19970478 Ver 1_Complete File_19970528

STArt
J ? Aa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETi' JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 11. 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Murray. P & E
Frank Fleming. Hydraulics
lk ike Bell. USCOE. Washini,-ton
Henry Wicker. USCOE. Washin<,2ton
David Cox. NC%k'RC
Cyndi Bell. NCDWQ,.,/
Gordon Cashin. P &'E
FROM: Alice Gordon. NCDOT cA"
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVED
MAR 12 1997,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
SUBJECT: `Qiarlty. „ ,ing?afUS 13INC P1 from NC 903 to
NC 30. Federal Aid Project No. F-102-1(3). State Project
No. 5.1221101. T.I.P. 210 . - L
There will be a meeting to review the jurisdictional wetlands for the subject project. We
will meet in the parkin`, lot of the Wellcome Middle School at 9:30 a.m. Monday. March
17. 1997. The school is located north of Greenville on the south-west side of the
intersection of US I' )/'NC 1 I and SR 1 11 -4, (Briley Road). Permit drawings and a map
showing, the location of the meeting site are attached for your convenience. Please note
the meeting time has changed from l l a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
Thank you for your continued assistance with this project. If anyone has any questions.
please contact me at (919) 733-751=1, extension 307.
3-?
Q"qg-,- wed
?ej^, LI/°?,to? /&4-?
CV-lQv?l /??f?? ?G/"- ('r `?
a
co
¢? J
Q N

U N
N cl:
?.
17 Lj- v
00 C)

K
AD I? Q a- 0
a-
O

srsst?
sceov+n
V
Z
O Q (n -j
w
::D CL
LJ
U x

W
C)
U
V)
U,
Q
M m
rnL
= L-
o
CC F- D:f
LL. U
z
W W ?? a-" O QO
O
Z
L.t_
O
- LL-
- o
O } F
-
n V) .
.- U
W ?' Z W5: U z

( C)
? Q
Z
?
_ Z:t f- M
F
p? O
0_
z N
D 2: :D
O
U
Z
P F-
J?? Q.

- 0 0

:ME

c:. '}
C
A >
I c \ Vb.. w/ :? i na 3 t - i + '
~ Y V? .i S
?11? ?
Y = V)

'
r...
i .'
I( c
JJJ77
m E
.
1
g ^
t1.
\ Y ?_
,
Y _
_
b ",
•
R
n? mf
Lij

L"j
°
LLJ

s
a
za&

y C ' a 1
'/:)
4, B' y s
?- + p
or YY- s
a ?. 4f ?:t f
.r =?l 1 J " N for ^ i• _ _O. J, ?.

SHEET i OF 30

Si
r,

/ W
nn i

t
I
a«/ bs .34-
., m
d'S
q
y .
Ste.

in
A j

al p Srrr Fs •r t• •? -'

J
H r 7

W
? y
•P
p ,

?a
.;I ,.
n
z o
U -
O rl
Fes-
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
8.1221101 (R-218A)
US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 2 OF 30
l !.
LLJ
U' ? ?•-- I a i { V 11 -
Z9z_O II 1', / j e z
Q
LL-
00? , $+ ?? I ICI e ?w
C:8 C-D
Oco
:a ILL)
c7) (D
Qp
IN I i• •1- iS; II I \ r
?? ? ;mil t 1 ? ; ? .II i ;? I o ?.?':??`•?P ?
I
CD UAL J
?z IWl I I . p
e
Of
¢ o IN ! / t,,3
=)mW
¢ ca- 1 /\
CD r,
C) ICD
?o g8 CL. ``ice!
ck?
L.Lj
?1
ILL:
i j,V)
f' .•:r?,?. I II ?• ° • ! ? Z '? ? ? Imo'. ?.C%'? Oi•\ Z
Lij V)
I 'r
OL,
? Iytl Ij / ? i I ? I' III'--! ?," ?,??.. - -'•' /,
09+6L NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
i ; FILL IN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
wETU?N?s wETLANOS PITT COUNTY
® EXCAVATION IN 8.1221101 (R-218A)
WETLANDS US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
5m O 110m SCALE AS SHOWN
SCALE SHEET 3 OF 30

W
Q
C'
C)
W
O
O
Ellf
0-
I
f--
J
i
pW
Q
U
p
w
O
Ln
O O
f 7
fa- to
Ef)
J
I W

I -
I
I
I
'
,

o
,

1 CV
I
E-
.,
C) -
I
I N
I
Z
I O
U
1 ?
f
1 Of
1 5
Z
I
I /
I
1
CD- C -
r7
S
- + O
N
O -
N
1..L-
O

0

o
I
I ?
? rn
J

I p
o...cn.., I>
z=
p

O
1 Of c? N U-
U-

1
C) U- C:>
C= O
OZ
p O
- ZC>
Ci- Z .
cm O U N CD W
ll _ W
1\ Z?CL co ?Z V) C=
O
O
N
O
O
O -
Q
J
I

, i
1
i O
O

L 0
C)L
O

O
II E II CC104
D
O
1
Y Y Y? `'
O i N
cU,?

'- °

U T _
+
1 a
E II ? II ? ?
C:> E M
o o ° W b?
ON N ,

Z o
OZ i
I
E
O
CD
N
W
Ca
0
Cl
N
N V) O F--

W I
W
J
Q-1 -

C>
?p p I J
/

`
o
O it
O -
-I- LI_l
1
1
1 O
N
f
1 o-

r--
0
0
O N
- O
w o1
C) -
QI O
N
Z N
O
U
W
E
LO
O
E
U
GV
E
O
0
,I
p ?I
z 1 ?
I ?• N
O i o
0 U
I n.?.
Cf:
I
? ; d
1
i
C)_ z
1
1
1
1
Cal ?i ?l
Z
z
0
z
J
fi W
.;i
OZ+2z
?L&J_ j
L i 1
I Lu
mw C)
OO+2Z N O 0-
=m c 1 1
t
t
_ I
I
=?? ? ? \ , Ufa
cn ?
I
y
I
i' f%1? UI
( 111
.? ?
oo+zz .?

-
--
J W
\ ??
? I
N
\I I

rl Il IZ
J' 1
1
os+?z
LEGEND
! i WETLANDS
EXCAVATION IN
WETLANDS
-Agw-

,I

5m 0= 1
SCALE
m
W
I ?? x U¢p L1J
I Il xx Ck::Z
x
II x x.
x
11 . r
x ;7,
ail l * r?
r•7
,. 1 1. x p N
x ,C
x h
ri I! „ x
s I' U-
1 •
1 x x
?? x V
1 .?' x xx Z
m O
4 i I I "" Q
l txx
W W
J
st
P'I It ** ? Q t
! 11 III * " ??`J'?W
?' 11' Mal / Q
LLJ
r:
`n? .1 t1
lI :If

I
J
i
pw
Q
O
p
w
N
0
0-
C)
tz

0
E
N
t p -
Z N 0 -
t O
t ?
t C7
t
t p
Q O
o O -
04 M
Z
1 0
1
1
1
1VI. -
I O _
I N
t?e
O
00
N
0
O
O
N

O _
I
I
- O l
N 1
O
O 1
1
N J N ?
1
O - -
cs-t 1
Fw-
cal
1
t
I
I
I
I
I
f '
N I
N ca
? t
r- i
C) I
1
O i
I
I
1
I
I
w
0

0
0

o

?
Q M
O
? Cn J
O w

Cl)?
M?
o m I
N ? O O
O
cf)
OZ
1 - _ o=
<D Z NO ?9I
wO
O
_
U t-) CD w
v 5 '- cn c.-) c> =
Z o 0- 00 O Z Cn (n

LO
0
E

M iti
N CV
N o
Z cv
O d

U
W o
Cf)

Z
_ !i
O
C7 1
I
Z '
I
I
I
1
o '
mot- - I
1
I
1
col ?l ?l
N
p
Ll
3
z
z
0
X
W
?0 u
og+<
z
f=- O
w
OOr
J
w
0
00+9Z Al?U
h
N
Q
? M
Q
_J
?y .
'Z
II
I I
I
IT

?
i I I I
I •.
**--4t ------
x
N " x
I I " "I
"
V)l >; I
I ? "
xx
i
e i II I "x xx"*xr
x
.
1 O I II
I
I I I
I „
?` «"
«"
x x «x "'' V) U
1 I I

cr- 00

Z

I

?'
xx " I w
x "» ?
o

w
Cn f

I
I I I

r-
I I .- I

I

I

d# N
3
x"«#",I M
ui
M
«
o
CL f
I ? I 'I I
I I ?• " «"':
«
1 Ist
i I ; :"x w
x ,I
1 IW
'mo
I
'I
a-- .# x #
U
UI 'I
?' li.i
'? x xx Mxx r' k
I? " #x" x I
1 1 I 'x ## »x#.
I
.v, x x
#

t i
» x
r # x 91;/

I
+I x "
w

? 1 c ?! ? I
£ 1 ? , :
y

?' • ? I
I I I
I "?
" • ? ii ? c
Fj
?J

r
' 1 I I r -,r ?
l .
-----

': o
f ?
/ ?.
I I ?
? ------ - --
? •n.r±.

w
0
N O
M
Q
(a
LLJ
/C/)
/
E
co
N
L..L_
O
U
w O
J
w

00+5z
LEGEND
N
-1-71
WETLANDS
i i L 1
® EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS
5m 0?10m
SCALE
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
8.1221101 (R-218A)
US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 7 OF 3a

I
W
0
Q
C?
C)
W
N
O
a
O
U
CAD
N
I
0
0
0
0
LO
Ln
N
E
.,-
t-C.0
M

L
a_
W
0
Z
ZD
O
ct:f
C'
calf
Q
Z
I
1
I
I
1
I
r
I
o I
o
I
I I
j
1
O I
00
N
0
+
c-3 o _
o>?
n E n
II °oww
O W
O a-
25 -
C.?
N
W
D
C?l
0
LO
N
? 4 ?*? ?
E
,d U-
O

o
col ?l ?l N
o Z 0 ;
I O
1
I ?
Q M
O
V
C14
J
W
E

N co ?m cn
.- CD
I =
G' N = Lam. Z
I L'-p O
OLL-.

O O Z
p ZO CA
o M i ? Z O
! . W O_ C)
N N ? O W
M

o 1
^I
U 5? W
N
G N U U=
?. \ Z ES E 06 = Z N N
O -
N

I
I
E o° 1
CV I
j
E cz?
O- O I o
I
r- ?
` U S N
W U
I
?- i W
O - , V) o
o. ' E
o i U')
i
I
O I
N - I
? ! I
O -
M Q I
tY 1
? I
Q
Z I
I
I
o I
I
I
1
t
N
D
3
z
z
0
U
W
°0 u
CD
it I
TRg
ck,
LLJ
00+1.2
CL
it
0?+02
LEGEND NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
" DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
;?;;1}l WETLANDS PITT COUNTY
L 1 i i
EXCAVATION IN 8.1221101 (R-218A)
® WETLANDS US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
5m O 110m NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
mff p- SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 9 OF 3 0

? '? x
"YN
•
I ,
I I wNN N
NyNw
N
I
N

?i
C W
f
?

i I
I

?
?
II?

I

N„**
i
N i xN NMI
""x++Nxx«N"'NN
"I
00+zL NN;I ? Z
«*
I I II C I Ny NN«
Nxx

W ;
I C
II
I_
**N «yl
? aNNyx
^
LL ' I ?I I? I I N
N N« N*
" x
«•
? I II i x x y
N N
«
NN
/
(n
I
? Nxx„„x
N*Ni• V) NOS
„
I II
I
? M
N
++xxyx«"xNy xwl
w
?
N N
''^
V/ ;
I II L a«NN"*N««w„? _
" N« N y

1
O ,
i w w.y* NN NN NN«?
W

i i t
ca- u
? I
I I * yNxx ""NN*N«
w w y «N «" N«««? i
w, N w „ N N
A
I i ?? II II xNxx"""y NwN.
T N " x N a y ;? W
NN

'
? II I ! "
"
Z
? I C I I «wx{:
«
"xxN N««
y
o .'
J I ?I I? I j

„
'M
w
M N* «w M
N
"
l
/
Q
I ? I IIIT I I' «.1
f
w
wYxyN*«««x
L1.

? .
x«NYxxN xy„NI
«
i
?. i f
J ?I
I III
I I ?"
II i
r ««""«««:'"«: Y
*N
N y««NNNyy«?
x
w
K I (n
8R? I I 6V1 ;.I II ".
"wa""«*NNw
}
??
II
I ,
' "
LLJ
«
"
?
I I I
,
• «
««
*«««w«**N ?
I ? II I ? Mx«« NNx,«: o
wxx«?*NNxy?
J

C I «
•
„

W ;

I
II
i
«N„.
«N
?
I' xx xM•N ? N NNx x
O

?
( ;?
II
I
{I I
a.
; '?"NN«Nx«
?
I I
I
? wN
yxNwxx"w{ o
'
I \
;
N«xx1
f
? ?
? ?
?
, I II I ,
a
'
I
i

w 8
n
c

E I ?
i
? T
I
I
II
II Ij
li
11 ?
I cL
I? I
LLJ
V)
V) Q_ E
00+N
LLJ
C) i I? III ?Ifl I".« 'w'+"iwww«NNI*i?*?' ,^,y LLJ
_mff?p_ 00+?'?
L C) N V!***NNi NN w
cl-
OZ+ZC
LEGEND NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
" DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
L}?3l}l WETLANDS PITT COUNTY
EXCAVATION IN 8.1221101 (R-218A)
® WETLANDS US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
5m O 110m NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 10 OF 30

? ?
?- ?+ na
?+?

.?[
.
,vv
?? ^? ?•
?

i
I

'

p},

?

I

r
' I

?

I

I I
.I I .

III
III

ilk

II
I?
I

I
I

I

I
i

?I

I

II
ii
? j ??

, ?

, ??

it "
?( ? I ? x
? ? x-X

?*?w?•I Y ?
"* • ?•?
N N
*#/? ?N*****NNN I

*i wNiNl: ??*NNr ??jr•
NMN«Ny
y MN.I L
.
mil' ? '
`•
? ` ? I '
" Ni
•? , `l,,l,•
I? _ ' y l I ' : i i * i *NNN * « N N I

,

`
I
.
?
N ??
w NN MNM**«NMN.
?
I ? ? ?h _
I
? I Ir M i
MNNMN
N*? cn r-?
i
O

? ' l
? I
y{ , I
I «
Ni
N N ? NiN NN?M I ?
?i
"
N «
I 1
I I
' ? ,
? i I
' I I
I i
i i I
* # i .y N N N M a
?
* A y N? A: N M *? ' _
* *
*
?i N

LL?

I

? I

Ir
I I
I

?#
NNN . I
NNN
N N+ii
N

``? ? ?
«ri i N?
? I I
==
=NN
I ?w:; «
N«
i
I
W Q__
,
,
.It\
I
I
Ib
???'''+++
N«NNN««**Nww

O

I I I

II
110

I
?i
I
r
1
. rN
•I?iN it w NNNN11
NNN «N
***N*
I .«*

,

I
it ;' N

N
y« * **«NN ?I
N
N
I I M
N i
w N N
N N N N N M M
7 NN
!?
O '
I I i II I? _ ? NN«N« !
M
NN NN
,
°_. ? ? F ?? ? ;) Ili; ?«
wl
?;w

?
f
I ?

I I
?I I'?

r
?;?

I , N

?1 1?
.ip? :
? w w
r?: N«
*
V /
(y?iiN«NNNN* ?Y
"7j i"IN: NN ** ? M 1w1 .I O F?-.
N
I
N QN wN*«N
N N
N If I II 1 1 It NN
N I `
?_ NNNN NN
yl N.
Afj'T...!?'.?^,'.J. V?
J`ti?F1
•?/? .. _ ••11 _
? _ y_ I 1 r
l (( .. N 4
? N N i of i* N i y N
!
?
i
???•?:f ?%?•.'v ??:J';??
.. r I
I i!
I l l, I ? . i
; 1 1 N o
pN«NNNN*y «N.
^? * N N N N N 11 N N i '• ? o
?=
3 I?
I I
! Z
1 V
4 ?, I' N
1 11 * **NNN«N Ni
"NNNN + N N i M X N
I
~ I ? : it r' J 1 « A w
«
V 1 I ? .
NN
*«N NNN^If 1
` I
f I ! I? VI ' .N
? «N «N+*iM N N «A*, *.
N
I
N
J ? I ? ! I I ? I NNNN
NN « «

I
I N N N N
I I I
l ' +
I «."N
#*
"
•
' I u I, c i?'
Ny
" « N
NNN
N i

wQ
Q
CD
w
N
O
IZ
O

I?
t\
O
O
I
I
I ?
Z
I O
I O
cr?
O
1
I
I
I ?
1 ?
Z
I?
1
1
1
1
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
t
I
I
I
1
4 El
O N
O
-+ i? O_
N CC4
M
o O -
E
0
W I T-I rq

ni

N

O I
O
I
N
O j
O I
1
i 0
d-
J co I
I ? z
I
I
W ? U
1=
I Cf) 1 ?,
+ W
r'7 I
O I
O
I
Q Q
Z j
? t
C7
Q _ Qf
M ¢ I
I
Z I
1
I
i
I
- O I

C-4I
U-
0
S
1-

0
v?.
Z OO i
O
? M
O

U W
N?
? co om M
3 N Fr-

Li CD
? `-' S S O
C5 U-
O Z p U 0

w O
O
co
I
U O w
N

U 5
U w
S
CD 0- cn U
co = z N N

U

U
o F-
tr
o
t
O
N
O
?
t
M O

~

Cn N

z

0 0
O

n
,
N
Z
z
0
Z
X
w

LL
O
O
N
O Z ?S
- + O
r? ¢ o
rn
J
W
I ? Q
c
L5

' zz
d 3

c)
? CO
O

N
O 3 Li.

LLJ
LL- o O
O O Z U I
w
ZCD N
?? ¢ ^
p ? O
p N N
CV M O L'-1,

w
W I
V) ? z o oo :n Z ccn ccn
r
C)
C I Z
I
I
i -

E
I
I

I
I U
N
I
I
-

I
I
I O U

F=-

I
I tY

I
I

O E

N

' M E
I
I M LIJ ? w
I ? U
I

I
CO
I
I F-
M ,
, O O
N
t\ 1 ?
E O
O
I j
-
O
i
I
1
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I

-
I

-'sT
V
•I. #-?-A
A NNN «wN
09+9*
N A Y # Y )
LLJ
]C IA A A AAA Anil I
A N N A A A N W . p
'« w w« w w Y?} I
V) I A A x
A N w A *9 A A ;1 I I I
LLJ w
N A «yl ?!
W 'N 4444
CL *?
8 O .N Nxx Yw 2 j1
V) IA A N N N A N yl
,NNw««w «?w If ,
«AAxAA Y;j.
IN N w « A N «?? 11
L.Li
AAw «AA A./1 1
N :N AAw«w w??. j: I
Z' CL AAN A A A «f jf
Q :N A A? A A Niel j
l?/ IM M N x N x'? ij
L^L x N N Y x N ?-?
Z F` ;N # #I# ? I
Q x+.x «ww N;Y Ij
NNwww wk
CL •«NY#«?#r •1
0 00+2? w «A#w,x?N:k
I«AAAAAwA?# tl ?
««w«
w NwANwA NW fI:
1 +J((«A Nw N
NNNNNNA NIN ., 1? I
NNw A A A x AAAN Nx x A A
LLJ
pp N it N, # # A w jlA Y ?NN alN w AAA .ii1A N« ?w Y Lr. M . L%rjd A,* w ? •«YAY.?a) r?•
I
INAYx? x• li
.««wA N: i)p it
I« N Y w •?11??y? M?
L1J NNw « I Ai
I • N N N N ?• x I I I
t--• IN NNNNM N' 1? jI
« N N A N A «
}
V J . N A w A x x x ? : I'? '^
I« A A A A A A ? ? I f f l W'?
c? :Y«wwyw # fi ? J
N ? «NYY Y +I ? lO
f I#AAAAw III
lJ ;N N # A N A N?
INNN««w #. ,.
NAAx Ax «; '? Ij I?
•« N A N U N I
OO+L7 I« A # N N A N!. (! jl -I Z
•A NAAAN «' ?p
N HANNA
??1IN N N A N A V ?! I
I N N A A A A
V) Axx41 Ax
Q INN « N A N 1 1
Z' .AAA AAA
I N N N A A A r , I .
I.- .A AAA AA 14
II 1
w •NAwAAw ii
IAAAi AA :1
ANA r N A
- - - - - - - - - - 4 A A AAA . 1 I J
N F?V*
?? i
LEGEND
WETLANDS 09+9?
EXCAVATION IN FILL IN
WETLANDS WETLANDS
5m 010m
lw-I :=I
SCALE
I
1
I p
II I
i *Y
1
I 1 1-:?::
I
?I
I N
I L1
Q
I w
V)
j
O
Gl_
1 tl
1
u
I V>
IQ
ICL
I
1cl-
I
I
I
1
1
1 I
I(
I
1 I
1
1
I
I
I
1
w
V)
w
Y
O
cr)
ocf
O
J O
N
w
_Z
w
Q
U
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
8.1221101 (R-218A)
US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 13 OF 30

I
I
I
I
I
W ? Z
IY O
O i a?
? I J
W Q
1
O
0-
I
(D
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
O I
O
0
+
I
I
0
E
N
E o -

N
CZ
O -
M
E
o °
0

COI ?d-I N)
li
0

0
'
Z p
i
0
F- M
o

U W
o m
Z3
= o
Z m

?C' N
i Cr L
?O p LL

2
O
?

?

?I=- N O

LD
C) Z:

O 1 N
U C1l r-) oo J

U5? N
?'
U
_
Z 0 CL 06 tnU
O Z C/) Cn
co o -
N
I
1
I
O 1

1
C)
O 1
O -
'- o
i W
I
I
W
J Co I
^
I c.0
o

L
J
I
C) - I
O
O
+
-1 col
E

N
U
O ?

E

O `n
O N
+
00
O

? V
(n N

O
O
Cc
O

E
L!)
I/ N
lL
0
w
c?
? zo
N O

O 1
)
?- I I
: ?:2
0
z?
a
I-Laj
I
I
C=) I
O
N
N - Z p! 1
0:f
O I
I
zil
M 1
H I
z
1
1
I
0 1
I
f (? X?

ct?
k Z
f= ct?
w
J F- CC)
= p
Z W
z ?
w Q-
Y 0
W
V
0
W
F-
-c/)
Cf)

0
Z
00+L9
M it M M M M M *A
(? M M M M M M M M M
Y )MMMMMMMMM
.Q r Ml?M l1 l1MMM r
4 Mi.MMilMMilM
V) } MiIM M MMMMM
r Mi1MMMMNi1M
Lil MMM M MMMMM
Q_ } M M M M M M M M M
O r M M M M M M M M M
-I M M M M M M M M M
y N .MM w M M MM MM
?• ?M M M it M M M M M M
FM A " MMMMMM
[? •M M M M M M M MM M
W 'MMMMMMMMMM
p (n IMMMMMMMMMM
UJ O •MMMM MMMMMM
Cl) Q_ •MMMMMMMMMM
O Q IMMMMMMMMMM
Q_ Q:? MMM M M M MMM M
O # M M M M AN M M M
01- ,MMM MMMMMM M
1 MMMM M M M M M M
Q- MMM M M M M M M.
L1? M M M M M M M M
F' M M M M M M M M M
,M . M M M M M M M
MMM M
M M M M M M M M M M
,M MMMMMMMMMM
•M M M M M M M M M M M
IMMMMMMMMMM.
MMM M M M M M M M M
'MMMMMMMMMM M
(M M M MM MM'A AN 'A
. M M AN M AN M M M
I M r M M M M M M r M M
00+99 I AN AN M AN MMM M
OZ+59 ;-.. II II
LEGEND
}+ `? ++ O WETLANDS IMPACTED
WETLANDS
IN
FILL
IN WETLANDS
5m 0 10
SS_.AL,
01 34IM

.._ __ _ . - o W rZ _ _- -
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
8.1221101 (R-218A)
US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 15 OF 30
N
Z
-Q
N Z: V)
Zw 25C)
V)
T
C) °z
U_
Q) J Z w
¢w ?cn rn
LLJ
ti X08,+L9
E
N *1 N 44 *4 *4
7
z
= O.
I=
N C'
J F- co
iW
Z w
8
YAA
Z
:m x NN x
w
c:) *4 44 N x 4.1
W
Y O
Q
)4 N
00+L9 /
W
\ ¢ w Of
w =
N Ng!: \
o w N O c.D
0 o w o Z -J cl-
Q N -j Q Lr) ZZ,
? cn 0-
Ow O rn
O
V) C:n LLJ ? N J_ ?
C) C)
?
CL 0
LEGEND
? •? •? WETLANDS "
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FILL IN WETLANDS PITT COUNTY
IMPACTED WETLANDS 8.1221101 (R-218A)
US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
5m 0_10m NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 16 OF 3O

\ ? I ?I ? ? 3
•• ? l f •
a
'I' 4S « « x 44 ? • ii• x .Y. '•i
f?

«? « « « « « « w

'J'
N r««««««««
? ?«««?«?«
•?' •r:x:
?•?•, •+ I
'fi'r
- I? Ii
I ii
CI I I
'

4* ?2
44 N X
' I I N
.
? «««« «««it •x• ?Lli•; iw•r N N t

w
Q
C'
W
(n
O
0-
O
W

cn
0
0
r-)

I ?
Z
I ?
1 ?
I U
z
F--
I X
! w
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
r
I
CD
I

1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
r
I
1
I
I
,
1
1
1
1
I
I
t

1
CoI r-I NI L71
0
E

O
N
z
° ° of ?I coI ?I ?I
-
r\
?
J
04 C,
.- o I
> N O z
O L+-
0

l O- oZ
O O VO
o N ?I
r-
M O
! dZ Z ¢
° i ooU _
N L
- c
, CV W
E ?. Z(n 0- ao O z U) cn
C
)

z
?
- ?
O f- o
z u
°
I
O
- I
J
I
?fl O - C3J
O
LL-j
C!-) CD -
o -
N

M
N
D
O -
I
O I

I ?0
1 ?21 'd
I
??Jl
,.,
- :-
?L
z
0
U
w
CJ)
N

O
tY
E
r .
U-)
O
N N
-
4-co E
GD O
V)
N
N

0

0

E

N
Z
Z ?

E E °°I `°I -1I'
CD
U-) Ul) CD
"' °
M I
O _
CD ON O
O
I I 11 11 N f
w > 1
I
O -
M I

W &N? i p -
Q 00 ?1 O
? Z
ck? C)
I '' C)
O U
p O ?
LLJ
N U
C>
C/)
O I x
U I W
0- ,
1
1
1
1 -
I
I
c>7 ?
0 1
O '
O '
I
I
I O
O
- +
OI O
O
E
O -
N
O -
I ?
C? O- ! - -a
c?
LLJ
? o -
o -
N
p Cn
W CD
- Z
F
M
d. rj
::E 3

?0- I =1.:d

0

0
N
Oi
Z
O I.._
M
0

NQ
00 Mm
=
_ C? N
1 o- W
UZ 0 Z
p W

O
?

O Z
:D r-
CD V =

C
00
O
Q O
U
N N M O J
04
U - N U u =
m C) a- 00 O Z N N
p
C Z
O ?
Q Of
z c.?

z
0
UW
Cn
N
p
ZJ
J
LL
U') U-i
U
J(n
U
O F7-
0W'
E >
O ?
?- N
r? E
ca o
N N
O
O E
00+1L lil , w. `'-';C:r
W .., f z
3 ""«N n I e O Q t
LLJ "««« Ca
?• <n x*M« o I O
N"N r
Sal I' EQ II
.?? '? III o
lw
p
to
^.'1 .,?• '?• C7 ?. ? T `. 11:1 _ ?_ .??? _ __
C) 2F
ck?
Qf
tow
V) I**N« *« «w ; I ?, I
LLJ
:D C)
« " *x
.x :.: k.*1 •+'?l; :N i:1'J I _
Cl- LL^L "Ni1«41
1***«? ; ?; ? lil III n
LLJ
ww,
41
OO+OL
y f*N"NNa +"i? :y. k•Y*l yi? ?:y10 i! nft-? ?i ?J_
LLJ ly Z
144
Wit«NN N .N;W:" y.'y+` y7 •1 1 O C3
tf ? ? N?M•"NNx 'h'K R?H •???- Itil I ?•
T LL"'M "",M M•, I It?
04
MN N« ' I 1•
Ld
J N*«N + ; ij ??? Of W
W +I{t
J m J
z 0-c
q? w
z O 2+69 --- o m
Y w .y fI n!I 00
LEGEND + O N 0? L'l
p u W LL
? p 3
cl-
WETLANDS N
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
FILL IN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WETLANDS PITT COUNTY
® EXCAVATION IN 8.1221101 (R-218A)
WETLANDS US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
5m m00 l om NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 19 OF 30
??
/?
00+ -'
V)
z
C/7
1..1_I O
F?
O
J
J
w
Z
J
00+ l L
LEGEND NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
;i;};*? WETLANDS ?+ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
;iii PITT COUNTY
8.1221101 (R-218A)
EXCAVATION IN
WETLANDS US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 :TO SOUTH OF
5m 0??10m NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET Zo OF 3O
wig

**
f

yi
y

J
i '^
v'
W
s ?
LlJ r'"'M y
N
? 1
fol ?.
o ,** "?.?
y
?
"
?
NI o
LL Ixy"
I'? O; O

? J
+.+.. "wr?f ? I Z

."*" ?
??
+y I
y
y
I I
'" '" " ? " 1 ? I
"
?
f
"y j
Y
i/
yf (I I I

y " I
"
'? z I
L

1
w +? y y " 1„I/
d i
?
l ilyy ? w ?
r«y" j I

"""
?wxy Llt
"a.
?f f
i
? M I .f I

j I
M I
"yy o
y I } ?

i1 M"y
{.? ? I
"yy"* y
? 1 ? ? 1
. I
.y*y"
•"""y ? I
u I
CS ?x"? I
t y y y y ,
I+l +l ( I
?
yy
." y y y
?? y
^

I I
" y y
,
?'yy"" ? Q
i ;
l?
y
I I
.y " " y M J
'" y y y 111 ? '
1 .?:./.
:I:.:.

V
(I I I ?? ??
`
?
j1 b; t
?`
•1 h i. Z

t
1
' o
- O
I
t
I
1
p
W i Z
ry if C.7
? I
? I
N I
O
0- i Q
O 1 z
ry I
I
I
1
1
1
t
1
I
I
1
i

o
1 0

O
00 ;
d-
CO
O I
O '
t
+ 1

v-
0
N
E O .
N
CD O .
E IM _
O
O
N
LA-
C>
S
o
.
N
O S
?I ?I
I
? O o

I
?C/')
^ W
ZS
om mI
I

?c

C14
?

WO
L.L-
O
O LA-

' CD 2'-

m

Z O
?I
z O
Q O U
C/) N
N pM J L

}? ?
\
U 5?
Z o 0-
'r
00
(/) V U
S Z Cn W
S
V)
CO
O
tf7
O
C> CD

? i
/ I
= ^
O
J
I 00 w O
I\
O --- -- - z
O N
f _ V)
U
W
'
o _ ? C1
)
O
t17
O
O

L-Li C) 1.

S
?- O
V ! ? h
c I o
O _
M :D I
Q I

I ?

C)

_ I
z
U
N
U
O
N
E
O
U
N
O O
N
a-
O
S
E
Ul)
I z ?¢
I ? J U
Z J
r
t -
ca d- O cnl r-I ?I
'2I "-I C-4I
t
I

- I
I
I
'
I
I
1
I
I

O - I
I
t
1
I !.

N
d-
O
O

O - O I
I
J ? I
I c9l
o ---- T -
z

I U
? W
O- o
r o
N I

O
1
C) _ i
p !.
Z I :X
O
NO - ¢ '
[if
i
I
z i
I
I
O - I
?- 1
I
I
I
1
I
1
c?Dl ?I ?I
LL.
O

E-
O
O

Z O i
?
O
O
~ O J

cl-
cn w
.-. z =
?
m

I
o M
= _
N Ct:? LL. Z
p Li
O
Li
O i=- N '
Li ^
`?

O Z

C/)
CD U C,
Z I
w O U
p N N A M J

CS T
Z L0 CL cn
a0 O Z C/) (/)
E
U') LLJ
N
U
C) F=
E
CD ??

O
E
°
a

N U
a'
0
it
O

E
LO
U- p
O
w
o ?
0
3
z
z
0
x
U
w
°?u
O
v _
dI o.
1I o
o i ~ o
I
I I ? ? J
I U
nN. ? ¢ z
CD Z: 00 m
I O I cl?= N 21-
I..?
C:>
1 C'V I ~ Q C)
I I = }..
W I p I!. O Z U
O p
1 E- p Z C/2
U O- I Z O V)
C7 i ° M I :x DOU N "-JO W W
t I C/) CV M Q W
ui :D Z O CL co O Z cn V)
O Z
a 1 ?.
p I O - O
N O
I O
1 O
I
1 N
1
I I
I
1 -
1 1 O U
I..
O ?` tr
I O
CN ! O in
O N
II l 11 +
I I N E
1 c?-I ^
1 Qj Q
Cl)
vvi
W i rJ
W
U) CD U-)
I CD I C)l
1 N
1 O I =
00 ? ? QOZ ?n
'.t- I O I W ~J
p I N I U CD W
O W 3
1 => I
I Q 1
CD V-,
ct:?
t => 1
I
Q 3
Z ? z
I I
1 - I O
O I
O Q
+ Z X
? I w
VNN
?) I ?J
779
C> IXN
08+?8
i I
, t I ? *wN
r
«
«
N

II
it
I f+«
W«
? *N
«
ry1 .?/?
««
*"
**wNNN ***«yy 'J I
N
x
N I

I
II 1
1 I «
w w
Nx x «*
x«*x x
O
x«*"N*N«"**N«: r
•r-
N
«"N.W
I « «««««
y**
r

LLJ C) LLJ
C> L

I

I

?
LLJ
N I!
:I J S I 1 I 11 R ?•i««"*.yN*nI z I Ir?n
y

1
II N N?Nhx««
**N«' O V I
«
N*
?
. 1
1
1 I 1». «
?««*"
"i' Qom,

Q
I

4
^I
E y
?R
W co I
«wx« *""N?( ?
I

c:)I

Z
,? ? I I 1 In *"nwxw****NI
00+
8 n I I «R"«xy
*"«w*I
L i j II I «N y
«:*?***«**1 ; : r
xN
J
:
.
?
I II I N ""NnN«Nw«y?y
C,
t I? N NyNw
N
Y I r. 11 I I N w
«N N«.«*"Ny S 1
? ? it I ! x" "" «*«""* N«
l
EI I N x?
"N

I
FI
II
I
« Ny yN
yj LL
«N«
««N«""xn««: E C a
J "
LLJ

1

cl I it i " wry«"Nnw NJ,+M^
U
-
t.
l
! ;; LL
,? f
(LL

? II II I
1 'J II :I I Q
OZ+Z8
LEGEND
1 1 i 1
WETLANDS
FILL IN
WETLANDS
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
8.1221101 (R-218A)
5m O 10m US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
!,n! =d NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 24 OF 30
EXCAVATION IN
WETLANDS
C? W LLJ
O OJ F=
fl- (n cn
O
J
1,
UO'
1
I
I
I
<`5. I
I
t!
II
II
I I

I
I I
?
II
I? 1
???
'
?
_
__
a I `
??1
Q?`' N ? 'O Njy
LL-i
I
II
I
V) °[
°)
O
'1
a: N
II co
I
?I
I W - -
w

3f 3i b x„ t\ I I I F-
? ?' l?fi ?l I I

• 2Cti X I
• II ( 'w w * " +i H? +! .. L1J
J
J ?;
li?
J
- .a•
?'•. .•s?r.
.aC ji 44
.7 I ii r
r I
? '"
x c? a ""«ax?"fowl""«««, .
?--
* x x "
"""x

c••.\: fv
1
. :1 ?
'
?
'
k
I I Z
(
'
" x A
*? c/')
LLJ
*
'?'
Y
? i
xy•
x :?w:a? ?
':4:1!
rna .7 H ?1
.k:'?Y;1
;+?•-ial }}
f: ? `I
III I
1 ?
?t
? *
x
" (n x.11 y( .K y
* x ,y w w M
?x"xx.?ww*+r«+*r*ar I
Ow**" ""«xx xw
V'kkx F is k:c? t t '•''H
M N « Cx*irx«"""*xv x+
I x?N4
k ?{ +t 11 I F I
I 10 x "*«""wxx**x"**t?d'
n
a n?a .ktk. I I I?} '' ? xxw«**""x« "**wJ c) I
w«
? I
I \ \ I* xMwx w"x x"+1 +"i "?!w{ LL
«y(w, xw«
co
I
I I I w
"
«' I
•A'
,
I I I ?« +1".
«xwMwx
Nw
1
I
I
I
I
J I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
08+?8
LEGEND
WETLANDS
Lli
FILL IN I-
WETLANDS C/-)
FILL BELOW
SURFACE WATERS NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
EXCAVATION IN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
® WETLANDS PITT COUNTY
IMPACTED 8.1221101 (R-218A)
WETLANDS US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
5m 00110m NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
Scat SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 25 OF 30
CD

I °
;
oo z os
+ 00 CD
oo C:)
n
l c J

r E

C

V C)

CL cn

, U W

=

p
+ I z3 0000 ?m C)
N I ?ZU, CV ?O ?

i

I

p

ly =

Cr--
O
-- = S O
Z O
O Z
.-- =
N
1 i =>
- ?-
o z°N ?I
2
-C)
- C) Co
N O- ;
I WOU
(/? Cy r'-) 0 W
rM _l I-
I

c)
Z N
=Z
U U-i
N
I C> = :d ma_ 00 C

Y 1 ^ W
U , h
W
E N ?7

0 0 w 68Z'9 l =13 °

; ooo, +?8 Id o
N

Oo w
N o
I CD-1 U
F=
00

I I

Y

U
z
? I

?
i

)

1

0

00

Ln

N
LLJ
0
0

O O

?- I !

co

+
N
- + O --- -- ?- z 00 o
I
i 00 C? -I ,
Ci7 ? O Q U

I LIJ f- N N
I ,

?;
-
C)
- I
o
0
- ct::
I I =

I
o
"'
CD
- o o
I
I
N-
C) I
I
X
I ? i D ?
? I z
_
W
I N
r=)
m N CD -
M I
<
W
V) I
,

z
Cl-
±
O

0-

I 3
¢Z I Z
I
p _ :D pN i O
d ¢02 i p Q
z? Z
x
Z ?3 U
w
Co) CDI ?I N)
0
°
0
N
O cd-Ol?1N1 o °i
M
i O
E v w
N ?om CnI
E
? - ? = z
N °z i ?- ?' I U- C> 3 0
O
I CD U. cn ?
oz Top
C) Z:
-
O w O U
p0 O _ r,r? ?. p N N M J
< w
W ,
Q 1 Z LO E x z zoa_ ao =z C/) v=i
00
i o
° ; o - °
N 1 1 N ?n
O i Q -
CL 1 c
O i p
1 ¢ ?'
CD I
°- 1 z `- o I ?
1 0_ o
o _ °
w
E
1 w I C) N
1 O I 4-
E
M 1 0-- -- z oo
N I `? '::I O Q U
r ti ? :.•rJ W ?
- o
x
? a?
I o "'
cn
0
i N W
p0 - 0
- + !.
00 E
N
cr-I
I M LL- Q
p
M _° z N W
¢? Z i o o = 3
_? Z 1 w N z
m O O
O _ J ; LJi Z W .
m j
00 z v
4. li W
X
?I toI I ?14
I
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
TRACT
NO. OWNER ADDRESS
15 NORA JONES, HEIRS c/o BERNICE K. JONES .
1402 HAMPSTEAD DRIVE
HIGH POINT, NC 27260
20 OLLIE M. MOORING ROUTE 11, BOX 183
GREENVILLE, NC 27828
18 23 FRANK T. LEWIS c/o ALBERT LEWIS, JR.
112 HILLCREST DRIVE
FARMVILLE, NC 27828
26 RICHARD A. & LINDA E. ROEBUCK ROUTE 11, BOX 185
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
31 RACHEL F. CORBETT ROUTE 11, BOX 193
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
33 WEYERHAEUSER, INC. c/o BARBARA KHOURY
P.O. BOX 1391
NEW BERN, NC 28560
34 MARY S. MOYE P.O. BOX 99
SIMPSON, NC 27879
42 HUGH MACK GASKINS ROUTE 11, BOX 206
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
74 LARRY W. & CLAUDIA. D. PEADEN ROUTE 11, BOX 244
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
8.1221101 (R-218A)
US 13-NC 11 FROM NC 903 TO SOUTH OF
NC 30 SOUTH OF BETHEL
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 29 OF 30
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
TRACT
NO. OWNER ADD'hSS
76 EASTERN MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CORP., INC. P.O. BOX 834
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
89 KENNETH L. SMITH ROUTE 1, BOX 832
& GEORGE D. TETTERTON, JR. BETHEL, NC 27812
100 JULIA NELL WHITEHURST EVERETT 103 MAYFIELD STREET
SUMMERVILLE, SC 29483
123 MARY MOORE BROWN HEIRS 807 WOODLAND TRAIL
LOUISBURG, NC 27549

P
Improvements To
US 13/ NC 11
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
TIP # R-0218
State Project # 8.1221101
F.A. # F-102-1(3).
Natural Resources Technical
R-0218
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Report
Susan Corda, Biologist
September, 1992
to

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................1
1.2 Purpose ...........................................1
1.3 Study Area ........................................1
1.4 Methodology .......................................1
2.0 Natural Resources ....................................3
2.1 Biotic Resources ..................................3
2.1.1 Plant communities ............................3
2.1.1.1 Uplands .................................3
2.1.1.2 Wetlands ......... 4
2.1.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........5
2.1.2 Wildlife Communities. .........................7
2.1.2.1 Terrestrial Communities .................7
2.1.2.2 Aquatic Communities .....................8
2.1.2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........8
2.2 Physical Resources ................................9
2.2.1 Soils ........................................9
2.2.2 Water Resources .............................10
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .........11
3.0 Jurisdictional Issues • .............................12
3.1 Waters of the United States ......................12
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts ..........................12
3.1.2 Permits .....................................13
3.1.3 Mitigation ..................................14
3.2 Protected Species ................................15
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species .................15
3.2.2 State Protected Species .....................18
4.0 References ..........................................19
Appendix A Natural Resource Agency Comments .............21
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map ............................2
Figure 2 Wetland Locations .............................12A
Table 1 Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts .... 6
Table 2 Soil Summary .. ..... ................. ........ .9
Table 3 Summary of Waters of the US Impacts by Site ..... 13
Table 4 Federally protected species listed for Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties ............................ . 15
Table 5 Federal Candidate species listed in Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties .... ......................... 17
Table 6 State protected species listed in Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties .............................. 18
!f
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
Proposed improvements call for widening US 131 NC 11
from a two-lane facility to a four-lane divided facility from
Greenville to Bethel. The project is located in Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties (Figure 1). The project crosses Grindle
Creek, Suggs Branch and their tributaries.
A bypass of Bethel, on new location, is also proposed.
The proposed median width is 461. Total width of the
proposed Bethel bypass with a 46' median is 1821. The Bethel
bypass alternates (Alternates 1-3) are 3.2 miles, 1.8 miles
and 1.4 miles respectively.
Improvements to US 13/NC 11 are proposed both to the
west and the east of existing US 13/NC 11. Impacts extend
114' from the edge of pavement to one side and 40' from the
opposite side. Total length of the US 13/NC 11 improvements
is 8.2 miles.
1.2 Purpose
This report describes the natural resources in the
project area and anticipated impacts to these resources.
This information is submitted for inclusion into a
Environmental Assessment Document.
1.3 Study Area
The project is located in Pitt and Edgecombe Counties in
the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The study area is
located in an rural setting. Disturbed areas such as
agricultural and residential sites dominate the study area.
Topography in the area is gently sloping. Elevation ranges
from 10' to 20' above mean sea level (amsl).
1.4 Methodology
Aerial photographs (111= 4001), USGS quadrant maps
(Greenville NE, Conetoe and Robersonville West), Pitt and
Edgecombe County Soil Surveys (Soil Conservation service),
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps (Greenville NE, Conetoe
and Robersonville West) and hydric soils list for Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties were utilized during in-house research.
Site visits were made on July 21, 22, 24 and 27, 1992 to
inventory natural resources and determine wetland locations
and boundaries.
J
?.00
000 000 000
000
0000
000
O

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 0'
• TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 13-NC 11, GREENVILLE
NORTHWEST LOOP TO US 64 BYPASS
NORTH OF BETHEL. PITT COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. R-318

3
Information on the occurrence of federal and state
protected species was obtained from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
2.0 Natural Resources
The Natural Resources section is divided into two major
parts: Biotic Resources and Physical Resources. Descriptions
of the plant and wildlife communities are included under
Biotic Resources. Soil and water resource information is
discussed in the Physical Resources section. Summaries of
anticipated impacts discusses plant and wildlife community
impacts, as well as water resource impacts.
2.1 Biotic Resources
A description of the plant and wildlife communities in
the study area is provided below. Common and scientific
names are provided for each species listed; in subsequent
references to the same organism, only the common name is
given.
2.1.1 Plant Communities
Five plant communities, three upland and two wetland,
were identified in the study area: Disturbed Scrub/Shrub,
Pine Dominated, Mixed Hardwood/Pine, Disturbed Palustrine
Scrub/shrub Wetland and Palustrine Forest Wetland. A
description of each plant community, in order of dominance,
follows.
2.1.1.1 Uplands
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub
The Disturbed Scrub/Shrub community dominates the study
corridor and is located throughout the entire study area.
This community occurs in residential areas, along roadsides
and along utility corridors. Also included are agricultural
areas and recently logged sites. Dominant vegetation ranges
from a monoculture agricultural areas (soybean, tobacco, corn
and peanut crops were noted) to a "grassy lawn", or a shrub
dominated area. Typical vegetation includes plant species
such as wild onion (A1 ium cepa), partridge pea (Cassia
fasciculata), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium
obtusi olium), blackberry ($ubus sp.), winged sumac (Rhus
coya ina) and foxtail grass (Setaria sp.).
4
southern magnolia (Magnolia arandif ora), red cedar
(Juniperus virainiana), pecan (Carva illinoensis), southern
red oak (Ouercus falcata), black jack oak (ouercus
marilandica), crepe myrtle (Laaerstroemia indica), flowering
dogwood (Cornus f on ) and yucca (Yucca filamentosa) are
common around residential sites.
Pine Dominated community
The Pine Dominated community occurs with higher
frequency in the southern portion of the project outside of
Greenville. These stands are pine plantations that appear to
be about 30 years of age. The understory is very thick and
reaches approximately 2/3 of the canopy height. The northern
section of the project supports,small, scattered pine
dominated stands in residential areas. These stands often
support large trees. Loblolly pine (Pines taeda) is the
common canopy species observed in forested areas and
scattered longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) is located adjacent
to residential homesites. Other species observed in forested
sites include water oak (ouercus niara), black oak (ouercus
velutina), willow oak (ouercus phellos), southern red oak,
black cherry and privet comprising the understory. The
ground cover included cane (Arundunaria aiaantea), winged
sumac, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), poison ivy (Toxicidendron radicans),
loblolly pine seedlings and Virginia creeper.
Mixed Hardwood/Pine
The Mixed Hardwood/Pine community is less common in the
study area than the pine dominated forest. The stands are
scattered and support a dense understory and ground cover.
They range in age from young saplings (5" Diameter at Breast
Height) to older specimens 10" to 12" Typical canopy species
include sweetgum (Liauidambar stvraciflua), red maple ( c r
rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina) and scattered
loblolly pine. In some sites American elm (U mus americana)
and white bay are common. Sweetgum and black cherry are also
common understory species. The ground cover includes cane
(Agundunaria aiaantea), false nettle, Virginia creeper,
poison ivy, devil's walking stick (Aralia spinosa), bracken
fern ( teridium aguilinum) and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans). Catbrier (Smilax sp.) and grape (Vitis sp.) are
common vines.
2.1.1.2 Wetlands
Two wetland plant communities are located in the study
area: the Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/shrub Wetland and
Palustrine Forest Wetland. Each community is described
below.
5
Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland
The Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland is located
along utility corridors, adjacent to roadside ditches and in
areas that have been recen??ep?ogned?cenThis tly logged
lareas),
(except
maintained periodically
but may support rank growth of the following species: bla)k
willow ( ix },gr), red maple, cattail (T a latiLo
elderberry (Sams canadensis), woolgrass (Sc qes
cyperinus) and dayflower (Commelina communis)•
(199 su sp.) and rushes (Juncus sp.) are also common.
Palustrine Forest Wetland
The Palustrine Forest Wetland is located adjacent to Thi streams or ditches and supports a hardwood canopy•but is more
community is scattered throughout the study area,
often encountered along the Bethel bypass at the northern end
of the project. Typical canopy species
r??brum), sweetgum (Liguidambar styraciflua), sycamore
(Ace
te occ and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
(PlaIn one ar
tuhra) In one area located south of Grindle Creek along
Alternate 1 of the Bethel bypass bald cypress (Taxodium
distich?m_) was observed. Understory species included swamp
chestnut oak (u rcus michauxii) and white bay (---
virctiniana) in the bald cypress stand. In other sites
musclewood (gj inus caroliniana) and privet
sinense) are common and form dense stands. The ground cover
included false nettle (BOehmeria 9°11ndrica), pokee
(prvtolacca ameri ana), beauty berry (Callicarpa americana),
privet seedlings, Virginia creeper (pdarach c-i-sanese
auincuefolia), china-berry ( glia a -
honeysuckle, poison ivy and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
2.1.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
construction will impact the Disturbed Scrub/Shrub,
Mixed Hardwood/Pine, Pine Dominated, Disturbed Palustrine
Scrub/Shrub Wetland and Palustrine Forest Wetland
communities. Plant cnare preliminary andsmayechange with
Table 1. These estimates
final design.
6
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community Altl Alt2 Alt3 US13/NC11
E W
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub 40.1 25.4 16.9 133.3 140.4
Mixed Hardwood/Pine 9.9 7.1 9.9 4.3 1.5
Pine Dominated 0.5 1.7 0 14.7 10.3
Dist. Palustrine Scrub/Shrub 0 0 0 0.1 0.1
Palustrine Forest 2.6 4.0 3.7 0 0
TOTALS 53.1 38.2 30.5 152.4 152.3
Estimated Impacts associated with US 13/NC 11 improvements
are based on a median width of 46' and total impact area
extending 114' on one side and 40' on the opposite side from
the edge of pavement of the existing roadway. Impacts
associated with the Bethel Bypass are 182' in width. Values
shown are in acres.
Proposed improvements to US 13/NC 11 and the Bethel
bypass will result in vegetation loss. Vegetation losses are
large due to project length. The majority of the study area
for the entire project is classified as Disturbed Scrub/Shrub
community.
The 3 Bethel alternates will impact large forested
tracts of mixed hardwood/pine dominated sites and wetland
areas associated with Grindle Creek and Suggs branch.
Alternates 1 and 3 bisect a forested tract that is the only
remaining forested area between two disturbed communities
(agricultural and residential) located between SR 1500 and US
64. Alternate 3 will impact Suggs Branch twice. The
interchange area proposed for Alternates 1 and 3 impacts
agricultural areas, palustrine forested wetlands associated
with Suggs Branch and the upland Mixed Hardwood/Pine
community. Alternate 3 impacts a larger amount of forested
communities than Alternate 1. Alternate 2 will impact
several large forested tracts of land located north of the
Seaboard Coast railroad. Two other tracts impacted by
Alternate 2 have been recently cleared and support
successional communities. Primarily, the impacted area of
Alternate 2 is dominated by agricultural fields.
Construction of the Bethel bypass will fragment existing
plant communities especially forested tracts associated with
Suggs Branch impacted by Alternate 3. Proposed construction
of Alternate 2 will also fragment forested tracts located
north of the railroad to the project terminus. Avoidance of
forested wetlands and forested upland communities is
recommended.
7
2.1.2 wildlife Communities
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted
by proposed construction. Limited descriptions of fauna,
which are likely to occur in each ecosystem, are presented.
Complete listings of terrestrial and aquatic organisms can be
found in specific references presented in section 4.0.
2.1.2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Amphibians and reptiles that may be anticipated in the
study area include American toad (Bufo americanus), eastern
narrow-mouth toad (Gastroohrvne carolinensis), eastern
spadefoot toad (scaphiopus holbrooki), Fowler's toad (Bu o
woodhous_ei), gray treefrogs (Hula chrvsoscelis and H.
versicolor), little glass frog (Limnaoedus ocularis), Mabee's
salamander (Ambvstoma mabeei), many-lined salamander
(Stereochilus marainatus), marbled salamander (Ambvstoma
onacum), ornate chorus frog (Pseudacris ornata), pickerel
frog (Rana palustris), pinewoods treefrog (H a femoralis),
redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander
(Plethodon aluttinosus) and southern cricket frog (Acris
aryllus); black racer (Coluber constrictor), copperhead
(Aakistrodon contortrix), corn snake ( la he auttata),
eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), ground skink (Eumeces lateralis), pine
woods snake (Rhadinaea flavilata), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), spooted turtle (Clemmys guttata) and timber
rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus).
The following birds may be found in the study area:
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), black vulture
(Coraavps atratus), bobwhite (Colinus vircainianaus), brown-
headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), Carolina wren (Thrvothorus
ludovicianus), common crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos), common
grackle (Ouiscalus auiscala), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), killdeer
(Haematopus palliatus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
pine warbler (pendroica pinus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
-)a_nmaicensis), screech owl (Otus asio), starling (sturnus
vulaaris) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Mammals that are typical in the study area include:
eastern mole (Scalopus aguaticus), raccoon (Procvon to ),
hispid cotton mouse (Siamodon hispidus), southern short-
tailed shrew (Blarina carolinenesis), star-nosed mole
(Condylura cristata), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virainianus) and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum).
8
2.1.2.2 Aquatic Communities
The study area supports several channelized creeks and
ditches. Aquatic organisms likely in these waters include
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), eastern mud minnow (Umbra
pvgmaea), redfin pickerel (Fsox americanus), golden shiner
(Notemigonus crvsoleucas), eastern silvery minnow
(Hvbognathus reginus), greenfin shiner (Notropis cloristi.us),
spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), swallowtail shiner
(Notropis procne), highfin shiner (Notropis altipinnis),
silver shiner (Notropis photogenic,), yellow bullhead
(Ictalurus to s), tadpole madtom (Noturus gvrinus), pirate
perch (Aphredoderus savanus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrooki), flier (Centrarchus macropterus), bluespotted
sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), bluegill (Levomis
macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus).
2.1.2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
In general, road widening will decrease the amount of
available wildlife habitat. The Bethel bypass will fragment
wildlife communities by constructing in forested tracts
located between disturbed communities such as agricultural
fields and residential areas. Entire forested tracts will be
impacted by the proposed project. Ditches cross the majority
of the forested areas. Forested areas are suitable for many
species and may serve as a corridor for migrating wildlife.
Forested tracts may also be utilized for foraging, cover and
a food source for certain organisms. one recommendation is
to construct the Bethel bypass in disturbed communities (such
as agricultural areas), rather than forested sites. Proposed
construction may create a barrier to certain migrating
organisms, which can lead to changes in species diversity and
community dynamics.
The study area supports numerous channelized streams and
man-made ditches. Construction may increase erosion and
result in sedimentation. Increased sedimentation may result
in a decline in sensitive aquatic organisms. Construction
should match existing stream conditions (such as slope, water
velocity and flow rate) as closely as possible.
Additionally, efforts should be made to minimize impacts to
all waters crossed by the study area.
It is not known at this time whether or not stream
rechannelization will take place in the study area. If
stream rechannelization is proposed, the NC Department of
Transportation is required to contact the appropriate
agencies through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 USC 661-667d).
Additionally, construction will cause an increase in
traffic and noise especially along the Bethel bypass, which
It
9
is proposed to be constructed on new location. Traffic and
noise increases may cause organisms to migrate to other
locations and cause a decline in these organisms.
2.2 Physical Resources
Soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.
2.2.1 Soils
soils information was obtained from the Pitt and
ve
,
ation Servic
s (Soil C
nser
y
Edgecombe County Soil Sur
respectively). 27
d 1979 e
v
soil mapping
o
,
1974 an
located in the study area (Table 2).
Table 2 Soil Summary, Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Slope o Classification
Name
PITT COUNTY
Aycock fine sandy loam 0_1 Non-hydric
Hydric
Bibb complex 0_1
0_1 Hydric
Bladden fine sandy loam 0_1 Hydric
Byars loam
Coxville fine sandy loam 0_1 Hydric
Non-hydric
Craven fine sandy loam 0_1
1_6 Non-hydric
Craven fine sandy loam
fine sandy loam, eroded
1-6 Non-hydric
Craven
Exum fine sandy loam 0-1 Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Exum fine sandy loam 1-6
0-1 Hydric inclusions
Goldsboro sandy loam 1-6 Non-hydric
Goldsboro sandy loam 0-1 Hydric
Leaf silt loam 0-3 Non-hydric
Lenoir fine sandy loam
e sandy loam
fi 0-1 Hydric inclusions
n
Lynchburg 1-6 Non-hydric
Norfolk sandy loam 0-4 Hydric inclusions
Ocilla loamy fine sand 0-1 Hydric
Pantego loam 0-1 Hydric
Portsmouth loam 0-1 Hydric
Rains fine sandy loam 0-1 Hydric
Tuckerman fine sandy loam 0-6 Non-hydric
Wagram loamy sand
EDGECOMBE COUNTY

Coxville sandy loam
0-2
0-2 Hydric

Non-hydric
Goldsboro fine sandy loam 0-2 Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand 2-6 Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand 0-2 Hydric
nd loam
Rains fine sa y
10
The most common soil units in the study corridor include
Coxville fine ? unitsoin,PittmCountysand andoldsboroLynchburgne
fine sandy o
sandy loam in Edgecombe county.
The Coxville fine sandy loam unit is poorly drained and
located on smooth flats and in slight depressions. Coxville
fine sandy loam formed in Coastal Plain sediment. The
seasonal high water tle is near Wetness
is a use limits
The Exum fine sandy loam map unit is moderately well
drained and located on nearly level and gently sloping areas
of uplands. Exum fine sandy loam formed in Coastal Plain
sediment. Major limitation of this soil are a seasonal high
water table'and slope.
The Lynchburg fine sandy loam unit is somewhat poorly
drained and found on nearly level soils on uplands. This map fine s unit formed in Coastal 1a5'iy
loam soil has a seasonal
below the ground surface.
Located in Edgecombe County, the Goldsboro fine sandy
loam map unit.is moderately well drained and is located on
smooth, low ridges and flats and in upland depressions.
Goldsboro fine sandy loam formed in coastal Plain sediment.
2.2.2 Water Resources
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Grindle Creek, Suggs Branch and numerous ditches cross the
study area. Grindle Creek, which crosses the study area in 2
locations, is a channelized creek that is approximately 25,
across and 21-31 deep. The bottom is composed of silt and
sand. Grindle Creek originates approximately 5 miles
upstream of the study area and empties into the Tar River
located approximately 20 miles downstream. Suggs Branch,
which crosses Alternate 3 of the Bethel bypass, bottom is
approximately 10' to 201 wide and 1' deep. The composed of sand and silt. Suggs Branch originates several
miles upstream of the study area and empties into Grindle
Creek approximately 2000' east of Alternate 1 of the Bethel
bypass.
Best usage classification
Best usageereCreek and commendationssfor
Branch is C NSW (DEM, 1991).
Class C waters include aquatic lifPand agr cud survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) require limitations on
nutrient inputs. All other crossings
Grindle Creek or Suggs Creek.
suthe creek they drain into. In
of these waters is the same as
this case, Grindle ee
11
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters and
waters classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study
area or 1 mile downstream. Pitt County is not within the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) jurisdiction.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part
of an ongoing ambient water quality. This network addresses
long term trends in water quality by measuring the taxa
richness and presence of intolerable organisms. These
organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. No BMAN surveys have been conducted in the study
area or near the project vicinity.
A NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) point-source discharger is located on Grindle Creek
northeast of Greenville. This site is downstream of the
study area.
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation, vegetation removal and culvert
placement.
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction and highway runoff and toxic spills.
Recommendations:
- Nan-point sediment sources should be identified and efforts
made to control sediment runoff.
- Strict adherence to BMP and Sedimentation
guidelines should be advocated during the
project.
- Bridges are preferred over culverts. If
utilized, they should be placed at least
stream bottom (for fish movement). A low
be built into one cell of a multi-celled
culvert. Deflectors should direct water
during low flows.
Control
life phase of the
culverts are
12" below the
flow notch should
concrete box
into this cell
If
12
3.0 Jurisdictional Issues
3.1 Waters of the United States
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating
activities in "Waters of the US" based on the following laws:
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC
403), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) and
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1072, as amended (33 USC 1413). Any
action that proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under
the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers and a federal
permit is required. Generally, "Waters of the US" is defined
as navigable waters, their tributaries and associated
wetlands and subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
Jurisdictional wetlands, as, defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations
are described in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface
waters and wetlands are two subsets of "Waters of the Us".
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the US are anticipated from
proposed construction. Surface waters and wetland impacts
are anticipated both at the Bethel bypass and along the us
13/NC 11 corridor. Wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of vegetation, soils and hydrology. The
dominate vegetation is hydrophytic and the soil color is
hydric. Wetlands are associated with creeks, drainages or
located in depressions. Table 3 summarizes Waters of the US
impacts. These estimates are preliminary and may change with
project design and Figure 2 indicates jurisdictional wetland
locations.
ioz 14

l
? s

•• y

l1 !;,rAlteriR(3.2 miles)
IfAlter&& (1. S miles) '
Alternate-3 (1.4 miles)

/oqA-
/ -:
719 - , Ipl. •.[„1' ?•
_..Cem ,
3116 M
I ...3y?';. ^1•.?J • \
2 ?If r ` LINE ?•? ? ? ?.
COA51-.
N :W1 •' eM I8.1
,.•neonno......
m 1 A
?i
1
19Substolion;
71
ml• j I 1C?
CC I,
+ q
71 Grave -
. ? I
Cell r' II
InN .? t }S :1 Ilrnlrl W CD
Ifll?• ? ?? ? Cam
I zzs
I la1 GI III(Ile 16.5
1 / I rule ?? _ I ? • ?.
i.
In !? Cem
e
I i2-0
19
63
X ` err ' , Jr x' ? w 1 P ° ?; "Co
o \ n /1j/ 1? p
%
I? 19.6 1X11 " ., °
Site 6 1
7-
?, . ` '. Cam -
' - --- - is
oa62 t. L - \?. I
(1509, X70.0 '. i 1 19.0
'. ,
' 19.5 I '..I ?.?.
I n j
- I
•s
740000 ... -- "---..._ ._
• _._._ -.--t` ? -t . ...... _.--_ - . ... 1111
Cenb. Q Z
13

Table 3 Summary of Waters of the US Impacts by Site
Site Creek System Community Altl Alt2 Alt3 US13/NC11
F W
1 - PF - 1.5 - -
2 - PF - 2.5 - - -
3 Suggs Branch PF 0.5 - 2.4 - -
4 Suggs Branch PF - - 1.3 - -
5 Grindle Creek PF 2.1 - - - -
6 - SS - - - <0.1 -
7 - SS - - - <0.1 <0.1
8 - SS - - - - <0.1
TOTALS 2.6 4.0 3.7 <0.1 <0.1
SS: Scrub/Shrub
PF: Palustrine Forest
Note: Values reported are in acres. Impacts are based on
182' for impacts associated with the Bethel bypass except the
interchange located at the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and
the US 64 bypass. Impacts associated with the east and west
corridors of US 13/NC 11 are based on an width of 114' to one
side and 40' to the opposite side.
Impacts to "Waters of the US" are anticipated from
proposed construction. The proposed project will impact 8
sites with jurisdictional wetlands in the study corridor.
Other crossings will impact surface waters only.
3.1.2 Permits
Nationwide Permits 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5
(a)(26) are likely to be applicable for proposed
construction. Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) is
likely to be applicable at all jurisdictional wetland sites
associated with the US 13\NC 11 improvements. This permit is
authorized under the following conditions: 1) The width of
the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing, 2) The fill placed in waters of the US is limited
to a filled area of no more than 1/3 acre, 3) No more than a
total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the roadway can
occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, 4)
Crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows and tidal flows and the movement of aquatic organisms,
5) The crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project for crossing of a water of the US.
11

14
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) is likely to be
applicable for proposed construction at sites 1 through 4.
Suggs Branch, impacted at sites 3 and 4 is classified as
being above headwaters. This permit authorizes discharges of
dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
wetlands provided: a) The discharge does not cause the loss
of more than 10 acres of waters of the US. b) The permittee
notifies the district engineer if the discharge would cause
the loss of waters of the US greater than one acre in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For
discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the
notification must also include a delineation of affected
special aquatic sites, including wetlands. c) The discharge,
including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project. For the
purposes of this Nationwide Permit, the acreage of loss of
waters of the US includes the filled area plus waters of the
US that are adversely affected by flooding, excavation, or
drainage as a result of the project. Final permit decisions
rest with the Corps of Engineers.
Grindle Creek is classified as being below headwaters.
Jurisdictional wetlands associated with Grindle Creek at Site
5, exceed 1 acre. At this time an Individual Section 404
permit is applicable to proposed construction. Permit
decisions should be made when the final alignment is chosen.
Final permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
Neither Pitt county or Edgecombe county are located in
the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) jurisdiction.
A-Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEF.NR).
3.1.3 Mitigation
Anticipated placement of fill into a jurisdictional area
is likely to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit.
Generally, no mitigation is required according to the MOA
between the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
Protection Agency (1989). The final decision rests with the
Corps of Engineers.
If the project is authorized under an Individual Permit,
mitigation may be required according to the 1989 Memorandum
of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of the Army. The final decision rests with
the Corps of Engineers.
15
3.2 Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
determine if any protected species are located in the study
area.
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Two federally protected species are listed by the USFWS
in Pitt County and one federally protected species is listed
in Edgecombe County as of August 28, 1992. These species are
listed in Table 4. A discussion of each species follows.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species Listed in Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties
Common Name Scientific Name
PITT COUNTY
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Tar River spinymussel Elliptio s.einstansana
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana
E
E or Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all its range.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Nash, Pitt.
The Tar river spiny mussel has always been endemic to the Tar
River drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope
in Nash County. Now it is limited to populations in Swift Creek
and the Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash counties.
This mussel requires a stream with.fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom is composed of
uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be
relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of
freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar river spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60
millimeters. Short spines are arranged in a radial row anterior
to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other
valve, others have two rows of spines on each valve. The nacre is
pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior). Young specimens
have an orange-brown peristracum with greenish rays and adults are
darker with inconspicuous rays. The shell is generally smooth in
texture with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly
It
Status
E
E
16
from the surface and curve slightly ventrally.
Suitable habitat for the Tar River Spiny mussel in the
study area is located only in Grindle Creek and Suggs.Branch.
The other water crossings are unsuitable for the Tar River
Spiny mussel because they are too small. Conversations with
John Alderman of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
indicated that Grindle Creek has been previously surveyed for
mussels and a low mussel diversity was present. He also
stated that Grindle Creek and Suggs Branch do not support
suitable habitat for the Tar River Spiny mussel and that
mussel surveys are not necessary. Based on this information,
no impacts to the Tar River Spiny mussel will occur from
project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven,
Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax,
Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Johnston,
Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender,
Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland,
Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New
Jersey to southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred
inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri.
Now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland
in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina
moderate populations are found in the sandhills and in the
southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont
and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former
populations.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except
for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The
back is black and white with horizontal stripes and the breast and
underside is white with streaked flanks. There is a large white
cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open, old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus galustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands
considered ideal habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are equal to or greater than 60 years
old and are contiguous with pine-dominated stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is 0.5 mile and must
be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
17
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100
ft above the ground and average 30-50 ft high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. This is, arguably, used as a defense against possible
predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one
breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The eggs are
laid in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size
is from 3 - 5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the
young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may
feed on seasonal wild fruits.
The study area impacts potential foraging habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker located east of existing US 13/ NC 11 at
the south (Greenville) end of the project. These stands are
primarily pine plantations with a dense understory. Based on
field observations of plant communities and aerial photograph
studies, no suitable nesting habitat will be impacted upon
proposed construction. No RCW surveys are necessary. No impact
to the red-cockaded woodpecker will occur from proposed
construction.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Pitt and Edgecombe counties (Table 5). These
species are not afforded federal protection at this time but'
their status may be upgraded in the future. The habitat
column indicates the potential for their occurrence (based on
availability of suitable habitat) in the study area.
Table 5. Federal Candidate species listed in Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
PITT COUNTY
Henslow's sparrow AmModramus henslowii C2 Yes
Albemarle crayfish Procambarus medialis C2 Yes
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussel) Fusconaia masoni C2 Yes
Henslow's sparrow
Yellow lance (mussel)
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussel)
Yellow lampmussel
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
Ammodramus henslowii C2
Ellintio lanceolata C2 No
Fusconaia masoni C2 No
Lampsilis cariosa C2 No
C2: Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
support listing as endangered or threatened at this time.
18
3.2.2 State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern
(1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the
study area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal Candidate
species that are state protected and may occur in the study
area are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. State protected species listed in Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
PITT COUNTY
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussel)
Yellow lance (mussel)
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussel)
Fusconaia masoni T Yes
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
Flliotio lanceolate T No
Fusconaia masoni T No
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis carioca T No
Note: State protected species were identified from a list of
Federal Candidate species specified for Pitt and Edgecombe
County.
T - Threatened: Any native or once-native species of wild
animal which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future.
Though all or some of these species may be present in
the study area, no surveys were conducted.
1,

19
4.0 REF___ ER_F?N-a S
(;cation of wafi1ands and
Cowardin, L.M. et al. 1979•
Deepwater Habitats of The Uni ed Stated US Fish and
Wildlife Service. 1991. fica-
Division of Environmental Mgtandards• Assigned "tolThelWaters
tions and Water Quality
of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin". North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A catalog Carolina eWiinland ldlife FResourcesters in
North Carolina. North
Commission.
Lee, D.S. et al. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater
Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., Clark, M.K. 1982. A
Distributional u ve ,of North Car= a Mammals. Raleigh,
N.C. North Carolina Biological survey and North Carolina
State Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List Of
The Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
of Program; and
Carolina Natural Heritage
Recreation; NC Department
Natural Resources.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1975. The Freshwater F'sh's Q North
Carolina. Press of the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, North Carolina. 177 pp.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Car- olina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, North Carolina.
227 pp.
Menhenick, E.F., T.M. Burton and J.R. Bailey. 1974. An
annotated checklist
ishaoMitchellasci.fSoc. 90(1}:24-50.
Carolina. Unite Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-Water
Invertebrates of Sonsa
States. Second Edition

20
(contains insect information)
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Third Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
Potter, E.F., Parnell, J.F. and Teulings, R.P. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification Of
the Natural Communities Of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA-SCS. 1974. Soil Survey: Pitt County
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
USDA-SCS. 1979. Soil Survey: Edgecombe County
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weakley, A.S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List Of The
Rare Plant Species Of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program; Division of Parks and
Recreation; Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
I7
NCWRC, HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL :919-52z:-9839
North Carolina
1W A IT * Idlif
vN/ 1 e
Resources Corn nil sslOrl
5127 N. S,aiis j; ?tp! I pri'YY)r'1tr t`
t,,,h3tiP5 1'E. FU
Feb 01,95 15:52 No.005 P.01
lwoc,i, Ex°corive, Lirc",Wf
FgL; S
?? r
J l 1_.
i
v .?
r ?
I '
dL=y^ 6fM9JGw r? .i? ?'C.4 ,R. SENT 5.7+•,

FALL-S 3,aM.t`+AY l' v 'VAX bw+JAL(7Ni t [phone]
p.C,. BCiX 'L18 NORTUSIDE, NC 27564
W:bIRC , HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL : 019-52?,-H39 Feb 01 '95 15:52 hdo. 005 P.02
North Carolina W.Idlife Resources Commission
512.1\. Salisbury Street, PUeigh, North Carolina 27604-118 3, 919-733-3391
Charles R.. Fullwo(4 Executive Director
MFMORANDU W1.
Th: Melba Mc, -1 ee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR.
FROM: FranK_in .. Mc$ride, Manaaer
,itat Co serva°ion Progra,,
Hal:,
DATE: Fel-ruary 1, 1995
wIry r?.
iTi ?iF?NaYt EI7t =i Trci7??•C?T't?.tiO2; ?IV=,IIT
Frt? .r r^e. `.3 .. I?Qsesc?'e 1? ?h; fC ':J5 _ 3i'"` 11
f om '.% } yL? S43 north of
?iP lv'i.-.r'}., :"arolAna/
Y'_.Ct 1 LdCJe+r .1
t_. F t ,; C? 6r:S -)f ti1? 3. wJ -l 1 f K, Sp'. I eS 7111? 1SS1oIl
F_e* an: .;re f tr ..ar wv_-n
iew
h=i:. '.--9 . _e_= _-1 ? 2 ' e3< ". a, , a Ti_? L'. S? * -..h-"B review
was :.c. d ,,?E S 1m act.8 ~'.J 1.9'- ar.a W__,d1' fe P.SCz:2":'eS
'1'..iY ac-__-.sal _'c_-?' rrtai n pr?;`,r),s^- 1Cns
e.-. , v a - • :- a : a ?. ._ , i -J .. X '?. ' - • a . ? ? 1 A._, t \ Y ? v . S ? 4332 A ti L_ c3 r. `i 1. , a
a~,? t 'dA 6E) bbd `,
1:I; .. W.,..?€':iW, ..h,:' t'.Y,1St: ?wC^l.a?1
3`:`r.'31 _ '1_I' rt.1E? 7] L .. led to 1 .. ;. ,y w?t:?. a ? f t grassed
° ni6C C11:.C1°S E' c i _ `r li:i r a l ypass
(lEC7. a T:. T i'3 J e
? t
a-r ,:,nrl r,? r. w: f ?tre r _ ?kd•.. r_' ed on
rr.?) In N 903
t:.e L 3.. wit
T 2 p
N??vK.? as S_cr;
L
fC ci i.. ?. ? L ?, i ! i ' :. c ? L3 F _,r Y % r S - y . ; FF S C' S S. c 14'1 +
r,..L a e ?'SrieT-;t. A hr, r) e,- t
Cweve2r :t'e^ar? a ?l t ''.r Witt: the
Be4tthel rypass.
rdCWRC, HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL : 919-52'-;-9839 Feb 01 ' 1?5 15:53 NO.005 P.03
Memo Page 2 February 1, 1995
B}rpat3__ ajte?"natives ider:.-if'_-eCi for StLidy in
the Infor,7al:Jon was PYOVided on
)f ea : alter nay 1 Ve . ,e ;refer Bypass
The prefer -ed alternati -e i aent .. f ied e EA is
a Ler2.C.1VA
Alt'.PrnarIve. tite {F'c. iczf. irS12:21:aF^,
.-F'r v
e
Y"F'f e,Y.-v-E'?. dl 7-
._r. ti--. d - 71,
-1 j /,T G1 J !i 1 :7 ,i4+ttei
1: 1 17 1.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Ar*
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F=?k
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McG
December 11, 1995
Through: John Dorn?y N,A'' "-
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for US 13/NC 11 from NC 903 to NC 30
Pitt & Edgecombe Counties
TIP #R-218A
DEHNR # 96-0298, DEM # 11097
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that approximately 19 acres of waters including wetlands will be
impacted.
DEM is concerned that DOT is segmenting the project in a manner that cumulative
impacts to the natural resources are not addressed. The EA discussed improvements
from NC 903 to US 64 including a bypass of Bethel. However, if DOT is willing to
commit to mitigation for the bypass and R-218A as well as control of access, DEM will
not object to the EA.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA or FONSI by DEM would not preclude
the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
us13nc11.fon
cc: Washington COE
Byron Brady, DOT
FAXED
DEC 1 1 1995
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
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 11'95 15:27 No.005 P.02
North Carolina Wildlife F&sources Commission
.512 N. Saliabury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Melba Mcgee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DL14NR
Franklin T. McBride, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 11, 1995
?,??1yv d
SUBJE-Cf. North Carolinai-Departomcnt of Transportation (NCDOT) Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for US 13/NC 1 I, from NC 90.3 to NC 30 south of
Bethel, Pitt and l dgeeombe counties, North Carolina TIP No. R-21 $A, SCH
Project No. 96-0298.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen a portion of existing US 131NC from NC 903 to NC 30. The
proposed roadway is a four-lane, median divided facility with at grade intersections. The project
length is approximately 8.3 miles. Approximately 19 acres of wetland impacts are anticipated.
We appreciate that NCDOT bas reduced impacts to wetlands and wildlife habitat with the
decision to widen an existing highway. However, no information was provided regarding
possibilities for asymmetric widening to further reduce these impacts.
The EA for this project also, included information on the Bethel Bypass portion of the
project. However, the current FONSI states that due to comments received from review agencies
regarding the Bethel Bypass, a separate FONSI will be written for that portion of the project.
NCWRC, HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL : [phone] Dec 11 ' 95 15:27 No. 005 P.03
Memo 2 December 11, 1995
After our review of the subject document, we are opposed to the segmentation of this project
and recommend that NCDOT amend the 124A to include the information requested in our previous
comments dated February 1, 1995. At this time we cannot concur with the FONSI for this
segment of the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this FONSi. T£ we can be oi'any further
assistance please call David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone].
Uc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernirientat'Affairs ?
Project Review Form
Proj Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
Project Number: County:
01
30 ?? ?? L(I Irk ;
elm
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: l i
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
?Asheville ?All RIO Areas
Et
ville
tt
F ? Air
e
aye ? Water
? Mooresville Groundwater
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer
1 El Recreational Consultant
Washington
4
? Coastal Management Consultant
? Wilmington ? Others
? Winston-Salem PWS
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Response (check all applicable)
Date:
? Soil and Water
? Coastal management
? Water Resources
ildlife
Forest Resources
? Land Resources
Eli?prks and Recreation
environmental Management
Monica Swihart
? Marine Fisheries
? Water Planning
? Environmental Health
? Solid Waste Management
? Radiation Protection
? David Foster
? Other (specify)
RECEIVED
NOY 01 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
n,)A. ?V
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
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
? 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
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited).-
El Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-1O4
I
''.a1'
US 13/NC 11
From NC 903
to NC 30 South of Bethel
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Federal Aid Project No. F-102-1(3)
State Project No. 8.1221101
T.I.P. Project No. R-218A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
5 I9 S 1?za x.
Date Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Tanning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nic as L. Graf, P. E.
%?Div ion Administrator, FHWA
US 13/NC 11
From NC 903
to NC 30 South of Bethel
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Federal Aid Project No. F-102-1(3)
State Project No. 8.1221101
T.I.P. Project No. R-218A
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
September 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Byro E. Brady, P.E.
Project Planning Engi eer
A. Bissett, .E.
Consulting Engineering Unit Head
ARQ( j
00-
??••??ESSfQN::•9
%
??••.? GIN ??*P?.•
%,'Pp ••......••
Environmental Commitments
1. To avoid and/or minimize non-point source discharges of toxic
substances and harmful materials, NCDOT intends to enforce the highest
design criteria for sedimentation control, Best Management Practices.
This will substantially minimize sediment-related impacts to area streams.
2. NCDOT will coordinate the relocation of all Geodetic survey
markers with the N.C. Geodetic Survey prior to construction.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Type of Action ................................................. 1
Project Status..... ......................................... 1
Actions Required by other Federal Agencies ..................... 1
Description of Action .......................................... 1
Circulation of the Environmental Assessment .................... 2
Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment .............. 2
Comments made during and following the Public Hearing.......... 6
Revisions to the Environmental Assessment ...................... 7
Wetlands Finding ............................................... 7
Floodplain Finding ............................................. 7
Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact ..................... 7
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by
The Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any
significant impact on the human environment. This Finding of No
Significant Impact is based on the Environmental Assessment which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed
project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining
that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes
full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
2. Project Status
After the Environmental Assessment was approved by the FHWA on
November 10, 1994 and was circulated, a Design Public Hearing was held on
March 9, 1995 at the North Pitt High School on US 13/NC 11 between
Greenville and Bethel. Comments received during and after the hearing are
addressed in Section 7, page 6.
Comments on the Environmental Assessment are addressed in Section 6,
pages 2 to 6.
3. Actions Required by other Federal A encies
A permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required for
this project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Also, a Section 401 Water Quality certification permit will be required.
4. Description of Action
The N. C. Division of Highways proposes to improve a section US 13/NC
11 in Pitt and Edgecombe Counties (See Figure 1). The project begins just
south of NC 903 and terminates at NC 30 South of Bethel. The project
length is 8.3 miles. The proposed improvements will consist of the
widening of the existing US 13/NC 11 to a four-lane divided highway.
Shoulder widths will be 10 feet paved. The median will be 60 feet in
width. The total estimated cost for the project is $20,725,000. Of this
cost, $7,375,000 is right-of-way cost and $13.350,000 is construction
cost.
5. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following
Federal, State and local agencies: (An asterisk denotes agencies from
which comments were received)
U.S. Department of the Interior
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Human Resources
Mid-East N.C. Planning & Economic Development Commission
Chairman, Pitt County Board of Commissioners
Mayor. Town of Bethel
Mayor, City of Greenville
This Assessment was also made available to the public.
6. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received
from a number of agencies. The substantive comments and responses on
the widening of US 13/NC 11 are listed below. The substantive
comments on the Bypass of Bethel will be addressed in a separate
document.
(a) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment: From the USGS topographic map, the existing roadway crosses
Grindle Creek, which appears to have sufficient drainage area to
produce flooding. We would suggest this crossing be designed so as
not to increase the 100-year flood elevation more than 1 foot
upstream of the crossing. We also suggest coordinating with Pitt
County for compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
Response: Construction of the bridges over Grindle Creek will not
increase the 100-year flood elevation by more than 1 foot. The
proposed construction will not place significant amounts of fill in
the floodplain area.
Comment: Although the wetland sites are identified in Figure No. 3
(pages 1-6 of the Environmental Assessment), the boundaries of
wetlands and waters of the United States, as well as the amount of
wetlands and waters of the United States to be impacted, must be
described for each alternative. This should be described in terms of
wetland acreage and dimensions, location, and type.
2
Response: A summary of waters of the United States impacts by sites
was shown in Table 7 of page 26 of the Environmental Assessment.
Also, the wetlands were located on Figure No. 3 of the EA. NCDOT
feels that the information supplied in the EA is sufficient.
Comment: It is recommended that medians be eliminated through all
crossings of wetlands and waters of the United States.
Response: A uniform width of the medians are required throughout the
entire length of the project in order to maintain a uniform design.
The reduction of the median width would reduce the amount of wetlands
by only a small amount. However, the reduction of safety in these
areas does not justify the reduction in median widths. The reduction
of median widths would reduce the vehicle storage area. Thus school
buses would have inadequate room for their turning movements. Also,
due to the surrounding topography, the median widths need adequate
widths to provide for proper drainage.
Comment: Impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States
associated with borrow and waste areas should be identified.
Response: Borrow and waste areas for the project have not been
identified at this time.
Comment: It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and
practicable steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all
that you have done, especially regarding development and modification
of plans and proposed construction techniques to minimize impacts.
Response: The contractor will follow standard high quality water
erosion control measures during the construction of this project.
The contractor will be required to submit a erosion control plan
which will follow strict erosion control measures as set forth by
NCDOT.
Comment: The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable
mitigation will be required for all unavoidable adverse impacts
remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
employed. Please indicate your plan to mitigate for the projected
unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide information as to
the absence of any such appropriate and practicable measures.
Response: NCDOT will develop a mitigation plan for the project prior
to construction.
(b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: The Service is pleased with the measures which the NCDOT
will employ to minimize the adverse effects of construction (p.
33.34). In addition to these measures, the Service recommends that
there be no clearing for off road construction facilities such as
machinery parking areas and material storage sites.
3
Response: Staging areas for the construction of this project have
not been identified at this time. It is unlikely that the
contractor's staging area will require the destruction of timber due
to the abundant farm land along the project.
Comment: The Service recommends that the NCDOT take all appropriate
measures to minimize these wetland losses. If, however, the project
results in unavoidable wetland losses, the NCDOT should develop a
compensatory mitigation plan based on the habitat value of the
losses.
Response: NCDOT will minimize wetland impacts to extent practicable
and develop a mitigation plan for the project prior to construction.
Comment: The Service recommends that the NCDOT assess the presence
of RCWs within the half-mile project corridor. If RCWs are observed
within the project corridor or active cavity trees are found in the
corridor or foraging zone, the project has the potential to adversely
affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Response: An NCDOT Biologist visited the project site for four days
in July 1992 and concluded that the project would have a "No Effect"
on the project. A one-half mile radius survey of the proposed
improvements was conducted. The Biologist stated that "based on
field observations of plant communities and aerial photograph
studies, no suitable nesting habitat will be impacted upon proposed
construction" and that no further RCW surveys were necessary.
(c) N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Comment: DOT proposes to widen a significant distance on existing
location with a 60 foot median. The typical section in the EA shows
a 46-foot median. What are the wetland impacts for the project using
a 46-foot median?
Response: The typical section in the EA was an error. It should
have stated that the median would be 60 feet. Wetland impacts of the
60-foot median are approximately .5 acre more than the 46-foot
median.
Comment: DOT did not use current stream classification in the
document.
Response: NCDOT recognizes the fact that the stream classifications
have been updated. These changes are listed on page 8.
(d) N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Services:
Comment: We have no objections here except we hate to loose the
woodland which will be 23.5 acres for both the widening and bypass.
We would hope that the ROW contractor would attempt to salvage the
timber and not push it into piles and burn.
4
Response: The loss of woodland acres in unavoidable with a project
of this type. However, with the current cost of lumber, the
contractor will most likely salvage the timber for resale.
(e) N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources:
Comment: The proposed project must be consistent with the NC
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 as amended. Temporary
and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and/or
devices must be utilized throughout the project to prevent sediment
from leaving the construction limits and entering adjacent
properties, wetlands and natural watercourses.
Response: The contractor will follow Best Management Practices
during the construction of this project. The contractor will be
required to submit a erosion control plan which will follow strict
erosion control measures as set forth by NCDOT.
(f) N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section:
Comment: Any water supply well for which its use will be
discontinued must be properly abandoned in accordance with N. C. Well
Construction Standards outlined in N.C.A.C.-2C.0113, and an
abandonment report filed with the Department as specified in
N.C.A.C.-2C.0114.
Response: NCDOT will comply with all guidelines associated with the
abandonment of well water supply systems.
Comment: The Groundwater Section recommends removal of abandoned
underground storage tanks within the project area.
Response: NCDOT will remove all abandoned underground storage tanks
within the construction limits for this project.
Comment: Any spills that occur of significant, quality must be
reported to the Division of Environmental Management in the
Washington Regional Office (919-946-6481).
Response: So noted.
Comment: As a result of this project, any demolition material that
is generated should be disposed of in accordance with all applicable
rules and regulations. The project manager should contact Solid
Waste Management in the Washington Office regarding proper disposal
methods.
Response: So noted.
5
(g) N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Comment: This project will impact 21 geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box
27687, Raleigh, NC 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of
a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
Response: N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction.
Comment: 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.
Response: An erosion and sedimentation plan will be prepared under
the erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways
from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission as part of
the construction plans and documents.
7. Comments Made During And Following The Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a Combined
Public Hearing was held March 9, 1995 at the North Pitt High School on
US 13/NC 11 between Greenville and Bethel. Approximately 125 persons
attended the hearing including 12 NCDOT personnel.
Nine persons made comments or asked questions at the hearing. One
spoke in favor of the project and its need for the area, two opposed the
Bethel Bypass Alternative No. 2 and six asked for specific information.
All questions were adequately answered by the Hearing Officer.
Written comments received after the Public Hearing included one
opposing opinion and one asking for specific questions about the project.
8. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment
The only revision to the Environmental Assessment is a correction to
Figure No. 4. The proposed median should be shown with a width of 60
feet. This corrected Figure No. 4 is included in the Appendix.
Stream classifications for Grindle Creek and Suggs Branch remain as
C-NSW (DEM, 1993).
Based on comments received from several agencies including the U. S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife (FWS), the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, the Bypass of
Bethel will be addressed in a separate document. All comments to the
Bypass as part of the EA will be addressed in a seperate FONSI. This
change has been duly noted as a revision to the EA.
6
9. Wetlands Finding
The proposed project is consistent with Executive Order 11990, which
states that construction will not be allowed in a wetlands area unless
there are no practical alternatives to the proposed action and all
practical measures to minimize harm to wetlands have been considered.
The NCDOT also has a policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse
impacts on wetlands whenever there is a practical alternative.
Approximately 19 acres of wetlands will be unavoidably displaced by the
project. The nature of the project (widening of an existing roadway) and
the topographical and economical concerns in the project corridor prohibit
the shifting of the alignment to completely avoid wetland areas. In the
absence of feasible alternatives to avoid the wetland areas, all practical
measures such as "best management practices" will be utilized to minimize
impacts to wetlands including stringent erosion control during and after
construction.
Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is
no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and
that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize
harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
10. Floodplain Finding
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, the
proposed project was evaluated with respect to potential impacts on
regulated floodplains/floodways.
To ensure that floodwater property damages due to roadway
construction are minimized, drainage structures are designed with upstream
(headwater) elevation in mind. All culverts on this project will be
designed and constructed in accordance with Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain impact
requirements so that there is no increase in floodplain elevation greater
than one foot. There will not be any significant longitudinal
encroachment in the floodplain.
11. Basis For Finding Of No Significant Impact
Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from Federal, State,
and Local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that the project
will not have a significant impact upon the human or natural environment
for the following reasons.
(a) No significant adverse impacts on natural, ecological, cultural
or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance
are expected.
(b) No significant detrimental impact on air or water quality or
ambient noise levels for adjoining areas is expected.
Therefore, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is applicable for this project.
7

FFar
Bethel ',

13, 30
Qstok
/*Falklan 11
•
r
l
22 ' 1? '
33 1
30
Bruce
. Fountain
a?• Toddy 121 43 + I \3 9 actolus
_ E 8 9 264 9 E C U Greenville +
• Bell Arthur'
It 3
4 -.
im son 4 N
1 3 '. Grlydesland 33
,6:A P I T T,,
_ 4 Wmtervill

? II Chocc
Black 11
.Rountree
10 p
Ryden
Shelmerdl

", a
a1 Z
l0 8
?
/ IV
\ Calico
`
\I 'Gritton

1r2 I
END
PROJECT /?
1 401 a M
1.0 14
64
• s fie •> `?
SEAWARD I.Ov ,, 51.1
A 4 `?
k, IF
.3 .6
1.3 1
14 44
?eC s `kit
1.0 30 1.6
N .9
J ?? S e ? '?rlo ? ?0
p 064'.
1.7 "cP NO'S !Ve , i•'.?' :1: ?}
0
A <L +•J ?
.+ Moye \ c
4"-40 PITT COUNTY \ v
D//pedr \? o '\ a 7.3'i.
lea/ ? is ? ? •«
44
1 Belvoir 1.e \ o ! !a ?i +Jl?
? I b f $ly 1
1 e t !rt ter' ,f '? ??zd .1 CliGv,,, d
.73
a _
.a -I 'o e .y,J CNin.
? J '' ,.:.fie 1jI? .,, ? y Mf'Y?.` ? e ? .
4,y
6 3 v ti Slo is
Ito
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
GREENVILLE J f TRANSPORTATION
b 903 - " DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEGIN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT BRANCH
„ 33 US 13/NC 11
FROM THE GREENVILLE NORTHWEST
LOOP TO THE US 64 BYPASS NORTH
OF BETHEL INCLUDING THE BETHEL BYPASS
PITT COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT R-218
2/92 FIG. 1
cc
O
LL
O
U
W
U)
U)
U)
O
U
cc
Q
cz_
C
J
W
cr
a
I --
z
2
cc
a.
m
C) co
W T
(n N
O OC
a-
0
cc
a
T
T
U
z
C'7
T
z
Q
W
2
U)
U)
Q
Q
0
UJ
U)
0
CL
0
cc:
CL
c)i
w
a-
0
J
U)
Q
U
z
c*?
U)
LL
0
(7
_z
z
W
0
LU
U)
0
CL
0
a
U
z
D
z
X
w

LU
CL
0
J
Cf)
Q
Itt
0
z
w
CD
H
LL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 14, 1995
Planning Division

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
CE/y?
O
f EB 15 1995
Z
DC'V Or
,
AYS Q,?P
?p?.
ponse to your letter of December 22, 1994,
This is in res
requesting our comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment
for US 13/NC 11, From the Greenville Northwest Loop to the US 64
Bypass North of Bethel, Pitt and Edgecombe Counties, Federal Aid
Project No. FAP-102-1, State Project No. 8.1221101, T.I.P. Project
No. R-218" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199501132).
Our comments.involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional
resources, which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' projects. The proposed roadway improvements would not
cross any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project.
Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
February 14, 1995
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for US 13/NC 11, From the Greenville
Northwest Loop to the US 64 Bypass North of Bethel, Pitt and Edgecombe
Counties, Federal Aid Project No. FAP-102-1, State Project No. 8.1221101,
T.I.P. Project No. R-218" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199501132)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis. Plan Formulation and Flood Plain
Services Branch, at [phone]
The study area for the proposed project is located in Pitt County and
small portions of Edgecombe County and the jurisdiction of the city of
Greenville, all of which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
From a review of the August 1981 Edgecombe County Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) and the April 1986 City of Greenville FIRM, the roadway does not appear
to cross any identified flood hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of
the pertinent United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the
area. Based on the January 1983 Pitt County FIRM, there also does not appear
to be a crossing of an identified flood hazard area. However, on the USGS
topographic map, the roadway crosses Grindle Creek, which appears to have
sufficient drainage area to produce flooding. We would suggest this crossing
be designed so as not to increase the 100-year flood elevation more than
1 foot upstream of the crossing. We also suggest coordinating with Pitt
County for compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Henry Wicker, Washington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
a. Although the wetland sites are identified in Figure No. 3 (pages 1-6
of the Environmental Assessment), the boundaries of wetlands and waters of the
United States, as well as the amount of wetlands and waters of the United
States to be impacted, must be described for each alternative. This should be
described in terms of wetland acreage and dimensions, location, and type.
b. It is recommended that medians be eliminated through all crossings of
wetlands and waters of the United States.
c. Impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States associated with
borrow and waste areas should be identified.
February 14, 1995
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for US 13/NC 11, From the Greenville
Northwest Loop to the US 64 Bypass North of Bethel, Pitt and Edgecombe
Counties, Federal Aid Project No. FAP-102-1, State Project No. 8.1221101,
T.I.P. Project No. R-218" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199501132)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS fcontinued
(d) On February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation
necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through
the selection of the least damaging, practicable alternative; second, taking
appropriate and practicable steps to minimize impacts to waters and wetlands;
and, finally, compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent
appropriate and practicable. To enable us to process your application in full
compliance with this MOA, we request that you provide the following additional
information.
(1) Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites
are available only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging,
practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least
damaging to water or wetland areas.
(2) It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and
practicable steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you
have done, especially regarding development and modification of plans and
proposed construction techniques to minimize adverse impacts.
(3) The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation
will be required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been employed. Please indicate
your plan to mitigate for the projected unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands
or provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and
practicable measures.
If you have any questions related to Department of the Army permits,
please contact Mr. Wicker.
¦
TAKE??
United States Department of the Interior AMERIC
FISH A\TD NAILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Ser%ices
Post Office Box 33726 E I
Raleigh, Forth Carolina 27636-3726 tL V
February 22, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Vick:
LIAR 0 2 1995
kC 9"'/ VISIC-NI GHWA`r..:
ONNNE2 '
Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1994 providing the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with a copy of the Administrative Action Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for the
widening of US 13/NC 11, Pitt. and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina (T.I.P. No.
R-0218). This report is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The EA assesses the proposal by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to widen the existing two-lane roadway to a divided, four-lane facility
from the Greenville Northwest Loop to the US 64 bypass north of the Town of
Bethel. This project would also create a bypass to the east of Bethel. The
project would be approximately 12 miles in length.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Range of Alternatives Considered
The project from the southern terminus to just north of the intersection with NC
30 would widen the existing roadway, and the analyses of alternatives for this
portion are adequate. However, from just north of the intersection with NC 30
the proposed project moves onto new location in order to bypass Bethel. The EA
present 3 alternatives for tite bypass which can ba divided into a. southern and
northern section. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would impact 1.1, 2.6, and 3.7 acres
of wetlands, respectively. Alternative 1 extends the entire length of the bypass
while Alternatives 2 and 3 represent alternatives for the northern and southern
portions of the bypass, respectively. The NCDOT has stated a preference for
using Alternative 1 for the southern section and Alternative 2 for the northern
section. Based on aerial photographs in Figure 3 of the EA, the continuation of
Alternative 1 through the northern part of the bypass would make use of parts of
the existing NC 11 and avoid both Wetland Sites 1 and 2 which would be impacted
by Alternative 2. The EA (p. 9) bases the preference for Alternative 2 on the
anticipated problems of relocating several businesses along the route of
Alternative 1. The Service considers the use of Alternative 1 for the entire
route to have the least impact on wetlands. Therefore, we recommend that the
NCDOT reconsider the use of Alternative 1 for the entire length of the bypass.
Construction Techniques
The Service is pleased with the measures which the NCDOT will employ to minimize
the adverse effects of construction (p. 33/34). In addition to these measures,
the Service recommends that there be no clearing for off road construction
facilities such as machinery parking areas and material storage sites.
General Wildlife Considerations
The EA states (p. 22) that the project may, in general, decrease the amount of
available wildlife habitat through road widening and that the Bethel bypass will
fragment wildlife communities in forested tracts located between disturbed
communities. The Service position on roadways to bypass congested areas is that
routes should be located as near as possible to the areas to be bypassed. For
the proposed project, Alternative 1 is the closest alignment to Bethel and this
route would be expected to create the least amount of habitat fragmentation.
Wetlands
The EA states (p. 25) that both surface water and wetland impacts are anticipated
for the widening of US 13/NC 11 and the Bethel Bypass. Table 7 indicates that
approximately 0.2 acres would be impacted by the widening portion of the project
and the impacts associated with the bypass would range from 2.7 acres
(Alternative 1) to 4.1 acres (Alternative 2). The Service strongly recommends
that the NCDOT use the alignment which will result in the least impact to
wetlands. Therefore, the Service recommends that the bypass use Alternative 1
for the entire length rather than the Alternative 1-2 combination which is the
route preferred by NCDOT.
Mitigation
The overall wetland losses of the preferred alternative would be approximately
6.5 acres. These losses would consist of both palustrine forested and
scrub/shrub wetlands. The Service considers these wetlands to have high value
as fish and wildlife habitat. The service recommends that the NCDOT take all
appropriate measures to minimize these wetland losses. If, however, the project
results in unavoidable wetland losses, the NCDOT should develop a compensatory
mitigation plan based on the habitat value of the losses. The Service recommends
that the lead agency supply the Service with a mitigation plan for the project
prior to applying for a Department of the Army permit. This plan, at a minimum,
must include the following parts:
a. the amount (in acres) and a measure of the habitat value for each type of
wetlands lost based on the NWI/Cowardin classification system;
b. the type of mitigation for each type: either in-kind or out-of-kind;
C. the amount (in acres) of each community type to be used for compensatory
wetlands;
d. the location of areas to be used for compensation wetlands;
e. the present use, condition, and wetland jurisdictional status of areas to
be used for compensation wetlands;
f. the disposition of compensation wetlands (i.e., who will own, manage, and
protect the compensation wetlands in perpetuity);
g. a work plan detailing the initial procedures to be used to change the
present condition of each type of compensation area into a given wetland
type lost during construction (i.e., land clearing plans, site
preparation, species to be planted, etc.); compensation for forested
wetlands should be based on bottomland hardwood mitigation guidelines of
the Wilmington District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;
h. a mitigation schedule which gives a time frame for several intermediate
goals and a final goal for the conversion of each area used for
compensation to the desired functional wetland, and,
i. a contingency plan which will state the actions to be taken if the goals
of the mitigation schedule are not achieved.
Federally-listed species.
The EA notes (p. 18) that there are two Federally-endangered species within the
project area. These species are the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
The NCDOT, in consultation with Mr. John Alderman of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, reviewed whether potential habitat for the Tar spinymussel
could be affected by the project. Based on the fact that suitable habitat for
the Tar spinymussel does not occur in streams where crossings are proposed the
Service concurs that this species is not likely to be affected by project
implementation.
The Service's initial review of the EA found that certain details related to the
evaluation of potential impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) were unclear
in the single paragraph which addressed this issue. The Service's concern is
based on the statement in the EA (p. 20) that the southern end of the project
area contains potential foraging habitat for the RCW. The EA states that based
on field observations of plant communities and studies of aerial photographs "no
suitable nesting habitat will be impacted upon proposed construction." The EA
makes no statement regarding impacts to suitable foraging habitat and no
statement regarding the areal extent of field surveys and aerial photo analysis.
However, the EA concludes that no RCW surveys are necessary and the proposed
project will not impact the RCW.
Information gap, such as inadequate forage analysis is important, because a RCW
colony requires both nesting and foraging habitat in order to survive.
Individual birds may forage in areas up to 1/2 mile from cavity trees used for
nesting. Therefore, if any RCWs are nesting within 1/2 mile of the construction
corridor, they may use the food resources which could be impacted by this
project. The Service has recommended that the NCDOT conduct a survey for
cavities trees within the 1/2 mile foraging zone along the proposed routes in
order to determine whether project corridors are serving as foraging habitat for
RCWs which may be nesting nearby.
The Service contacted the project planning engineer on February 15, 1995 and
expressed our concern about this lack of information. However, additional
information provided in the Natural Resources technical report regarding project
impacts on the RCW, was identical to information contained in the EA. Therefore,
it is still unclear whether RCW nesting colonies are present within a half-mile
corridor on either side of the actual construction area.
In order to fully assess the impacts of the proposed project, the Service
recommends that the NCDOT assess the presence of RCWs within the half-mile
project corridor. If RCWs are observed within the project corridor or active
cavity trees are found in the corridor or foraging zone, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact
this office for further information.
Due to the absence of complete data on potential impacts to the RCW, the Service
does not consider the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to
be fulfilled. We encourage you to complete the recommended surveys as soon as
possible and forward your results to this office.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520, ext 27.
Sincerely yours,
VL l? Lt'Jj
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
02-09-95 22
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
NC DOT MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
WHIT WEBB DIRECTOR
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
INTEROFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
IMMPROVEMENTS TO US 13/NC11 TO US 64 BYPASS NORTH OF BETHEL
TIP #R-0218
SAI NO 95£42200451 PROGRAM TITLE - EA
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSY PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•

cc: REGIONS Q & L
z o !6
9p tiC YU0 lyss,
2G? y?? So,' O
A MT AL 5
I14,U1ML + C11.r' r r MLLJ LHNL I LL • y l ?+-` z-o- +_-:
reh Ul `_+? 14.4( IN0.UU J r .UJ
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Con nission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwocxl, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
Franklin T. McBride, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
February 1, 1995

SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Environmental Assessment (EA) for US 13/NC 11
improvements, from NC 903 to the US 64 Bypass north of
Bethel, Pitt and Edgecombe counties, North Carolina,
TIP No. R-218, SCH Project No. 95-0451.
Staff biologists of the,N:. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the subject EA and are familiar with
habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review
was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))
and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves widening the existing two-lane
roadway to a four-lane divided facility with a 60 foot grassed
median. This project also includes the construction of a bypass
around the town of Bethel. The roadway will be constructed on
existing alignment from just north of the intersection of NC 903
to just north of the NC 30 intersection where the Bypass will
begin. The project length is approximately 12.0 miles.
NCWRC appreciates that NCDOT has significantly reduced
impacts to wildlife and fishery resources by the decision to
improve existing facilities for a segment of this project.
However, we are concerned about the impacts associated with the
Bethel Bypass.
10-WK(. , HL-r , r HLL?> LHKL I LL 1'--J -b!6-916'69 Feb u1 ' 95 14 :4T NO . uu:. F .04
Memo Page 2 February 1, 1995
There were three bypass alternatives identified for study in
the document. Although, only limited information was provided on
the environmental impacts of each alternative, we prefer Bypass
Alternative 1. The preferred alternative identified in the EA is
a combination of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. This
alternative has more anticipated wetland impacts than any single
alternative. We feel that insufficient information has been
provided to justify the selection of this alternative as the
preferred alternate and that this selection does not minimize
impacts to wetlands or other natural resources.
We request that more information on the location, quality
and size of the wetland sites that each bypass alternative
crosses be provided. Also a summary table of social,
environmental and cultural resource impacts for each alternative
should be included.
We will complete the review of this document when the
requested information is provided. We request that this matter
be resolved prior to the circulation of the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we
can be of any further assistance please call me at (919) 528-
9886.
CC: Brad Hammers, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
David Dell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AwYA
Division of Environmental Management James Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
C) E H N F 1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 6, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornep
Monica Swiha
From: Eric Galamb ??4
Subject: EA for US 13/NC 11 from NC 903 to US 64 Bypass
Pitt & Edgecombe Counties
TIP #R-218
DEHNR # 95-0451, DEM # 10825
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that waters including wetlands will be impacted.
DOT proposes to widen a significant distance on existing location with a 60 foot
median (The typical section shows a 46 foot median) . What are the wetland impacts
for the project using a 46 foot median? The bypass of Bethel utilizes a combination of
alternatives 1 and 2. However, the wetland impacts with this preferred alternative are
not discussed. DEM believes that 6.3 acres of wetland may be impacted with DOT's
preferred alternative compared to 2.7 acres for alternative 1. It appears to DEM that
wetland avoidance alternatives have not considered for the bypass. DEM is attaching
an modified alternative 1 that DOT should consider. DOT should attempt to avoid the
cypress wetland.
DOT did not use current stream classifications in the document. DOT referenced
stream classifications from 1991. Current classifications are from February 1, 1993.
Although the stream classifications for Grindle Creek and Suggs Branch have not
changed, current classifications are important for DEM to make appropriate comments.
DOT should adhere to DOT's Stream relocations/ channelization guidelines.
Information about hazardous material sites was known in 1991. If DOT had
contacted the Groundwater Section immediately, several sites could be closed now
thus making the widening alternative an even more favorable alternative (cost and
environmentally based).
Although DEM agrees with the decision to widen existing US 13/NC 11, DEM cannot
endorse the document until the above concerns are adequately addressed. DOT is
reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee Memo
February 6, 1995
Page 2
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
us13nc11.ea
cc: Washington COE
Byron Brady, DOT
Ted Bush, Groundwater Section
: Ni E.\ : I,ii:..'.,
t ri er-Agency 1'rc)jccc f\Cvic \\' l:cs??or.sc
t.`(lil rl 1. ?? ? .
• v s >3?jtic r(
1-?;?•??:. Nat1- _ 1 YPc of Projcc:t a#Aez"
The applie:ltlt should be. advised thlu plans and specifications for all lvatei- sysce -
improvements must be approved by the D!vislon of Erwironmental Health, prior tathe-award
of a contract or the )niciati'on of conscruccioii (s required by 15A NCAC 1Si .0300 et. sea.).
For )nformacion, coltcact the Public Wam Supply Se:c).on, [phone].
This piojecc will be classified as a non-com nuilir; pudic water supply and nltisc conlp:y with
'
state and feaeral drinking water nzonicorrrl, regtlirernes:cs. For more lnformac)on the ap'plicanL
should contact the Public Water Supply Stccio.nl (915'1 733-232-1.
-If this project is constructed as proposed, -e wil_ recommend closure of _ feet- eadjacent
L--J eaters co the han=esc of shellrish. For information :e;arclin; the .she! 1?isli sanitation prog:a
m, the appliea..rlc shouts! contact the Shell ish Stnitac:on Branch at- [phone].
The spoil disposal area( s) proposed fcr this project 3:ia:: produce a nZOsquI breed)ne preble:i:.
For information concerning appropriate jr?osqulto _onuo? measures, the applicant -should
contact the Public Health Pesc.ManagemenE. Section =c [phone]. '
I -l The applicant should be, advised chat prior co the removal or de^'?olitio.! of 611apldarec
in order c0 • preVenL• t t
1-----? SLNCIUreS, an eXtellsiYe rodent c6mroI Program ails be ne..c ..essa-.? y '
iT11°vratlon of the rodents -cc a i*acellt s:?_. The formation . concei nillo roddnau-coiurol
contact- t?_-ie 16Cal heals h deparL::,ent or isle Pul.•Lic Etalth Pest M.anagen-i mc.Secclori:.rc (919
733-6407.
--? TCe applicanc' should be advised to c::ncac: --r-he -local health d7epammenc regarding the)
rt uire. mentsI for SeptiC Eank lnstallaciohs (as i egiiire= tinder 1 5.11, ItilCPL(C 13. L -.1000 et. sec.
T:or information concerning, :Ppcvr tank and or-netr nn-SIC? waste isposni rntthUds, cunt-act L.L.
.. ..,, C '
On-Sit-c- S'?•° `Yl...`it??\•+?tnr jer•t:i?ii 'f? ? IL,. /:,-t-!1?S
-l The applicant: should be adviw.6 1:0 the iOC2 rlCall-I'1 dCj}ilrtlllt'll.' r('ga.dlng
1.._... _J 1: . , .
aCdiLies I-Cquired ror tnls I:rOlt::a
I-- it exVI-Ling W:11:er IMc. N!li (l. C0II.SI ••UCl ',(',,I1, '?%A:1S iUr d1:. W: c.(n- 11
1- -? (-ClocaClon nnus? be subllllrl_d t_) l: li'' :'iIC11 l: r '11' 111'011111C1?Ct: PUbl;C .Sl!'-I1.
JCCI•1011, Mall P'e'vieCV 'C. IVlar, .. IC:CCt Ralelllh, lLNO?1•I,i? 7 -+ 1-._ .
'':?'Mt.?icaier S ct)on/Br:ulcli. - Dace
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
. January 17, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
L,- _:'
L
?EHNR
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester "le
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Improvements to US 13/NC 11 from NC 903 and Bethel Bypass in
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
PROJECT # 95-0451 and TIP #R-218
DUE DATE: 1-25-95
We have reviewed the above subject DOT Document and have the following comments:
1. We have no objections here except we hate to loose the woodland which will be 23.4
acres for both the widening and bypass.
2. We would hope that the ROW contractor would attempt to salvage the timber and not
push it into piles and bum.
3. No further comments at this time.
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
Tom Harris - Pitt Co
File
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunlty Affirmative Actlon Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
January 17, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nancy Smith
Regional Manager
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Floyd R. Williams ?.
Regional Engineer `
Land Quality Section
Washington Regional ic?
RE: A-95 Review - Project #95-0451
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
U.S. 13/NCI 1 from N.C. 903 to
U.S. 64 Bypass North of Bethel
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221101
The proposed project must be consistent with the N.C. Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act of 1973 as amended. Temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures
and/or devices must be utilized throughout the project to prevent sediment from leaving the
construction limits and entering adjacent properties, wetlands and natural watercourses.
Borrow and waste areas, along with other associated land-disturbing activities, must be
addressed according to the Memorandum of Agreement between the N.C. Department of
Transportation and the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. Periodic inspections will be
made by personnel of the Land Quality Section to ensure compliance.
FRW:pc

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
January 20, 1995
TO: Nancy Smith, Regional Office Manager
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Willie Jason, Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment
US 64 Bypass North of Bethel
Project No. 95-0451
The Groundwater Section has reviewed the above proposal and has
determined that this project should not have any adverse impact
upon groundwater supply. However, the following comment(s) are
pertinent to our review:
1) Any water supply well for which its use will be
discontinued must be properly abandoned in accordance
with N.C. Well Construction Standards outlined in
N.C.A.C.-20.0113, and an abandonment report filed with
the Department as specified in N.C.A.C.-2C.0114.
2) The Groundwater Section recommends removal of abandoned
underground storage tanks"within the project area.
3) Any spills that odcur of significant quality must be
reported to the Division of Environmental Management in
the Washington Regional Office (919-946-6481).
4) As a result of this project, any demolition material that is
generated should be disposed of in accordance with all
applicable rules and regulations. The project manager should
contact Solid Waste Management in the Washington Office
regarding proper disposal methods.
Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please
don't hesitate to ask.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW CoHmENTs Charles H. Gardner
Wllllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: q S-OyS? County: , /4?7/ 7-7-
Project Name: Cr S /
Geodetic Surve
This project will impact 2f geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be*contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation control
.No comment
This projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should'be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Z)-
Reviewer
/ i3 -'9-5-
Date
P.O. Box 17687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
O M'SUR
?O
i Y ^
D
•.? p? `cF
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 November 5, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Regional offices MEMORANDUM
Asheville
704251-6208 TO Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Ay- -
Fayetteville FROM: Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning. Branch
919/486-1541
Mooresville SUBJECT: Project No. 92-0260; EA Scope Request for Proposed
704/663-1699 Widening of US 13-NC 11 and a New Bethel Bypass,
Raleigh Pitt County
919/733-2314
This memo is in response to an NCDOT request for comments on
Washington the subject highway The responses will be used by
project. NCDOT to assist in preparation of an environmental assessment.
Wilmington The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality Section
919/395-3900 has reviewed the scoping request and offers the following
Winston-Salem comments and recommendations regarding potential impacts on
919/896-7007 water quality and wetlands.
Water Ouality
This project has the potential to impact surface waters in
several ways. These include sedimentation from highway
construction, stormwater runoff from the completed road, and
nonpoint source runoff associated with development stimulated by
the project.
Implementation and conscientious maintenance of sediment
control BMPs during project construction should help minimize
construction impacts. However, onsite sediment control measures
are generally not better than trapping about 70 percent of the
sediment eroded at a site. The EA should discuss sediment
trapping capability of control measures and assess what impacts,
if any, will result in adjoinging streams from sediment that
escapes the site.
Highway stormwater runoff can adversely impact the quality of
nearby receiving waters where traffic levels are sufficiently
high. The EA should include a section on water quality impacts
that discusses highway runoff, impacts to receiving streams, and
if warranted, measures to minimize or control these impacts.
Use of vegetated drainage swales instead of curb and gutter is
preferred from a water quality protection standpoint.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 2 762 6-05 3 5 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pays
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emplowr
Melba McGee
November 5, 1991
Page 2
Wetlands
The other area of concern is wetlands. Wetlands are
considered by NCDEM to be waters of the state. Filling or
alteration of wetlands under jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers will require a 401 Certification from this office.
NCDOT is urged to avoid wetlands impacts, if possible. However,
if there will be unavoidable impacts, DEM requests that the
following information be contained within the EA. This
information will be useful in reviewing the project from the
standpoint of issuance of a 401 water quality certification.
1. A wetlands delineation of the project area (preferably
certified by the Corps of Engineers);
2. A description of the type(s) and acreage(s) of wetlands
that could be impacted within the project corridor(s). The
wetlands description should include an assessment of wetlands
values and a vegetation list for each type;
3. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses.
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
92-0260.mem/SEPA5
cc: Ron Ferrell

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment El Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
9?-6-?- 4 Oi 4+ 1 to - /6 -Cl/ 11-1-W
!,?SLo?E - rJ..La? ? US 13 - ??L t t uJi ??J??C.? t- -6 ??? ? `C?sf
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

? M
ill XWater ? Water Resources Environmental Health
ooresv
e lroundwater wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources David Foster

? Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation Other (specify)
? Others Environmental Management
\,?
? Winston-Salem \ -Q?

OCT 11 1991
Manager Sign-Off/Region: WATER
QUALITY
SE Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
CTIOfy
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
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
the, (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
NS 104
y
US 13/NC 11
From NC 903
to the US 64 Bypass North of Bethel
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Federal Aid Project No. FAP-102-1
State Project No. 8.1221101
T.I.P. Project No. R-218

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
and
49 U. S. C. 303
I
V#
H. ranklin Vick,.P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Z
*a" te Nic o as L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

US 13/NC 11
From NC 903
to the US 64 Bypass North of Bethel
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Federal Aid Project No. FAP-102-1
State Project No. 8.1221101
T.I.P. Project No. R-218
q
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
November 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
CARO(
.DEESSION0-0••.
By n E. Brady, P.E SEAL. l
Project Planning Engineer = s t 68
EUG04- ?••`??
R. B. Davis, .E., ant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administrative Action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Description of Action.
The N. C. Division of Highways proposes to widen the existing
two-lane roadway to a four-lane divided facility using a 60-foot grassed
median with 10-foot paved outside shoulders up to SR 1514. North of
SR 1514, there will be a 4-foot paved outside shoulder of which 2 feet
will be full depth. The paved median shoulders will be 2-foot full
depth. This project also includes the construction of a bypass around the
town of Bethel connecting to an interchange of the US 64 bypass project as
part of T.I.P. Project No. R-2111. (See Figures 1 and 3). The total
estimated cost is $ 26,622,000.
3. Alternatives Considered
A number of preliminary construction alternatives were considered
during the course of the study. These alternatives include:
1. Six options of widening NC 11/US 13 from Greenville to Bethel.
This widening was considered for either side of the existing
roadway.
2. Three options for a bypass of the town of Bethel on new
location.
3. A No-Build alternative
No Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative provides for the regular maintenance of
existing transportation routes and systems. Examples of regular
maintenance include patching and resurfacing roads, regrading
shoulders, and maintaining ditches.
Advantages of the No-Build Alternative include no acquisition of
residential or business property, no impact on wetlands, and no
removal of biotic communities.
Disadvantages of the No-Build Alternative include continued
deterioration of traffic service, increase in number of hours of
traffic congestion, and potential increase in number of
accident/fatalities.
The No-Build Alternative is not consistent with the local
transportation goals or the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program.
The alternative provides a do-nothing condition for qualitative
comparison to the Preferred Alternative, but is not an effective
alternative.
Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative consists of widening NC 11/US 13 to a
four-lane divided rural facility from the existing four-lane divided
section in Greenville just North of the NC 903 and SR 1415
intersection (See Figure 3). The widening begins on the west side
and continues until just South of the SR 1445 intersection where the
widening shifts to the East side. The widening once again shifts to
the West at the first major curve prior to crossing Grindle Creek for
the first time. The widening shifts back to the East side at the
second major curve South of the SR 1515 intersection. The widening
continues on the East side until it reaches the Bypass.
Three alternatives of the Bypass were originally studied.
Alternative No. 1 begins just North of the NC 30 intersection,
bypasses the town of Bethel, and connects again with NC 11 North of
Bethel between SR 1501 and SR 1436. Alternative No. 2 is a variation
of alternative No. 1 which begins at existing US 64 East of Bethel
and continues on new location reconnecting with NC 11 just north of
the proposed US 64 Bypass of Bethel. Alternative No. 3 is a
variation of Alternative No. 1, south of US 64, created for the
purpose of missing a possible historic property. A11 three
alternatives are shown on Figure 3.
The preferred alternative for the Bethel Bypass begins with
Alternative No. 1 and proceeds to existing US 64 East of Bethel. From
this point, it follows Alternative No. 2 where it connects directly
to the US 64 Bypass project at the NC 11 interchange.
4. Environmental Impacts
Positive impacts are transportation and economic benefits resulting
from connecting Greenville and Bethel with a multilane facility. Negative
long term impacts are the taking of land for right-of-way and the
relocation of approximately ten residences and one church. Adverse short
term impacts are construction noise and soil erosion and siltation from
proposed earthwork.
5. Actions Required ?y other Federal Agencies
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) are
likely to be applicable for the proposed construction for this project
under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. An Individual
Section 404 permit may also be applicable to proposed construction. Both
permits are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit
is required. State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
6. Federal, State and Local Agencies which will be asked to comment
on the Environmental Assessment
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U. S. Geological Survey
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Mid-East N.C. Planning & Economic Development Commission
Chairman, Pitt County Board of Commissioners
Mayor, City of Greenville
Mayor, Town of Bethel
7. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement.
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, N.C. 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Telephone [phone]
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment
On the basis of the planning and environmental studies, it was
determined that this project will not have significant detrimental effects
upon the quality of the human environment. The project has been reviewed
by appropriate state and local agencies and no objections have been
raised. As a result, it is concluded that an Environmental Assessment is
applicable to this project.
9. Environmental Commitments
1. NCDOT has agreed to widen NC 11/US 13 on the east side in the
vicinity of the James Van Taylor Farmstead. NCDOT also has
agreed to provide a median break at SR 1424, replace any fences
on farmstead property removed for construction, and photograph
the tenant house which is to be removed for construction.
2. None of the 65 archaeological ' sites were found to be
archaeologically or historically significant. Two of the more
important sites, 31PT392 and 391 are avoided by widening
NC 11/US 13 on the side opposite these sites. Should revisions
to the project alignments be made in these areas, additional
review and possibly archaeological field survey may be required
to determine potential effects on significant archaeological
resources.
3. If it is not possible to avoid cemeteries along the project
the
graves will be recorded, disinterred, and moved in ,
accordance
with North Carolina General Statue 65.
4. NCDOT will provide relocation assistance to residences and
businesses that are displaced during acquisition of right-of-way
in accordance with Federal and State laws.
5. Construction waste and debris will be disposed of in areas
outside of the right-of-way and provided by the contractor.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible
to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. Any burning
resulting from clearing and grubbing will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws.
6. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor
before work is started.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . 1
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility . . . . . . . 1
1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Existing Roadway Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 1
a. Pavement Width and Shoulders . . . . . . . . 1
b. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Degree of Roadside Interference . . . . . . 1
d. Type of Roadside Development . . . . . . 1
e. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature . . . . : 1
f.. Restricted Sight Distance. . . . . . . . . . 1
g. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
h. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
i. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Accident Investigation . . . . . . . . . 3
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . . 4
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. General Description
?
* 5
B. Historical Background
and
Status (T.I.P.). 5
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative. . . 5
1. General Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Truck Data
4. Design Speed ?Proposed and Anticipated Speed
Limit .............
5' Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Bridge Work Required . .
9. Special Permits Required of Division of Highways.
10. Staging . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Changes in the State Highway System . . . . . . .
12. Control of Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14. Estimate of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
A. "Do-Nothing' Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Alternate Mode of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Postponement of Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements. . . . . . . . 9
E. Bypass Alternatives Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
F. Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Neighborhood Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . it
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses . . . . . . 12
4. Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . 14
a. Historical - Architectural Resources . . . . 14
b. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Plant Life . 17
2. Threatened and Endangered Species 18
3. Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A. Agency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

FIGURES
APPENDIX
US 13/NC 11
From NC 903
to the US 64 Bypass North of Bethel
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Federal Aid Project No. FAP-102-1
State Project No. 8.1221101
T.I.P. Project No. R-218
I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. General Description
The existing NC 11/US 13 is a two-lane paved roadway. It
connects the city of Greenville with the town of Bethel and is
approximately 12.0 miles in length.
2. Existing Roadway Inventory
a. Pavement Width and Shoulders
The section of US 13/NC 11 in the area of the proposed
project has two 12-foot lanes. 'Shoulder width ranges from six
to eight feet. There are 2-foot paved shoulders along the
studied route.
b. Right of Way
Existing right-of-way for this section of US 13/NC 11 is
approximately 60 feet in width. Some areas have 80' to 100' of
right-of-way.
C. Degree of Roadside Interference
Interference from roadside development is light to
moderate.
d. Type of Roadside Development
There are many commercial businesses and residential homes
along the studied route along with several churches and a high
school; however, much of the abutting property is agricultural.
e. Horizontal Curvature
The studied route has horizontal curves which range from 3
degrees to 5 degrees.
f. Restricted Sight Distance
Only in the areas of curves along the studied route are
there areas of restricted sight distance.
2
g. Structures
There are two major structures along the proposed route
with descriptions as follows:
Grindle Creek: This structure (Bridge No. 78) carries US 13/
NC 11 over the Grindle Creek (2.9 miles North of
its junction with NC 903) and was built in 1922.
Its superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete on steel beams. The structure has a
sufficiency rating of 65.3 and an estimated
remaining life of 5 years.
Grindle Creek: This structure (Bridge No. 89) carries US 13/
NC 11 over the Grindle Creek (0.6 miles North of
its junction with NC 30) and was built in 1922.
Its superstructure consists of a reinforced
concrete floor on continuous I-Beams. The
structure has a sufficiency rating of 57.6 and an
estimated remaining life of 5 years.
h. Speed Zones
The posted speed limit in the project area is 55 mph.
i. School Bus Data
The studied section of SR 1004 is used for portions of
several Pitt County School bus routes. At the present time, 37
school buses carry students to and from school on this section
of US 13/NC 11.
B. Transportation Plan
The proposed Bethel Bypass is incorporated into the Bethel
Thoroughfare Plan dated May 2, 1988.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Volumes:
1991 ADT: 14,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in both directions
(maximum).
1997 ADT: 17,702 vpd. in both directions (maximum).
2017 ADT: 38,732 vpd. in both directions (maximum).
The estimated 1997 and 2017 traffic volumes and major turning
movements are shown in Figure 2. The 1997 and 2017 volumes for the Bypass
were computed by NCDOT and these are shown on a separate figure in the
index.
3
Capacity:

The existing Level Of Service (LOS) was computed for the rural
two-lane section of the studied project. The existing highway is
currently operating at LOS "C". The LOS for the year 2017 was computed
using the existing two-lane conditions which resulted in a LOS of "E".
The LOS for the year 2017 was also computed using a proposed
four-lane divided cross section and resulted in a LOS of "B". See Table 1
for capacity results.
For the capacity analysis between NC 30 and US 64, the data used for
the year 2017 (with the 4-lane section) was for projected traffic on the
bypass only.
TABLE 1
NC 11/US 13 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Location 1991 Traffic 2017 Traffic 2017 Traffic
existing 2-lane existin 2-lane future 4-lane
Between NC 903
& SR 1514 C E B
Between SR 1514
& SR 1522 C E B
Between SR 1522
& SR 1572 C E B
Between SR 1572
& SR 1515 C E B
Between SR 1515
& SR 1512 C E B
Between SR 1512
& SR 1510 C E B
Between SR 1510
& NC 30 C E B
Between NC 30
& US 64 B E A
At US 64 intersection C E B
D. Accident Investioation
Accident histories along the studied sections of US 13/NC 11 indicate
accident rates that are higher than the current statewide averages. The
proposed improvements to US 13/NC 11 will result in a potentially safer
roadway.
4
Table 2 gives a comparison between the accident rates for US 13/
NC 11, and the statewide accident rate for all Rural N. C. Routes.
TABLE 2
ACCIDENT RATES
US 13/NC 11
Total Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100
million vehicle miles)
Fatal Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Non-Fatal Injury Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Night Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Statewide Average for
Rural N.C. Routes 1989-91
194.29 166.3
2.54 2.4
91.43 79.5
71.11 44.9
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The benefits to the state, region, and community will be primarily
connecting the town of Bethel to the City of Greenville and to the US 64
Bypass with a four lane divided facility thus opening up a section of Pitt
County for industrial growth. .

5
II.
A. General Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
This project consists of widening the existing US 13/NC 11 from
NC 903 to the NC 11/US 64 interchange North of Bethel including a bypass
of the town of Bethel. The NC 11/US 64 interchange is included in the US
64 Bypass project as part of T.I.P. Project No. R-2111. The Greenville
Northwest Loop is part of T.I.P. Project No. R-1022. The length of the
project is approximately 12.0 miles. The location of the proposed project
is shown in Figures 1 and 3.
US 13/NC 11 is classified as an minor arterial on the North Carolina
Functional Classification System and is a Federal aid road.
The Bethel Bypass, which is a part of the improvements to US 13/
NC 11, has been discussed in the Bethel Thoroughfare Plan dated May 2,
1988. The Greenville Thoroughfare Plan dated May 10, 1990 describes
US 13/NC 11 as a major thoroughfare.
B. Historical Background and Status (T.I.P.)
This section of US 13/NC 11 was completed in 1952 on a right-of-way
of approximately 66 feet in width (some areas have 80' and 100' of
right-of-way). It was widened to a 28-foot pavement in 1983.
. The proposed improvements to US 13/NC 11 is included in the
"1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program " (TIP). Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995, and construction is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997. The TIP includes a total funding
of $30,205,000 for the project, including $6,405,000 for right-of-way and
$23,800,000 for construction.
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative
1. General Location:
The location of the project begins at NC 903 and proceeds North
to Bethel and intersects the US 64 Bypass of Bethel in Edgecombe
County (see Figures 1 and 3).
2. Traffic Volumes: (US 13/NC 11)
1991: The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) along the proposed
route range from 5,550 vehicles per day (vpd) to 14,000
vpd.
1997: Traffic volumes along the proposed route range from
6,950 vpd to 17,700 vpd in both directions. These totals
include traffic using the Bethel bypass but do not include
thru traffic for Bethel.
6
2017: Traffic volumes along the proposed route range from
15,200 vpd to 38,700 vpd in both directions. These totals
include traffic using the Bethel bypass but do not include
thru traffic for Bethel.
The estimated 1997 and 2017 traffic volumes and major turning
movements are shown in Figure 2.
3. Truck Data:
Truck traffic along the proposed route is 10% (6% duals, 4%
TTST). See Figure 2.
4. Design Speed Proposed and Anticipated Speed Limit:
The proposed design speed is 60 mph and the anticipated speed
limit will be 55 mph posted.
5. Cross Section Description:
The proposed width of the cross section will include 2 24-foot
pavement widths divided by a 60-foot grass median. Paved shoulders
will include a 4-foot right shoulder (2 feet of width to be full
depth) and a 2-foot full depth median shoulder. There will be a
10-foot outside shoulder from NC 903 to SR 1514. The proposed cross
section is shown in Figure No. 4.
6. Right-of-Way:
Additional right-of-way totalling approximately 235 acres will
be required to construct the additional two lanes and the Bethel
Bypass. Sufficient right-of-way and easements will be acquired to
contain construction.
7. Bikeways:
The need for bikeways along the project has not been identified
in the planning process. This section of NC 11/US 23 is not a part
of the Bicycling Highway System.
8. Bridge Work Required:

Grindle Creek: (North of SR 1522) Bridge No. 78 carries US 13/NC 11
over Grindle Creek (at 2.9 miles North of its junction
with NC 903) and will be replaced with a new structure '
using a 38'-0" roadway width and will be used for the
northbound lanes. The bridge has an existing roadway
width of 32'-1".
A new bridge will be constructed adjacent to Bridge No. 78 to
accommodate the southbound lanes. The new structure will have a
roadway width of 38'-0".
7
Grindle Creek: (North of NC 30) Two new bridges will be constructed
over Grindle Creek for the northbound and southbound
lanes of the Bethel Bypass. The new structures will
have a roadway width of 38'-0" in each direction.
US 64/US 13: Two new bridges will be constructed to carry the
Bethel Bypass over US 64/US 13 East of Bethel and two
new bridges for the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
Crossing. An interchange will be constructed using
two 2-lane, 2-way ramps (service roads).
The new structures will have a roadway width of 38'- 0" in each
direction.
9. Special Permits Required of Division of Highways:
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26)
are likely to be applicable for the proposed construction for this
project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
An Individual Section 404 permit may also be applicable to proposed
construction. Both permits are required by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required
for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
federal permit is required. State permits are administered through
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
10. Staging:
R-218A from NC 903 to SR 1512 and R-218BA from SR 1512 to the
Bethel Bypass are scheduled for construction in FY 1997. R-21886,
the Bethel Bypass, is scheduled for construction in FY 2000.
11. Changes in the State Highway System:
The existing US 13/NC 11 route through the Town of Bethel, which
will be affected by the Bethel bypass, will be designated US 13/NC 11
Business.
12. Control of Access:
There will be no control of access along the length of this
project with the exception of the Bethel Bypass. The Bypass will
have partial control of access except at the at-grade intersections.
13. Utilities
A six inch water main is located on the west side of existing
NC 11/US 13 from SR 1515 to the North Pitt High School. Other
electrical and telephone utility lines are located along the existing
roadway.
14. Estimate of Cost:
Roadway (includes
Engineering
Structures
Right of Way
15% for
Contingencies)- $ 16,965,760
- $ 1,234,240
- $ 8,422,000
TOTAL - $ 26,622,000
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative would deprive the town of Bethel and the
Northern part of Pitt County with much needed improved access to other
areas of the state. This alternative would not handle the future traffic
at an acceptable Level of Service. This alternative would not serve the
travel desires of the state or local area.
Furthermore, this alternative would decrease the chances of expanded
economic growth for this area of Pitt County. Without the proposed
improvements, this area will be less attractive for industrial growth
which is important to the future of the economy of Pitt County.
In summary, the "no build" option is not considered feasible due to
the importance of this project for the future of Pitt County.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode in the area and
the project is an improvement of the existing highway network.
C. Postponement of Proposed Action
Because the proposed improvements will become a vital part of
economic opportunity in this area of Pitt County, postponing the
implementation of the subject project is not considered a prudent course
of action. The existing road also has an unacceptable level of service
and a high accident rate.
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements
Widening US 13/NC 11 along the existing route through the center of
Bethel instead of constructing a bypass was initially studied but was
rejected for the following reason. The existing right-of-way through that
section of the studied route was not sufficient enough to construct an
adequate pavement section without acquiring many residences and businesses
which would substantially increase the right-of-way cost'of the project.
E. Bypass Alternatives Studied
Bypass Alternative No. 1: This alternative begins just north of the
existing NC 11 US 13 and NC 30 intersection and proceeds east of the town
of Bethel (see Figure 4, sheets 5 of 6 and 6 of 6) and connects back to
NC 11 north of the town. The first half of this alternative from NC 30 to
existing US 64 was used as the first half of the preferred alternative.
The second half of this alternative limits the future growth of the town
and would not connect directly with the new proposed US 64 bypass of
Bethel without relocating several homes and businesses north of Bethel.
This alternative includes 1.1 acres of estimated wetland takings.
10
Bypass Alternative No. 2: This alternative begins at the existing
US 64 and roceeds north to connect with the proposed new NC 11/US 64
interchange north of Bethel (see Figure 4, Sheets 5 of 6 and 6 of 6). This
entire alternative on is on new location and was selected as the second
half of the preferred alternative. This alternative connects directly
with the proposed US 64 Bypass of Bethel without relocating any homes or
businesses. This alternative includes 2.6 acres of estimated wetland
takings.
Bypass Alternative No. 3: This alternative begins at the same
location as alternative No. 1 (see Figure 4, Sheet 5 of 6) and proceeds
north. This alternative projects out from Bethel further and was designed
to miss a potentially historic church. In reviewing the cultural
resources report for this project, it was determined that the church was
not historically significant. This alternative was deleted due to the
fact that it will cross two additional creeks. This alternative includes
3.7 acres of estimated wetland takings.
F. Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative for the project begins with widening
NC it/US 13 on the west side. The widening switches to the east side at
SR 1445. At the first major curve where NC it/US 13 crosses Grindle
Creek, the widening switches back to the west side to reduce the degree of
curvature of this curve. At the next major curve just south of SR 1515,
the widening switches back to the east to again reduce the degree of
curve. This also places the widening opposite North Pitt High School and
two. potentially eligible National Register historic structures. Just
north of NC 30, the Bethel Bypass begins and follows Bypass Alternative
No. 1 until it intersects US 64 east of the Town of Bethel. From here,
the Bypass follows Bypass Alternative No. 2 until it connects directly
with the US 64 Bypass of Bethel.
11
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
The project area is generally rural in character with some
suburban development at the South end. Two subdivisions are located
on each side of US 13/NC 11 just North of NC 903. This section of
NC 11/US 13 also contains several small businesses, as well as
several industries, including a truck transit facility, Redi-Supply
Company, and Greenville Crane and Rigging.
The remnants of what was formerly a small crossroads community
are located at the intersection of SR 1514 and US 13/NC 11. Several
older buildings remain, including single family dwellings with farms
on the East side of the roadway. Land on the West side remains
wooded.
Between SR 1514 and Bethel are several large older farms and
accompanying structures. Little development has occurred, though a
few single family dwellings, mobile homes and one gas station are
located in the area.
Bethel is a crossroads town which apparently developed around
the railroad. The existing US 13/NC 11 crosses the east side of its
central business district. Residential land uses occupy land both
immediately north and south of the intersection of US 64 and US 13/
NC 11. Large farms and some residential development are located
North of Bethel.
The 1978 Land Development Plan adopted by Bethel is effectively
out of date. The plan does not address the immediate area of the
proposed relocation of US 13/NC 1. The project is located within the
Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction and has been zoned. All three
of the alternatives traverse land zoned RA-20, a
residential-agricultural zoning district surrounding the center of
the community. A highway business district has been established
along US 64 which will be intersected by the proposed bypass.
The project is likely to have a positive effect on the community
by removing through traffic from the town center. Businesses on
existing US 13/NC 11 are not likely to be significantly impacted, as
they are community-based businesses and are not dependent on highway
travelers. The project will, regardless of the alternative selected,
convert some farmland surrounding the community to non-agricultural
uses.
2. Neighborhood Analysis
Pitt County is located in the eastern section of the state and
is bounded by Beaufort, Craven, Lenoir, Greene, Wilson, Edgecombe,
and Martin Counties. According to the 1990 census, Pitt County has a
population of 107,924 with Greenville being the county seat.
12
The proposed project begins northeast of Greenville between an
industrial site on the east side of the existing facility and a
residential and institutional site on the west side of the existing
facility. The proposed project follows existing NC 11 and US 13 to
the north where the development changes from urban to rural. Rural
farm homes, businesses, and farm dwellings line both sides of the
existing highway facility at various intervals. It was observed that
though most of the dwellings were back off of the existing highway
facility, some of the farm homes and farm dwellings were in close
proximity to the existing highway.
There are approximately five public facilities along the
proposed project site: South of NC 903 on the west side is located a
middle school. North of NC 903 and south of SR 1521 is a church
situated on the east side of the existing facility. North of SR 1521
and south of SR 1522 is the site for a new church. Construction has
already begun. It is being built on the east side of the existing
highway facility. Christ Temple Holiness Church is located north of
SR 1572 and on the east side of the existing facility. North Pitt
High School is located on the west side of NC 11/US 13 between
SR 1426 (North Pitt Road) and SR 1424 (Alpine-Taylor Road). These
public facilities will probably not be adversely impacted by the
proposed action.
The proposed widening of US 13/NC 11 will not disrupt community
cohesion. It will not interfere with the accessibility of facilities
and services; and, should there be any relocation along the proposed
project site, it will be kept to a minimum.
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses
The proposed action (the preferred alternative) is anticipated
to displace thirty-five families (fourteen of which are minority),
four businesses and one non-profit organization (which is an inactive
minority church). (See the Relocation Report in Appendix). This is
necessary to make space for the proposed widening. Those families
who must relocate will be given the following assistance: (1)
Relocation assistance, (2) Relocation moving payments, and (3)
Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement. There is
a number of low income families to be relocated that may require
special relocation assistance.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board
of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
- Relocation Assistance
- Relocation Moving Payments, and
- Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displaced persons with information such
as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for
13
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 cases 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.
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
133-18). 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 displaced persons 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 or 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 displaced person 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 replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys,
appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a
payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement
14
dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing
payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the
Last Resort Housing provision.
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
replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required where the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.00.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been offered
or provided for each displaced person 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 displaced person's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/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 on
this project, since there appears to be adequate opportunities for
relocation within the area.
4. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historical-Architectural Resources
A review of the site files, reports, and cartographic data
on file at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History
indicates that the project's area of potential effect does not
contain any historic architectural properties currently listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
However, there are three properties that have been
determined eligible for the National Register which are listed
below. See the January 27, 1994 letter from the State Historic
Preservation Office in the Appendix.
1. The Henry Williamson Brown. House (PT 597) is located on the
west side of existing NC 11/US 13 just south of the
intersection with One Mile Road (SR 1509). NCDOT, FHWA and
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have
determined that this project will have no effect on this
structure.
2. The Robson-Whichard Taylor House (PT 550) is the oldest
known house in Pitt County. It has been moved to its
present location on the east side of NC 11/US 13 between
15
Grindle Creek and Futrell-Robson Road (SR 1522). NCDOT,
FHWA and SHPO have determined that this project will have
no effect on this structure.
3. The James Van Taylor Farmstead (PT 596) is located on both
sides of NC 11/US 13 between Hollowell Road (SR 1512) and
Thigpen Road (SR 1510). The farmstead is one of two
examples of intensive dairy and tobacco farming operations
surviving from the early twentieth century. NCDOT, FHWA
and SHPO have determined that this project will have no
adverse effect on this structure. Since this project will
acquire part of the farmstead in order to widen existing
NC 11/US 13, a programmatic 4(f) statement was formulated
which is included in the appendix. This project was
coordinated with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (see letter in Appendix). A concurrence form
is located in the Appendix.
b. Archaeological Resources
As a federally funded undertaking, this project is subject
to review under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Early consultation with the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) resulted in a request
from the SHPO that historical research and archaeological
assessments be conducted to determine if significant
archaeological resources might be disturbed or destroyed.
To determine if any archaeological site within the project
area might meet the National Register eligibility criteria, an
archaeological study of the project area was conducted by
archaeologists with the NCDOT Environmental Unit. The survey was
conducted between February and June of 1992, with follow-up
field checks in January, 1993. Sixty-five sites within or near
the project impact area (Area of potential effect) were
recorded. Both prehistoric and historic period type sites were
found. Many of the sites contain houses that are still standing
and occupied.
The report also incorporates the results of an earlier
archaeological study of portions of the project area by David
Phelps (1979). Additional archaeological survey beyond that
conducted by Phelps was necessary because the 1979 survey
involved only a quick study of the US 13/NC 11 widening area,
and the Bethel Bypass alignments surveyed in 1979 vary
considerably from the alignments proposed in 1992.
Each site that is to be disturbed by the proposed roadway
improvements was evaluated for its archaeological significance -
that is, its potential eligibility for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. None of the potentially affected
sites were.found to contain significant archaeological resources
within the areas that are to be disturbed by the proposed
improvements.
16
Summary of Impacts and Recommendations
An archaeological investigation of the proposed NC 11/US 13
widening and Bethel Bypass project areas resulted in
documentation of a total of 65 archaeological sites. However,
none of these archaeological sites were found to be
archaeologically or historically significant. Therefore, none
are considered to be potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register.
It is concluded that the proposed improvements will not
disturb significant archaeological resources if these
recommendations are followed:
1. Sites 31PT392 and 397 are avoided by widening NC 11/US 13
on the side of the highway opposite from the site because
they are occupied; should it be determined that these sites
cannot be avoided, then the sites should be
archaeologically evaluated to determine if they are
potentially eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. The widening of the project is designed
for the opposite side in the area of 31PT392 and 397 which
will avoid these two sites.
Should revisions to the project alignments be made as
planning and highway design proceeds, then additional review and
possibly archaeological field survey may be required to
determine potential effects on significant archaeological
resources.
Finally, four of the sites documented during the survey
contain historic period cemeteries. It is recommended that the
cemeteries be avoided, or if this is not possible, the graves in
the cemeteries should be recorded, disinterred and moved in
accordance with North Carolina General Statue 65.
Consideration
Because significant archaeological resources important for
preservation in place have not been identified within the
project area, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, does not apply to any
archaeological resources in the project area.
B. Economic Effects
- The additional right-of-way required will not result in any
significant lowering of property tax assessments, moreover, property
values and economic development will probably increase to some degree
after completion of the project and result in an overall increase in the
local tax base.
17
C. Environmental Effects
1. Plant Life
Five plant communities, three upland and two wetland, were
identified in the study area: Disturbed Scrub/Shrub, Pine Dominated,
Mixed Hardwood/Pine, Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland and
Palustrine Forest Wetland. A description of each plant community, in
order of dominance, follows.
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub
The Disturbed Scrub/Shrub community dominates the study corridor
and is located throughout the entire study area. This community
occurs in residential areas, along roadsides and along utility
corridors. Also included are agricultural areas and recently logged
sites. Dominant vegetation ranges from a monoculture agricultural
areas (soybean, tobacco, corn and peanut crops were noted) to a
"grassy lawn", or a shrub dominated area. Typical vegetation includes
plant species such as wild onion, partridge pea, dog fennel, Japanese
honeysuckle, rabbit tobacco, blackberry, winged sumac and foxtail
grass.
Southern magnolia, red cedar, pecan, southern red oak, black
jack oak, crepe myrtle, flowering dogwood and yucca are common around
residential sites.
Pine Dominated Community
The Pine Dominated community occurs with higher frequency in the
southern portion of the project outside of Greenville. These stands
are pine plantations that appear to be about 30 years of age. The
understory is very thick and reaches approximately 2/3 of the canopy
height. The northern section of the project supports small,
scattered pine dominated stands in residential areas. These stands
often support large trees. Loblolly pine is. the common canopy
species observed in forested areas and scattered longleaf pine is
located adjacent to residential homesites. Other species observed in
forested sites include water oak, black oak, willow oak, southern red
oak, black cherry and privet comprising the understory. The ground
cover included cane, winged sumac, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle,
trumpet creeper, poison ivy, loblolly pine seedlings and Virginia
creeper.
Mixed Hardwood/Pine
The Mixed Hardwood/Pine community is less common in the study
area than the pine dominated forest. The stands are scattered and
support a dense understory and ground cover. They range in age from
young saplings (5" Diameter at breast height) to older specimens 10"
to 12". Typical canopy species include sweetgum, red maple, black
cherry and scattered loblolly pine. In some sites American elm and
white bay are common. Sweetgum and black cherry are also common
18
understory species. The ground cover includes cane, false nettle,
Virginia creeper, poison ivy, devil's walking stick, bracken fern and
trumpet creeper. Catbrier and grape are common vines.
2. Threatened and Endangered Species
Federally Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to determine
if any protected species are located in the study area.
Two federally protected species are listed by the USFWS in Pitt
County and one federally protected species is listed in Edgecombe
County as of August 28, 1992. These species are listed in Table 3.
A discussion of each species follows.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
it an E geFe-CouT
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Pitt County
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Tar River spiny mussel E o ste-instansana E
Edgecombe County
Tar River spiny mussel Elliptio steinstansana E
E or Endangered: A taxon that i s threatened with extinction throughout
all its range.
Elliptio steinstansana: The Tar River Spiny mussel has always
been endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt
County to Spring Hope in Nash County. Now it is limited to
populations in Swift Creek and the Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash
counties.
. This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom is composed of
uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively
silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to
act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar river spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60
millimeters. Short spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to
the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other valve,
others have two rows of spines on each valve. The nacre is pinkish
(anterior) and bluish-white (posterior). Young specimens have an
19
orange-brown peristracum with greenish rays and adults are darker
with inconspicuous rays. The shell is generally smooth in texture
with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the
surface and curve slightly ventrally.
Potentially suitable habitat for the Tar River Spiny mussel in
the study area is located only in Grindle Creek and Suggs Branch.
The other water crossings are unsuitable for the Tar River Spiny
mussel because they are too small. Conversations with John Alderman
of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission indicated that Grindle
Creek has been previously surveyed for mussels and a low mussel
diversity was present. He also stated that Grindle Creek and Suggs
Branch do not support suitable habitat for the Tar River Spiny mussel
and that mussel surveys are not necessary. Based on this
information, no impacts to the Tar River Spiny mussel will occur from
project construction.
Picoides borealis: The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) once
occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west to eastern
Texas. In North Carolina moderate populations are found in the
sandhills and in the piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed
to be relics of former populations.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for
small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back is
black and white with horizontal stripes and the breast and underside
is white with streaked flanks. There is a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open, old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine for foraging and nesting habitat. A
forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands considered ideal
habitat for the RCW. . These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
equal to or greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with
pine-dominated stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range
of the RCW is 0.5 mile and must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100 feet
above the ground and average 30-50 feet high. They can be identified
by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. This
is, arguably, used as a defense against possible predators. A clan
of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the
offspring from previous years. The eggs are laid in April, May, and
June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size is.from 3-5 eggs. All
members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild
fruits.
20
The study area impacts potential foraging habitat for the RCW
located east of existing US 13/NC 11 at the south (Greenville) end of
the project. These stands are primarily pine plantations with a
dense understory. Based on field observations of plant communities
and aerial photograph studies, no suitable nesting habitat will be
impacted upon proposed construction. No RCW surveys are necessary.
No impact to the RCW will occur from proposed construction.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate species
in Pitt and Edgecombe counties (Table 4). These species are not
afforded federal protection at this time but their status may be
upgraded in the future. The habitat column indicates the potential
for their occurrence (based on availability of suitable habitat) in
the study area.
TABLE 4
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
itt E gem enty s
Common Name
Pitt County
Albemarle crayfish
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussell)
Scientific Name
Status Habitat
C2 Yes
C2 Yes
C2 Yes
C2 No
C2 No
C2 No
Edgecombe County
Procambarus medialis
Fusconaia masoni
Albemarle crayfish Procambarus medialis
Yellow lance (mussel) Elli tio lanceolate
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussell) Fusconaia masoni
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis ca it osa
C2: Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough
as endangered or threatened at this time.
State Protected Species
some evidence of
data to support listing
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern
are afforded state protection under the State Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern (1987) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the study
area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal Candidate species that
are state protected and may occur in the study area are presented in
Table 5.
21
TABLE 5
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
Pitt and E?Tie ounties
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat
Pitt County
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussel)
Edgecombe County
Yellow lance (mussel)
Atlantic pigtoe
(mussel)
Yellow lampmussel
Fusconaia masoni
Elliptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis cariosa
T Yes
T No
T Yes
T No
Note: State protected species were identified from a list of Federal
Candidate species specified for Pitt and Edgecombe County.
T - Threatened: Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
Though all or some of these species may be present in the study
area, no surveys were conducted.
3. Wildlife Habitat
Terrestrial Communities
Amphibians and reptiles that may be anticipated in the study
area include American toad (Bufo americanus), eastern narrow-mouth
toad (Gastro hr ne carolinensis , eastern spadefoot toad (Sca hio us
holbroo , Fowl er's toad (Bufo woodhousei), gray treefrogs (Hyla
chr soscelis and H. versico or), little glass frog (Limnaoedus
ocu ari s , Mabee's s amp an der Am stoma mabeei), many-lined
salaman7er (Stereochilus marginat?us), marbleU-s-Mamander (Ambystoma
ooacuumm), ornate chorus frog (Pseudacris ornata), pickerel frog (Rana
alustris), pinewoods treefrog (Hyla redback salamander
P et o on cinereus), slimy salamander Pet odon luttinosus) and
southern cricfcet rog (Acris gqUll??us); b F_racer (Co u er
constrictor), copperhead ( (A kistroo on contortrix), corn snake
(Flap a uttata), eastern box turtle (TTeerrapeennee carolina), eastern
garter sna e T amno his sirtalis), ground skink Eumeces lateralis),
pine woods snake R a inaea avilata), rat snake E a e o so eta ,
southeastern five- 1ne sin Eumeces inex ectatus , spotted turtle
(Clemnys ut? tata) and timber rattrenake Crota us orridus).
The following birds may be found in the study area: American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis),' black vulture (Cor_=agy ss atratus),
bobwhite (Co i? nus vir in n us), brown-headed cowbbird (Molothrus
ater), Caro iT`na wren T r of orus ludovicianus), common crow Corvus
rachyrhynchos), common grackle (uisca us guisc?ala), Cooper's hawk
(Accipiter cooperii), eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna), killdeer
22
(Haemato us alliatus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pine
warbler (Dendroica inus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
screech owl Otus asio), starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura).
Mammals that are typical in the study area include: eastern
mole (Scalopus aquaticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), hispid cotton
mouse (Si modon hispidus), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinenesis), star-nosed mole .(Cond_ylura cristata), white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum).
Aquatic Communities
The study area supports several channelized creeks and ditches.
Aquatic organisms likely in these waters include American eel
(?Anuil??la rostrata), eastern mud minnow (Umbra pygmaea), redfin
pickers (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemi onus re inus),
greenfin sfi er Notro is.clori*stius),'spottail` shiner (Notropis
photogenis), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), tadpole madtom
(Noturus rinus), pirate perch (A hredo ea u sayanus), eastern
mosq iu otiu of fis Gambusia holbrokki), flier Centrarchus macropterus),
bluespotted. sunfish Enneacanthus glorio?sus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis ibfiosus).
Anticipated Impacts
In general, road widening will decrease the amount of available
habitat. The Bethel Bypass will fragment wildlife communities by
constructing in forested tracts located between disturbed communities
such as agricultural fields and residential areas. Entire forested
tracts will be impacted by the proposed project. Ditches cross the
majority of the forested areas. Forested areas are suitable for many
species and may serve as a corridor for migrating wildlife. Forested
tracts may also be utilized for foraging, cover and a food source for
certain organisms. Proposed construction may create a barrier to
certain migrating organisms, which can lead to changes in species
diversity and community dynamics.
The study area supports numerous channelized streams and
man-made ditches. Construction may increase erosion and result in
sedimentation. Increased sedimentation may result in a decline in
sensitive aquatic organisms. Additionally, construction will cause
an increase in traffic and noise especially along the Bethel Bypass,
which is proposed to be constructed on new location. Traffic noise
increases may cause organisms to migrate to other locations and cause
a decline in these organisms.
4. Wetlands
Two wetland plant communities are located in the study are: the
Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland and Palustrine Forest
Wetland. Each community is described below.
23
Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland
The Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland is located along
utility corridors, adjacent to roadside ditches and in areas that
have been recently logged. This community is maintained periodically
(except in recently logged areas), but may support growth of the
following species: black willow (Salix ni ra), red maple, cattail
(Typha latifolia), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), woolgrass
(Scir us c erinus) and dayflower (Commelina oc'mmunis). Sedges
(Cyperus sp. and rushes (Juncus sp.) are also common.
Palustrine Forest Wetland
The Palustrine Forest Wetland is located to streams or ditches
and supports a hardwood canopy. This community is scattered
throughout the study are, but is more often encountered along the
Bethel bypass at the northern end of the project. Typical canopy
species include: red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
st raciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and tulip poplar
(Lirioden ron tulipifera). In one area ocated south of Grindle
Creek along Alternate 1 of the Bethel bypass, bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) was observed. Understory species including swamp chestnut
oak (uercus michauxii) and white bay (Magnolia virginiana) in the
bald cypress stand. In other sites musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana)
and privet (Li ustrum sinense) are common and form dense stands. The
ground cover included false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), pokeweed
(Ph_ytolacca americana), beauty berry Callicarpa americana), privet
seedlings, Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus uin uefolia),
china-berry (Melia azedarach), Japanese oneysuck e, poison ivy and
lizard's tail Saururus cernuus).
Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact the Disturbed Scrub/Shrub, Mixed
Hardwood/Pine, Pine dominated, Disturbed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
Wetland and Palustrine Forest Wetland communities. Plant community
impacts are presented in Table 6. These estimates are preliminary
and may change with final design.
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Plant Community AM A1t2 Alta US13/NC11
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub 16.5 27.4 16.9 150.5
Mixed Hardwood/Pine 9.0 7.7 9.9 6.8
Pine dominated 0.6 1.8 0 4.1
Dist. Palustrine Scrub/Sh 0 0 0 1.3
Palustrine Forest 2.9 4.3 3.7 0
TOTALS (In Acres) 29.0 41.2 30.5 162.8

24
Proposed improvements to US 13/NC 11 and the Bethel bypass will
result in vegetation loss. Vegetation losses are largely due to
project length. The majority of the study area for the entire
project is classified as Disturbed Scrub/Shrub community.
The 3 Bethel alternates will impact large forested tracts of
mixed hardwood/pine dominated sites and wetland areas associated with
Grindle Creek and Suggs branch. Alternates 1 and 3 bisect a forested
tract that is the only remaining forested area between two disturbed
communities (agricultural areas, palustrine forested wetlands
associated with Suggs Branch and the upland Mixed Hardwood/Pine
community. Alternate 3 impacts a larger amount of forested
communities than Alternate 1. Alternate 2 will impact several large
forested tracts of land located north of the Seaboard Coast railroad.
Two other tracts impacted by Alternate 2 have been recently cleared
and support successional communities. Primarily, the impacted area of
Alternate 2 is dominated by agricultural fields.
Construction of the Bethel bypass will fragment existing plant
communities especially forested tracts associated with Suggs Branch
impacted by Alternate 3. Proposed construction of Alternate 2 will
also fragment forested tracts located north of the railroad to the
project terminus.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impacts of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils, as defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). In
compliance, the SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed
improvements will impact prime or important farmland soils, and if
so, provide land evaluation information on the Farmland Conversions
Impact Rating (AD-1006) form.
According to the SCS, all of the three alternatives and the
widening of the existing roadway south of Bethel will impact both
prime and state important farmland soils. Completion of the AD-1006
form indicates that the relative value of the farmland impacted by
all alternatives is high, with the farmland soils impacted by
Alternative 2 receiving the highest rating (on a scale of 0 to 100)
of 88.8 points, and Alternative 3 receiving the lowest rating of 78.9
points.
The site assessment on the AD-1006 indicates that all three
alternatives and the proposed widening section exceed the threshold
of 160 points, at which alternatives to lessen the impact on prime
and important farmland soils must be considered. Of the three
alternatives, Alternative 3 has the lowest total of 164.9 points.
Options to mitigate the farmland impacts include reducing the
proposed right-of-way and eliminating the new location alternatives.
However, the FPPA does not mandate that mitigation be instituted,
only that the options be considered.
25
6. Water ualit
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Grindle
Creek, Suggs Branch and numerous ditches cross the study area.
Grindle Creek, which crosses the study area in two locations, is a
channelized creek that is approximately 25' across and 2'-3' deep.
The bottom is composed of silt and sand. Grindle Creek originates
approximately 5 miles upstream of the study area and empties into the
Tar River located approximately 20 miles downstream. Suggs Branch,
which crosses Alternate 3 of the Bethel Bypass, is approximately 10'
to 20' wide and 1' deep. The bottom is composed of sand and silt.
Suggs Branch originates several miles upstream of the study area and
empties into Grindle Creek approximately 2000' east of Alternate 1 of
the Bethel Bypass.
. Best usage classification of Grindle Creek and Suggs Branch is C
NSW (DEM, 1991). Best usage recommendations for Class C waters o t
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) require limitations on nutrient inputs. All other water 0
crossings drain into either Grindle Creek or Suggs Creek. The best
usage classification of these waters is the same as the creek they
J
drain into. In this case, Grindle Creek and Suggs Branch.

No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters and waters
classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or 1 mile
downstream. Pitt County is not within the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA) jurisdiction.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality. This network addresses long term
trends in water quality by measuring the taxa richness and presence
of intolerable organisms. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. No BMAN surveys have been conducted
in the study area or near the project vicinity.
A NPDES (Natural Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
point-source discharger is located on Grindle Creek northeast of
Greenville. This site is downstream of the study area.
Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water
resources such as increased sedimentation and siltation from
construction and/or erosion; changes in light incidence and water
clarity due to increased sedimentation, vegetation removal and
culvert placement; alteration of water levels and flows due to
interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction; changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal;
and increased concentration of toxic compounds from construction and
highway runoff.
Impacts to Waters of the United States are anticipated from
proposed construction. Surface waters and wetland impacts are
anticipated both at the Bethel Bypass and along the US 13/NC 11
26
corridor. Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of
vegetation, soils and hydrology. The dominate vegetation is
hydropytic and the soil color is hydric. Wetlands are associated
with creeks, drainages or located in depressions. Table 7 summarizes
Waters of the US impacts. These estimates are preliminary and may
change with project design.
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES IMPACTS BY SITE
Bypass
Site Creek System Community AM Alt2 Alta US13/NC11 Alternative
E W 1.5
1 - PF - 1.5 - - - 2.6
2 - PF - 2.6 - - -
3 Suggs Branch PF 0.5 - 2.4 - -
4 Suggs Branch PF - - 1.3 - -
5 Grindle Creek PF 2.2 - - - - 2.2
6 - SS - - - 0.1 -
7 - SS - - - 0.1 0.1
8 - SS - - - - 0.1
TOTALS 2.7 4.1 3.7 0.1 0.1 6.3
SS: Scrub/Shrub
PF: Palustrine Forest
Note: Values reported are in acres. Impacts are based on 182' for
impacts associated with the Bethel Bypass except the interchange located
at the US 64/US 13. Impacts associated with the east and west corridors
of US 13/NC 11 are based on a width of 114' to one side and 40' to the
opposite side.
7. Air Quality
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal, forest fires and burning in general. 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 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
monoxide. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in
the project area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented
are concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
27
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 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 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.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and "worst
case" meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on
the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the construction year of 1997
and the design year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source
Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer
model.
The "worst case" air quality receptor for the build alternatives
was R-25 and for the no-build was R-23. Both were located at or near
the right-of-way limits. The "build" and "no build" one hour CO
concentrations for years 1997 and 2017 for the receptors are as
follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
R-25 R-23
"Build" "No Build"
1997 2017 1997 2017
2.9 3.2 2.6 2.5
28
Comparisons of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9ppm) 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. The results also show that the building of the project
will not adversely effect air quality conditions in the area.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Washington Regional Office of the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Pitt County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the
greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will 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.
8. Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed project on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land
uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement
of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part
772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise
impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise
impacts must be considered.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range is 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).
29
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (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.
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 factors:
1. The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2. The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3. The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine that highway 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. These abatement criteria
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference
(Title 23 CFR Part 772). 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 the project
alternative at representative locations 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 noise
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 existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 1.7 to
3.7 dBA of the measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels
can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and
actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles
and single vehicle speed.
30
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.
The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25,
50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 160 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. Noise levels were calculated for
each identified receptor.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement Measures
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria, or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to defract, absorb,
and reflect highway traffic noise. These measures include earthberms
or artificial walls. These mitigating measures may not be feasible
or reasonable in all cases. particularly for receptors with frontage
along roads which cross the project area. Reduction of traffic noise
from the proposed roadway may not necessarily lower the noise levels
at these receptors to within the recommended noise abatement criteria
and/or below a substantial noise level increase.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. To provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be eight (8) times the distance from the
barrier to the receptor.
31
Businesses, churches,
along a particular highway
visibility. Based on the
measures are feasible and n
Construction Noise
and other related establishments located
normally require accessibility and high
above factors, no physical abatement
one are recommended for this project.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts can be expected particularly from paving operations and
from grading operations. Construction noise impacts are expected to
be minimal along the Bethel Bypass, since, for the most part, the
project traverses through low-density areas. In the section along
the existing alignment, noise impacts would be expected to be more
substantial due to the project's close proximity to existing housing.
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction
noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not feasible or reasonable and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project
change develops, no additional reports are required for this project.
9. Hazardous Waste
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified 5
sites which contain or have the potential for Underground Storage
Tanks (UST's). In a subsequent records search of the DEM/Groundwater
Section, the following information was obtained:
Site No. 1
An abandoned one story building, which is on the east side of
US 13/NC 11, is located in the northeast quadrant adjacent to the
intersection of US 13/NC 11 and SR 1514. Three pumps, four fill
caps, and four vent pipes were observed on the premises by
Geotechnical Unit Personnel. One of the tanks at this site is
located approximately 45 feet from the existing US 13/NC it
centerline, two tanks are located approximately 54 feet from existing
US 13/NC it centerline, and one tank is located approximately 48 feet
from existing SR 1514 centerline. No information was available from
the DEM/Groundwater Section regarding this site.
Site No. 2
An abandoned pump island, which is on the west side of US 13/
NC 11, is located in the northwest quadrant adjacent to the
intersection of US 13/NC 11 and SR 1445. The pump island was
observed by Geotechnical Unit Personnel, but there were no visible
signs of UST's. No information was available from DEM/Groundwater
Section regarding this site.
32
Site No. 3
An abandoned one story building, which is on the west side of
US 13/NC 11, is located in the southwest quadrant adjacent to the
intersection of US 13/NC 11 and SR 1424. Two fill caps and two vent
pipes were observed on the premises by the Geotechnical Unit
personnel. One of the fill caps is located approximately 48 feet
from existing US 13/NC 11 centerline, and the other fill cap is
located approximately 63 feet from existing US 13/NC it centerline.
No information was available from the DEM/Groundwater Section
regarding this site.
Site No. 4
Country Mart/Spur Gas Station, which is on the west side of
US 13/NC 11, is located between SR 1424 and SR 1515. According to
the records of the DEM/Groundwater Section, this facility (ID#
0-018784) has five active UST's on the premises. 1-10,000g,
1-6,000g, and 1-8,000g were all three installed on 7/25/61.
1-10,000g and 1-4,000g were both installed on 7/20/83. Four pumps
are located approximately 51 feet from the existing US 13/NC 11
centerline, and the tanks at this facility are located approximately
69 feet from the existing US 13/NC 11 centerline.
Site No. 5
An Abandoned one story building, which is on the east side of
US 13/NC 11, is located in the southeast quadrant adjacent to the
intersection of US 13/NC 11 and SR 1515. Two pumps and two tanks
with two monitoring well pipes were observed on the premises by
Geotechnical Unit personnel. The tanks at this site are located
approximately 48 feet from the existing US 13/NC 11 centerline. No
Information was available from the DEM/Groundwater Section regarding
this site.
Existing Landfill
A files search of the Division of Solid Waste Management was
also conducted to determine whether any known unregulated dumps or
other potentially contaminated sites were within the corridor. After
reviewing these files and the DEM groundwater incident list, a refuse
disposal area on SR 1500 East of Bethel was discovered. The refuse
disposal area was observed by Geotechnical Unit personnel
approximately 0.5 miles east of US 13/NC 11 on SR 1500, and 200 feet
north of SR 1500. According to a Land Disposal Site Investigation
Report found in the Solid Waste files dated 4/8/68, the general
classifications of solid wastes accepted at this disposal site are
household, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and institutional
items with approximately 2 percent of the people of Pitt County using
this site. The preferred alternative will be to the west of this
landfill and will be separated by a creek. None of the other known
sites within the Pitt County area were identified within the project
corridor.
33
10. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase.
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right of way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by the plans or Special Provisions or
unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. Several water lines are located in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The contractor will prepare a work
schedule which minimizes possible damage to or rupture of
the water lines and interruption of water service. The
contractor will consult appropriate water system officials
in preparing this schedule.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. 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.
g. 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 and area residents.
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule the
34
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance
with the strict erosion control measures as outlined in the
Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1. Temporary
erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes,
dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.

35
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state
and federal agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those marked with an asterisk (*):
*U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U.S. Geological Survey
*State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
*Mid-East N.C. Planning & Economic Development Commission
Chairman, Pitt County Board of Commissioners
Mayor, City of Greenville
*Mayor, Town of Bethel
B. Public Involvement
A Public Meeting was held on February 11, 1992 at the Bethel
Elementary School and on February 12, 1992 at the Wellcome Middle School
in Greenville to inform citizens about the project and to receive any
input. Approximately 35 persons attended the meeting in Bethel and 8
attended the meeting in Greenville. This low attendance was due to
inadequate coverage in the local news media. The majority of those in
attendance supported the project. The few who opposed the project did so
on the premise that they felt the project was not needed or that the
widening would likely take their home and property.
Due to the lack of news coverage of these two meetings, a second
round of meetings were scheduled. These meetings were held on March 25,
1992 at the Bethel Elementary School and on March 26, 1992 at the Wellcome
Middle School in Greenville. Approximately 40 attended the Bethel meeting
with approximately 15 attending the Greenville meeting. Most of those in
attendance at both meetings supported the project.
BB/plr

- l9
? \
9 13/30
`
7 i
! 1 stek
,ooOFalklon 2 7 11 t? 7
2 3
Fountain Bruce
2 7 1
1
' i
Toddy 12 43 9 actolua
_ 8 9 264 C.a Greenville+ .
3 ..Bell Arthur

?
1 song
?
r ,
13
264A P Grirdaslan
f
T , .
I T
?
,
4 Wmterwl 11 Cllorx
Black ll
ountree /
Ayden Shelmerdi
e 1 2 1
i? CaliW
' Gritton -`,
END
CT
PROJE
'-
c D I
y` 1 44
1
4* 1 -
R

ti
tJ aR
2
/ it
1.1
f
3/
.3 .6
J
7
u• jft iy

_ 4.¢ CR'NO4e
lA
? N
PITT COUNTY
? >?1
GREENVILLE
I
%1a,
JAI,
M • ?i
\1 ?
! .2
a i
}
is ?'?re?L ?Ti
L
Zp-
BEGIN
PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 13/NC 11
FROM THE GREENVILLE NORTHWEST
LOOP TO THE US 64 BYPASS NORTH
OF BETHEL INCLUDING THE BETHEL BYPASS
PITT COUNTY
T.1. P. PROJECT R-218
1y92 FIG. 1
SR 1510 SP, 1427 SR 1509
^! iCU
0, 3590 3500 N N 3509 3522

-1 -3463 I
- 37 J ?- 21 .- 3503
-3488
- 19
.c r l ?
U 3471-- Il -? 3511 --
G 124 I 3498 -• 7 -1
Nm
3595 3509 3518 3530
NI C? N! i N
1 .
I SUS 13-NC 11
SR 1415 SP. 1442
0 N n? co
IMI 1CI
8839 °VmIN 4600 CO= 4574
J 1 441? 12
l -4562
Not To Scoie
FIGURE NO. 2
1 OF 7
For Bypass Volumes, see
pages 2 of 7, and 3 of 7
SR 1514 SR 1445 SR 1424 SR 1572 SR 1515 SR 142E PITT CO. SR 1512 SP. 1424
HIGH SCHOOL
m
nI Im "4 ?? V
Im
n}
in
3819 N 0 3801 nfon= 3732 3707 3753 M°; 3761 3633 3607 n ca C?
01
3590
38013 ` 79 1 l 3706 3668 -- 3606 I
7
L ?- 21
37 -3538 J ? 21
- 3
3 r
- 39 r- U
1 40
--- ?
69 35 1010 -J. 1 t ( 36 -? 4565 -? 1 3811 1 ( 24 -J 56 J 1 r 3675 -• r 3612 --? 1 f 11 -J

4419 -? 4572 -• 20--,, 760 -? 3800 -` 3712 -` 62-1 101 -'? 3753 -
_ 3410-1 omd
Y)( m.0 mm

n - 38-1 mmm CO + N _
8839 mN " 4608 4585 4571 3824 3806 3737 3713 3764
N1 m P m ° +
r, ?t, I
nT In T I
I 1 ^ CU IN
NC 903 SR 1522
US 13-NC 11, NC 903 TO US 64 Bypass
North of Bethel, Pitt County (R-218)
SR 1585
4564
4556
r-
3548 -- 1 r 36 --' U
96-1 3575
1
PN ?
3772 36,44 3611 3595
n m
1997 Average Daily Traffic
With Bypass
Proposed Bethel Bypass
From NC 30 to US 64 Bypass
Estimated 1997 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
ASSUMPTION: NO ACCESS AT US 64 BUSINESS
o
SR 1428 SR 1429 US 64 S R- 1436 111
* W
0
C,
U.
}? NC 11 BUSINESS N11 N
N??N I
US 13/NC 11 m 1_ 2
,- L 1 N a 2 C\i ^ N '-- 8 •- 9
F 2 3 13 11 f t 10
.1 l.`9
3 7441 .l ?.?-10 11 10 12 13
s 5 3 4 -` 41 0r 10 11 10 12 11 -} '1 f a a "1 1 r" 1 a i' 2 '1 r 0 9
1 i 1? -t 1
o
y
c??f ? rn??rn mlf? a?l?}o
NC 30
i
I
ti
_ 3 32
N\-- 32 .1 } L. 1-20 33 3r3 ,1 i ?. 1- 10 .1 1. 31 40
32 1 -t 3 3 1 32 40 I 7
30-- 37
30
NC 11 BYPASS 1 N 2 N. 31 -` 1
dtl11 rn?rn a?}?
I
SR 1500 US 64/'US 13 SR 1501 0
F ?
CL
R-218
PITT-EDGECOMBE COUNTIES
APRIL, 1993
FIGURE No. 2
2 of 7
US 64 BYPASS

US 13/NC 11
-34
35 f 1 41
5 3 4 -" f 4
w
? I}? t
NC 30
Proposed Bethel Bypass
From NC 30 to US 64 Bypass
Estimated 1997 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
R-218
PITT-EDGECOMBE COUNTIES
APRIL, 1993
FIGURE No. 2
3of7

SR 1428 SR 1429 i US 64 SR 1436 W
m
Not To Scate
SR 15.10 SR 1427 SR 1509

C 7868 7672 w e 7691 7718

-1 -7589
- 83 L ?-46
.-7645 r--7640
r
;
2672 1 f J
24 76 5 1 f
d - 766
6
0(9
r, co

_.

_ ro) N

••?
7879 cu 7690 7710 7737
1
M 10 nl
I n
i ? ?
i
US 13-NC 11
For Bypass Volumes, see
pages 5 of 7, and 6 of 7
FIGURE NO. 2
4OR7
SR 1415 SR 1442 SR 1585 SR 1514 SR 1445 SR 1424 SR 1572 SR 1515 SR 1426 PITT CO. SR 1512 SR 1424
HIGH SCHOOL
1
? l
?^ tn
? ? co
N 1N N N
19366 NNE 10080 mw . 18025 10002 I 8368 n -

` 8328 cnue

.- 8178 8124 8225 co cts
8242 7961 7905
m
7868
0)
C
Nn^ 6
` `
9 - ? 20 ? J
I
J 1 9
83 99
87
` .-9985
7 ? 8341
27 J l ?- 17 ) ! 81
0 -- 8 038 -7903 J l ` 45 -7753 l t- 47
l 267
r J l ,-- 1 ?- .- 311
6 r- 32 r 86 r 322 81
- 97 ?-- 152 +7821 L
2212 -?
9682 -- 1 f r 78 -J 10003 --
4
- 1 r 8352 -'
665 1 r 53 -?
6
- ' 122---,
8136 -- 1 t r 8856 ---
-
' r 7917 --- 1 r 24 -?
- 7778 --
- 1 81
--`
10010 --? 4 1 328 1
1
36 223 -- N 8226 - 271
-N
7835
d
_ 7472 nm

7177171 .-..

._... o

?-?

_. _
M
N
N

?- 84

?.

67mN

_r o+

Y m

?.. M

N M m m

P1 -
19366 nnN
10096 10047 10017 8381 8342 8192 8140 N n 8250 8268 7989 a '" 7916 7879
? t ( t I °: cu r
o n n r
m Im ?. c
u1 ,
)
i i
Ii i ic
i

SR 1522
US 13-NC 11, NC 903 TO US 64 Bypass
North of Bethel, Pitt County (R-218)
2017 Average Daily Traffic
With Bypass
Proposed Bethel Bypass
From NC 30 to US 64 Bypass
Estimated 2017 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
SR 1428
SR 1429
US 64
SR 1436
NC 11 BUSINESS
(0I`,0
i I
US 13/NC 11 I
? 75

-

90 N N 1 2
•- 15 -
1 I N 't 4 19
?- 15 +-
I 1 17 21
f 4 .-
71 15
f 11 .
, r
.
75
77 2 17 15 J. 19 17 -'1 21
2 -; N N 4 0, 15 -

V N
MI?OD
}
q) a f l a
a L 2
NNN `--17 +-13 NN ?-2
j 1. 13
1 2 2.1 17 r 2 15
2 1" 21 17 13 i 17- 5 2
4 ; a N 13
17-'I N N
2
N
01 i?
NC 30 N ? I
j I i
2J j
4 Ir a o
2 6j? i'- 2
{ aI O N
N N N N NI?73
77 .1 11. f- 43 79 6 a t a 779 rl } 4I i- 2 77
2 77
77 2 79 6? ?'? 79 73 - 73 --
NC 11 BYPASS 2? N 61 a 6 N co 4 ' a N N
co ? m `? -- 7 I l f
.I, 2 J I
4 --1
SR 1500 N I i a SR 1501
US 64111-18 13
R-218
PITT-EDGECOMBE COUNTIES
APRIL, 1993
FIGURE No. 2
5of7
I

i
m
w

U
U
w
LIS 64 BYPASS
i ?

i w

i
li

,I
I
I o 1 o

? SR-1527
I
'• i i
NC 11

I 1
co
i
I
\6

04 a N N 2
1
82 B4 y% 1
12 -
-
!`
,1 i `---75 88 1- 2 , i 2 ?
4 N

2J
8
i 4
6
71
73 N
69 -',

75 -`
62 -`
NNN 15 r
il\
117

p SR 1527

F ?
a ? I ?? a
Proposed Bethel Bypass
From NC 30 to US 64 Bypass
Estimated 2017 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
ASSUMPTION: NO ACCESS AT US 64 BUSINESS
SR 1428 SR 1429 US 64 SR 1436
CD 0
NC 11 BUSINESS t I f
tj?t °II? i
US 13/NC 11 0 ?- 4
-75 cm 2 N t 4 l -23 a mI a .- 17 19 2 N N ' 2
25 27 2.3 ,
77 I- 15 90 9 .1 I..- 21 23 ?- 21 f- 27 6 i 2 1. "- 19
`7 .1 1-1 2 2 ?3 2 -3 25 23 -•'1 r 27 4 27 23 19 2 2 J
rn 4 t N 18 -"
j 17 -' (n 0 (n
77 7 2-1 N N 9 i 2 2?' 21 21 2 N a
LO 6 r0
? N
C'j
r0 ? ID t i t d (0 I ID
NC 30 tt
71
71 --
NC 11 BYPASS
'- 2
N N N
I 67
-J f- 4 73
2 t f 73
67
2 N N t
? I
07 , 10
SR 1500
73 67 ?- 71
73 2 71
4 aNN
?I
tilt CD co
US 64/US 13 SR 1501
t 2
N N N y-67
I .1t?.f 2
v

w
m

0
U
w
c?

w
1
1
I
I
N 'I N I S

N Q

'
19 I
I
t N
.l L- .-69
88
2 J 88 I 4
69 -? 82-
2

U
F-
F- i
a
R-218
PITT-EDGECOMBE COUNTIES
APRIL, 1993
FIGURE No. 2
6 of 7
US 64 BYPASS
-4N
H-21 tS
PITT-EDGECOMBE COs.
APRIL, 1993
FIGURE No. 2
7 of 7
PROPOSED NC 11 BYPASS FROM NC 30 TO US 64 BYPASS
r
ADVS IN HUNDREDS % %
ROUTE 1993 1997 2017 TTST DUAL
W\0 BYP BYPASS IN PLACE
NC 11 BYP. E. _ 70 154 4 6
OF US13/NC11
SR 1500 W. OF'
_ 6
12
2
NC 11 BYP.
SR 1500 E. OF 8 16 ; 2
NC 11 BYP. ;
US64/US13 W. : - : 34 : 76 4 6
OF NC 11 BYP. '
US64/US13 E. _ 38 84 : 4 6
OF NC 11 BYP.
SR 1501 W. OF ; _ 6 12 1 : 4
NC 11 BYP. ;
SR 1501 E. OF _ 8 ; 16 1 4
NC 11 BYP.

NC 11 BUS. W.'
_ 14
30
2
; 3
OF NC 11 BYP. ;
SR 1527 W. OF g ; 16 ; 2
NC 11 BYP.
SR 1527 E. OF 6 : 12 1 2
NC 11 BYP. ;
US 64 BYP. W.
?OFNC11 - 94 206 3 5
US 64 BYP. E. :
104 128 3 5
OF NC 11
PAGE 2

x?,
?, ?, 6? ? r
? ?,
w
s

cc
O Cf)

W z
a
°
U.
z
W m
U)
O
p
U
w >
0

a a
C)
°
o
CL
to
O0
U p
(n
O CO
CV °
04
?- O
? c
a s
z T-
C
J
W T

Z
?
it M
a T
cn

w
EL
O
J
Q
U
z
M
U)
Z)
U-
0
(D
z
z
w
C)
w
U)
O
CL
O
cc
U
z
c
U)
O
z
F-
x
w
!.
i-A
w
O
J
Q

0
z
w
cc
CD
H
U-
SENT O TAR
_ United States Department of the Interior Zroaa?
A
W O
7 X
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE .?

R
CH 3 Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

November 20, 1991 ??1d

p. to
`
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch c?? ,r
Division of Highways
Departmen t of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your October 1, 1991, technical assistance request for potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed widening of US 13-NC 11 and
relocation of the Bethel Bypass, Pitt County, North Carolina, TIP ,#R-0218. The
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) offers the following comments in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The proposed improvements may adversely affect wetlands along the new right of
way and along the widened portion of US 13-NC 11. As you are probably aware,
review by the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required
to determine the presence and extent of wetlands along the proposed route. Areas
of concern to the Service include marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation,
scrub/shrub, pocosin, and forested wetlands. Such wetlands are of high fish and
wildlife habitat value, and perform important water quality and land
stabilization functions. If wetlands are likely to be affected, the Service will
recommend the use of alternatives that avoid wetland impacts. These alternatives
may include different alignments, the use of bridges instead of culverts, or
special construction techniques. Unavoidable wetland impacts should be reduced,
and the fish and wildlife habitat value of affected wetlands should be replaced
with suitable mitigation.
The Service's review of any environmental document prepared for this proposed
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional right-of-way and any areas,
such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed construction.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands
filled by the proposed highway construction.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated by the proposed
construction.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, eliminated by the
proposed highway construction.
5) Techniques which will be employed -for designing and
constructing any relocated stream channels of for creating
replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce or compensate for habitat value losses
associated with the proposed construction.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the area of influence of this action. 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 red-
cockaded woodpecker trees within a 1/2 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 legal responsibilities of a Federal agency under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, were detailed in material previously sent to
you. If you would like another copy of this information or if you have
questions, please contact us at 919/856-4520.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have
any questions, please contact David Dell, Permits Coordinator for this office
(919/856-4520).
Sincerely, J .
Q /'l • k ,C.4-
A. Mike Wicker
Acting Supervisor
REVISED OCTOBER 10, 1991
Pitt County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Tar River spiny mussel (Ellintio steinstansana) - E
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
October 17, 1991
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch cal` ?'??
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation `- .a SIT
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201j;
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of October 1, 1991, "subject: US 13-NC 11
from Greenville Northwest Loop to US 64 Bypass north of Bethel, with Bethel
Bypass on new looation, Pitt County, TIP, #R-0218, State Project 8.1221101"
and offer the following comments.
Pitt County participates in the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood
Insurance Program. There are several streams within the area of the project.
The design of the roadways and structures in the flood plains should ensure
that there will be no significant increase in flood stages and no greater
than a 1.0-foot increase in the floodway surcharge where a regulatory floodway
exists.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including disposal
of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands
should first be avoided or minimized. We will than consider compensation or
mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including
the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review the
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Laura Manuele
of our Regulatory Branch, Washington, North Carolina, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be
of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
• -
Lawrence W. Saunder ?Chief, Planning Division
FM208
11-18-91
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 276.11
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MAILED TO
V.:. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
L.J. WARD
'PLANN. C ENV. BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FROM
MRS. CH
DIRECTO
N C STA
?IVId
O
y
? ? ? 117
. R INGli*5,lt
S'.JPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 13-NC 11 FROM GREENVILLE
NORTHWEST LOOP TO US 64 BYPASS NORTH OF BETHEL, WITH BETHEL
3 YPA SS ON NEW LOCATION (TIP R-0218)
Ss I NO 92E42200260 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED t I NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
t X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SH3ULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE 1919) 733-0499.
C.C. REGION Q
/A
\l: 1 r , i , r + f...
Av V*A ?
?7 M
r NJ
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Co ssbn
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3 v G
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: 'Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program AtA? Xp-r
Date: October 18, 1991
SUBJECT: State Clearinghous Project No. 92-0260: Request for
information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
regarding fish and wildlife concerns for improvements
to US 13-NC it from Greenville Northwest Loop to US 64
Bypass north of Bethel, Pitt County, North Carolina
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward of the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from widening of US 13-NC it from Greenville to north
of Bethel. The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned
over direct and indirect adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries,
and wetland resources within and adjacent to the project area.
We are especially concerned that the portion of the project on
new location could have significant impacts on fish, wildlife,
and their habitats, including wetlands. It is our understanding
that NC it is under consideration for widening to four lanes from
Virginia to I-40 in Duplin County. If this is the case, a
comprehensive environmental document should be prepared to
examine all environmental impacts instead of piecemealing
projects. We do not have any databases that would assist in
evaluating environmental impacts from the proposed project.
Due to limited information in Mr. Ward's memorandum of
October 1, 1991, we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced by
inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the study
Memo Page 2 October 18, 1991
corridors. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories.
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including State and
Federal species of special concern, within, adjacent
to, or utilizing study corridors.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
projected related areas that may undeiggo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of
streams crossed and the extent of such activities.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
8. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
Be advised that the Wildlife Resources Commission is not*
likely to provide a favorable review for any alternative which
does not clearly avoid, minimize, and mitigate destruction or
degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat, including
wetlands. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further assist
your office, please call on us.
DLS\lp
cc: Mr. Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Bennett Wynne, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
r-?

e
?Q131415
.?
`Mate of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
?Cr
REVIEW COI3lD;NTS i . Charles Y- G?
James G. Martin. Governor pROJSCT 6 ?y ector
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary'--'-_Z.,_ _.: .
Project Number: ??-Oa County: ?,,,US L3 _taLt E+'om ?Yevrv'. llu N? oo? ED U 1 (off '.??")g
Project Name: D 'q t{n\CCt- fro 5 la a 110 I
? w
Geodetic Survey
V This project will impact 1-/ geodetic survey markers. N.G. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction c= a
geodetic monument is a.violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic survey office at (919) 7?3-3836.
Reviewe Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimental'-on
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbilIg activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Man==ement,
in eased design standards for sediment and erosion control wi_: 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 °rom the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
3-7
P.O. x An Equal Opportunity Affirrnadve Acdon Employer
For more information c ntact the Land Quality Section at (919).733-=574.
Date
eviewer
27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
October 23, 1991
71

MEMORANDUM
1
TO: Lorraine Shinn
Regional Manager
FROM: Floyd Williams
Regional Engine >
Land Quality S tion
.-Washington Regional Of i e
SUBJECT: Review of Planning and Assessment Project Review Form
Project #92-0260
NC Dept. of Transportation - Division of Highways
Proposed US 13 - NC 11 from Greenville Northwest Loop
to US 64 Bypass North of Bethel, with Bethel Bypass
on New Location - Pitt County
State Project 8.1221101
This proposed project must be consistent with the NC
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. Temporary and
permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures must be
utilized throughout the project to prevent sediment from leaving
the project and entering adjacent natural watercourses and
adjacent properties.
Once construction begins, this project will be inspected by Land
Quality personnel to ensure compliance.

,%097
Memorandum
To: Lorraine Shinn ?, /?_? Q f
From: Deborah Sawyer t1Q -tea" - >
Date: 1 November 1991
Subject: A-95'Review
Project No. 92-0260
US 13 - NC it from Greenville Northwest Loop to US 64 Bypass
North of Bethel
Pitt County
The above subject document has been reviewed by this office. The proposed
project involves 13.2 miles of highway construction consisting of widening
US 13 - NC 11 to a four (4) lane divided highway.from the Greenville Northwest
Loop to US 64 Bypass north of Bethel. This agency will require a Section 401
Water Quality Certification for any and all filling activities to waters of the
State including wetlands. Impacts to these waters should be carefully
considered. Impacts to these waters should be avoided if possible and minimized
to the fullest extent if avoidance is impossible.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office at 946-6481.
Thank you.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
\2?? n S 1?? Planning and Assessment
r.
CY)
MEMORANDUM ?Z
vV
n'J
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee WAS
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 92-0260 Scoping - Improvements to US 13 NC 11 from
Greenville Northwest Loop to US 64 Bypass North of
Bethel, Pitt County
DATE: November 13, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a,
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If, during the
preparation-of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
MM: bb
Attachments
P.O. Rox 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
r. i„
\., F,., ,i 0........ ,,.,h .alt;..,,, A-;-,
is ? ? 1 >f( f ? - ` ! .?
State of North Carolina ?i
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
?? ..`..lam.
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary November 5, 1991
Director
Regional Offices MEMORANDUM '
Asheville
7N/251-6208 , T0: Melba McGee 'Division of Planning and Assessment
Fayetteville FROM: Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning-Branch
919/4861541
Mooresville SUBJECT: Project No. 92-0260; EA Scope Request for Proposed
704/663.1699 Widening of US 13-NC 11 and a New Bethel Bypass,
Raleigh Pitt County
919/733.2314
Washington This memo is in response to an NCDOT request for `6omments on
919/9466481 the subject highway project. The responses will be used by
NCDOT to assist in preparation of an environmental assessment.
Wilmington The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality Section
919/395.3900 has reviewed the scoping request and offers the following
Winston-Salem comments and recommendations regarding potential impacts on
919/8967007 water quality and wetlands.
Water Ouaiity
This project has the potential to impact surface waters in
several ways. These include sedimentation from highway
construction, stormwater runoff from the completed road, 'and
nonpoint source runoff associated with development stimulated by
the project.
Implementation and conscientious maintenance of sediment
control BMPs during project construction should help minimize
construction impacts. However, onsite sediment control measures
are generally not better than trapping about 70 percent of the
sediment eroded at a site. The EA should discuss sediment
trapping capability of control measures and assess what impacts,
if any, will result in adjoinging streams from sediment that
escapes the site.
Highway stormwater runoff can adversely impact the quality of
nearby receiving waters where traffic levels are sufficiently
high. The EA should include a section on water quality impacts
that discusses highway runoff, impacts to receiving streams, and
if warranted, measures to minimize or control these impacts.
Use of vegetated drainage swales instead of curb and gutter is
preferred from a water quality protection standpoint.
I'(1 li ... ?vi ti kalv,gl1 :1 h ( .. , ., 1_,• `,• n,?; li'lrph.nc 919 7 i170 1 i 11WIt.m n Vr"ent--, Riv,
1:, I'mA t t..t......... .. A.!.......... .4 n..,, I 'A -,
Melba McGee
November 5, 1991
Page 2

Wetlands
The other area of concern is wetlands. Wetlands are
considered by NCDEM to be waters of the state. Filling or
alteration of wetlands under jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers will require a 401 Certification from this office.
NCDOT is urged to avoid wetlands impacts, if1 possible. However,
if there will be unavoidable impacts, DEM requests that'the
following information be contained within the EA. This
information will be useful in reviewing the project from the
standpoint of issuance of a 401 water quality certification.
1. A wetlands delineation of the project area (preferably
certified by the Corps of Engineers);
2. A description of the type(s) and acreage(s) of wetlands
that could be impacted within the project corridor(s). The
wetlands description should include an assessment of wetlands
values and a vegetation list for each type;
3. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses.
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
92-0260.mem/SEPA5
cc: Ron Ferrell
f e.+STAT,a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
1fLA/AD A'VnTll/
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
October 16, 1991
Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Unit
Stanford M. Adams
Director
`SS'
Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester
DOT EA Scoping for Proposed Widening of US 13 - NC 11 from
Greenville NW Loop to US 64 Bypass North of Bethel with a Bethel
Bypass on New Location in Pitt County, North Carolina.
PROJECT #92-0260
DUE DATE 11-1-91
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following information
concerning the proposed right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage that would be taken out of forest
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil
series, that would be involved within the proposed right-of-way.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed
project.

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunin, .Affirmative Action Emplovcr
Melba McGee
PROJECT #92-0260
Page 2
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any
merchantable timber that is to be removed. This practice is
encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take &ring the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
.forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits.
Trees outside the construction limits should be protected, from
construction activities to avoid:
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.
We would hope that the project would have the least impact to forest and.
related resources in that area.
DER: la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
?'ov 1991
s?swFo ? 103 ?4/S
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natura, JA D.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
David W. Sides
Director
October 16, 1991 _. ,
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to US.13-NC11 in Pitt County.
Project No. 92-0260
This proposal is to widen an existing roadway.
unique, prime, or statewide important farmlands
soils information for Pitt County is available.
evaluation should be made for the right-of-way.
minimize impacts are desired.
DH/tl
The impact to
would be minimal.
A wetlands
Actions that
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
o . SU7L o

11; 21 'I
Y
State of North Carolina v
Department of Environment, Health; and Natural Res.
Division of Water Resources ; Y
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
November 5, 1991
MEMORANDUM
John N. Morris
Director
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland
SUBJECT: 92-0260, Impro ements to US 13 - NC 11 Between
Greenville and North of Bethel, Pitt County
We have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize bridges whenever
possible to minimize habitat losses and floodplain
encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and prime farmland.
3. Provide vegetation buffers,when highway passes close to
residential areas. .
4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize the use of
porous pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners in gathering data on impacts; be
flexible on location of alternatives - adjust them to meet
local concerns.
P.O Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportuniy Attmn.imt- Action Emplover
e..? SUTT .t`?M 1 i ? 1415
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural-Resources
Northeastern Region
1424 Carolina Avenue, Washington, North Carolina 27889-1424
James G. Martin, Governor Lorraine G. Shinn
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary "Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 25, 1991
MRMORANDTTM
TO: Lorraine Shinn
Regional Office Manager
FROM: Mark Purser MP
Hydeogeological Technician
SUBJECT: US 13-NC11 from Greenville Northwest Loop to US 64 Bypass
North of Bethel, with Bethel Bypass on New Location. Pitt
County, TIP OR-0218, State Project 8.1221101
92-0260
The Groundwater Section of the Washington Regional Office has
reviewed the proposal and have the following comments:
In the event the expansion of the highway necessitates the
relocation of residences and underground tanks are encountered, you
should contact the Washington Regional Office for assistance. Also. any
water supply wells which its use is no longer required. must be proper1%
abandoned in accordance with NCAC 2C (),tell Construction Standards).
MPJawh
P.O. Box 2188, Washington, North Carolina 27889-2188 Telephone [phone] FAX: [phone]

An Equal Oprxmunity ARirmadve Action Etnnlov,r
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Washington Regional Office
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date
9' _ 26 _ _91
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) Indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. 'n-

.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 3 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site Inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging Into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days) "
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site Inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging Into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit WA (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dred and. ill It.

Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement ,' Il 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources NI ?`
' (90 days)
? it.
cpn?
Any open burning associated with subject proposal Lr
must be In compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. v

Demolition or renovations of structures containing
r
w
.
asbestos material must be In compliance with `. 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition.
(90 days)
Y
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.080D.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be pernited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres i 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (80 days)
25 or more acres 51000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources If permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit . 22 On-site Inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are Involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum Is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (N/A)
If permit required, application W days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit Inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
rs-1as
Continued on reverse
Normal Process
Time

11

(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application forth. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15-20 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development t $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, If required, must be In accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
reviewer signature agency + date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, INC 28801
(704) 2516208
? Moorssvllle Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]

P s.
t .,
COMMISSION
L I Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 276115201
October 9, 1991

?y Cr O
Q"' JCH
RE: US 13-NC 11 from Greenville Northwest loop to US 264 Bypass north of Bethel,
Pitt County, TIP #R-0218, State Project 8.1221101
Dear Mr. Ward:
In reference to the above proposal, I am not aware of any special environmental issues which
present themselves in the direct line of impact for your proposal. To the west, the Grindle Pocosin is an
area of unique soil characteristics which do not lend themselves to development, so if possible, the
enhancement of the highway should be done in such a way as to encourage development primarily on the
east side of the highway.
There will be no regional permits or approvals required by the Mid-East Commission in Region Q.
We strongly urge you to ask for preliminary comments from the Town of Bethel and from the Pitt County
Planning Department-
If we may be of further assistance, please contact us again.
Sincerely, --'`
//.?ff V
e Daughtridge
Planning Director
JDh
E P.O. Drawer 1787 N Washington, North Carolina 27889 f [phone] M
TOWN OFFICIALS
FRANK HEMINGWAY. MAYOR
SAMMY T. CARSON
ELVIS D. JONES
BILLY PEADEN
DELTON E. PERRY
ROBERT C. YOUNG, JR.
November 14, 1991
Distribute to:
Poole Fick O'Quinn
Dudack Prwatt- Bruton
Newnam - Da* Shulier
Norwood- Elliott Nedwidek
Modlin Webb. Spriuger_r
FfCW?' :1 BETHEL
P.O. BOX 337
BETHEL,, NORTH CAROLINA
825-6181 V
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
MARTHA J. MEWBORN
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR

LU 9 A(
T'oa?+G t-t
The Bethel Town Board of Commissioners at the regular monthly meeting held
on November 12th, 1991 voted to request the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to make the intersection of the present highway NC 64 and the
proposed bypass of Bethel as indicated by the TIP #R-218 be made an at grade
intersection.
After investigation and considerable consideration of this important future
development affecting the Town of Bethel, the board expressed their concern
that any intersection at said point would be a detriment to the growth and
development of the community. We are aware of your responsibility to the
citizens of North Carolina for road safety and ease of traffic flow but we
also realize that you do not.wish by any means to impede the progress of a
municipality.
The Town of Bethel is presently involved in planning the extension of water
and sewage to the eastern portion of Bethel and is in the general vicinity
of the bypass intersection. Should the proposed intersection not be an at
grade intersection, or to some degree the like, the real possibility of the
development in the area could have a.negative affect on our approximately
$100,000 water and sewage-projects usefulness in the near future.
It is a fact that our community serves as home for a great number of citizens
that commute in all four directions, north, south, east amd west for employment
in business and industry. It seems that a great deal of the north and south
commuter traffic will utilize the bypass as a quick means to get to the business
section of Bethel and eventually to their residence. In addition the industrial
traffic will use the bypass to access to the north and south routes of highway
4411 & 4x•13 and the east-west routes of the proposed new highway #64. The at
grade intersection will afford easy access to the bypass and the Town of Bethel.
c

It
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
November 14, 1991
Page 2
The Town of Bethel is most excited to learn the TIP project #R-218 is now a
reality and feel that this improvement will benefit the economic success of
our area, the comfort, safety and quality of life for people living and using
the project.
We look forward to working with you while you work to help us in eastern North
Carolina.
Sincerely,
Frank M. Hemingway, Mayor
cc: Thomas J. Harrelson
Ken Newsom
R.L. Martin
J?
t- _ s
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
October 30, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM: Janie S. Archer
National Flood Insurance Program
North Carolina Division of Emergency Managment
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Review
State # 92-E-42'20-0260
US 13-NC 11/64 Bypass
Comments: There appears to be no problem. Pitt. County is a
partipating community in the NFIP and can furnish
detailed information on their ordinance. ...
For information purposes the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Marti.% signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Mangement Policy, which must
be followed for development on any site.

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
e"`SVVE°
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
November 20, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trans rtation
FROM: David Brook v
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 13-NC 11 from Greenville Northwest Loop
to US 64 Bypass north of Bethel, with Bethel
Bypass on new location, Pitt County, R-218,
8.1221101, CH 92-E-4200-0260
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within the
general area of the project:
James Vann Taylor Farm. South side of SR 1313, 0.25 mile west of
the 'unction with US 13-NC 11, Bethel vicinity. The James Vann
Taylor Farm was placed on our state study list on January 1, 1989, for
eventual nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Robson-Whichard-Taylor House. East side of US 13-NC 11, 0.2 mile
north of the junction with SR 1522, Staton vicinity. The Robson-
Whichard-Taylor House was placed on our state study list on January
1, 1989, for eventual nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.
The following historic structures have not been evaluated for National
Register-eligibility:
House. South side of SR 1500, 0.65 mile east of the junction with US
13-NC 11, Bethel vicinity.
Henry Williamson Brown House. West side of US 13-NC 11, 0.1 mile
south of the junction with SR 1509, Bethel vicinity.
10g EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
November 20, 1991, Page 2
Major Jones House. East side of US 13-NC 11, 0.5 mile north of the
junction with SR 1510, Bethel vicinity.
Whitehurst House. South side of SR 1510, 0.15 mile east of the
junction with US 13-NC 11, Whitehurst vicinity.
Randolph House. East side of US 13-NC 11, at the junction with SR
1521, Staton vicinity.
Samuel Moore House. West side of US 13-NC 11, at the junction with
SR 1515, Bethel vicinity.
George Lafayette Moore House. West side of US 13-NC 11, 0.15 mile '
south of the junction with SR 1515, Bethel vicinity.
From Greenville to the southern edge of Bethel there are no recorded
archaeological sites, and given the hydrological and topographic situation of
the corridor, there is a relatively low probability for significant prehistoric
sites. However, historical research should be conducted to determine the
potential for significant historic period sites along the corridor. Based on the
research, an archaeological survey may be necessary to evaluate the
potential impacts of the proposed widening project.
The Bethel bypass area had an archaeological survey in 1979 (David S.
Phelps, East Carolina University), and several historic and prehistoric sites
were identified. None of the sites were considered eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places at that time. However, the area
covered by the 1979 survey may not correspond to the area proposed for
the new bypass location. The area east of Bethel has a relatively high
probability for containing significant prehistoric and historic sites. Thus, a
combination of historical research and archaeological survey may be
appropriate for the bypass portion of the project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
13 V ?Fq
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 8, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
.Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: US 13-NC 11 from Greenville Northwest Loop to
US 64 Bypass, R-218, Federal-aid F-102-1(3),
State 8.1221101, Pitt County, ER 94-7181
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
O
'?lEP 10 1993 z
U
ISION OF e?
GHWAYS4
2Z QQ?W,Rot4
Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have completed our review of the archaeological survey report prepared by
Kenneth Robinson for the above project. A total of sixty-five archaeological sites
were identified during the survey. Mr. Robinson recommends no further
archaeological investigations at any of the sites for the project as currently
defined. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we concur that none of the archaeological sites are eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
However, we have not received archaeological site data forms for the sites
recorded during the survey. Forms should be submitted at the earliest possible
date.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avi rook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: v[.. J. Ward
K. Robinson
XL-84NP
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Q3P
tV- Gci `
,Oct U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 11
3 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ? C , Y
• REGION FOUR
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
'a,,????a?r` Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
J ? DEC
,
In Reply Re er?o: 1993
December 23, 1993
r ,?ISlC'V OF
CIA.-NC
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
Subject: Federal-aid Project F-102-1(3), State No. 8.1221101,
R-218, Pitt County - Section 106 Consultation
The subject project is for improvements to US 13-NC 11 from the
Greenville Northwest Loop to the US 64 Bypass north of Bethel,
including the Bethel Bypass. Representatives of your office and
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) met to
discuss the project on December 3, 1993. Enclosed are two copies
of the Phase II Architectural Survey Report and one copy of the
original report photographs prepared as a part of the
environmental studies on the project. Three of the thirteen
properties surveyed, the Henry Williamson Brown Farmstead, the
Robson-Whichard-Taylor House and the James Van Taylor Farmstead,
are considered potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
Based upon our review of the survey report, the Federal Highway
Administration has determined the three properties noted above,
with boundaries as described in the report, are eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. Your concurrence in this
determination is requested. The NCDOT asks that the original
photographs be returned upon the completion of your review.
Questions concerning the report can be directed to John Wadsworth
of this office at 856-4350 or Ms. Barbara Church with the NCDOT at
733-3141.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
{
?»z Enclosures
>--, cc: Mr. H. Frank Vick, P.E., NCDOH
kA
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 27, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Phase II Historic Architectural Resources Survey
Report for widening of -US 13-NC 11 from
Greenville Northwest Loop to US 64 Bypass,
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, R-218, 8.1221101,
F-102-1(3), ER 94-8058
Dear Mr: Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 23, 1993, transmitting the historic
structures survey report by Kitty Houston for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) concerning the above project.
The following properties were formally determined eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places by the Keeper in March 1981:
Henry Williamson Brown Farmstead (PT 597)
Herbert P. Brown House.
,George LaFayette Moore House (PT 535)
Based upon the present integrity of each of these properties, we concur that only
the Henry William Brown Farmstead remains eligible for listing in the National
Register. Under Criterion C, it is significant as an example of the-substantial - -
residences built by prosperous farmers in Pitt County at the turn of the century.
The following properties were placed on the state study list on January 1, 1989.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur they are eligible for the National Register under the criteria cited:
Robson-Whichard-Taylor House (PT 550). Criterion C--As the oldest known
house in Pitt County, this property illustrates construction methods and
finishing details from the county's early development.
James Van Taylor Farm (PT 596). Criterion C--Both in its layout and in the
types of surviving buildings, the property exemplifies a successful late
nineteenth-early twentieth century farmstead. We also believe that the
James Van Taylor Farmstead is eligible under Criterion A for agriculture.
Please see our additional comments in the attachment.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
00 January 27, 1994, Page 2
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
These properties have undergone numerous character-altering changes:
Ben Beverly House
Herbert P. Brown House'
Eneares Primitive Baptist Church
Major Silas Jones House (PT 16)
George LaFayette Moore House 9PT.535)
Parker House
These properties have substantially lost their integrity:
House (PT 581)
Elder Samuel Moore House (PT 536)
Randolph House (PT 530)
Whitehurst House (PT 582)
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior. Specific concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed are
attached for the author's use.
Thank you for providing original photographs of the historic structures for our use.
By copy of this letter, we are returning the original photographs to NCDOT for
their files.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
)Br Davi ook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
cc: H. F. Vick (w/photos)
i,,B Church

77T 1-7
7-T -
-
Y'»>:

ATTACHMENT
Phase II Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report
for widening of US 13-NC 11 from Greenville Northwest Loop
to US 64 Bypass, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties,
R-218, 8.1221101, F-102-1(3), ER 94-8058
Specific Comments
James Van Taylor Farmstead (PT 596). We believe this property is eligible for the
National Register under Criterion A for agriculture. As noted in The Historic
Architecture of Pitt County, North Carolina, the farmstead is one of two examples
of extensive dairy and tobacco farming operations surviving from the early
twentieth century. It exemplifies a typical middle class farm of the 1920s and
1930s. Although some of the outbuildings and tenant houses have been lost, the
remaining elements--including intact field patterns from at least 1940--definitely
convey the essence of an agricultural property. Also, the role of James Van
Taylor as a prominent state and national farmer further enhances its agricultural
significance.
To determine the appropriate boundaries for the farmstead, we need to know what
portions;of land were historically associated with the farm during its period of
significance from the 1890s to 1943.
W.O.P9
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL NOWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
310 New Bern Avenue, Sub 410
RabiDh. Noah Cwolna 27601
March 16, 1994
In Reply Rehr To:
HO-NC
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
C Ei??
00
z AMR 2
1994
D!V /S!C'Y p?
d' HIGHyVAYS
F \
Subject: Federal-aid Project F-102-1(3), State No. 8.3"Zf07,
R-218, Edgecombe-Pitt Counties - Section 106 Consultation
Your letter of January 27, 1994 on the subject project requested
additional information on the James Van Taylor Farmstead.
Specifically, the request was for information on what portions of
land were historically associated with the farm during its period
of significance from 1890 to 1943.
According to Mr. James Van Taylor, Jr., present owner of the farm,
there are no recorded deeds of the farm's historic boundaries.
Land currently associated with the faro is outlined in red on the
attached map. Mr. Taylor states the portion of the farm on the
west side of US 13-NC 11 has been associated with the farm from the
1890's into the present. The land on the east side of US 13-NC it
has been associated with the farm from the 1920's into the present.
Small portions of the land on the east side of US 13-NC 11 have
been subdivided in recent times and are shown as separate legal
parcels on the tax map that was included in the historic
architectural resources report (page 45).
Questions regarding this information can be directed to John
Wadsworth of this office at 856-4350 or Ms. Barbara Church with the
North Carolina Department of Transportation at 733-3141.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
01
cc:
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E., NCDOH
Jy ? STNi o
M ? A
.vow.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor
sexy Ray McCm. secretary
March 31, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widening US 13-NC 11 from Greenville Northwest
Loop to US 64 Bypass, Edgecombe and Pitt
Counties, R-218, 8.122110 1, F-102-1(3),
ER 94-8605
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr.. Director
Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1994, which was hand delivered to us on
March 24, 1994, and provides additional information on the above project.
As explained in our letter of January 27, 1994, we concur with the Federal
Highway Administration's (FHwA) determination that the James Van. Taylor
Farmstead is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion C for architecture. However, we also believe the property is eligible for
*the National Register under Criterion A for agriculture.
The James Van Taylor Farmstead is one of two examples of extensive dairy and
tobacco farming operations surviving from the early twentieth century in Pitt
County. Although some of the outbuildings and tenant houses have been lost, we
believe the remaining elements--including intact field patterns from at least 1940--
strongly convey the essence of a typical middle class farm of the 1920s and
1930s. The role of James Van Taylor as a prominent state and national farmer
further enhances the agricultural significance of the farmstead. Thus, we believe
the boundaries delineated in the historic architectural resources report prepared by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) may not be appropriate
since agricultural significance was not fully considered.
Although deed research has not been conducted, we understand that James Van
Taylor, Jr., present owner of the property, has stated that the portion of his
property on the west side of US 13 has been associated with the farm since the
1890s and that on the east side of US 13 from the 1920s. Given the association
of the land on the east side of US 13 with the more significant period of the
property, as well as with James Van Taylor--rather than his father--we believe the
land on the east side of US 13 should be included in the historic boundaries. The
eastern historic boundary for the farmstead is generally the same as the current
tax parcel following the creek and SR 1512 but excluding the four parcels along
SR 1512 which have been sold.
109 East Jo= Street - RaleASk North Cardin 276012807
Nicholas L. Graf
March 31, 1994, Page 2
Please note, we feel it may be appropriate to also extend the proposed western
boundary, but we have not received aerial photography nor information concerning
field patterns for this area. However, given the scope of the roadway widening
project and in an effort to keep the project moving forward, we feel it is
unnecessary for the purposes of this project to make a final determination on the
western boundary.
If FHwA does not concur with our findings regarding eligibility or boundaries, you
may request a formal determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National
Register. As the next step under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and in consultation with us, FHwA should determine the effects the project
may have upon historic properties located in the area of potential effect. We look
forward to meeting with FHwA and NCDOT representatives in the near future to
discuss the project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
j,Sinc ely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: Senator Robert Martin
Secretary McCain
Betty Speir
H. F. Vick
ice. Church
NV t ^RTH CAROLINA :J ^T•.JrT ° T ,,,•
i i .i. V l •l
FINAL NATC.,IWIDE SECTION 4 ; F ) EV LTJATIOI: =:vD =`.FPR ; VAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY FROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
Y I,..,n.,
HISTORIC iS
F. A. PRO,.EC'T FrF-102-1
`m.,m p E: CT 21:'1101
'. T. I. . P- NC. R-2io
DESCRIPTION. Wide. the e t _ ' ;TTCL - - =r3Di =i;=
Greenville NC::thWeSt Loop to the LS 64
Bypass North of Bethel including t1._
Bethel Bypass
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristic,
safety, and/or physical condition of the f-
existing highway facility on essent_ally
the same alignment"
2. Is the project on new location? ?
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the ? I I
existing highway? L-?
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings, /
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are
important to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological /
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f)
site considered minor (i.e., no effect ?/ ?
no adverse effect?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
1 I
determination of "no adverse effect?" L-t
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed
mitigation?
E. Does the project require the preparation F I
of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CQNSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO EE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
YES No
1. Do nothing / F-I
Does the "do nothing" altenative: V
(a) correct capacity- deficienciesc
or (b) correct exsisting safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create a cost or impact of
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using the /
adjacent historic site. ? F-I?
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining
walls, etc., or traffic management
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substatial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new location F-I
without using the historic site.
A
a) Ai: alternate on new _. o,: at 1.cn w;:ui
result in: '-Jrcls, as appropr.ate)
a project which doe_. riot solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or ;iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
or iv; such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
14114I C I ZATI ON OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the
historic integrity of the site
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed
to, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by
the FHWA, the SHPO, and as appropriate,
the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
Yes No

A. Widen the existing NC 11/US 13 away from the James Van
Taylor Farmstead house and out buildings.
B. Provide a median break for NC 11/US 13 at SR 1424
(Alpine-Taylor Road).
C. Replace any fences on the James Van Taylor Farmstead
property removed for construction.
D. Photograph the tenant house to be removed on the east side
of NC 11/US 13 for construction.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coos dina=ed with Lilc f: slow-L' ng
(attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer ?
b. Advisory Council in NIstoric Preservation V
C. Property owner
d. Local/State/rederal AgencieS
e. US Coast Guard
;for bridges requiring bridge per:?its;
SUMMARY AND APPRQVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 15=66.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings
made are clearly applicable to this project. There are no
feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all the possible planning to minimize harm,
a.hd the measures to minimize harm will be incc_pc-rated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed wit",
local and state agencies.
Approved:
9/1194- &") ?4 - U.&&
D to Manager, Planning & Environmental
Branch NCDOT
s?- 4
Lame ` Div
on Administrator, FHWA
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW; #809
Washington. DC 20004
JUN 2 8 1994
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Proposed Improvements to US 13 - NC 11
Pitt and Edgecomb Counties, North Carolina
Project F-102-1(3)
Dear Mr. Graf.
On June 13, 1994, the Council received your determination, supported by the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the referenced
undertaking will have no adverse effect upon the James Van Taylor Farm, which is
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Pursuant to
Section 800.5(d)(2) of the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties
(36 CFR Part 800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are not
required to take any further steps to comply with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act other than to implement the undertaking as proposed and
consistent with the conditions you have reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
ov,-4 ?
Don L. Klima
Director
Eastern Office of Review
Concurrence Form, Section 106,
National Historic Preservation Act
(to be included in planning document appendix)
On /7-? ,i 5 9 representatives of the following
agencie
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
v North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)
reviewed the subject project, in
County, identified as in NCDOT's Transportation
Improvement Program, at a meeting to determine'the project's
effects on any properties located within the project's area
of potential effect (APE) that are either listed in the
National Register of Historic Places or that have been
determined eligible for the National Register.
All parties present agreed
that there are no effects on any National Register-
listed or National Register-eligible properties
which are located within the project's area of
potential effect
? that there will be an effect/effects on National
Register-listed or National Register-eligible
property/properties listed on the following page
(If there is any effect on any listed or eligible
property in the project's APE, list all listed/eligible
properties and all effects, including no effect;.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT
Repre
State Historic Pr
/99¢

C. W
Representative, FHWA
Project: 8-.219
County: Ai?r y
Property Eligible or listed ? Effect
C? ?•4..?.., .L^.,.._,..02. .e.?' ?? tie-....?
Y

1000N - Ae00
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date Qt Land Evaluation rirau+st
PART 1 (To be cornolered by i ederal Agency)
11
11 I Faaeral Agency Involved

Jt ?ro,eet ? a.?b
Name
N G
County And State p. ?? GO
Proposes Lano Use C"•rs
oats 1 equat Received ev SCS D a
PART 11 (To be compered by SCSI
' Yes No Acres I,Y;q.td Average Fsrn+Stu
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmlands

ply - do not complete additional parrs of this form). ?
t a 1,11119
As

Amount Of Farmulxt OefineII in PA
K
p
()f no, the FPPA does no
ts)
C FarntaWe Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
96 cl' f- 4/'
. Acres: 3 L' ?% ?' 7
roa
Major
(
C j Z t?
Acres:
e AwsSilm System
Si Date Land Evawaoon Rsnurned 8v SCS
L
NomeOt una Evaluation System used t
Name Of Lod 0 3 C ` 3
,J Irk Alternative site ann
Site Z Site 3
PART Its (To be completed by Federal Agency) $itf
`O ?q
Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
A
.
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect) c,, \ ?°??
C. Total Acres In Site
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland ?.
8. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 0o C. Percentage Of Farmland in nt
Couy Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
$ame Or Nigher Relatlva WWII t
0• Percentage of Far nand in Govt. Jurisdiction with
PART V (To be comp/srsd by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Se Converted (SWOofOto tooPointsl 14
I
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum Site Awssment Criteria Mae criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.Sfb) P Poina
5 \
1. Area In Nonurban Use ` °%
2• Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3 Percent Of Site Being Farmed
A Protection Provided BY State And Local
c..,.,, 1 irhan nuiltuo Area
. Distance ro uroan ausapu•
Size of Present Farts Unit Compared To
10. On-Farm investment: A :2
11. Effects of Conversion On Fatm Support Services `
12. Comoatibiii With existing Agricultural Use 160
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
100
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) otsl Site Assessment (NORM Parr V/ above ora local 160
site assessment) 260
TOTAL POINTS (Tots/ of above 2 lines)
Site Selected: Date Of Selection
Reason For Selection:
e
3

?'P \d 1
m
\O
18 4
Assessment Used?
?
yes C3 No
LOOON - Aa00
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date Qt Lind EvaluittOn deGudst ?? a \G
PART 1 /To he cornaered by Federal Agency) I Federal Agency Involved \Zh-1
Name at 2rotect
I County And State ?G? GOM?
Proposed Lino Use
w Dace Request Retnved dv SCS () 7' ?7
PART 11 (ro be completed by SCSI Acne irrigated At,.rno Farm Sue
?
Parts Of farmland! Y C1
Does the site contain prime. unique. statewide or local important
No Antou ntisnd As Defined in PA
(H no, the FPPA does not apply - do not comp/et?a dndW@ Lam n Ovtrr jurisdiction t Of Far -7
Acres: a ?
Major CrOpls) 96 80. Ll
G 0 ? ? Acts: ? ? 3 Date Land Eviustion .sunned By sCs
Name Of Lod site As:ssment System G 3 O ?},- I5 3-?,/u{
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 1 r?
PART 111 (ro be complered by Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted OirectiY
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect,
C. Total Acres In Site
oee-r iv ?n be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Lotxl Govt. Unit To Be Converted
r Relative Vaiw
0. p??ge Of Farmiend In Govt. JurisdienG^ VYith T=L==-=
PART V (ro be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Sca/eofOto 100Pointsl
PORT V 1 fro be completed by Federal Agency) maximum
..tee ceD itlbl Points
-------------
1. Area in Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
g. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided BY State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Built,
6. Distance To Urban Suopoh
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit
e e,.-s,t.,.. rff Nnnfarrnable F
Area
rvics
12. Compatibility With Existing Agric
-MTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
t oeaT VII fro be complered by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) oral gate Assessment ( rpm Part V1 above ora local
site assessor r
TOTAL POINTS (rots/ of above 2lines)
Date of Selection
Site Selected:
Reason For selection:
?I°I ?.OOIo
E °
E0
ibg' 31 moo=
60 \b I 1
100
160 \C? Q,
260 1 `d C1 - 3 \ b . ?-
Y Ies A Lori' Sit
Yes
No ?

RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1221101 COUNTY: PITT (1) Alternate: GREENVILLE TO NEW LOCATION
I.D. NO.: TIP R-218 F.A. PROJECT: F-102-1 (3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 FROM GREENVILL.E NORTHWEST LOOP TO US 64 BYPASS NORTH OF
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Disspplacee Owners Tenants Total it es 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 22 9 31 12 15 14 2 0 0
Businesses 4 0 4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 6 0-20M 0 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M 7 150-250 3 20-40M 15 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 13 250-400 0 40-70M 30 250-400 15
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 40 400-600 11
b

X services
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
0
600 UP
0
100 UP
10
600 UP
5
ff
t
d b
di
l
t
X a
ec
e
y
sp
acemen
3. Will business services still TOTAL 22 9 95 31
b
il
l
f
e ava
ab
e a
ter project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of ALL DISPLACEES LISTED AS FAMILIES
l
i
iti
t
emp
c.
oyees, m
nor
es, e
X 5. Will relocation cause a 3. Same type businesses unaffected by this project.
h
i
t
h
or
ous
ng s
age
X 6. Source for available hous- 4. (1) Redi-Supply, Inc. (Kure-Kut) - small, 8 emp.
i
(li
t) ment and su
lies
ction e
ui
t
-
ng
s pp
q
p
cons
ru
X 7. Will additional housing
b
d
d - small
10 emp
Inc
(2) Edwards Greenville
programs
e nee
e ,
.
,
.
X B. Should Last Resort Housing -crane and rigging service
id
d
b
e cons
ere
X 9. Are there large, disabled, (3) Country Mart - small, 6 emp.
elderly, etc. families -convenience store, 2 ser islands & 7 gas puff
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN

10. Will public housing be (4) Bsloht Castle/Sylvia's Variety Corner-sm, 3 ea
d
d f
roj
t ame room & 2 gas pumps
-convenience store
nee
e
or p
ec , g
11. Is public housing avail-
bl Classified Ads
Service
Realtors
Multi
le Listin
6
a
e .
,
p
g
.
,
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
eriod
r
location
d
i S. As mandated by State Lau.
- '
p
ur
ng
e
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial 14. ?s,9 C 3f??l e Li?ti ng Service, Classified Ads.

RtG?1T %.t- ti `
X means
14. Are suitable business sites
t source)
il
bl
(li 'gg?
0 3
e
s
ava
a 0
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION ,. ; TT!
.t?
P_
NANCY E. WILSON W?=I?i/•Z? `?? / -3 - /
Relocation Agent Date rov Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent,
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1221101 COUNTY: PITT (2) ALTERNATE: NO. 1 WEST BYPASS
I.D. NO.: TIP R-218 F.A. PROJECT: F-102-1 (3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 FROM GREENVILLE NORTHWEST LOOP TO US 64 BYPASS NORTH OF
BETHEL
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type Owners Tenants Total ittes 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Fgmilies 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN GS AVAILABLE
FArms Owners Tenant s For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 1 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 0-150 0
ANSWER A LL QUEST IONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 15 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 30 250-400 15
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 40 400-600 11

X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
1
600 UP
0
100 UP
10
600 UP
5

X affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL
1
0
95
31
be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
ALL DISPLACEES LISTED AS FAMILIES
etc
minorities
e
l
.
,
oye
s,
emp
X 5. Will relocation cause a
e
shorta
i
h
Enoche Primitive Baptist Church - small, 30-50 mbr:
2
g
ous
ng .
X 6. Source for available hous-
(list)
i
No businesses are being displaced.
3
X ng
7. Will additional housing
rams be needed
ro .
Multiple Listing Service, Classified Ads.
Realtors
6
p
g ,
.
X B. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
As mandated by State Law.
8
.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
needed for project

11. Is public housing avail-
able

12. Is it felt there will be ad-
t equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)

15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION

C
NANCY E. WILSON T/ ?2 _7
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1221101 COUNTY: PITT (3) ALTERNATE: NO. 3
I.D. NO.: TIP R-218 F.A. PROJECT: F-102-1 (3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 FROM GREENVILLE NORTHWEST LOOP TO US 64 BYPASS NORTH OF
BETHEL
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type Owners Tenants Total ittes 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenant s
1 For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 1 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M 0 150•-250 0 20-40M 15 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 30 250-400 15
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 40 400-600 11
b

X e necessary
services
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
1
600 UP
0
100 UP
10
600 UP
5
ff
di
l
t
t
d b
X ec
acemen
a
e
y
sp
3. Will business services still TOTAL 1 0 95 31
t
b
il
bl
ft
e ava
a
e a
er projec
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of ALL DISPLACEES LISTED AS FAMILIES
t
l
i
iti
c.
emp
oyees, m
nor
es, e
X 5. Will relocation cause a
h
i
h
t 30-50 mbrs
Enoche Primitive Baptist Church - small
2
ous
ng s
or
age ,
.
X 6. Source for available hous-
(li
i
t) No businesses are being displaced
3
s
ng .
.
X 7. Will additional housing
d
d
b le Listing Service, Classified Ads
Multi
Realtors
6
programs
e nee
e .
p
,
.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
id
d
b As mandated by State Lash
8
e cons
ere .
.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN

10. Will public housing be
roject
eded for
p
ne
11. Is public housing avail-
bl
e
a
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
eriod
relocation
i
d ,
p
ur
ng
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
ns
mea
14. Are suitable business sites
ilable (list source)
ava
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
/!vr - -
NANCY E. WILSON ?a,
Re ocation Agent Date Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1221101 COUNTY: PITT (4) Alternate: NO. 1 EAST
I.D. NO.: TIP R-218 F.A. PROJECT: F-102-1 (3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 FROM GREENVILLE NORTHWEST LOOP TO US 64 BYPASS NORTH OF
BETHEL
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Di?splacee Owners Tenants Total itiieesr 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLI NGS AVAILABLE
FArms Owners Tenant s For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER A LL QUEST IONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
serv ices be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
600 UP
100 UP
600 UP
affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL
be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
etc
ities
i
l
THERE WILL BE ND RESIDENCES OR BUSINESSES DISPLACED
,
.
oyees, m
nor
emp
5. Will relocation cause a
e
shorta
h
i
g
ous
ng -
6. Source for available hous-
(list)
i
ng
7. Will additional housing
rams be needed
ro
p
g
8. Should Last Resort Housing
idered
b
e cons
9. Are there large, disabled,
families
etc
lderl
.
y,
e
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
roject
ded for
p
nee
r, 11. Is public housing avail-
ble
a
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
relocation period
durin
g
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)

15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
NANCY E. WIL90N ?7 L •? ?? ?0?3/
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
ELOCATION REPORT
X E.I.S. _ OORRIDOR _ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation,
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1221101 COUNTY: PITT (5) Alternate: NO. 2
I.D. NO.: TIP R-218 F.A. PROJECT: F-102-1 (3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 13/NC 11 FROM GREENVILLE NORTHWEST LOOP TO US 64 BYPASS NORTH OF
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INCOME; LEVEL
Di?splacee Owners Tenants Total itiess 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SM 50 UP
Individuals
Families 3 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For Ren t
Non-Profit 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M 1 150-250 0 20-40M 15 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 2 250-400 0 40-70M 30 250-400 15
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 40 400-600 11

X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
0
600 UP
0
100 UP
10
600 UP
5

X affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL
3
0
95
31
ft
b
i 1
bl
t
er projec
e ava
a
a a
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of ALL DISPLACEES LISTED AS FAMILIES
i
iti
t
l
oyees, m
nor
es, e
c.
emp
X 5. Will relocation cause a 3. Same type businesses unaffected by this project.
h
t
h
i
ous
ng s
or
age
X 6. Source for available hous- 4. Blount Tri-County Feed Mills - mad - 10 emp.
i
(li
t) with 9 silos
rain com
an
-
ng
s p
y
g
X 7. Will additional housing
d
d
b Classified Ads
le Listing Serice
Multi
altors
6
R
e nee
e
programs .
,
p
,
.
e
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
sidered
b As mandated by State Law
S
e con .
.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families 14. Realtors, Multiple Listing Service, Classified Ads.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
d f
roject
d
e
or p
nee
11. Is public housing avail-
bl ,
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
eriod
relocation
durin
p
g
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
s
X mean
14. Are suitable business sites
ilable (list source)
ava
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
NANCY E. WILSON Z
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
?Ty ?t ST?'q
<A d ? a ? nn
D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 22, 1994
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEIVO
DEC Z 8 1994
EWRONMEN'TAL SCIENCES
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for US 13/NC 11, From the
Greenville Northwest Loop to the US 64 Bypass North of Bethel, Pitt
and Edgecombe Counties, Federal Aid Project No. FAP-102-1, State
Project No. 8.1221101, T.I.P. Project No. R-218
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Systems Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is
anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant
Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental Assessment or
at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by February 13, 1995. If no comments
are received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy
of the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
X51
.?* State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
.Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor _ ID EE H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 6, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
Monica Swiha
From: Eric Galamb f
Subject: EA for US 131NC 11 from NC 903 to US 64 Bypass
Pitt & Edgecombe Counties
TIP #R-218
DEHNR # 95-0451, DEM # 10825
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that waters including wetlands will be impacted.
DOT proposes to widen a significant distance on existing location with a 60 foot
median (The typical section shows a 46 foot median) . What are the wetland impacts
for the project using a 46 foot median? The bypass of Bethel utilizes a combination of
alternatives 1 and 2. However, the wetland impacts with this preferred alternative are
not discussed. DEM believes that 6.3 acres of wetland may be impacted with DOT's
preferred alternative compared to 2.7 acres for alternative 1. It appears to DEM that
wetland avoidance altematives have not considered for the bypass. DEM is attaching
an modified alternative 1 that DOT should consider. DOT should attempt to avoid the
cypress wetland.
DOT did not use current stream classifications in the document. DOT referenced
stream classifications from 1991. Current classifications are from February 1, 1993.
Although the stream classifications for Grindle Creek and Suggs Branch have not
changed, current classifications are important for DEM to make appropriate comments.
DOT should adhere to DOT's Stream relocations/ channelization guidelines.
Information about hazardous material sites was known in 1991. If DOT had
contacted the Groundwater Section immediately, several sites could be closed now
thus making the widening alternative an even more favorable alternative (cost and
environmentally based).
Although DEM agrees with the decision to widen existing US 13/NC 11, DEM cannot
endorse the document until the above concerns are adequately addressed. DOT is
reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
.+.,
Melba McGee Memo
February 6, 1995
Page 2
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
us13nc11.ea
cc: Washington COE
Byron Brady, DOT
Ted Bush, Groundwater Section

e?,

IS