'b
_ N CD C.
r) AA .1 0.
0 3 e\ U 2 U I.0?,. m i. C- 8
r O O C° _P In ?/ 'per p 2/ v WO
CL 0
N
D V N ?`y to H 3 • ?y N v
0.7
o p Q ?, L G xQ I Cl S
\ D 0 9 0 V I.3 ® 1.7 T
C> 01 Z:
6 L ® / v .O
AL.
- 0 C^ :•:? ."? to
co 0. w
7
JS
V A'
W ! ? a
Elan 5_J•J A
0 -3
'CD
v'!?'' 6 1 Z
01
OD 4\
15
?Ri ! A
ow b o q V m
FAU G G d a I i ?? "
14
FqU _ FAU FAIL C £ t ::. „o , RB ` D
o ® ` BDY. r' . FqU EXT. gp`? _ 0 3
!
Vt.
\ -?
10
rn I {s?
)
`n ad Syd 9.'
a e' v\ L? (y''\???•
o
co 0 C,
I -- Z.- )3 CL
1.0 i .7 .3 .6
00
.•D N
t, Ln cm Lo
N
A CJ)
..
1= ; CA C) M
z: 0
01 0
.a _ = O p p Zip
- - °. - -- _ (n (D
co >
01
CD 5 ti
q -3 c i °v S v , °? y o= 1

J
M
CoPV NCDO!
M
/VIo I-l - 90
Wilson boardschange support
to DOT's outer bypass route
i
ft NIAWn i? GUIL.UN
Staff writer
Wilson city and county leaders,
reversing their earlier positions,
say they support the state Depart-
ment of Transportation's plans for
a U.S. 264 bypass that would skirt
the traffic-congested town.
Last year, the city council and
the county board of commission-
ers voted to support an "inner
loop" bypass. But at separate
meetings this month, both groups
voted again on the issue and
elected to support the DOT-
recommended "outer loop" route.
County Manager Garry C. Mer-
cer said the county commission
had endorsed the outer loop in a
4-2 vote Mondav.
City Council member Gwen
Burton said that group had
t changed its position too, based on
public comment and a belief that
construction of the road - even if
it is not the corridor they most
prefer - would begin sooner if
local government supported the
DOT plan. -
"The understanding we Ed was
that the DOT favored the outer
loop," Mrs. Burton said. "And if
we did not go with that, then any
road development in our county
would have been delayed. This
was an effort to get construction
started as soon as possible."
Department spokesman Bill
Jones said the outer route would
take the road from 2 to 3.5 miles
southwest of the city, located

9s
..,! , .f. .? .
42
•?1
_ r.
yy , • 1
• Proposed outer loop
?¦ Proposed inner loop
I ii
s-
58
a
about 50 miles east of Raleigh.
The state plans to begin purchas-
ing rights-of-way for the road in
1992 and to start construction in
1994. The project is expected to
cost about $99.5 million.
Originally, local leaders said
they preferred the inner loop for
economic reasons. Routing traffic
completely around Wilson, they
feared, would take money away
from local businesses. In addition,
county commissioners said, en-
couraging development near the
new highway would require the
costly extension of water and
sewer service. rz
.J
Wilson
?.

Still, Mrs. Burton said, the outer
loop is a livable alternative.
"I think it's workable," she
said. "This is a slightly modified
version from the one we looked at
originally. It runs a little closer to
the city in some placer And
where the inner loop would have
gone, there has been such tremen-
dous development that land acqui-
sition costs would have been enor-
mous. i
"For the outer loop, a lot of the
land is agricultural - some resi-
dential, but not much. It's not as
intensely developed. The land
prices should be much lower."
it
iw•1fteI:T.a!flE MUPI

SON , DAILY TIMES
;on, N.C., Tuesday Afternoon, January 9,1990 20 Pages, 2 Sections 25t
County board
now endorses
`outer loop'
from crew of five is scheduled to stay aloft for 10 days
y for and will try to retrieve the LDEF satellite. which
m. A has been in space for over five years. (AP .)
to new quarters
1 ',very ad-
lepartment,
-bay garage
be fire sta-
b condition,
de needs of
out of the
luarters on
he county's
squad ex-
metable for
reer said he
for the next
In another matter involving the EMS system,
the board gave final approval for non-exclusive
franchises for three volunteer ambulance ser-
vices operating in Wilson County. The board
awarded franchises to Elm City Emergency
Services, Stantonsburg Emergency Medical
Services and Kenly Rescue and Ambulance
Services.
The franchises were the first three awarded
by the county since adopting an ordinance in
July 19M requiring franchises for ambulance
operators.
Representatives of all three squads were
present, but no one addressed the commis-
sioners during time set aside for a public hear-
Set EMS, page 8A
- By Keith Taylor
Daily iUmStaff WNW
Enough board members re-
versed their positions Monday
morning for the Wilson County
Board of Commissioners to go on
record as supporting an "outer.
loop" for the proposed U.S. 264
bypass.
The board,-which already was
.twice on record in support of an
"inner loop," voted 42 to endorse
the outer corridor instead. .
The commissioners' vote fol-
lowed similar action Thursday
night by Wilson City Council,
which also reversed itself and
voted 4.1 to support an outer loop.
Both votes were taken at the re-
quest of Eddie Price, commander
of American Legion Post 13,
whose membership id 1989 voted'
in supportof the outer corridor.
In his appearances before both,
boards, Price spoke in support of
an outer loop for reasons that in-
cluded watershed protection, traf-
fic safety and business develop-
ment. Price also said the united
support of local officials might
help to expedite the project. - .
The Wilson County Chamber of
Commerce, Wilson Economic De-
velopment Council and Wilson on
the Move had lobbied state and
local officials on behalf of an inner
loop. Public sentiment, however,
was mixed during a public meet-
ing in March 1989 at Forest Hills
Middle School.
The N.C. Department of Trans-
portation has not yet designated a
corridor for the bypass, but DOT
staff is recommending the outer
loop, known officially as Corridor
A.
The commissioners had voted in
September 1988 and again in April
1988 in support of an inner route.
Both votes were 6.1 with Commis-
sioner Charles Barnes dissenting.
Joining Barnes on Monday in
support of the outer corridor were
Commissioners Josephine Ed-
wards, Frank Emory and Robert
Vick. Maintaining their support
for the inner loop were Chairman
Preston Harrell and Commis-
sioner Bobbie Jones. (Commis-
sioner Raeford Flowers was not
present Monday because of the
death of his father.)
Vick, who moved to endorse the
outer loop, said he believed he had
been "a little bit misinformed"
previously about the project. Vick
added that he wished DOT of-
ficials could have offered a rec-
ommendation sooner.
Emory said his previous support
for the inner loop was based on his
impression that an inner corridor
would facilitate business devel-
opment. He said he now believed
the outer loop would accomplish
that objective.
Mrs. Edwards said she had ob-
served the growth patterns of the
community over the past 20 years
-and, after additional. study, now
believed the outer corridor was
the better route.
Barnes noted he had favored the
outer corridor from the beginning
as one that "leaves room for ex-
pansion."
Ste CommiSClOfleri, Page RA
.. s
Y
v
founded,
• President Guillermo Endara
sent a, letter to President Bush
askiil8 for fWancial aid to create
24,000 rAw jobs and for loans to
compensate businesses looted by
rampaging crowds following the
U.S. invasion. Looters caused an
estimated $1.5 billion in damage.
Fitch
(Continued from page one)
Lodge Street resident served as a
professor for exceptional children
teaching at ECU.
In 1966 Ms. Fitch became a site
consultant for the National
Education Association Mastery in
Learning Project at Gaston Junior
High School in Northampton
County.
She received a doctorate of
education degree in special
education pre-service/in-service
teacher training in 1984 from the
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst.
Ms. Fitch also holds a master's
degree in education in diagnostic
and prescriptive teaching from
George Washington University,
Washington D.C. She received her
bachelor's degree in education of
the mentally retarded from Ben-
nett College in Greensboro.
The filing period for the non-
partisan election ends Feb. 5. The
general election is scheduled Nov.
6.
...,....., --a%. I.,AWAma.1 lvl rtl.,l•
y deuces throuaboat fir;
Mercer said.'He'ei tett ten,
plementation would require two
years.
. In other matters, the commis-
sioners:
• Named Jane Owen to serve
as animal cruelty investigator for
Wilson County. Her appointment
was requested by the Wilson
County Humane Society.
• Approved a one-lot subdivi-
sion plat in a development known
as C&G Acres, located at Second-
ary Roads 1338 and 1336 in Toisnot
Township. The applicant was Cor-
rine Winstead.
• Approved a request from
Awry its request that the board.
reconsider its December decision
not to provide adds onal funding
during the current fiscal year.
Also delayed until February were
appointments to the city of Wilson
Board of Adjustment, city of
Wilson Planning and Zoning
Board and Nash-Edgecombe
Economic Development Inc.
Jean Butterfield, president of
the Links Inc. chapter for Wilson,
Rocky Mount and Tarboro, asked
for time at February's meeting to
discuss the organization's project
to counter teen-age pregnancy,
sexually transmitted diseases and
substance abuse.
Commissioners now
endorse outer loop
(Continued from page one)
Mrs. Jones, said she still be-
lieved the inner route was the best
one for Wilson economically.
"Wilson has been bypassed a lot,"
sbe said. "-The farther we go away
from Wilson, the worse we're
going to get economically."
Harrell said he could not vote to
change his position without having
seen a formal proposal from DOT.
DOT officials have said they in-
tend to hold a public hearipg on
route design sometime during the
spring of 1990. The time and place
for that hearing have not yet been
announced.
Right-of-way acquisition for the
estimated $101.2 million project is
scheduled to start in fiscal year
1993. Construction is scheduled to
begin in fiscal 1995.
Sally K. Ride
The space shuttle Challenger,
carrying America's first woman
in space, Sally K. Ride, coasted to
a safe landing in 1983 at Edwards
Air Force Base, Calif.

B uiid lbypass fd'r tfiie future-"
10L
N
It's the year 2005. Wilson County
has become a thriving community
with its excellent educational
system, well planned residential
subdivisions, conveniently located
shopping centers, and highly visi-
ble industrial parks. Many in-
dustries in the Triangle have built
supplier plants in Wilson County
because of its skilled labor force
and close proximity to Raleigh via
highways 64 and 264. Service-
oriented businesses are providing
exceptional employment oppor-
tunities for our children. It's "Life
The Way It's Supposed To Be" in
Wilson County. -
Critical decisions made today
will affect this vision for the
future. One such decision is the
location of the 264 Bypass. The
N.C. Department of Transporta-
tion will present two corridors
under consideration. The "Inner
Loop" uses the present 264
highway into Wilson and beginn-
?v'4S ?!ti• ...mow, .Y.: t-.?
Open
Forum
Letters To IMe Editor
ing at Airport Road loops within a
mile of the city. The "Outer Loop"
creates a new interchange at In-
terstate 95. From I-95 it loops just
behind Hunt High School and
Wiggins Mill Reservoir about 2.5
miles at its furthest point outside
of Wilson. Six new interchanges
will be constructed by either cor-
ridor.
The "Outer Loop" from every
practical aspect offers Wilson
County the most expectation of
economic development and
growth. We must take advantage
of the traffic and develop the new
interchange at I-95. The inter-
change when connected by service
roads to the existing interchange
would enhance the development of
industrial and commercial prop-
erty. It would provide a highly
visible, accessible location
desirable by many companies.
Much of the property east and
west of I-95 with excellent roads
and rail would be the best possible
locations for development. The
property closer to the city would
be developed for light manufac-
turing, service industries, com-
mercial businesses, and residen-
tial homes. The "Outer Loop"
allows room with few restrictions
for orderly and planned growth.
The "Outer Loop" offers the
best opportunity for long-term
growth. Let's not sell Wilson
County short. Let's build all the
highway we can since this may be
the last major highway construc-
tion in Wilson County for the
foreseeable future. Let's not let
short-term planning distort the vi-
sion for a more prosperous Wilson
County in the 21st century.
Greg T. Godard
Kingswood Road

y

O bOiO C CL'
a of n0 y?aci[a?O?C>O? 3ch? °DO
3 N >,00>3 .2 E
CIS
O W .... ? C y U U ..+ O
> CO
U U c0 C >> O> > n .^.
L. Qj
CU 1.
En y C y COJ UD S c a 9- C U c0 y r
LC/1•^'U. 3 cm 1..+ Co S. wU cC 3 ?.U cC
y L to ri .r -+ C O c? i r y !7 3 N C
v? 3 c C °
ycj ca. c cO. y to
to c c cn z 3 C O o 0 y
cc r-, w> E >?O .?" CQ... > (n.? C Poo c3n O ?..0. L. c0 sue.
O > H
m cc cc o
{, +r+ c4 loo -a O> U
v? O
y a
A C6 0.0
A
Z3sc?: A O oLCJLy >,L$,oca 3 ?:
a+ L r.+ CJ U CL'b c4 z. .0 .0
c f1.
ca r. IV C* a C W
MA cu Ei 2 -0
L C .. O .. m y y L --• O L
?" V1 U C 3F O.2 U.G c caw .+ O L c U
U U `? O >> O p?O C s O L. O C C .G • n cu r?i? "' .r w+
"••' O O O w V! f
47 ? O w ? O ^ ,? U c .O .C O c? .C w C O C . _ .:eai
O
O ^? ?'' C x' .0+ 3> V O 3 C i`-U^ Q ? w
E C13 CL > L.
Q) (1) 04 0 tn
...
L •Q en o•... C 3 aaa, -o
'••' `n w 5C o W O O y U U O C> L
•W ca ._uL•o •vc (n OCo
W O'an) 3 L U. C? 7 3 4 C .r' 0>
cff cQ U =: C O C U .+ y y •.+ N U G 3 a SC v1
w y'C >> c U. L-'. 0 C O•v 3 E.?'mE U
y L+ U O m O C y 3 d C y .`.» 0 O 0 0 1: ? 0
Ln?>ZC y13L 3 o >'Ztocz 3C
v x '0 O U s =" Ca>> •- O° •fl .-. L° ?• L w to O O
? O U •.? o '0,04- G. 3 U co L. L) Q S.. Ln
c In l ri
.a a? a? •?. u .r ° v c .>
C,3 $y
C $ 3
CIS
o $ rU'
?"?
oL O
L10 .C > °^'-'+-+3^•N C O O m
A V •? cc9C RSOb>,CJ•u °cc0 CL 4) E U"Oay
0 0 :3 CIS
2 >_ y U N w C N y U O E U w o O w..cn QG?' C O
L' L U r° M
-15 E U V° y i10 r ... U 3 .'' "' VCI•'
E
ct cJ
w-`°3-rw'uEE>,V LCC3°:Wcno--uc
e
d O. O w =0- O w° O U y U L. L cts
of a ^ 1 7 ^LJ C U° LAS.. U L c4 O w w F.
cz r_
? C3i ?? W J ? c ? ? .•°n0 cu o o Q) v?•a?
a.
w E u cu aa? E w" 3 u
c °
w C $ ?.:c •v as $
?.-. L
I•? v = GQ y L U >° y cC a. O w C L C13
I.ry ° •= ctOi o g' o ° C c ,°c y o 3 o twn
to.
3 Lc y- yLu V.T3
1
?? 3??U?3?¢ a? ?•cA???cE'c-?
1000N - AdO3
' ....
t.: T
`yr
tr

1.
n"
{
N ?" '. + G A V C $. C V ? C ?'. ? M E V V Y .; C C
3?ls Es?????ys$;'? yn ? ?E ??acs
u?t
m3 a ?Q R V w c 7'j7 3Qg e
yyee r? > V 7 p d ?. .y Y
'^ 3.?°?-' 8Ew'v ?33 ??3??i+o»•E_» c w6

P- Uiip,4
C:
O
AM,
0
0
c
w
4
N
Y
C
4
U
o
3
0
w
0
V
G
w

O
z
ri
G1
I
q V -' > 0 q L. G p '? u Y {j O
v O p .r
o •V

`®J O A J? C O V V ? M M 3 V 9 N o C
V w
?' u °>> c G fd u
?
? D A
E E C V 9 L V NL.A.. p?
d
` a V`° 3_` C y
_ y
O
°
O
G7L V. O.O <° N V
A 3 c c •? ?. X 0 3 L
.
$ N
o
v
w
_q y`j
m u$
"^
? 3a ?
E
pMp w E w v???? V QQG 7 C C w v
oa E
aL? VXZ V 33 w
. b? G
L N ? tlG V
`O
?/
G?
V V N g G^ o f'? C G
C a pp •, u
? C V y? V y C
>
r O 6 !
° C s
a
•

w
?
c
?
w
IOU=
01-AN
-0 cs

f-
f.
0
t?n
c?
E?
O
A
CL.
..??°s?ecot rM4wo??{oyV?elcA2?.0
.? 3 C C L m a .u .?. S y L V p w W
? C O G? C w- 20 E
-?' w E=0° ?? GOc
V ?. 7 ? N p 7 J w <
4 C
(26 aJ. r a V ` 3 ?. ? 4 ? n
J" a o ? V ? 3
Y QQ
` JO N YO ts_ C C; L. >? C N V j ?_ww w° v
>? i 3 Y° > V M N E ..i y V
r3?3 Jm3Y 'VV O?-Y ?.'?.
J .C N QQ O 3 cc?? Q V V j
J G w.? V ? O O A 7 ? G V
? ,.y u C e0 N O N C ._ C w
c o o$„ u= e E E pa o? k_
C _ V w O V ?` V
dE? N•53 E «.?Cg?•E ?v c °v? ?.
8" c + 1 5 p O O E Gc
° c c
E "' °` YG V C ? L ?? C
V G> pV CCC: E .S yx
E c E E
.Y uV ? ?.? J c 2 E 3 0-?
? ? o rbi
E14 C
3 Sa?-S E
V V _ V
CS a E? c$w.. -o <
A L > J ?? O AJ V" ? G a 0 0
L? `G?Vn`°.`^ L6E3E?y?v
V 5 E L G.. O 3 w w SC
V
u C C ... y O G Cr ? C u c °
E L e u q .. fJ u u o
Z V V° T Y A' 3 v .G A G 9 O
3 ?d S?L3 A J VIV w

Q,.

COor -. COOT
I".
1000rf AJOO
db-
r?
VL
?pp?
p0
O
A"
bD
VL
et
?i
C%ll

O
W
O
-7 1 7E -9 t 75
-'_ L _ ? n m s u t
.. Y S
3 O.
5e c Y cc R
u a
a. lw
_ T O
Y C n 7 G7 j` C A? >>? =?
i L r° O C fit.. Y O E
_?° 4< y y O O?.. n
C'S
g c A 7- vY a to n
?? E e N ` c 9 EE
ju W.0 0.0
?Le c3 Y?+pyp?Y
Q O C 3 q` n C 3 3 3t.. a y 4. C
$-=moo` oY '°-t_ E
A
°°-u?oA ?$ E_cgn
V= C C° ?? rJ .. T A 0 Y 3 r R .°.. O
°
ciuEws`?ri 06vc:
c .8 .2
u ° 'c o` rbi . o
e•
O Q qp e? A Q- L Ny V CY yO(?
r ?vj T -
C A O C` w r0 v s t
Y
r ... 3 A 6 .0
E o a m E=°?a >
c. 8w: t ?..?° gad N
C C Y :r C_ y C? 'C ? N C?
... ?? C N° ?• N A A r t 0
T m L
yy A Y -?? ?
Cl ? .r' n O L t T? Y 3- v? Gt
Q V C- L t r C yY Y a„ v
La ? EngO-°r Ev??? e9
v -?
?'n ? ?cevuE?_?aiE•NStE
?.Q ? V F C V V .Yj R° 7 j9 „ y L
n C1 E .cc?F 23c?`u
c> ?• e Y ;a R ae C = VV y L
O n o V I..i C .6 i Y O` F
s no cod?ua
sat ? c? x-
C G c E" A AC C O C L
0 0° u z a w °_'e c ? c v
L; t J m n o w t A A
0
.`o ° E ? Np v ?C v
A? $ .3 ? G A E ? ? O (j 6
cu o-2?y`3?.c eN:il
Y $ u > 3 o.c y
V
A ? N O O
y N ` C O C
Bj 7= G` U O S
v E? o u
C f ..
c
> •Y
V O C ?. ?• C N° °
?us g?`o -2. j, 3z
A
t ?k E
s _Fc` c ? - o
n _. A u
-02
T C t 4,?
o = v_ e c 8 p Q pre
° C V y C .w9 C V ?? ` V L
?. E? EEC - AL
r 3<k ' `1, a za.
c - P . c
r QM ----
O
bA
?+4
iO
G
C
P-0
W
4WO

< A O .C v D C C C
m-A ° T 4 q 2;§ a
c
8 5 e E +m gv'? Y w 3 c p°
E 'M
9` p?p??-a;{?? yYa r 14-?? 3 `o.?- TyaO 3 8, e
M -
3 ?y' V 3S YsLy x ° ', .?E
ail ,:
?EE?i E 3°Ec>o'NNp o0 .4
ran o.. °'?x
11}?-?? Ay 'E
a •C. lJ. C V Ar O V C A v y O'C A S.
0 to
_up ?`'E`o o c
$ o u cv'? Y 74 uG v c° Y `o .E a-- o
>? ? V A V y? L
?$, a Y y m
:2 z :2
16 w:, U I VC
> > ? ? .Y Y •JI 00 Y q q Ci
A $ m- ?•-? e E gu c ?v
? ? t??E? AE??? ?gOEE?? eLeo3 y=?
$ '? A 0 vy5? m3?=yh ?E o a 3
V C ? 3 Y V Y o O` .? Y ua» M C .Yu OVyO ? O
L pM A A g
?' 77r v G
0 3?um??Eg' E XE< 7?.?'Sa'°-?-`oE
(? O 1$? yC p yq p? V
oC r Y "C OV0 0 V '? ? C7 ? '? C ? ?[[Q? pQy ? ? Y " o V ° u
V ? V ? A 4 C ??d? Y? }m}?? a??(J ?i Y yj y , Trv a
a?.oCL
t.s
9S$ oY
e > c°P A E u c
o $ E '? '?,9 a o c
V
3; S tl Yai 3 n.g3 uC .Ly..
V
2
Y

c..r.w.+o_ .-%«cI uuuu, Apra 2u, 1989

.\P LaserpAouo
toe here,
elting ice
,ranee for
s structu-
rne pollu-
•k Service
ne. metal
t worries
mal Mili-
ur monu-
isappear-
two facts
ording to
nians for
rst acidic
rainfall in the United States and is one of the top
three sources of sulfur dioxide. Environmen-
talists contend sulfur dioxide from coal-Cured
power plants is a major cause of acid rain.
Another constraint Ballard faces is limited
government funding, both to deal with acid rain
and maintain Gettysburg's monuments.
Asked if his crews could protect the 1,300
monuments and major markers, he replied,
"Not given the current state of funding in the
park service. It would take a crew of a dozen
people, perhaps, working year round." Payroll
costs alone would total 5300.000, he said.
Park workers do what they can. Corrosion is
removed from bronze with a pressurized
stream of pulverized walnut shells the con-
sistency of pepper: then it is coated with a pro-
See Acid rain, pale 6A
3ected
year
Wednesday
Space shuttle
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.
secretary of natural `AP) - Atlantis' commander
A corr.munity deyei- -..Vs his cre,A is ",nighty
ti.,+?•?? me^, n p}w7ci ;t: tx, part of 1,1,c hrF1
' If,
By T.Nt. Finney
Daily TimaSuff venter
ROCKY MOUNT - City of
Wilson, Wilson County and Wilson
County Chamber of Commerce of-
ficials pushed for the proposed in-
ner loop for the U.S. 264 Bypassat
a Transportation Improvement
Plan public hearing here Tuesday
afternoon.
However, Goldsboro and U.S.
117 proponents are pushing the
N.C. Board of Transportation and
N.C. Department of Transporta-
tion officials for the bypass to
connect with U.S. 117 as shown in
the plans for the outer loop.
And one DOT official said these
and other differences of opinion
could slow the decision-making
process.
The inner loop, which was en-
dorsed by majorities of City
Council and the county commis-
sioners (though neither supported
it unanimously), was the No. I
primary road priority being
pushed at the public hearing.
Chamber President E. Bruce
Beasley III said, "We do not want
a bbv ass. We want the rows to
came through our communities."
In prepared statements deliv-
ered by Beasley, City Manager
Cyrus Brooks and County Mana-
ger Garry Mercer, all three
pushed for the proposed Corridor
B and stated Wilson does not need
a major road that extends far
from the reaches and usage of
Wilson and Wilson Count'.
"We would be-the only major
municipality that does not have a
major north-south or east-west
highway touching our city limits,"
Beasley said. "And I think we can
readily understand why we cannot
allow that to happen."
Beasley also added that the in-
ner loop has been endorsed by
"every major.public and private
group" in Wilson County.
7t-is a basic intent of govern-
ment to be supportive of govern-
ment and to listen to the will of the
people." he said. "and in this case,
the will of the people have
spoken."
However, a DOT official said in
a recent interview that DOT staff
members were leaning toward
Corridor A or the outer loop
because it would fall outside
wetland territory around Wiggins
Mill.
Also, many indiyid 1,11 rom the
city and =ty along with Ameri-
can Legion Post 13 have publicly
endorsed the outer loop because
Corridor B would disrupt existing
developments, including the
Wilson County Fairgrounds.
As Brooks pointed out, the $100
million bypass is already included
on the TIP and Gov. Jim Martin
has stated he wants to release
reserve funds to make the bypass
a top priority.
The TIP is a seven-year
highway improvement plan. The
See Chamber, p: ge 6A
Lucille Ball dies
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Lucille
Ball, the zany, wide-mouthed
redhead who reigned for more
than 20 years as the queen of tele-
Vit,;u^ e-OML-d . died tod.;, ?: eck
,dor,,-)!nP emerleencY heart

the Gettysburg National Military Park
y acid rain to one of the monuments at the

? i
.
t1 •

•1?

h.

Tvs
O ? Crn 3 E? CYNw,0 y-? yy ?j L?
O O-my- c=>accn CC cE
_ E
1? + E E? 3 y A = Y,o' : < w
O; ? n,
e?$Yae 2m;. ..zE? Q k
z ?L C
Yc=n°v.E.soC.o'0°ucn2
'ow wE?,??NnTq-?sZ?F3.? C?
c ?
:R t Co La
f « 4. _ C a w
?o v E EorJV •`° c; .°c
K Y N
c v v y A o 7 G. c C N c ?-
u>?sas?y???-??q$?e
jy[? c 3
i'- Ts 3? E??,<i Y nC7?0'2'
19 c wa1 ?; 1S C°2 m a.Za._
°• u ? w3 0 ?? o:?w
..?*.. '^ •• v > E `Lau - = L" c
-c ly
C-7 m aV t I- C O N ?O A «y C N C
•Y pYac ?A ? E
_ r '?yuya °w«pppuppp qu
Zd w
•},• ?? 3000 Mwwy?4pp_ 63? ,;FV
tz? 0 ? u'E i i?i.VJ a °- aY....?.77'cS,'•°T?? :+?
y. V a Y A N V O
,r? S w E Y '?E?? o ?? ?H a•?°
.•_ •!%' a < ? ?i ° o` c a' ? ? g a ? 3 W gun
x^ O mT m ?vC c??= c e uv? OFpp Y =°
0 to.
o r
• ?? ?< E y c u y? y? a` ? Q ?? a
N Y Y t2 ? A Y C w r„' 6 O ?
?. ?E t"? u v a o O .: C c r
°il w L ?? d r h V `. ? Y ? q ? D
V p4 8` C
q ? G S m C `? y; L Vj 7 ?y.. V?? O V? y .V. V
u
' ? vi T uu?-Y? cE ?LY. CLo - _??LNSU?U? cg
sE`YC ?o
4 3 A Y V A
`? pc 3L?=E?°cuo?A?jE?u_uvc?
U V v L v ` L r3' V G
Qyo.puCgE
L vsYO$?c' oL?Svic
p' +-. v ? h w` 0 3 C O ? Y 3 E u L ve? 3 v `o ? L'
O i ; $ ` O C rfL V C O
e c u
° o v
?i . w?a9?A6.0 -iLf` O-OJ?c
d V' c c c a y, : c ° n N Y
pp ? b u
v v c n-2E
" :- _ Y Yitr?i n 3n
u V C o C p m p N V N ryl pp C V o°
C 3 T C C V p y? v L E v V
p V N C V O
a°. L`>` t y v
4 O
asov°$uso-TC?c qLu gC?
;? ?? ? 7 ? T A L V A ? 7
yy _? .w.. Y ? _ ?Nq•y _? ? ? ? ? .Y. ? L y c w Y T Y
C ` C y `C L L O V V .y ?.. V C
i o `o .Y? ` V >t 3 v
? V a o
?
y ` c r A uv. n Y 6,5: s
_ c
!-
. liv F ?. v c c c o j
F Sr3i 3.?.` I cc,G E N ? ` `L- 3 ca ? I
74
r r
.°
1 Z
r
wr
f
r
And and
to cancel
Ti me
operations. Billions of dollars in municipal ?'I couldn't do the.homework assignment 1
funds ate at stake. t. C0m- N T night. My-computer wa own. " - - !
Position on 264 by'pass
This letter is intended to clear
up any possible misunderstanding
of my stand on the proposed new
route for Highway 264 around
Wilson. The so-called inner loop as
pointed out to me would take up a
large section of the front of our
fairgrounds, thus very possibly
putting a fatal blow to an institu-
tion which has been one of
Wilson's favorite forms of enter-
tainment for well over a half cen-
tury. I am certainly not opposed to
progress and surely know that
change is inevitable, but at what
cost?
I favor a loop that would tie
together our industrial communi-
ty, our business community and
our present transportation system
while moving east-west traffic on
a safe and quick route for those
that use it. I simply do not favor
building a route that would disrupt
a major area of our city that is
now developing nor in putting a
om 19 t3 Roe v. Wade ruling
TMM?
!!.? '41 - 1
?ttx ? \
S.,ndicate '
in St. Louis who
t-profit abortion
federal courts
tention that the
.onstitutional in-
down in Roe v.
ppe.aled through
,ral, William L.
he time for a
hand. The De-
ce will argue in
-i's law.
;s, for whatever
orth, are quite
Lave understood
as the "conser-
igainst abortion.
:atives believed
+n•idual liberty.
.nd all the rest.
%,:uvc d(wtrinv
But there is more to be said.
Missouri's law does not prohibit
abortions. It does make abortions
more difficult. The act requires
physicians to explain the risks of
an abortion in some detail. A
woman must be told of such alter-
natives as adoption. Public funds
may not be spent to "encourage or
counsel" an abortion. Other pro-
visions also are intended to per-
suade a woman to let her
pregnancy continue.
I find nothing that is glaringly
wrong, nothing that violates the
Constitution, in such an inhibitory
law. The principles of federalism
surely permit a state to enunciate
a policy that favors an unborn
child. Neither a woman's freedom
nor a state's power is absolute.
The challenged Missouri statute,
for the most part, strikes me as a
soberly reasoned approach to a
fearfully difficult problem.
The Webster case will not de-
velop much that is new. Similar
provisions were involved in the
Georgia statute that was held un-
constitutional in 1973. Roughly
comparable inhihitions were in-
volved in the Akron case of 1983
and the Pennsylvania case of 19M.
providing a fourth vote to weaken
the holding in Roe v. Wade.
This week's argument will be
aimed chiefly at the court's two
newest justices, Antonin Scalia
and Anthony Kenndy. They have
not participated in any of the
court's previous abortion cases. It
is generally assumed that Rehn-
quist, White and O'Connor will
vote to uphold the Missouri law, at
least in large part. It is assumed
with equal confidence that
Justices Brennan, ;Marshall and
Blackmun will stand fast and vote
it down. Justice John Paul
Stevens, adhering to the doctrine
of stare decisis, would find it dif-
ficult to overrule Roe v. Wade
outright.
Scalia and Kennedy tend to
think alike. Through April 18, the
high court had decided 69 cases.
Scalia and Kennedy voted alike on
67 of the 69. The two justices
disagreed on one case involving a
right to counsel, and on another
involving a point of Indian law.
6therwise they have been linked
as tightly on the conservative side
as Brennan and Marshall art-
linkedon tl.c;iber-.d side.
Theprot-ihilifw.,rc th::! 1;r.. v.
Open
Forum
Letters To The Editor
highway in an area of heavy con-
gestion, which obviously would
become obsolete in the next dec-
ade.
We would either have to live
with this mistake or pay dearly to
have it corrected by again moving
farther out with another route at a
great burden on the taxpayers of
North Carolina. I have urged the
N.C. Department of Transporta-
tion to look ahead when they make
the final decision on our bypass.
Look at the cost now and the cost
for the next generation of tax-
payers.
The main reason for building
this route to begin with is to more
traffic around this city with less
congestion. I believe all of the
above can be accomplished with a
route that will be less disruptive
than the inner loop which I have
seen proposed.
Eddie M. Price
Commander
Post 13 American Legion
People do
get involved
In this day and time we hear a
lot about the fact that people don't
care about people or are not will-
ing to get involved. The people of
Wilson County got involved in a
big way April 22.
This was the day that Wilson
County held its annual
WalkAmerica for the March of
Dimes, and because of the citizens
of Wilson who donated goods and
services, time and energy to walk
and those who provided financial
support this walk surpassed our
goal of $10,000 to help the March of
Dimes work to prevent birth
eiefc-c is.
1t; iL on c<wrtr is vvrr a ondt-r-
her husband, who
o rro.:titution, made
tooo from a bowl, pun-
kicked her and crushed
ette on her neck shortly
'eath.
t of Appeals ordered a
paying the judge should

.r
i,

L million bail
k now larger than
v. Steve Cowper
;uard Rear Adm.
Jr. to take control
;elson indicated he
-mal decision was
charged that Ex.
,o bureaucratic in
lehup, and other
complained of a
g and inadequate
ore has to be a
riptined manage-
' Co%t•per told re-
[that's been the
You need a mil-
itary system to get things done."
In his letter to Nelson, Cowper
noted that less than 4 percent of
the 10.1 million gallons of oil
spilled in Prince William Sound on
March 24 had been recovered, and
tha', the slick had reached the Gulf
of Alaska.
But Exxon spokesman Henry
Beathard said the company be-
lieved it was the best organization
to manage the effort.
"We gathered all the resources
and organized the cleanup," he
said. " We think the most effective
and efficient way to carry out this
project is (for Exxon; to coil.
Se" I "lilliOll. Page GA
or great bodily harm ...," the
Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
Mrs. Norman, at her trial, was
asked why she killed her husband.
"Because I was scared of him
and I knew when he woke up, it
was going to be the same thing,
and I was scared when he took me

1003'r ' said the evidence at
W VW was "poignant," but that
Mrs. Norman had "indefinite
feats" about what her husband
would do in the future. That did not
qualify as imminent danger, the
court ruled.
"As we have stated, stretching
.... ..._. 11111J
rooted in real or apparent necessi-
`y," Mitchell wrote.
Justice Harry C. Martin, in his
dissent, said the 20 years of abuse,
plus the three days of increasing
violence before the shooting, qual-
ified as an "imminent" threat to
Mrs. Norman.
Outer loop
may be top
DOT choice
By Keith Taylor
Daily Times staff writer
Despite official assurances Ulat
all corridor options for the U.S. 264
bypass are still being considered,
N.C. Department of Transporta-
tion staff is starting to lean slight-
ly toward the outermost option,
DOT's head of rural project plan-
ning said this morning.
"M'e're still considering all op-
tions," said Lubin Prevatt, head of
the rural project planning unit.
"But there's a slight leaning
toward alternative A that's start-
ing to appear."
Corridor A is the outermost of
four proposed concepts for the
bypass that have been under study
by DOT. Corridors A, B and C are
the three corridors initially stud-
ied by DOT in the early 1980s. The
fourth concept was a proposal
from the Wilson County Chamber
of Commerce to incorporate parts
of B and C in a project to be built in
two stages.
State officials have shown little
interest in a two-stage approach.
The Chamber itself has abandoned
that proposal and is now urging
support for Corridor B instead.
Prevatt said the only options
currently receiving any strong
support were Corridors A and B
*'Nobody's really supporting C."
said Prevatt, because this would
require converting a stretch Of
Raleigh Road between Interstatt.
95 and Airport Rt,ad into fully con
trolled access. homes and husi
nesses along the existing roadway
would literally be fenced off from
a controlled-access highway,
Prevattsaid.
Prevatt said people in DOT's
roadway design unit, thoroughfare
planning unit and field staff so far
have shown a slight preference for
Corridor A. In light of that,
Prevatt said, DOT has started to
look at upgrading connecting
routes, such as N.C. 42, and con-
struction of service roads. These
could be added as future projects
in the state's Transportation Im-
provement Program, Prevatt
said.
Although Prevatt said an of-
ficial corridor decision should be
made by December, he also said
DOT should have "a pretty strong
idea" in about a month.
The key difference between
Corridors A and B involves the
Wiggins Mill reservoir and adja-
cent swampland. Corridor A
would fall outside the wetlands.
Corridor B would pass between
those wetlands and the city of
Wilson.
"The biggest problem is the
watershed area," Prevatt said.
"M'e're got to sort of go to one ex-
treme or the other."
Bruce Beasley, president of the
Wilson County Chamber of Com-
merce, told American Legion Post
13 on Tuesday that the Chamber
Would he happy to support Cor•
tee IS uutw•. pa"t. G.?
an pr( 1 1. T 7- V
airs were to begin.
SAP t.asernAtNOI
loujt4 AJQJ
copy- NCOOT
ll ? Y
O• w .
r ? O O?? M Y
j -80s? a S' $s 12 E g? a it
a
-07
3;. , Z 41
9 w ° ? 3 ? S " s o S • ? ? ? ± a
O a b Y? 4 ? 3 8
r UM.a Q 4-7
a? c -? P g
40 o c ues Owq u m ;b g
9. 9-
8 Y u'?OU46 o Z94o?a
ei

s
1
O
low
vl
_V 0 O V
_ -4 8s 4
rC ? Q lw
-as f 41
? > v .. 3E$ a+OCa.?w ? au a !;
16 CA C
too 0
t: c
F v C v ?? u o tC. .8 .2F
4D 0
fu ho u 10 a a"
44 C6 1:3 E
Octal L. la > ° Lt 4 4 C C a a4:3 .c c w bo a C_
CU .2
C.8 0 -c Q
.oapy
L O ` 4 w P v O N O V m v tQ ° V ?? y C O C 4 V C
oo p c O p
a3 Poo`-. a>i ° u y v `c>°air a, E.0a. '•_-?r
? ? o c. o v 'v ?i
-to
3
0
O
O
C
v
m
c
O o

.. ? •.. a„ ? ?o? Fit "o ? i v F

Y?i33F c 2:C7
4 cc L.
?? aci,n?y
r vr`o i
'ajQ
$
U
`° a`9i a"j
° ~ m 4 J
v _
?
? o ° 3 ? g. ? '? ? V`
`?
° ? ?
o

•
_
c
06
a
,
y
a
O
r
?'
"0 `t ••
m
v
.te
.
y C 51, r-0
v O
-a ?g
O-.
Q[
?
y
v
-d ?
u Ci ?•???6
1 .
.
cc 00
°
_Ot W p 0 O' p c C N
y e 4uQ
a=U y?•°o tII y
O U O '•
Q mgr o > u?`?tv
'r
? -

'
~
° o-
.
O s o -
s c
y
a?
o
, q 3Zr 3 ?n ° l
v L. ate
" X
v >
co tw
° v? •?
4) cc
o? °t `II °' ?4 c L. CJ
?e Q, 0 3 $ y L*
O •T `4 C q" v c a~i
Cc 40
avv?oee.9 v-•°
c? cy 3 o s?
m a ev c
yoEegQ°v3'??`` ?i
CC .0 Q. =IJ
<va?veos,?`oa?o?E
w
Pc;?v c m
'aW m r v"o: ,c
?$?E w?3r?o?m8
u - ,Q
?i?y c•_o? ca,
4? mO a ? 0.5
mo =at Jrr r` ?-t t
y
cO R U -' muy
.s P?' e vr'`o 5 i
C 4 aj y?.0. w0 i -cc '0; 4, LO
ilo;g c c a m ='rs 4 c
'oo?uti uom 'o
r. y
c"
co
cr-
a_
Q

ti

_`
soma
* PO

V
O
>-b
*06
0 PO
O O
Q
v
? V
-5 E
N V s C Z ° R u G Y W
N t= a'> _" Cam. o G 3 =? Os a
u "? o
`Y 3G 3cyc- E?°c 3no-??s m.
e6 $? oo?R o>L?_ a•ac?-oo a
>w f
??ty?`ory`oN a>i_nmeo..='EE 'o
N c a° o u E- 0 3 E
Ja in.
tip cc D
C 62a m o ?, ?.. gam' E
?a E m co ck ? O 3 a 3 cc
t a..- u
s
I'
x
cc
fc
G-
3

lot
V
O
Aq
cl
O
° am: > 'vmoa,= v- L'3 G
3 CO •O. .0. i.. C u ? m a, o N° E$= .Q v
acC o
a7 C, aoi si m S o n G
cc QQ .5 c4 ?- 14 r 7 s N r
e.2 E -3
` ..ter ^ u ;a r-. "7 C T T 3 E c9 `J > O c. 7
y y3'-3°csxi^y
u
rs 30 C ` G ° E= o>?soor; R °u
I 0-3.-
L. >.
cn .0
w o aai ?V° c ao?Ys.E E co L. 8 cm 4):= 5 tow
?ayWe=cs<`°°?
cc lftv-
DES N--a ?E
a?> C r- ?G c°
c
Lo.
a ? := u c- c - aGi ? g
s. e tr7Id.°.a`?Ea,cEv'uE
2C c6 ?v a rA ... CC r. c ,,? ,v,1 > > ;n y V a>
co o
?C'E y a
Q u
V E Z E o 0 4) C6 ° a

?41
County
reaffirms
a support of
/inner loop
By Keith Taylor
The apparent availability of suf-
rident state funds to construct a
U.S. 264 "inner loop,o around
Wilson all at once instead of in two
phases was one Of the reasons
giveenby the Wilson COMW Boar
CommisSj2Vs this morning in
reaffirming support for the cor-
ridor-
At the request of local economic
development groups, the commis,
sioners adopted a resolution again
stating its support for the inner
loop, also asking the state that
''.consideration be given to the
construction of service roads ac-
cessing the new intersection at I-
96 and U.S. 264-" voted 6-1
The commissioners
with Commissioner Charles
Barnes dissenting-
John Hackney presented the
proposed resolution on behalf of
the Wilson County Chamber of
Commerce, Wilson Economic De-
velopment Council and Wilson on
the Move. Bruce Beasley,
Chamber president, was
with Hackney in the audience.
Three possible corridors Plus a
two-stage proposal 'previously
promoted by the Chamber are
under study by the N.C. Depart-
ment of Transportation. DOT held
a public meeting March 15 at
Forest Hills Middle School to
gather public input on the various
proposals' i
The county and the city J
Wilson, at the Chamber's request,
.. r11 r?
copy- NCOOT
.. See cam, Wg 8A
at the boa loop.
Hackney said the earner pc9-
Z to cow the bypass In
hases was made in order to
reduce the initial costs. He said
that since the March public meet-
ing, it appeared Gov. Jim Martin's
increase in the gasoline
? ?d make funds available
that were not previously antici-
pated.
Hackney said connecting routes
could be addressed later as local
road needs-
The commissioners adopted the
resolution with little discussion-
Commissioner Raeford Flowers
said the board's action was really
..reconfirmation of a previous
adoption-
Commissioner Barnes, who had
spoken against the inner loop at
the March 15 meeting. said he did
not -'delight in opposing some-
thing of this nature," but he urged
fellow commissioners t?nspordtea
the state's long-term
The inner route was
needs:
'.out of coordination with what
Barnes added.
The resolution states that "it is
still believed that d the U,.rri64 in-
ner loop designs
is the location of the route that
would be most beneficial to the
total development of Wilson Coun-
ty ..
The resolution also states that
.'a need exists to connect the
bypass to the northern part of
Wilson County, specifically in-
cluding the Wilson industrial air
facility."
The resolution notes "the
availability of development at the
new intersection of controlled ac-
cess Highways I-95 and U.S. 264.11
calling that availability "essential
.,.,,!o Wilson County."
Thomasville Tlmas
Tryon 9ulWin
Washington Oaily News
Ilmington Star
Wlison L_08.
inston Salem Journal
Winston Salem sentlnal
APR U I?E°
'U
i f
C
C
C
r

`,! li
COPY uCU
ff? Me
?..
Vol. 93, No. 38 Established 1896 Wilson,
f

t
County
reaffirms
support of
inner loop
By Keith Taylor
Daily rang Staff Writer
The apparent availability of suf-
ficient state funds to construct a
U.S. 264 "inner loop" around
Wilson all at once instead of in two
phases was one of the reasons
given by the Wilson County Board
of Commissioners this morning in
reaffirming support for the cor-
ridor.
At the request of local economic
development groups, the commis-
sioners adopted a resolution again
stating its support for the inner
loop, also asking the state that
,.consideration be given to the
construction of service roads ac-
cessing the new intersection at I-
95 and U.S. 264."
The commissioners voted 6-1
with Commissioner Charles
Barnes dissenting.
John Hackney presented the
proposed resolution on behalf of
the Wilson County Chamber of
Commerce, Wilson Economic De-
velopment Council and Wilson on
the Jove. Bruce Beasley,
Chamber president, was present
with Hackney in the audience.
Three possible corridors plus it
two-stake proposal previously
promoted by the Chamber are
under study b * v the N.C. Depart-
ment of Transportation. 1)(O' held
a public meeting 'March 15 at
Forest Hills ;Riddle School to
gathrr public input on the carious
pro; .„1:, Is.
The county and the city of
l ilson, at the Chamber's request,
tier County, page luA
1% ,
; - ilorrdawtt t
Soviet, tuba
HAVANA (AP) - Fidel Castro
warmly greeted Mikhail S. Gor-
bachev with a hug and a tour of
crowd-lined streets, but the Soviet
president and his Caribbean client
had fundamental differences to
discuss at talks that begin today.
An enduring ally but orthodox
Communist, Castro has rnhcized
Gorbachev's domestic reform
program as drawing too much
from capitalism.
The Cuban revolununan lead
er's unwillingness to institute suet,
changes at home displeases the
Soviets, who have suggested they
may reduce the billions of dollars
in aid they annually send Cuba.
The two lea
than six hous
Gorbachev is
matic visit to 1
A fatigue-c
the younger G
soaked tarn)
nit;htf;dl Still(
arms arount
Kremlin leade
brace.
The than wh
ihrer decade.
bachev's wilt
checks and esc
a review of the
guard.
Hundreds
for DOQ_
Soviet leader tilikhail Gorbachev and
Gorbachev's wife, Raisa, watches,
Sunday for a four-day visit.
igspec zal
teaching degree from East Caro-
ina- lina University and taught math in
ion. Lenoir County and Greene County
has for a total of 37 years.
fight During that time. she managed
to raise three children: Dr. Ginny
ylor Bond, a professor at Michigan
and State University; Col. Woodrow
e 4o M. Taylor, an Air Force officer
currently stationed in Oklahoma
ving City; and Emmette Taylor, an
aid, IBM employee working in Toron-
d to to, Canada. She is also the grand-
e. mother of four,
ntle- "It's hard to get them all
was together in one place," she said.
had "It's really a treasure when we
and, get to see them."
the While she has been retired for
seven years, she said she was bus-
was ier now, helping the center and
hus- serving on various other rom-
per- munity boards, than when she was
n to working full time.
tivi- In recent years, she has had to
combine her efforts while trying to
!r of take care of her husband, who is
4 of recovering from an illness. She
)1 in also serves as an occasional golf
her partner for him.
-.k lis tings
Y.Y Y\ Yti Drn L 6," S7 SON . %
Yti YV7 Y\ Alert L Co. sSV. r
2% 9 Sl
y
Nook swore 14
904 Wb %% wucor o
ire xi 264 Vi= Carn 33% • ?.
ITN 32% n1% sneak's N. und,
*4 Z% 25% 51n.1ea re4Com fa.Y i
79% 20 P%
a}sa Elq u
°
i
F
P
77M
22'r
IN ces
arm
r
sn 9% 9%
S.h S" SP. 14" Atanot
20% leapt. US.000er 1WMttC?rligM.
YM Yh
50'n w>r WY)
7E IM 7S CHICAGO IAGI -Eae)? Ieaa:eq an7M
H\ W. Nti osca" soars co Traft Atorgg",
Mocks
op" M„A U. La., Cks.
WHEAT
At NASD l"Kaft •N'r S.W M Iwtl *M. "Lan W bn"
eAano 0"4, a 1aC1 Ala. a 03?2 4 LS 11S IM -.Wb
'. .Kmwsd11e•_ JA 71M3sr.IL7 Z.LNn-Oa
Sep I vi )14 7.10 l..Oss -43
Doc . as 44S a 00 A . wvt - as
AAar . a 409 .m tO -.LS
71r .w F'. *S %&An 70.000

a..i1 M Fn •S oo" ,A. A a.
osn toile
a aro 1 n Lw an AweweAww: "Un w Ns11a•
l aJ Abe ?a 263 7 Ssh ) do - Wit
Jw 7AS 745 7alt. ]a] -oi
06.-* Sep 7 S7 7 Sr. ) S1 7 Ss`rl - OW
Der 7 55L 256'. 7 S7''. ) S.h - ?'..
7\ rein ..ae ) A'+ J ar+ 7 Wq 2 *1).. - w
nr r
,?, ? ..e. Ja. )to )4a : V -a
C.. t .art .5. ]DO

,? „ti. t0•aE awl
:,. 5.1w a '.. n1reA ganut ae• wsAel

1. Is 2. 24
JO )7%b

n ... ?o. ,r) ,.J 717 •o. -o.h
tf III Ir.. 1 0404.
yr 41ae 7 :a T 7.•a 1 Jt > ' Jly ._ 01\
n oa r «.. r 7c , >D r >o r n - o.
Jlr '. te' t u+n Zt 000

copy.- NCOOT
Copy - NCOOT
County
(Continued from page one)
had adopted resolutions in 1988
supporting two-phase construction
of the inner loop.
Hackney said the earlier pro-
posal to construct the bypass yn
two phases was made in order to
reduce the initial costs. He said
that since the March public meet-
ing, it appeared Gov. Jim Martin's
proposed increase in the gasoline
tax would make funds available
that were not previously antici-
pated.
Hackney said connecting routes
could be addressed later as local
road needs.
The commissioners adopted the
resolution with iittle discussion.
Commissioner Raeford Flowers
said the board's action was really
"reconfirmation of a previous
adoption."
Commissioner Barnes, who had
spoken against the inner loop at
the March 15 meeting, said he did
not "delight in opposing some-
thing of this nature," but he urged
fellow commissioners to consider
the state's long-term transporta-
tion needs. The inner route was
"out of coordination with what
good planning would require,"
Barnes added.
The resolution states that "it is
still believed that the U.S. 264 in-
ner loop designated as corridor B
is the location of the route that
would be most beneficial to the
total development of Wilson Coun-
ty.,.
The resolution also states that
"a need exists to connect the
bypass to the northern part of
Wilson County, specifically in-
cluding the Wilson industrial air
facility."
The resolution notes "the
availability of development at the
new intersection of controlled ac-
cess Highways I-95 and U.S. 264."
calling that availability "essential
to Wilson County."
Petition
•
(Continued from page one),
Jr., D•Wilson, and Rep. Larry
Etheridge, R-Wilson, would lock
City Council into two-year terms
for another two years.
Four-year terms, if approved in
the referendum, would go into ef-
fect in 1991.
Search for victin
continues at brie
(Continued from page one)
department inspector.
"We certainly will look at other
bridges after this failure. We'll
probably re-evaluate our whole
program of inspection on this type
of bridge," Moore said Sunday.
National Transportation Safety
Board investigators were to meet
with state bridge inspectors today,
authorities said.
The collapse of the two-lane,
northbound bridge occurred
Saturday night about 45 miles
north of Memphis. A companion
two-lane southbound bridge was
unaffected, although it remained
closed following the cave-in, the
Tennessee Highway Patrol said.
It was not known how many
people were riding on the bridge
when it crumbled, authorities
said.
Among the seven bodies recov-
ered were those of a trucker and
his wife who had been returning
home with a tractor-trailer they
had just bought
police said
Billy 11 _*% r)n Sr.
was driving the 18-
wife, Betty' was
pickup truck, said
Chief Charles E
parents, who ha(
with their son tha
ington, apparent)
bridge just before
said.
Also recovered
of Mary Annette C
husband, Jimmy
Ripley.
The bodies of W
a 49-year-old Jel
minister; his wif
and their 4-yea
Sophia, of Ripley.
Saturday night, F.
The Hatchie w,
feet over flood st;
the accident oc•
tional Weather
Castro, Gorbacl
begin talks todiec,
(Continued from page one)
fable mood afterward, telling a
Cuban correspondent, "Every-
thing is clear in our friendship, in
our hearts, in our soul. The only
thing left to do is to talk and we do
have something to talk about."
Official media in both countries
have papered over ideological dif-
ferences to stress the closeness of
Cuban-Soviet relations and one of
the main events on Gorbachev's
schedule will be a speech Tuesday
to the National Assembly.
1 Raisa Gorbachev planned ex-
cursions today to a day care
center, a Soviet-Cuban friendship
association and a museum for
Cuba's favorite American, the late
author Ernest Hemingway.
The welcome for Gorbachev
seemed genuine. His popularity in
Cuba encompasses many who see
him as the best hope for liber-
alization. Indeed, a coalition of
dissident groups tentatively
planned a pro-G+
stration at the Sc
Tuesday.
Given the hug
culture and th
remoteness of tt
the Soviet Union
an improbable
Cuba soaks up n
the Soviets' ent
program and rc
itself for Sovie
poses.
But with Gort
his priorities, th
at least a possi
generosity towai
diminish
Estimates of
contribution to
my range from
to $7 billion Th(
made clear its v
has squandered
to some develop
-? . x..11 t t1?•o DoT . _• • "
lva i 264---bypa.s'.S........
sue: bemg-. sou 4t
By Keith Taylor «ambpr or Commerce. to incor-
porate lg C in a project
The president of a citizens group to be buit? tw sag ?
dedicated to improving US. U7 Andersoi t said be- would try to
remained steadfast Friday in-his attend.wodnesdag's meeting but
belief that the new route must tie did not, yet. know., whether his
into the proposed U.S. 264 bypass organization -Would express a
in Wilson County. preference for any particular U.S_ .
"It's very important that we tie 264 corridor. The important- thing,
into the 264 bypass or I-% direct- he said would be that U.S.117 tie
ly," said Andy Anderson, a into whichever route is ultimately -
Pikeville-area resident and presi- selected, rather than terminating
dent of the Wayne-Wilson U.S. atU.S.301.
Highway 117 Association. U.S..117 currently ends at U.S.
Anderson said in a telephone in- ' 301 is Wilson County about two
terview that the connection would. miles south of U.S. 264. Propo-
be a key element to improving ac- . nents of relocating and widening
cess for points northward from -U.S. 117 say a link with U.S. 264
North Carolina's southern ports. would provide four-lane, con-
Prohibitive costs would make a• trolled-access highways all the
direct connection between U.S.117• : way from Wilmington to I-95.
and Interstate 95 doubtful, Ander- • Back in 19t;2, when DOT held a
son said.. public hearing. on the -U.S. 264
The N.C. Department off T.ra --- h u at Hunt High- School, of-
portation? scheduled a d g .:_ ficials from the Goldsboro:-area
for Wednesday at.7 p.m. at Forest' endorsed Corridor- A, ,the.'widest.
Hills Middle School to receive ` route: Goldsboro Mayor Hal Plonk.
public input on all four concepts and Tommy Jarrett,' member of .'
currently under consideration for the. Goldsboro Area Qoamber:,of"
the bypass. These include hat are : Commerce, endorsed that ccr=
known as Corridors A. B and C -. -.ridor on. behalf of the- Goldsboro
three corridors studied by DOT in, Chamber, the . Wayne,. coltaty
-.the early IM •- as well as a pro-
posal from the _ Wilson County
.
See U.S.11T '? ge
- ..... _._.:_._ .. r....:. •? ;_ ..:.?r? ??¦• Y- - ? - =?-
Wlson reoesw V i1 i 1=.,.. 4l
Wibon ONIy Ten,.. -in sought
wt?s .s.W" s4wn- (Condnuedfrom page one)
VBoard of Commissioners and the opment Council. Wilson County
Tourism Development Authority
MAR I 1 ' Goldsboro Board of Aldermen.
,989 "It's logical to look to the north and Wilson on the Move.
The Chamber's proposed route
to encourage continued enhance- would cross U.S. 301 in the vicinity
mint of the corridor from Wilson of the American Legion
to W-dmingtoo," . Jarrett said at Fairgrounds about 1.s miles north
that tim adding that Corridor A of U.S.117's present endpoint.
would provide an easy tie-in Anderson said he saw the Wilson
with U.S. 117. At that time, the Chamber's proposal two or three
Wilson County Chamber of Com- months ago in a brief meeting with
coerce also endorsed Corridor A. David James. chairman of the
Since then. the" Wilson County Chamber's U.S. 264 task force.
Chamber of Commerce has pro- Anderson said James assured him
posed an -inner loop," recom-
mending that the bypass be built that the Chamber's plan would not
affect U.S. 117. James was out of
as close to Wilson as possible. The town this week and could not be
alternative route, proposed in reached for comment.
September 1968, has been endors- Anderson said be initiated his
ed by the Wilson County Board of visit to James' law office in Wilson
Commissioners. Wilson City because "I figured we'd be work-
r .s,....:_ Wilson Economic Dever
-
ing.together one of these days.,.
i - -- ,_ Co" - Ncoo) -
O selae0ad whitft idm
or Z yon ft will
• jRO?lhlOt?fer? ..
..
Jas" eft" eral com-
?'bUM
o ? ??
w'berw said. ...
ass
.
Ot. Ople
..18=M SM
_ ? leaned bom its etperience
8 1[eSh Tayior Intestate in
audience of that it ?doc
emerge -from the 4
?r..w.awr%W boa too far from the city does not
A proposed corridor for the new about 40, James was cast In the 4MMMg'e thwdL "We've been .
Ion ia4 bypass he+ought something rleading ole of for the Waiting for Wilson to grow out to
Y night than the unit.. ?tarloye n?
ed support as ti Toward the end - of the. session,- b
Wilson from the James snaest
«?-
mace have omber of seeking W, that a vote be taken, C. Buren ponen4 of a wider bypass are
Chamber ih within Williford, ?,ator, counted sftkft a connection with U..117.
members who prefer Der the In. "They're e looking after
bringing the route as clone to the ? and nine who-supported CddsboM be said. 42 think we
Wilson as poestbie were answered Jams. - distant rd a Corridor A.' have to decide among o?retva
by others who favor the original .cited earlier-in favor of the arguments what is in the bat interests of
corridor supported. by thee:. Inner Wilson and lobby farit~
Chamber in 19m"a route logthe' 'AM said-Corridor- A would do Audience member David West
nothing-
farther west of the city: W
il but move traffic through
+ said the advantages of Wag U.S.
.The
fem. for the'dlsc?ssi? County without-providing U7 into the bypass should be coo.
--fs as hocayoa?pta nuing sesaio? - is for the local community.. sidered, adding, "It's a two-way
tBthP&nk'Pgnb is me'Chamber?a , _ 00?` bring :treet^
meeting, . : 'Wwining in... ?vw pvbiic•closer to Wilson, Ned Lavengood said the
aamw the 199 ..
A. session titled "264. std; while.'at rive.- same : q Cumber should have optimism
aaa - Building the Road to time belift to reduce congestion that in 1S-25 years the community
Ih
neously e ?^e" was held simulta 00 Ward Boulevard.. '•It Qiva will have grows to the wider cor.
with sessions on •"SmaII • -Wilson _ a road Wilsonians can . ridor, rather than
Business Development - Growing t.me,"besald. Pushing for a
•MY.Q that is }?,?,
From Within" and -Towis Former Wilson county Com• taring the community."" tobe._!r
An 'Untapped Asset"All _ missioner Mack B d be
a said there ?
we held in the Ni rdV Educa. Or, the door for off.
tim Building on the campus of Mond by saying be did not 'Plenty Of commercial deVeiop-
er orridor Inner Loop
?' Williamson Jr. the 109 only negawhy tfvebe ham ? t with Croponents d the InnA, adding
` Corridor A. Bissette Proponents hoop
said 1me?v! feedback" a4 by Wad , wwhoo afollowed id were motivated by short-term
from pins rather than the Mae needs membership reasons given in I= for building
the
wu the needed that the Chamber Ltttxr, lfrom Wllsoa d the community. He said at one
tra werestillvalid, Plat he did not want the devei-
develop its s could
?ahes. tegles on the `t to be for o? to which James was re-X4 beldine fe:rin& but Blake
C
David hamber's chairman of the shs' MU lake said. In- in an interview ? ? be building the ` com- Perimeter Of bypass at the wanted was growth that was heir
miutee. was the existing develop. ter Planned and controbed. ---I
for the Inns Loop session erson't menk Blake said a route should be definitely want more growth,--
as negative comments began but Blakesaid;
to p'g A . It was the current Chamber
position, however, that James
considered to be the more
foresighted. James said the
Chamber had a different attitude
now tram the one that existed in
?. .,.Y -.-i.. ?.+. ... - .•....+i•.:+.?? -•.?`.w... .:. -LA
:. ...-,.r. w..•-?•.?_ •. .'.Lw'?.rti?i ?rf? .• r?+•?+••?.l:.?it:w.?
Co" - NCOOT

F ..
I
decisions lmdaunOe I by the negathme feed will &110 fWS on tour"
. were being made now ..On an back. " I had heard those nom- mopment, faux mes eat. "Tarter the Triangle
economic basks for the betterment meats before. he said,. Ja Wzk? education, and such ac-
atwilson County said be still believed very stay
Not all input from the audience that the Inner Loop was the best ands as the city's sprint festival
Inner routeforthewilsoncommWit7• and a celebration of the 100th
was negative regard* ener>a the l man- The US. 264 Inner Loop was also aniversu7 of the Wilson Tobacco
general
Loop. Tom Corbett.
\
eme Of the fpco®r? The Im?et Tom, primed by the
ater for pt wood Mall, said a ram th M'?ci•
some mere were concerned that followed i_ din:ser at the Chamber in 1966, has been en
that a wider corridor would came Chamber membership doted by the Wilson County
an erosion of customerbase. Hamlin Student Center cafeteria. Commissioners and
-Maybe the lesson to be learned "If some of you hadn't joined the • Wilson and of Comcil, as well as the
from 96 is that we don't have any- efforts to support location of the WUson City
Economic Development
ttsiag to offer." said N.C. ReP• Inner Loop, said put ?? Cbuncil and Wilson on the Move.
Larry Etheridge, also seated in (caries R Ruses. DOT officials have said an open
the audience. He said perhaps a letW* the bureaucracy in ` meeting would be held in Wilson
the next few months to
bait stadium or similar incentives make that decision Ina vacuum." within
vidtors to Williamson cited the Inner Loop mall
vmp bring as ace at thud. The
Chamber proposed?doM
were needed to After the session James was. for the year,
_
C

f
I

"lass
prpjel
given
By Russell Rawlings '
DWI7TIMM VAiw"FAtw
Gov. Jim Martin unveiled plans
Thursday to speed up construction
of 13 North Carolina highway pro-
jects, an announcement that
created some initial confusion in
Wilson County.
Uncertainty centered around
whether recent local activity
regarding the U.S. 264 Bypass
around Wilson - one of 13 projects
on the governor's list ' would
have to be shelved so as not to
delay construction.
Before the afternoon was over,
however, it appeared that Mar-
tin's plans would not collide with
the efforts of the Wilson County
Chamber of Commerce and its
transportation co 'tt
M
boost,
The plan being backed locally
basically shows Corridor C, in-
cluding a connector from U.S. 264
at Airport Road to Tarboro Street,
as Phase I. to be constructed first,
and Phase 11, or Corridor B's sec-
tion from Tarboro Street across
Interstate 95, to be added later.
The committee, headed by
Wilson attorney David James, has
received endorsements from +
Wilson City Council, the Wilson
County Board of Commissioners,
Wilson Economic Development
Council and Wilson on the Move.
James and his backers have
stated that Wilson could not afford _
to let the new bypass swing wide of
town, as I-95 does. They have
promoted a combination of the
mm? eV to unify
local officials behind a combina. comdors as a feasible alternative
that addresses the economic needs ZI-1.0 bt
R'i"°n ?' "
lion of two of the three
proposed
corridors
of the community and the trans- R.itl Trill. Rev ."
Rockingham: T. _nmontl Co. Journal
,
The Associated Press rted
?? portation needs of eastern North

???' Roanoke Rao.. *?ffaatl
Ro
Mount •.-°•am

Martin was asking Transportation
The plan was officially endorsed w
SalisOury Port
Sanford Haraitl
Secretary J
'u
n
.
H..a?rr?ington-Wre- by both the city and county gov. Star
Sa
?
,
?
.
quest up to W Mon on in reserves

eranng bodies last weep, W1150II on ts
tr
Su
ille Record r Landmark
Tarporo Southerner
from the State Highway Fund to the Move and Wilson Economic .
Thornewilla Times
be used in the projects,
t all includ-.
Development endorsed it eazlier: Bulletin

ed in a Strategie- Corridoi•''
Highway System
_ .
. 'Representatives from those
- Washington
w,,,,
;not,n N,,,,,a
Wilmington Star
ilaon T,
.
If the board approves the trans- groups had met with lack Bishop
of Rocky'Mouet
highway com- al Journal
t
n
S
l
Win
S

fer of money. the report said,. the ,
missioner for the district which s
o
-
a
em
entinel
state by 1991 would begin to gather includes Wilson County, and CA S E P 2 3 1988
the rights of way for the projects.' Gardner, Division 4 engineer ' in
Without the stepped-up funding, it. Wilson, as recently as Tuesday to
may be-1995 before acquisition can solidify'their campaign for the in-
begun, Harrington said . nermost corridor. ;
Of the three corridors initially ,'-It was Bishop who earlier Inter-
,presented by-the DW..Coaidor A. preted the. governors- annomce% .
.
`sweep3 wfdesVft=WIIigwOtrAi!.; = menFair one that' could -pracr•-

opposite side of Wiggins Mill Res- ` Wilson in- an ?elthertoa predic&-- •;
ervoir. >
Corridor Ciollows roughly alon menL Later he phoned to repoi-t
th
h
g
the existing lines of U.S. 264 and at
e had been in contact with a
member of the Department of `.
Forest Hills Road to N.C. 42 West. -
Curridor B 'essenti
ll
l Transportation's planning divi-
a
y sp
its the
difference, following Corridor A sion. and that since the plan being

south almost to NC; 42, then veer.
ing southeast tOwi
d pushed by Wilson offnci4ls is
essentially a combination of two
r
Greenfield
School. where both C and B con- plans previously researched by
th

• ti
nue inside Wiggins Mill Reser- e planning division, no

foreseeable delay e3dsted
He also
.
YOir.
tin& U' 1 and over to Seer _ .; c, .. .1, ,

?,. ,

?F 4% -XCLUO- -1
n a f- s eeded - up
• (Continued from page one. "This is one of the things we
considered," said James. "And
said he had checked back with I'm a real skeptical person. We
DOT after conferring with James. Questioned them (DOT officials)
"Since the plan is actually Cor- as to whether they had done more
ridor B with a very small section on corridor A than on B or C." He
that will run from B to C, it would said he was told that they had not.
probably not delay it for a very James, therefore, said Martin's
lengthy time," Bishop said. announcement changed nothing.
"We're probably talking in terms "We were going anyway to see
of a few months." Jim Greenhill (of DOT) and we're
James, however, said later that going to show him the area that
he didn't see it that way, and that we're interested in.
the connection of the two proposed "I have not heard anything to-
corridors fell in close proximity to day that leads me to believe that
the combined route, and therefore we still don't have a chance to in-
would not merit additional en- fluence the location of the 264
vironmental impact studies. Bypass without causing a delay in
He said the question of local ef- the construction timetable."
forts leading to a delay had been Bypasses of New Bern and
considered at length before ever Jacksonville were aim among the
ptnhing for the inner corridor. 13 projects on Martin's list.

y
°1
;mq
c4mq
Ct
tl2
ponq
+NJ
CM)
(20)
(as)

•
qtzt
\114C

a?
c?
q m C/Z O `r V t.
C ED- O y to no
C13 s 4) .0
ay6'i L. ?'?oC. O sy°. .4 cc
C? V C ?, p N tom. 0 CO
y N N ?O 0 3 p 0 y...
C.... t. N y ^,C V C E
to °tA
E E O c
p ... V C
oa•Q GOc
V O Lr y O O o Ly. V O
c0 C N a .C a C O y ++
O N N ++ "' C' ?+ V
a?,oC/2 °u R o c ? „cc,
csca v3yuDcac
. .
in (n Ctoc?CE-?y u
C C13 Y N cc cn
u .Ez-c'o EN w0 E? a
'" cc c 4) s $...
fcc .C 4t > ? c4
'til w .a O
CCa.
ca
cp Vi p, ?,
0-) two
0.0 N ,c v c ? ?''
O N d' ?' p .a
:r a V _N
N?.°i•N W
L. y N L.
?0.0cdomC,3
.c'c?o?cQ>
O ^ O
a °c cn E ' O
E
3??0
.O
Ca cn CyrO..
... ui v C
? a a? 'co
o?.u °v
O
R .? C Ci
E• c4 cn
Coj-
O? E.c
c?L?ca
t C -+ C
O C y
W yN a3LSS (D 0 O O2 8.6 4) c.E G.O vOi
0 y C . t4 .0 ?+ CO .. • C ... > cc y co ? V
C N C 7 U t O O O O L. y p p c 'A o
cc - y as Z ... as CO E L., N o x
F. V p p ? cc O ,a; c c4 .? L. O O E 'y 'U CO L. cC
y O V R L10 N 'E N •ej COO E v
a COO .E O o s 3
V v E ^. c .+ c 0 c r+
c w` ° o
Lvn cay E cQ c?i c'n c 03
o C.) C13 4)
14
°n 3
Esyz i'E y m a`?3 0 o 0 3 c
N a? Co°.' a cn -° c. y
c '? aNi ? c c° c V7 N N V 'a -C
?J p O p U c N O Q c4 O E cs p L. O c? N
V) C13
L. Q
av c vi a a`.y m>cis ,c o v?y`n >
cts i. L
N a... O Vf ?+ .1: LLy .C Z N = .D
CL) . C N to O w CA
2.0 = Ca 0 Q C C13 L. 4) to C to
"0 L. ca (A cc
Cc a) N 'v s V W 'p coq .7 Co . 3 C' > C O a' v to o
wE-?o00 4) L. oc tos.p c co cc ca-- oc
:a ca
a? E v c aovcc, cis
?
° E cfs > G.ccc!
L. E ?U > c9
03
C O t"' C z y '? t
N 'fly CS? ca >> C C>
L. L. c)
O
++ OO,p ° c4 _ R

N
c7
° .;
y O F ceaj W cc
r
o
L
y O yNj E
p
?. c? COQ N c o
b
_
?
W
.?
L.
N
'
U a ?- c -' N as
cu C13 X
V
?
N N
x (?.
a
Z L.
a?
)
(
G7 L. CZ L.
c cis W
- 4 CO c _
O O U O Q O O ca
N y w N O O c
N
N
c
c ~ cC L
a?
?: ° °yoL.°3v? ?.. ..

Lo.-0=E-'v°
> cn
U C? p.? V L W C C
cc L.
E
0
O L. ...
O cis
"7
cc
... ?, N O O O U
C O•
0 O y
0 > C,4 (A w
w C13 W C
O C p
L.
E
2
cu
fil
1-
a) 0 Q.
0
4) u
02 C
O C 0.0 > _N
Co-
c >, z
61
O >

p vim, c.......,
O O
U
O y
?
C
03 cu y
C1a C
c no 3 .., c
. .E cu cz
`
cU L U L. O m COO
• t CL O
' y J.O. rJ L rJ L '
O
0
E~
O
..
cm c
C
s N c0 y
•
• O
•• -. 1
1000N - Ad07 _

problems to
be studied

J
2
A
O
0
By Keith Taylor
DWy nma surf Wnter
Wilson County's concerns over
he safety of the new U.S. 264 will
)e studied closely, state highway
officials said Tuesday.
James E. Harrington secretary
A the N.C. Dep;;i of Trans-
"nation, received a letter this
.Peek from the Wilson County
Board of Commissioners express-
ing "grave concern" over the
absence of overpasses to separate
some o to ing roads
from the four-lane highway. The
letter asked how and when the
department would rectify the pro-
blem.
"We take such requests very
seriously," said Jim Sughrue,
DOT spokesman. Sughrue said in
a telephone interview that Harr-
ington had asked the Division of
Highways to review the letter,
study whatever problems might
exist and make some recommen-
dations.
Such a review usually takes
several weeks, Sughrue said. The
division looks at accident data and
sometimes makes site inspec-
tions, he said, "whatever they feel
is necessary."
The initial 3.4-mile section of the
road opened June 22, 1987, and
another 10.3 miles between
southeastern Wilson County and
Farmville opened Oct. 6. The
commissioners' letter. signed by
Chairman Preston Harrell and
dated Jan. 7, noted that since the
highway opened, there had al-
ready been three fatalities,
numem s,injuriea and thousands
of dollars in property damage.
-'The most frightening aspect...
the letter adds, "is that the poten-
tial continues to exist for more of
the same unless some type of
remedial action is taken."
A Jacksonville couple and their
3-year-old son were killed Oct. 1
when their car ran the stop sign at
N.C. 58 and collided with an east-
bound tractor-trailer.
Other grade-level intersections
exist at N.C. 222 and N.C. 91, both
of which are marked with stop
signs but no caution lights. The
commissioners suggested that
stoplights or caution lights be con-
sidered until overpasses can be
provided.
Harrell. commenting in late
December, said he had continued
to receive complaints from Wilson
County citizens since the highway
opened-
Sughrue said the department
had learned from experience that
concerns such as those raised by
the county commissioners can
pinpoint a problem area before it
has bad time to show up
statistically.
"I wouldn't presume to say what
the finding may be at this point,."
Sughrue said, but he added that
the commissioners could be
assured that their concerns would
be studied "and recommendations
will be made."
Jack Bishop of Rocky Mount,
Board of Transportation member
SeeU.S.?;page6
1. /
L t
s •
copy - NCOOT
,
UoS(. 26Cs
problems to
be studied
Continued from page one 1
from Division 4, said he would do
everything possible to see that in-
terchanges for N.C. 222 and N.C.
91 are added to the state's nine.
year Transportation Improve-
ment Plan.
Bishop, commenting Tuesday in
a telephone interview, said he was
"equally as concerned" as the
Wilson County commissioners
about the safety of U.S. 264. He
said a similar situation was de•
eloping with two at-grade in-
tersections on the new U.S. 64
under construction between
Rocky Mount and Tarboro.
Bishop said he had believed all
along that overpasses were neces.
sary at all four intersections. "I
don't think there's any question,"
he said.
One reason the roads were
planned as they were was because
of the cost, Bishop said. He said
each interchange would cost ap-
proximately $2 million to $2.5 mil'
lion apiece. "We're talking about
roughly 10 million dollars when
we're talking about four of them."
Another reason was the traffic
count. Bishop said. The over-
passes were left out with the
understanding that they could be
added whenever the traffic count
reached the necessary level.
Even if the overpasses are add-
ed to the next TIP. Bishop con-
ceded that it could be another de-
cade before they are built. To in-
sert a project into the TIP, he said,
either something else must be
deleted or additional funding will
be required.
Bishop said he and the division
engineer had discussed the safety
of U.S. 264 at length. "My efforts
most sincerely will be placed in
that area," he said.
Randy Doub of Greenville,
Board of Transportation member
from Division 2, said this morning
he considered the Farmville and
Greenville bypasses to be higher
priorities than the interchanges on
U.S. 264. The engineering for those
bypasses has been done and the
money has been made available,
he said. "To now risk having those
projects delayed or taken down or
scaled down, in my mind, would
not be fair."
Doub said he did not consider
the new highway to be a dangerous
one - no more dangerous, for ex-
ample, than U.S. 264 between
Wilson and Interstate 95. ''It's un-
fortunate that we have these acci-
dents," Doub said, but he sug-
gested that steps be taken to
delineate the intersections better
and encourage safer driving.
Bishop disagreed that the
Farmville and Greenville
bypasses should take pnority over
the U.S. 264 interchanges, but he
noted that he and Doub were in
different divisions. "So these are
my priorities," Bishop said.
The Wilson Daily Times. Wednesday.January 13.1988
1~
L'I
Copy - NCDOT _

Bu'8
•
Id It Right
U.S. 264 Should Be freeWoy Quality
Wilsoupporters of a U.S. 264 bypass well as other eastern North Carolina of the city, es
served by the highway, should be staunch and unified
supporters of a freeway-quality roadway to Raleigh.
Spokesmen for the Wilson Chamber of Commerce
and the Wilson County Economic Council a
before local officials last week to seek su Ppeared
newer route - a route which is closer to Wils n than
that which was originally planned.
say the route should be The spokesmen
to the city. The moved to bring traffic closer
along Interstate 9s, whichiis well west of Wilson Pment
The highway would be built as a fully controlled ac-
cess freeway with interchanges. However, the-group
is proposing it be built in two phases with the first b-
ing from the present U.S. 264 and U.S.
east of Wilson to Airport Road west of 58 W ISn?The
final segment, crossing I-95, would be built when traf-
fic warrants.
It is imperative to the development of the central
eastern North Carolina section that U.S. 264 as a
freeway be completed. Obviously all groups in Wilson
County should be in agreement on the planned route if
its construction is to be done in a reasonable time.
Next year in the N.C. Legislature there is certain to
be a move to provide new financing for highway con-
struction. Eastern representatives should not meekly
vote for whatever financing plan is developed
assurance that U.S. 264 will be completed in its entire-
ty.
And that means the counties and municipalities af-
fected by U.S. 264 must all work together to su
its development. They did once and some progress
has been made. The job is not complete, however. The
Wilson bypass is still years away and several key in-
terchanges have been left out.
Counties to the west should know that the extending
U.S. 64 freeway through Rocky Mount and Tarboro --
and soon to be extended to Williamston - can son
Off much traffic in the future. Travelers from ea h of
Greenville will be able to take N.C. 30 at Pactolus and
pick up U.S. 64 at Bethel. Soon travelers from Green.
ville will be able to take N.C. 33 to Tarboro and follom.•
U S. 64 to Raleigh.
Thus there will be competition for traffic. All coun-
ties and municipalities along U-S get this 64 together in a-concerted effort to need g
- join
inpleted as a freeway. If the East wants it, the East
`e'll have to work for it.

5

? i.
v
?;oc=Z?
QI v
A: C?f a.
O
10
I

y
`I
?r
y •1
I
C
C
v°
A?
o
f? 4
1 H
r.r s
X
_ G
U
C
Z
0
t
:n
Z
Copy_ "COOT
TT?
v1

C?
U
C?$
0
yj
n
rO
y/ L
?W:
7 y d y ?"' N
E O• o CcIIr.-'' O O•C? C p'CC
C U L. ts.? Cc .= Er .C c er
Uto 0? Yom L
3 z3 ?s ?? 3 as L,g ., co y u E c N a
X -Q
to -
.°r t L N 3 Z to C v°. C O O L
y 0 :? II .r _C CQ U L L O
cu - E _5
&n - ca r
E4 Q
O U 0 N.0 .? ••? U O
?r UV V y -,py? G. y
G'.' p C C r" CA'^' ciL- iz i a C C O?2 E? V i. C •?}
3 CZ 0*- J5
to
L y c ccn; c"i
rj -'a
to > L. cn
C13
G '.? C L tw C s N U) E C C ?' j c 0
CO Q ccv cL.E= C Cz (u 43.2 O O -V ::: " -tg
E 8_
'° 3 o to to Co -0 a -10
Q cz 4u C.:7 (V 0 C)
t3 _ U N V U >1 tn
-V -= CZ. w L. Q 0, to W
c
o c to
s p o- N o
v
0 L, to > v C, 77
V J O s J O ?. •` ... O D U i •?5 ?.r -? td ^.( O
i ?„ U Cj - O c3 U ^
?c Z.s JoCna
CZ :r
N Z '•L4 C C r J CV O. m 3• C r '." CS :3 C J>`
L cII V p.0 C:0 L C'= .... c3 3 O -0 CZ 3. .C cu cc
-
t CZ "' _ ._ v cJ O cu ?_ y .?= U E 3 O
O v QY.°_ as cCU?• m L=, cys `- U cz x t) LU. O N
00 > p >? C ?U ?' CJ ,G7
_y E M N cp C 11 R= C O C C .E .
L E -? E L C ^ E" p o O G. C3 N
++
C N
(U _ c cn C/2 L.
O L4 0 to cz V L? O ?"•, ..? 0 -3 CUi i
N? °
^ c o
s 3 Via. ^. 3-a >'c o o Q C
? .
E ?s L. v o 3 c J°
0o CD .0 c •a c a.- t".Cs c7 c3 c
r C4
cu ca 12) 0
m - -0 CZ
C Q ?+
p O L.. o U N Ca p° E E o a.c=? ?' i 3s c
:n ci -C; a
c coi3 G3 L v ccis -
C-Z
O C tn N U .- U c4 C ? .? _? .- Cp C R. - JI y C•i
..+ ? ? n C O O C >' '-
J >? J O N L C./? 3 .? ...
C-. ej
tJ 7--
i
4
!i^
CORRIDOR A
uy K - _ ,Four "' ?J•• _ ?.!' uue:nnttn? CORRIDOR 8
2s? V101 g
a, ?JII ?•TJ: ?' r ?? CORRIDOR C
"' - -? 04 ?j'' ?? ? "tJ ? ? ? INTERCHANGE
1. ::Jr _ „+'?•""• \'J/ +v ?! ;' (ACCESS POINT)
10
?'. v •
"?
ZOR
r" us 254 WILSON BYPASS
.7 SPECIAL CORRIOOR STUOr
WILSON COUNTY
3/80 Q ,?1 M. 2
slww y .«. ass 'O• •.a,? .+ '
C.w.f•w Ci? u ?i + •~' :?'( '` Scot
WILSON u{J uu• !IU 1JJ
J-?• I' Jo a lrr11?.C1, elfa?IT7. .ZJ?'. .? \ ?, •,I° ! LM 't 1_ •i
4w;
o!l
I. Ua is 0.
.• ?- '.uk 'SON 1
CORRIDOR A ? ,+ _'? •,.,
1
' ?' _ ?
PROPOSED JS 264
- o7:
FREEWAY (R-524)
/ J •. -
IF jor
U=9"A al -w
The Chamber of Commerce is reconsidering its suppdrt of Corridor A, the southernmost Bypass route.
264BIvnassroute-bein g-ree6nsiderei:
By Alison Ilesmer determined with funds `subsequently i'p- in the past 10 years than previous-
Daily TimesSlalf Wn:er propriated by the state in 1991. ly anticipated. ?I I
While roughly seven years ago the Wilson The thoroughfare, which is expected, to "Some people have come to the
County Chamber of Commerce supported provide a four-lane, divided freeway exten- Chamber and said Corridor A is
construction of a U.S. 264 Bypass along a route ding from Wilson to Greenville with access at too far out," Hooks said.
known as "Corridor A," it recently announced interchanges only, is part of DOT's Transpor- The task force, which will be
it will organize a task force to re-examine tation Improvement Plan. Three routes have composed of a cross-section of
routes that may now be "more advantageous been proposed. corridors A. B and C. Alter- approximately five to seven
and in the best interests of Wilson," said Gene native A passes south of Hunt High School and Chamber members, will begin
Hooks, chairman of the Chamber's transpor- Wiggins NU Reservoir, tying into U.S. 301 at work during the next few days.
cation committee. the U.S. 117 intersection, alternative B passes Hooks said, following naming of
C.A. Gardner, director of the local division north of the school and reservoir; and alter-. the group. Both existing proposals
1•of the Department of Transportation, said the native d follows U.S. 263 to State Road 1158. and new routes will be studied. he
DOT is set to begin official planning of the then turns south and conriecta witli Corridair R said, with consideration given to
i.07"nq-Rlpass proposal during the 1988 fiscal nearN.C, 42... updated cost estimates of the con-
ear. begins Oct. 1. Following planning From 1980 8I, public meetings and hearings =traction.
sessions, des of the lvghway will be ' ' ?v!!t held to obtain local input trom-citizafl 't Studies show that Corridor A
?• ' and officials regarding the setecauu ?,t a , . would require the relocation of 18 i
route. At that time. representing the business
The Wilson Oa,•y ? Imes, the Chamber had endorsed con- residences and would cost
community' =55,183,000, according to 1980
strutting the thoroughfare along Corridor A. estimates. Corridor B would
Fr?aar.augusr 21, Iv87 the outer, alternate route southwest of Wilson.: ' necessitate the relocation of 30
maintaining that construction of Corridor B : • residences and [our businesses
. would limit the city's growth to the south. with 1980 estimated costs of
Gardner said another public hearing would
y38,446,ooo. Corridor C would
be held before construction begins. necessitate the relocation of 40
The (?samber's board of directors met residences , eight businesses and
Wednesday to approve establishment the two churches, with 1960 estimated
task force. Hooks said c3lief reasoning behind
costa of $54,147,000.
the- move was based oir the fact that Wilson - __ _• _
had seealess lu'4ns' I C / L .

ER-81/1014

1.
f
ti
Southeast Region / Suite 1112 /Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Richard B. Russell Federal Building '
75 Spring Street, S. W.
June 24, 1981
Mr. R. E. Heinz
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
P.O. Box 16806
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Heinz:
??? EI V?,br
r JUN
;s ?g A,
T
This is in response to a May 12, 1981, request for the Department of
the Interior's comments on the draft environmental statement (DES)
for US-264 Bypass of Wilson, Wilson County, North Carolina. We have
reviewed the DES for impacts on cultural (historical and
archeological), geological, recreational, and fish and wildlife
resources, and for impacts on existing and proposed units of the
National Park System and have the following comments to offer.
GENERAL COMMENTS
All alternatives require crossing of wetlands tit Jaryin,; dQyree';.
Potential adverse effects on .h,-5r we l antis caused t..y a l ter i -t'-j
drainage or hydraulic continuity will depend un final bridae and
approach designs. It is difficult to completely assess the
environmental consequences of an.V alternative at this ti,rt: aitiiout
final designs.
As the DES points out, Contentr.ea Creek hosts an important anadremous
fish run on a seasonal basis. Every effort should he i:zade to ensue'
through erosion control and seasonal limitations that any
construction involving crossing Contentnea Creek or its fluo? plain
has a minimal impact upon the fish or fishery.
Endangered Species coordination for this project has been completed,
as indicated by the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) letter of
October 20, 1980, to Mr. Ronald ?_. Heinz of the Federal ?ii ghway
Admi ni strati on. A biological as,.;essmenL was conducted and supported
the conclusion of no impact, wit;, which we concur. The ?'ES
adequately addresses measures to ensure protection of species of
concern to the State which occur within the project area.
Additional comments and reconnendations for project ;modification by
the FWS pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
4.91, as a:neilded; 16 U.S.C. 661 et ) may be nccuGsary if pr^ject
implcmentation requires a permit fron the Army Corps of En;ineers.
Copy -- r4CDOT
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
COPY NCOO.
2
The DES adequately addresses impacts on geological, recreational, and
cultural resources. Also, there are no known potential or existing
units of the National Park System within any of the project
corridors.
The final statement should include, however, correspondence from the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) commenting on the cultural
resource surveys conducted. Any further recommendations made by the
SHPO should be considered in the planning process.
Characterization of fishery resources present in Contentnea Creek,
Hominy Swamp, Shepards Branch, and 31oormery Swiwp should be apdated
by contemporary sampling.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 20. Third paragraph.
The scientific name of the water :aoccasin is A kistrodon ip scivorous;
Natrix. sieedon_ is the northern water snake. Both are probably
present within the project area. The correct scientific name of ti?e
copperhead is A kistrodon contortrix. These corrections should be
incorporated in the final environmental stdLe::ient.
Page 57. Fifth paragraph.
The FWS does not concur with the choracteri zar. ion of seasonal Iv
flooded bottom lands on this page, and objects to the sentence whic"
reads: "Therefore, from a fish and wildlife standpoint, these
seasonally flooded areas are not considered as valuable as are
wetlands which are inundated for longer periods of time." While fish
may not be able to utilize seasonally flooded bottom lands On a
year-round basis, such bottom lands are required by some species for
spawning. Preventing access to seasonally flooded bottom lands may
result in reproductive failure ultimately res:jltiny in permanent
losses to the fishery.
Even though access by fish is limited to seasons when floo„iny
occurs, these areas contribute nut,-ients and fish focd orqanisrns
• which are important in the maintenance of sport fish populations.
leasonally flooded bottom lands also often display a hiyher species
diversity than adjacent areas and are heavily utilized Icy gave
aiitirals becauie they are interinitter..1y floove'.I.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Bawd on the number of cretland cr:;s.ings invulv;:d and the estimated
amounts of wetl e,id acreage r _'.4u'• r?d Io; corstru:? t i on, the host
acceptatle al tern; t+ve wciuld be C?}rridnr C. ( orr•idor can be
COPY - NCDOT
3
expected to have the least impact on fish and wildlife resources,
will affect the smallest acreage of wetlands and wildlife habitat and
will have the shortest flood plain encroachment. In addition,
Alternative C would not involve crossing Contentnea Creek thereby
minimizing any potential effects on anadromous fish.

a
The final environmental statement should offer specific alignment
proposals, construction methods and measures intended to mitigate
losses to fish and wildlife resources. The FWS will he pleased to
consult with the North Carolina Department of Transportation as
proposals are developed, and we suggest this is an appropriate
project for further discussion at future North Carolina Department of
Transportation "Scoping Meetings."
As this Department has a continuing interest in the project, we would
be willing to cooperate and provide technical asistance in further
project evaluation and assessment. The field office assigned
responsibility for technical assistance about cultural resources is:
Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 75 Spring
Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. For fish and wildlife matters,
please contact the Fish and Wildlife Service Area Office, Plateau
Building, Room A-5, 50 South French Broad Avenue, Asheville, North
Carolina 28302.
Th_nk you for the opportunity ti comment on. this statement.
S4ncerely yours,
11ames H.

i' Regional
i
cc: V Mr. T. L. 'Maters
Manager of Planning and Research
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27ii11

Lee
E nvi rcimient a l Officer

. ? Q,u? de-v?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
4 P. O. Box 1950
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
IN RELY REFER TO
a SAWCO-EP 2 December 1982
D Z
i Z?EC g 1980 ?
Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager. DIVISION OF 40
Planning and Research Branch j C H1GNy(P`YS
N.C. Division of Highways ?' gESEp`?
PO Box 25201 ,r..?
Raleigh, NC 27611 Z,,,,,,,,,,,..:.. •• - - ' "
Dear Mr. Waters:
This is in regard to the preapplication meeting held on 28 September 1982
at the Department of Transportation Office in Raleigh, N.C.. Listed below '
are the projects discussed during that meeting and a summary of our
comments relative to permit requirements for each. Those projects, or
portions thereof, that qualify for authorization under either a nationwide
permit or our recently issued general permit SAWC082-N-000-0031 (copy
inclosed) are so indicated.
a. U.S. 264 from S.R. 1538 east of Greenville to Washington, Pitt -
Beaufort. Counties, R-216.
1. Work at Aggie Run and Grindle Creek are candidates for
authorization by general permit. In keeping with the provisions of that
permit, plans should be submitted for our review and concurrence.
2. Work at Maple and Mitchell Branches has been authorized under
a nationwide permit. We recommend that fill in wetland areas be held to a
minimum by incorporating 2:1 slopes on fill shoulders and using standard
procedures to reduce erosion (i-.e., proper placement of silt fences and
reseeding graded and filled areas as soon as possible after construction
ceases).
3. Work proposed at Tranters Creek will likely require an
individual Department of the Army permit and appears to have a
significantly less wetland damaging alternative. Specifically, placing
the new lanes on the south rather than the north side of the existing
roadway west of Tranters Creek would significantly reduce adverse impacts
to the wetland ecosystem of this drainage. The area on the south side has
virtually been isolated by the fills placed for road and railroad
beddings. Since wetland acreage would be lost in construction, habitat
loss and other adverse impacts to the Creek flood plain would be reduced
if fill were placed in this area. We would urge you to give this
alternative serious consideration.
b. U.S. 64 from U.S. 13-17 Bypass to N.C. 32 Martin and Washington
Counties, R-405 and R-510.
SAWCO-EP
Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager

2 December 1982
1. Pursuant to the general permit provisions, plans should be
submitted for work affecting Sweetwater, Gardener, and Welch Creeks.
2. Wetlands have also been identified at Dardens' west of S.R.
1504 and west of S.R. 1500. Construction activity is authorized in these
areas under nationwide permit. The recommendations set out in paragraph
"a. 2." above are applicable to these sites.
c. U.S. 264 northwest bypass between U.S. 264 (relocated and U.S.
13-N.C. 11 at S.R. 1590, Greenville, Pitt County, N.C. (R-526B)
1. Plans should be submitted in accordance with the general
permit provisions.
2. Since the project is not yet scheduled for construction,
specific comments will be submitted when plans have been received.
d. U.S. 264, Bypass of Wilson, Wilson County.
1. Plans should be submitted for construction activities at the
Contentnea Creek crossings.
2. Additional comments may be submitted on this project if and
when it is scheduled for construction.
e. Proposed improvements in the vicinity of Moores Creek National
Battlefield near Currie, Pender County, R-604 and B-704.
1. Replacing the existing bridge on N.C. 210 along its existing
alignment is the least wetland damaging alternative and could likely be
authorized by general permit.
2. Rerouting N.C. 210 (your preferred alternative) will involve a
new crossing of Moore's Creek and its associated wetlands and will likely
require an individual Department of the Army permit. Granting the required
authorization for such a crossing when a less damaging alternative exists
requires that public benefits to be realized from the proposed work .
outweigh its wetland impacts. Based upon our discussions at the September
meeting, we are skeptical that this comparison will reflect favorably on
your preferred alternative.
a
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these projects.
Sincerely,
1 Incl CHARLES W. HOLLIS
GP SAWC082-N-000-0031 Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch
2
a
(i- )
SAWEN-EA

30 June 1981
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 264 Bypass of Wilson

Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Waters:
? S
r JUL 199? g
i
c•'• r
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject report. We
continue to recommend that wetland destruction be kept to a minimum, and the
selection of an alternative reflects this concern. At this time alternative C
appears to have the least impact on wetlands.
You are aware of the permit requirements for the placement of fill materials
into waters or wetlands (reference our 11 May 1979 and 20 July 1979 letters).
A staff member from our Regulatory Functions Branch will be available to
delineate on site our wetland jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
7• "
E. G. LONG,?JR.
Chief, Engineering Division
i
i
Copy- NCOOT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1880
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
IN REPLY R[F[R TO
i j
AO
Ti
o
f
i.
is
a
COPY - NCOOT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
0 3 JUN 1981
Dear Mr. Heinz:
OFFICE OF
TMC AOMINISTRATOR
I am writing to verify the official filing of your EIS entitled:
Draft: US 264 Bypass Construction Wilson to Greenville, Wilson
County, North Carolina (FH14A-NC-EIS-81-03-D)
This EIS was received by the Office of Environmental Review on May 26, 1981.
It has been determined the above document meets the requirements for filing
an EIS as set forth under Section 1506.9 of the CEQ Regulations.
Accordingly, EPA has scheduled publication of the Notice of Availability
in the Federal Register dated June 5, 1981 and the public review
period is scheduled to terminate on "July 1981
zy
If you have any questions or concerns relating to this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me or Ms. Jan Lott of my staff on 245-3006.
Sincerely,
Kathi L. Wilson
Management Analyst
Office of Environmental
Review (A-104)
Mr. Ronald E. Heinz
Division Administrator
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
n
' I
?o,?:s?ciluo? 211 /98/ Gam/
/J00o S i4?fr
1%' A = .
=Mwv
Z;
O
1,44 PW
COPY - NCOOT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
i-
June 18, 1981
4SA-EIS

n ?
JUN 221981 y

Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager
Planning & Research
North Carolina Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Waters:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
construction of US-264 Bypass of the City of Wilson in Wilson County. Our
review suggests that each of the three alternative alignments would involve
a significant encroachment on Contentnea Creek and the associated Hominy
Swamp wetland area. We belive this area is a valuable anadromous fishery
resource that should be protected.
Alignment A crosses the Contentnea Creek floodplain near its widest section.
This alignment would traverse more than 2,000 linear feet of seasonally
flooded bottomland hardwood. Unless this alignment utilizes extensive
bridging, it could upset both the hydrological regime of the swamp and
biologically isolate portions of the swamp. Additionally, Alignment A
parallels Contentnea Creek for approximately 500 feet suggesting that the
Creek would have to be channelized to control its flow.
Alignment C and B cross Hominy Swamp at its fringe and cross Contentnea Creek
higher in the watershed than Alignment A. This would decrease the amount of
wetland involvement required but still provide the same amount of transpor-
tation utility.
Additionally, for the preferred alternative the FEIS should identify "approxi-
mate quantities of fill" and the length and location of bridging to be used.
s This is consistent with the recently signed Memorandum of Agreement between
the Corps of Engineers and Department of Transportation.
Accordingly we have rated the Draft LO-2, i.e., we do not have a significant
objection to the highway project on environmental grounds, but we need specific
,r information to complete our review. This rating is based on the selection of
either Alternative Alignment C or B. If Alignment A is the preferred alterna-
tive, we would have continued environmental reservations about the project.
Sincerely your,
Jahn E. Hagan'III, P.E.
(.chief, EIS Branch

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Waters:
COPY - NCOOT
46
ts?i v
,ra S
F JUN 1 1981
e r
?H'!r . riAY3?
ME$ 2
P. O.Box 27307
Raleigh, NC 27611
June 10, 1981
The following is our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for US 264 Bypass of Wilson, North Carolina.
Our major concern is the impact of the proposed project on prime agri-
cultural land. Corridor "C" would have less impact upon prime agricultural
land because much of the land is already committed to urban use. Corridor
"A" and to a great extent Corridor "B" involves significantly more prime
agricultural land, in not only the amount of land directly affected by the
proposed project, but also the indirect committal of the land between
Wilson and these two proposed corridors. Much of the land in the area
encompassed by Corridor "A" and "B" are some of the best agricultural
lands in the State, and no doubt, the location of US 264 Bypass will
encourage the conversion of existing agricultural lands to urban-industrial
uses.
The selection of either Corridor "A" or "B" would have significant impact
upon existing conservation systems on adjacent farms. Planning for the
highway needs to assure that outlets to farm drainage systems are not
blocked or interrupted. Overall, Corridor'A" has the greatest number of
farm drainage systems which are likely to be disrupted.
We would like to point out a potential soils problem with construction in
Corridor "A" and "B" from the project beginning point to the proposed
intersection I-95. These proposed routes contain two units of Toisnot
sandy loam soil. These soils. have a thick hardpan which will normally
increase construction costs.
The Soil Conservation Service provides technical assistance to local Soil
and Water Conservation Districts. We understand that the Wilson Soil and
Water Conservation District has already prepared a report on the amount of
prime farmland that will be affected by the proposed project. We recommend
this be referred to when considering prime farmland.
Sincerely,
/eorgefcrris
Acting State Conservationist
cc: Director, Office of Federal Activities Dr. C. Edward Howard
Norman A. Berg Dick Fowler
Billy M. Johnson Dist. Consv.- Wilson FO
O The Sod Conservation Service SCS-AS-1
V s an agency of the 10-79
Department of Agriculture

11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTMIDNCDOT
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
SOUTHERN REGION
P. O. BOX 20636
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30320
'JUN P 1g8I
Mr. T. L. Waters, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Waters:

r
D JUN 1 1 1961 {
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for US 264 Bypass of Wilson
ell-
This will acknowledge your letter of May 12, 1981, advising that the
North Carolina State Highway Department proposes a 13-mile US 264
Bypass.
We have reviewed the project with respect to potential environmental
impact for which this agency has expertise. Our review indicates
there will be no significant adverse effects to the existing or
planned air transportation system as a result of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Benny C''Frazier
Chief ,&4iation Policf"'and International
Affairs Staff

act
- GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Washington. D.C. 20230
?L•?vr?
i

(si` ,3) Roh?rt T. L•'::1
Mr. T. L. Waters
Manager of Planning and Research
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
?. ?X;? sfr b
t ??LBEPT
! LrL 21 t7 ,
Dear Mr. Waters:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement entitled,
"U.S. 264 Bypass of Wilson, North Carolina." The enclosed comment from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is forwarded for your
consideration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide this comment, which we
hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving four
copies of the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
Robert T. ki
Director of Regulatory Policy
Enclosure Memo from: Robert B. Rollins
National Ocean Survey
It National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
G
t
Ir
111,
10_0*?A Ei
T
•?v
0;; = ooN cUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY
• d Rockville. Md. 20852

TO: PP/EC - Joyce M. Wood
FROM: OA/C5 - Robert B. Rollins
SUBJECT: DEIS ;8105.19 - US 264 Bypass of Wilson, North Carolina
OA/C52x6:JVZ
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the National
Ocean Survey's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and in terms of the impact
of the proposed action on NOS activities and projects.
Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed project
area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these
monuments, NOS requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance of such
activity in order to plan for their relocation. NOS recommends that funding
for this project includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS monuments.
For further information about these monuments, please contact Mr. John Spencer,
Director, National Geodetic Information Center (OA/C18), or Mr. Charles Novak,
Chief, Network Maintenance Branch (OA/C172), at 6001 Executive Boulevard,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
l 4 10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
r National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
A young agency with a historic
*do
tradition of service to the Nation
^ J v? Advisory Copy _ MCppT
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street. NW
Washington. DC 20005
?? „^Cr.
41? -
(F--o
June 19, 1981
T. L. Waters, Manager
Planning and Research
i North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Waters:

The Council has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
U.S. 264 Bypass, Wilson, North Carolina, circulated for comment under
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act. We note that
the undertaking could affect several archeological sites which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and
additional high probability areas along Contentnea Creek and its tributaries
remain to be intensively surveyed.
Therefore, please keep us informed of the status of the project as planning
proceeds, and as further survey and evaluation results become available.
If, in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer, it is determined that significant archeological properties will be
affected by the proposed bypass project, then the Council comments should
be requested under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact Ronald Anzalone, our
staff archeologist, at 202-254-3495.
Sincerely,
it
Jor a E. Tannenbaum
Chi , Eastern Division
it
of Project Review
1000r. . 3 0
MEMORANDUM
To: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
From: Melba Strickland P_V4>
Environmental Management Commission
Re: 81-1545
US 264 Bypass of Wilson
Date: June 16, 1981
r'
t?
The Department of ;Natural Resources and Community Development has
reviewed the subject document and has the following comments to offer
at this time.
wildlife Resources
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement-on the subject project is ade-
quate in its evaluation of environmental impacts.
There is, however, a need for a mitigative narrative which describes
the Department of Transportation (DOT) plans and measures for preventin
the direct run-off from approximately 13 miles of new highway from
entering the streams in the project. The run-off from roadside ditches
and from the center median should also be addressed, and measures dis-
cussed for terminating such run-off structures prior to their reaching
the run of the stream.
Table 2 presents a comparison of environmental impacts. Corridor C
is shown to have the least impact on floodplain encroachment, wild-
life habitat and wetlands; it also avoids a crossing of Contentnea
Creek. Also of importance, Corridor C utilizes a significant amount
of the existing US 264 highway. This additional information and
analysis indicate that our preference of alternatives is for Corridor
C.
Division of Forest Resources
(1) Corridor C would have the least impact on forestlands of the thrc
alternatives.
# (2) Corridor A would destroy 35-40 acres of young pine plantation and
several acres of a commercial nursery.
IOO7td Aau.,
(3) Corridor B requires the most woodland of the three "new location"
alternatives, but very little more than Corridor A.
• Strictly from a forestry point of view, Corridor C would be the most
favorable.
Raleigh Regional Office
Water trucks should be used to wet the roadway in order to minimize
dust from truck traffic and heavy machinery. North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality has been addressed in the
document.
Thank you for the opportunity to review. if 1 can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
MKS:esp
JX

4
COPY - MCOO 1
Iv` Fi June 10, 1981
GI OUNN MEMORANDUM

DB?TJVIENT

TO: T. L. Waters, Manager
r
(y?? Planning and Research Branch
[?`?J ?(?`[?`
RESOURCES Division of Highways
Department of Transportation

FROM: John J. Little, Deputy State, ?-
Roleigh. Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina
27611 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
US 264 Bypass of Wilson, Wilson County
CH 81-1545
We have received the notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project and would like to comment.
We agree with your opinion that the Hinnant House does not appear to be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
However, we would like to point out a concern we have. Although our
principal investigator in Wilson County was contacted concerning this
project, as stated in the Draft EIS, her survey of the county had not
actually begun. She indicated that she or the county should be con-
tacted at a later date when more information was compiled. It is our
understanding that this later consultation did not take place.
In terms of archaeological resources, we agree with the statement
included on pages 38 and 40 regarding the need for additional intensive
archaeological survey after an alternative has been selected. However,
we request that a copy of the full reconnaissance report be forwarded to
this office in order that we may evaluate the results of this initial
survey. The summary report.found in Appendix B of the Draft EIS includes
no specific information on the individual sites located by the reconnais-
sance. A great deal of additional information will be necessary prior
to our evaluations concerning the eligibility or ineligibility for
inclusion in the National Register of any of the thirteen sites.

We therefore recommend that this information be forwarded to this office
as soon as possible.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Soro W Hodgkin. Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Secretory Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
Jorrses 8 tint Jr. 36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement
Governor of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Nancy A. Mackenzie,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
JJL:slw
cc: Clearinghouse
IL

V _
i
o?
NCIZIH
(7AROUNN
CENT
ClA7l.RAL
RESOURCES
Raleigh.
North Carolina
27611
DAA'X If - (4
i'vIe'-fs (V X l l hSkxy
V-101kyll" 01co. Y Luti kY
Sora W Hod kutis.
Secretory
James B Vk". Jr.
Govenor
Syr
January 19, 1983 r
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
T. L. Waters, Manager '
Planning and Research Branch ?r„....-
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
John J. Little, Deputy Stat
Historic Preservation offic
US 264 Bypass of Wilson, Wilson County
R-524A, ER 83-7376
Thank you for your letter of January 11, 1983 concerning the above
referenced project.

We have reviewed the findings of your architectural historian and the
results of Ms. Kate Ohno's survey of Wilson County. Based on these,
we concur with your opinion that there are no structures of archi-
tectural or historical significance within the proposed project area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement
of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your•cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
JJL:slw
CC: Barbara Church
V
e
LL 41
I-
r t ~` J
NOPH
9RQJNN
DEPATUENT
OF
C?U J AL
I ESCU1 <CES
Roleigh.
Norm Caro ono
Y611

{xn W f? Irts.
Secretary,
bares B Hunt _k,
ovefnor

copy - NCOOT
April 15, 1983
Mr. Kenneth L. Bellamy
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Region Four
P. O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
j EIV
?a
r z
% •' o? /
Re: Section 106 Consultation--Cultural Resources Survey,
Archaeological Study, US 264 Wilson Bypass, R-524A,
Federal-aid Project F-38-1(), Wilson County, ER 83-7515
Dear Mr. Bellamy:
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1983 concerning the above project
and the enclosed survey and testing report. We have reviewed the report
and would like to comment.
As you are aware, this survey conducted by Mr. Thomas Padgett of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, resulted in the discovery
of five additional sites and the testing of sites 31 W1 45 and 31 W1 37.
We concur with Mr. Padgett's conclusions and recommendations that these
five sites (R-524-1, R-524-2, R-524-3, R-524-4, and R-524-5), as well as
site 31 W1 45, are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and that no additional archaeological investigation
of these sites is warranted.
We also concur with your determination that site 31 W1 37 is eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion "d."
It is our opinion that this site is significant for the information it is
likely to yield concerning (1) Early through Late Woodland occupation of
the interior Coastal Plain; (2) Early Woodland seasonality and settlement
patterns; (3) cultural relationships between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain
during the Early Woodland period; and (4) the change, or lack thereof, in
cultural patterns from the Middle to Late Woodland periods. As noted in
Mr. Padgett's report, this information can be retrieved through controlled
surface collection and excavation of subsurface features.
It is our opinion that preservation in place for site 31 W1 37 is not
warranted. As your letter states that an appropriate data recovery plan
will be implemented at site 31 W1 37, after consultation with this office,
we concur with your determination of "no adverse effect." This letter,
along with your comments, should be forwarded to the Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation for their comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement
of the Cultural Environment."

Copy- NCOOT
c
Mr. Kenneth L. Bellamy
April 15, 1983, Page Two
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
William S. Price, Jr., State
Historic Preservation Officer
WSP:slw
cc: Waters, North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Thomas Padgett, North Carolina
Department of Transportation
t
4
copy - NcooT
Edgecombe
Halifax (?
Nash ,Kedlfln L `1.ouncil of Go4'L'T31371ents
Northampton P. 0. DRAWER 2748
Wilson ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA 27801
Counties TELEPHONE [phone]
June 18, 1981
4
Mr. W. M. Ingram
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Wilmington Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Re: 81-1545: NC Department of Transportation,
Proposed US 264 By Pass of Wilson,
Federal Highway Administration
Dear Mr. Ingram:
Region L Council of Governments Board of Directors met on June 16, 1981
and approved the DEIS. However, the Board wanted to make it known that they
were concerned about the comments regarding the 264 project made by Mr. W. H.
Farmer, Jr., District Conservationist of Wilson County and by the letter to Mr.
T. L. Waters, Manager of Planning and Research, N. C. Department of Transportation
by the Environmental Protection Agency. These comments are enclosed.
Sincerely,
/James R. Smith
Assistant Director
JRS/mf
Is Enclosures
L
i,
Research. Planning and Development through Intergovernmental Cooperation
COPY - NCDOT
AEVIEWING AGENCY / PARTY
Local Elected Official ( 1
City or County Manager ( 1
Planning Director ( 1
Supt. City Schools ( )
Supt. County Schools ( 1
Health Director ( 1
Dept. Social Services Director ( )
Housing Authority Director ( )
District Conservationist (SO i 1) (X )
4 Agriculture Extension Service ( )
Community Action Director
Ckamber of Commerce
COG Staff ( )
,,4 Other: ( )
,. William Farmer
NAME:
REGION L COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Post Office Drawer 2748 Phone: [phone]
Rocky Mount, N.C. 27801 Area Code: 919
Request for Local Review
In accordance with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-95 guidelines, this project is being forwarded to you for
your review and comment. Comments must be returned to Region L
COG by date shown below.
Clearinghouse Project
Notification No. 81-1551 Title; Wilson Community Improvement
Date Mailed: May 22, 1981 Association, Inc., Construction of 202
Comments requested by: May 29, 1981 Housing (38 units) for the elderly, HUD
HOUSING
Below is a list of questions regarding the proposed project. Please comment on those questions which pertain to you
.and/or your agency. IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED FOR COMMENTS, PLEASE WRITE THEM ON THE
BACK OF THIS FORM.
1. Are you familiar with the proposed prof
( ) Yes, in detail (Yes, generally ( ) No
2. Is the project compatible with; (Specify, if not)
( v) Land Use Plan ( Water Supply Plan
( W Zoning Ordinance (p' Sewage Collection & Treatment Plan
3. Are soils and topography suitable? Tgw-7-1 'ty `.tom 1&.
etc?c
t.{ 1-11 ?.le
C2 P-ef ?- ?? rzy ?t t G :_`r yc -?o?nC
4. Is the prop sed site accessible to:
x ( Schools 1 ) hopping Centers 1 1 Public Transportation
1 1 Parks 1E mployment Centers
5. Is the proposed site located in an area of minority racial concentration?
t
6. Do you recommend that the project be approved?
7
Date
Signature a--"
Title Telephone - 3 -7
Agency Lcoo
PNR-3.4
Rev. e»e
COPY - NCOOT

WILSON COUNTY SOIL aria WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
P. O. Box 3066
{ WiISon. North Carolon x 21b!)3
August 23, 1979
Mr. T. L. Waters
Manager, Planning & Research Branch
Department of Transportation
Raleigh, N.C. 27611.
Subject: Environmental Impact of Proposed
US 264 Wilson Bypass, Wilson County,
Special Corridor Study
Dear Sir.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the environmental
impact of the proposed US 264 Wilson Bypass. We have examined both
proposed Corridors A & B in relation to prime agricultural cropland
conversion.
As you know, conversion of land areas to non-agricultural land
uses has two immediate effects on soil and water resource conservation.
The first is the immediate conversion of the land area involved in a
project such as this to a permanent non-agricultural use. This con-
version represents an immediate loss of food and fiber production if
the land used is presently in cropland use and a future potential loss
of production if the soils are suitable for food and fiber production.
The second immediate effect is for every acre of prime agricul-
tural cropland used by such non-agricultural projects as this, more
pressure is placed on existing cropland to produce even more food
and fiber with less land area, and all too often, less conservation
of what's left.
t Therefore, we as supervisors, instructed Soil Conservation Service
and District personnel to use the Wilson County Soil Survey and identify
the subject areas (Corridor A & B) as to prime agricultural farmland com-
position. Using the map provided (understanding that this map depicts
the general area of the two corridors) we established the two routes on
our soil survey maps. After establishing these routes we found that Cor-
ridor A, with an estimated 1700 acres involved has 38% or 659 acres which
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMEN r - UALLF-GOVR V"*--P -•7
s
COP' - NCOOT
•s
-2-
meet prime agricultural farmland criteria. Corridor B. with an
t estimated 1275 acres involved, has approximately 31% or 394 acres
which meet prime agricultural farmland criteria.
From a percentage and a total affected acreage of prime, agri-
cultural land standpoint, Corridor B would be the most desirable
route because this route would entail less prime agricultural land
being lost to non-agricultural uses.
A completely different route so as to utilize existing 4 lane
roads would. in our opinion, be more desirable than even Corridor B.
An alternative that would use Ward Boulevard to the greatest extent
possible would cause less encroachment on agricultural lands and
provide a more business accessible route thru Wilson. We don't feel
that economics are all there is to it on this topic since it's im-
possible to place a value on agricultural land 50 plus years from now.
Therefore, we encourage you to look at other alternatives even if these
cause a little less convenience to travelers. If this is out of the
question, then our agency stands with the Corridor with the least dis-
tu,bance and Conversion of prime agricultural farmland. According to
your map and our study, this would be Corridor B.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this project. '
If we can provide you with soils information on the subject area, tt
please feel free to ask. is
ii
;Sierely,
on Pittman
Chairman
BP/nib

4

CEO, 1 ?y t: ,, • • ``? • ? • V e,O? 1 1 i ;
0
. i. !. l>. h 11111
t, > ',fag i f r :7 1' 1
C-q
EXT. FLL'r,? I' I I
? 1 r._ ?;:•? ? ./". ?,1` III
.01
..J• '1 ? t??l 1 1' I
c• ?? r.' 3 ' :;>'' ??oe• ?~ r1, 'r ` 'III t
L l 4
mew
„ r!• r:ti;. •+?:. r' is
s•t - ?!?' Qt+t. I t?I } ?,, I 1 1 t
rt;?:;:j t•: '?':•::. •:.. .. .;;>V'3•?I.ll.tll i*J ,?` ? I ? ? I ? 1
F ?' f"'''' :?'•....'? :.T°i ev {:::::: 4?J?1 ri \ `??`\y t1?1 1}1?t
/ \ ?? • . ?.:•:.•.;; •:.?,,,, ? ? ry 2r 1t? 1 I 1 1 I ? I vita-•,
1::;: •:?
9? :) ev .1 i 1 i t
\ ?r _--?-, t I 1 I t -r
.! o I 11 I
? ? Q3 •? Off.
ti_ y ??Q? Q ?r? ' 1 1 1 1 1 I i YI c'
I. ?'•? fi. ??` ? .t111tltlll?
?I 4 H• ? 5 h ???. ? ; i IIi1i11,1
o ?a % U ,rr?J t,?t?l?lil?t ^1
r. °'• ?.?••? ??. c• 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 ?
? ?. + ?, ,? Ilili1i1i1i1i11 -1 ; _
?P / II 1 1 1 1 1 1 to
I .? Aj 1 1 1 1 I, I I I N
i 1. • 'I'l?lrll i'III'
h Cl F?/ 56- p N.
I . ITT . 1 1 1 1 1 • t I
b J r-•L ! 1 1 1 1! t
1 I I 1 r111111111yt I .? O J u
i o Np 1-? ?t'i' , t I J t l l j l, Q > .?.
° 7• 1• 11 ? 1 1 ? I 19 1 l I l I l 1 1 ?,• ? ?? a_
?• 1 1 t o;
o? 1 1 1 l i t l, l _? o ac V) cn }.
o C4 4 <°: t-- _
1. .-? ^I i ?' 1{ I+ 1 ,? I.ft . ?ivV 1 °o? •u 7e w Z
?1 • _1 7 o ?n O
I I t t?'TI . u u.l Z
N O
v t1It1
b 11 J ' =? c• ?d ?n of o V c (n O O
U
to .1 1 0'1 =1 04 _! Z •E
O o <?'?,v V O I i
41
V `I b • O; 4 4 & aD h• ?? 'l J O
uj w 9 1
vs •n a. o t i '
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
>1Rsisigh Field OMce
Post Office Box 337U
lWaigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 8 , , 1989
s
Kr. Robert L. Lee
District Engineer
Federal Highway Administration,
4505 Falls of the NeMUSe Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject: Notice of intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
fair US-117 Corridor ( Wilson to Goldsboro)$ Wayne and Nilson.
Counties, North Carolina (ER 89/599)
Dear Mr. Lees
This responds to the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement for a proposed highway project between the cities of Goldsboro
and Wilson, North Carolina, published in the Federal Register. Volume 54,
No. 130, dated July 109 1989. These comments are provided in accordance
with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 at seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A description of the fish and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional rights-of-way and any areas,
such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(2) Acreage and ecological characterizations of branches, creeks,
streams, rivers, or wetlands which will be filled as a
t consequence of proposed highway improvements.
(3) Linear feet of any water courses which will be relocated as a
consequence of the proposed improvements.
(4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which will be
eliminated as a consequence of proposed highway improvements.
(5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement
wetlands.
(6) :`litigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with
any of the proposed improvements.
to particular, the Service is concerned over the potential impacts to Great
Swap, Nahunta Swamp and Slack Creek and their wetlands and floodplains
from any necessary expanded or new project road crossing.
In addition, the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picotdee borealis) and
the proposed endangered Michaux' poison-sumac (Rhus michaux- ii) may occur in
the area of influence of this action. The legal responsibilities of a
Federal agency under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as
amended) were detailed in material sent to you previously. If you would
like another copy of this material, or if you have questions, please
contact this office at 919/856-6520 (FTS 672-4520).
The following species, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the
Service. "Status Review" species are not legally protected under the Act,
and are not subject to any of its provisions, -including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Carolina madtom Noturus furiosu_)
Ustronia (Nestronis umbellula)
Fine barrens traefrog Q la andersonii)
Uverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis)
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that
you continue to advise us of the progress of this project.
Sincerely,
& •
Kathryn A. Benkert
Acting Field Supervisor
a
4
f? rVCC z A
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE .'? ?'.¦?:
?. ......rte
o Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
•?? , M• Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
November 20, 1990
A,
Mr. Mark Pistrang
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
_ Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject: US 264, Wilson Bypass, Wilson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Pistrang:
This responds to your verbal request of November 20, 1990 for a current list
of Federally-listed endangered and threatened species present in the area
affected by the proposed project. The N.C. Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways (NCDOT) is currently re-evaluating the proposed
project.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) species in
the area of influence of this action. It lists also species which are under
status review.
The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, were detailed in material sent
to you previously. If you would like another copy of this material, or if
you have questions, please contact us at [phone].
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) indicated concurrence, by
letter dated October 20, 1980, with the Biological Assessment prepared by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for potential effects of the
proposed project on the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).
Obligations under Section 7 of the Act were therefore fulfilled, unless:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
# considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which was
not considered in the Service's review; or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Since a new species has been listed which may be affected by the proposed
action, in accordance with provisions (1) and (3) above, a determination
must be made of whether the proposed project may affect Michaux' sumac (Rhus
michauxii). Further, the Service believes that the Biological Assessment
prepared for the red-cockaded woodpecker must be revised to reflect current
requirements which take into account affects on the species in a manner not

considered during the original assessment. Specifically, if the proposed
project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of age in
pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active cavity
trees within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded
ti woodpeckers are observed within the project area or active cavity trees
found, the project has the potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded
woodpecker, and you should contact this office for further information. The
original Biological Assessment did not consider the impact of foraging
habitat loss upon any colonies located outside the project alignment but
within a 1/2 mile radius.
In view of the fact that almost 10 years have passed since the NCDOT and
FHWA issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project,
the Service recommends strongly that a revised or supplemental document be
prepared for review. The Service's initial review comments on the proposed
project were provided in the Departmental response dated June 21, 1981.
Concerns expressed in that response regarding anadromous fish resources in
Contentnea Creek and wetland resources affected by the proposed project
remain valid.
Your concern for endangered and threatened species is appreciated, and we
look forward to working with you on endangered species matters in the
future.
Sincerely,
I
R. Wilson Laney
Acting Supervisor
t

North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 13, 1990
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Archaeological Study, Federal-Aid Project
No. F-38-104), State Project 8.2340301,
R-1023, US 264 Wilson Bypass, Wilson County
ER 90-8359
Dear Mr. Graf:
? o
5 t99' _
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1990, and the copy of the archaeological
report by Thomas Padgett of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
This report concerns a supplemental study done of the proposed US 117
Connector in conjunction with the larger Wilson Bypass project. '
During the course of the survey one prehistoric archaeological site was
located within the project area. Due to substantial disturbance caused by
terracing and erosion, Mr. Padgett has recommended that no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
i 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 Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
t
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
cc: . J. Ward
T. Padgett
I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO:
C' G61 aA, REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FFRO REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
_
N
hAoh? p
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
-? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ?1 R YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AMC) SEE ME ABOUT THI S t YI FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER {{V//?] FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGN ATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
i2- ?bL?, 1?1`tl

N a ?SfA1F4?
F my'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
August 17, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning
Charles Cox, P.E., Planning Engineer
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Recalculation of theoretical wetland
occurrences associated with the proposed
Wilson Bypass from NWI and Soils data; TIP
No. R-1023; State Project No. 8.T340302;
REFERENCE: Turner's July 1, 1993 Wetlands Summary Report
Referenced report presented data resulting from field
delineations of wetlands likely to be impacted by each of
three study alternatives of the proposed Wilson Bypass. NWI-
mapped wetlands which occur within alternative study areas
were also reported, as were hydric soil-derived potential
wetlands. A comparison of these three data sets, Empirical
(E), NWI-Theoretical (NWI-T) and Hydric Soil-Theoretical (HS-
T), was made, but meaningful correlations were not apparent.
A more realistic comparison among these data could be
made by (1) subtracting non-forested hydric soils from the
HS-T data set and (2) adding E data for PF04 sites to NWI-T
data set (if PF04 sites not already identified on NWI maps)..
In the attachment which follows, Tables 4 and 5 present NWI-
and Hydric Soil-extrapolated data, derived from modifications
(1) and (2), above. The previously published E, NWI-T and
HS-T wetland data are reiterated as Tables 1-3.
c: B.J. O'Quinn, P.E., NCDOT
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., NCDOT
Ken Jolley, USACOE
John Dorney, DEM
Eric Galamb, DEM
David Dell, FWS
David Yow, NCWRC
Enclosures
7,9,
N

Table 1. Anticipated Community Impacts, by Alternative
WETLAND COMMUNITY AREA per ALTERNATIVE
COMMUNITY ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C
PF01 21.5 ha (53 ac) 30.0 ha (74 ac) 31.5 ha (78 ac)
PF04 11.0 ha (27 ac) 6.9 ha (17 ac) 2.7 ha (7 ac)
PSS1 7.9 ha (20 ac) 6.1 ha (15 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac)
PSS3 1.6 ha (4 ac) 3.0 ha (8 ac) 2.9 ha (7 ac)
PSS6 1.5 ha (4 ac) 1.8 ha (5 ac) 0.3 ha (1 ac)
PEM1 1.2 ha (3 ac) - 1.9 ha (5 ac)
PEM2 0.6 ha (1 ac) 0.3 ha (1 ac) 0.6 ha (1 ac)
TOTALS 45.3 ha (112 ac) 48.1 ha (120 ac) 40.7 ha (101 ac)
Note: All values shown are in hectares (acres); communit y
designations: PF01, PF04, PSS1 , PSS3, PSS6, PEM1 and PEM 2
denote Palustrine (P) Forested (FO) Br oad-Leaved Deciduo us (1),
Needle-Leaved Evergr een (04), Scrub-Sh rub (SS) B road-Lea ved
Evergreen (3) Deciduous (6), E mergent (EM) Persistent (1 ) a nd
Nonpersistent (2), r espectivel y
Table 2. NWI Wetlands, by Alternative
WETLAND COMMUNITY AREA per ALTERNATI VE
COMMUNITY ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C
PF01 36.4 ha (90 ac) 23.1 ha (57 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac)
PF04 8.5 ha (21 ac) - -
PF06 1.2 ha (3 ac) 0.4 ha (1 ac) 0.4 ha (1 ac)
PSS1 2.8 ha (7 ac) 0.4 ha (1 ac) -
PSS6 - 9.7 ha (24 ac) 9.7 ha (24 ac)
PUB 2.4 ha (6 ac) 5.7 ha (14 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac)
R2UB 0.4 ha (1 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac)
TOTALS 51.7 ha (128 ac) 40.1 ha (99 ac) 29.1 ha (72 ac)
Note: See Table 1; community designations PUB and R2UB denote
Unconsolidated Bottom (UB), Riverine (R) Lower Perennial (2)
Table 3. Hydric Soils Distribution, by Alternative
HYDRIC SOIL
Bibb
Coxville
Grantham
Rains
Roanoke
Toisnot
Tomotley
Wehad./Chewa
Altavista
Goldsboro
TOTALS
POTENTIAL FOR
ALT. A
6.5 ha (16 ac)
WETLAND OCCURRENCE
ALT. B ALT. C
11.7 ha (29 ac) 12.1 ha (30 ac)
- 2 8 ha (7 ac)
15.8 ha (39 ac) 15.8 ha (39 ac)
36.0 ha (89 ac) 41.7 ha (103 ac)
10.1 ha (25 ac) 3.2 ha (8 ac)
6.1 ha (15 ac) 3.2 ha (8 a c)
59.9 ha (148 ac) 19.0 ha (47 ac)
9.7 ha (24 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac)
15.0 ha (37 ac) 10.5 ha (26 ac)
10.9 ha (27 ac) 12.6 ha (31 ac)
168 ha (418 ac) 134 ha (334 ac)
2.0 ha (5 ac)
39.3 ha (97 ac)
3.2 ha (8 ac)
19.0 ha (47 ac)'
17.4 ha (43 ac)
9.7 ha (24 ac)
11.7 ha (29 ac)
116 ha (290 ac)
Note: See Table 1.
1
Table 4. Derived NWI Wetlands, by Alternative
WETLAND COMMUNITY AREA per ALTERNATIVE
COMMUNITY ALT. A ALT . B ALT. C
PF01 36.4 ha (90 ac) 23.1 ha (57 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac)
PF04 8.5 ha (21 ac) - -
PF01/04 2.3 ha (6 ac) - -
PF06 1.2 ha (3 ac) 0.4 ha (1 ac) 0.4 ha (1 ac)
PSS1 2.8 ha (7 ac) 0.4 ha (1 ac) -
PSS6 - 9.7 ha (24 ac) 9.7 ha (24 ac)
PUB 2.4 ha (6 ac) 5.7 ha (14 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac)
R2UB 0.4 ha (1 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac) 0.8 ha (2 ac)
TOTALS 54.0 ha (134 ac) 40.1 ha (99 ac) 29.1 ha (72 ac)
Note: See Tables 1 and 2
Table 5. Forested Hydric Soils Distribution, by Alternative
POTENTIAL FOR WETLAND OCCURRENCE
HYDRIC SOIL ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C
Bibb 6.5 ha (16 ac) 11.7 ha (29 ac) 12.1 ha (30 ac)
Coxville - - 2.8 ha (7 ac)
Grantham 15.8 ha (39 ac) 15.8 ha (39 ac) 2.0 ha (5 ac)
Rains .36.0 ha (89 ac) 41.7 ha (103 ac) 39.3 ha (97 ac)
Roanoke 10.1 ha (25 ac) 3.2 ha (8 ac) 3.2 ha (8 ac)
Toisnot 6.1 ha (15 ac) 3.2 ha (8 a c) -
Tomotley 59.9 ha (148 ac) 19.0 ha (47 ac) 19.0 ha (47 ac)
Wehad./Chew a 9.7 ha (24 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac) 17.4 ha (43 ac)
Altavista 15.0 ha (37 ac) 10.5 ha (26 ac) 9.7 ha (24 ac)
Goldsboro 10.9 ha (27 ac) 12.6 ha (31 ac) 11.7 ha (29 ac)
TOTALS 124 ha (309 ac) 107 ha (266 ac) 83 ha (207 ac),
Note: See Table 1.
N