The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20160191_Reports_20060629E 0 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION U.S. Dcpartnicnt of Tran?portation, Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department ofTransportation GI:EENVILLE SOUTHWEST BYPASS STUDY Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Bushiess Pitt County n Federal aid No.: STP-11(1) NCDOT Project No.: S.1221401 'I'.LP. I.D. No.: R-2250 Su ,nnitted Pursuant to 42 USC •1332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303 Cooperating Agencies: U.S. 2irniv Cor -1 of EIIglneers i I.'.: /` --- -- rcf'LGregory J. Thorpe, PhD Environmental Manabement Director Project Development a Environmental Analysis Branch N(Cth Carolina Department of Transportati 1?a;, ??! vJohn I:. Sullivan, 111, I)- E-1 Division Administrator Federal Highway administration .- .. •, i' ; :. ,., ?:,.1 : . a :.?;t: r:al llltar:nation concerning this document: Grc ory J. Ihorpc, I'hD, Director t: North C:rclina Department of "Transportation 15-13 Mail Service Center _ :1 C........I -r01 .,.llei,;ll, North Carolina 27699-15 IS . -; -; (919) /-33-31-11 „ .... s of :. lurovelnen's to the :a:I;u:: burl Road (US 264 Business)/ :Memorial Drive ?. c: t`.:.: cit" of This statement documents the need for _.. _..., ?.:.:n , ..rdo. .....1 CValua tes alternatives with respect to costs and social, A Pre crrtd Alt-rnative bill be selected based on the findings of 1 c'. .1. :1 C; colnn,.ents r,.ci%-cd on t111L'S liCCL11I1Cnt, and comments received at the Public 1, ? and should be scot to Mr. Thorpe at the above address. i 1 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation L r r 0 7 7 L u GREENVILLE SOUTHWEST BYPASS STUDY Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Business Pitt County Federal Aid No.: STP-11(1) NCDOT Project No.: 8.1221401 T.I.P. I.D. No.: R-2250 DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY H. W. LOCHNER, INC. o?aun?ne?,? 1t1 CAR4( ?''•, 6 113 0 ESSIpNq'q Date tephen Browde, PE 9 Project Manager 15759 = N?A IiNi? FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, (P 12-q o Date 6.Zl e6 Date Beth S yre Project Planning Engineer Brian F. Yamamo , P.E. Project Engineer u 7 H- I n PROJECT COMMITMENTS Greenville Southwest Bypass Pitt County State Project No. 8.1221401 TIP No.: R-2250 COMMITMENTS DEVELOPED THROUGH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA) New surveys for the Tar River spinymusscl will be conducted on the preferred alternative prior to construction. NCDOT will coordinate with the USFWS regarding the biological conclusion for this species. PDEA/Roadway Design Sound barriers corresponding to the preferred alternative will be investigated in more detail in the design study phase of the project. r r J n CI n Geotechnical Engineering Unit When the final proposed centerline is established and right of way determined, a hazardous materials site assessment will be performed to the degree necessary to determine levels of contamination at any potential hazardous materials sites along the preferred alternate. The assessment will be made prior to right of way acquisition. Resolution of problems associated with contamination will be coordinated with appropriate agencies. Gavin lle Soutlm est I3j pass Draft Emiroumental Impact Statement Parse 1 of 1 A 0 4 3 w a ' SUMMARY ' SA FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (X) Draft O Final (X) Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation attached S.2 CONTACTS ' The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-4346 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone: (919) 733-3141 S.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This study evaluates transportation improvements proposed for the Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business)/Memorial Drive (NC 11) corridor in Pitt County, North Carolina, southwest of the city of Greenville. This transportation improvement project is identified in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project R-2250. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2009 and construction is scheduled to begin after 2012. Greenville .Southwest 13)pass Page S-1 ' Draft h'n ironmentalImpact Statement Summary The primary purposes of the proposed project are to improve traffic flow and congestion on Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) within the project area; relieve congestion on NC 11 in Greenville, thereby improving safety and reducing the number of accidents; and improve regional travel along the US 264/NC 11 corridor. SA OTHER MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY There are thirteen other projects located in the study area; eight NCDOT TIP projects, and five proposed city of Greenville projects. These are listed below: NCDOT TIP Projects The following projects are currently listed in the 2006-2012 TIP: ¦ U-3613. Widen Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) to a five-lance facility from Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) to east of Corey Road (SR 1709). Construction is scheduled to begin in 2006. ¦ U-3315. Construct Stantonsburg Road / Tenth Street Connector from Memorial Drive to Evans Street. The facility will be partly on new location with multiple lanes and a grade separation at the CSX rail crossing. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for 2007; and construction is scheduled to begin in 2009. ¦ U-2817. Widen Evans Street and Old Tar Road from Main Street in Winterville to US 264A. Planning is currently underway. ¦ U-4737. Arlington Boulevard Extension and Widening. The project is currently under construction. ¦ B-3685. Replace Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703. The project is currently under construction. ¦ B-4231. Replace Bridge No. 53 over Swift Creek on NC 102. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2006 and construction in 2007. ¦ B-4232. Replace Bridge No. 9 over Swift Creek on NC 903. Right of way acquisition and construction is scheduled for 2006. ¦ B-4786. Replace Bridge No. 38 over the Tar River on US 13. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2009 and construction in 2012. City of Greenville Projects The following projects have been identified as priority projects by the Greenville Urban Area MPO. The schedule for completing these projects is dependent on available funding. ¦ W.H. Smith Road Extension. New two-lane roadway to provide alternate route to Arlington Boulevard from the regional medical center facilities. ¦ US 13/Dickinson Road Widening. This route connects Greenville with areas in Southwest Pitt County and Goldsboro. The recommended cross-section is a four-lane roadway. Greenville Southuvest kpase Page .S'-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7 Summary i r r E • Thomas Langston Road Extension. To relieve traffic on Greenville Boulevard and Fire Tower Road, Thomas Langston Road would be extended from Memorial Drive (NC 11) to Evans Street. ¦ Forlines Road Widening. Forlines Road is becoming a suburban thoroughfare and will serve as the main interchange from the proposed Southwest Bypass to Winterville. The road will be widened to four lanes. ¦ NC 102/Third Street Widening. The project will widen the road from two lanes to four lanes through a developing commercial area. S.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A screening evaluation was conducted to identify the alternatives that could fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project. Five broad-ranged alternatives were established for consideration on this project. These alternatives include: ¦ No-Build Alternative ¦ Transportation System Management Alternative ¦ Mass Transit Alternative • Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative ¦ Build Alternative involving the construction of a roadway on new location The preliminary alternatives that could not fulfill the purpose of and need for the project, had excessive undesirable impacts, or were considered impractical were eliminated from further consideration. The potential for adverse environmental impacts on residential communities and businesses, historic resources, streams, wetlands, and natural areas was also considered. The evaluations of the preliminary alternatives are included in Section 2 of this DEIS. Based on this first screening evaluation, only the Build Alternative was determined to meet the goals of the proposed project. The Build Alternative includes several alternates for the proposed project, referred to as the Greenville Southwest Bypass. Land suitability maps of the project study area were created highlighting man-made and natural features that make one particular area unsuitable or less desirable than another for roadway construction. Such features included churches, cemeteries, schools, residential communities, parks, known historic architectural sites, community facilities, streams, and wetlands. Potential roadway study corridors then were overlain onto the land suitability maps, avoiding the sensitive features to the extent possible, and in accordance with the design criteria. The locations of the preliminary corridor segments were closely coordinated with the local governments as well as state and federal environmental and regulatory resource agencies. An impact matrix table was developed for the fifteen preliminary study corridors to estimate the potential impacts of each corridor. Based on the results of this second screening evaluation, and Greenville Sontliwest Bypass Drat Entimimewal Lnpact Statement Pnge S- 3 Summary consideration of comments received through public involvement and agency coordination programs, twelve of the preliminary study corridors were eliminated from further consideration. The three Bypass Alternates remaining for detailed study were I B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT. These corridors are evaluated in detail in Sections 3 and 4 of this DEIS. S.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following is a narrative summary of the primary environmental consequences associated with each of the bypass alternates under consideration. Table S-1 found at the end of this section provides this information in table form. Land Use and Transportation Planning The proposed project would be consistent with the state and local transportation plans for the area. Relocations Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would result in the most relocations of the three detailed study corridors, requiring 98 relocations. Alternate 4-EXT would require the least relocations, with 44. Environmental Justice The analysis contained in this DEIS would be consistent with that outlined in the Executive Order 12898 and the Department of Transportation Environmental Justice Order. Analysis and field observations do not indicate that the Greenville Southwest Bypass will adversely or disproportionately affect any minority or low-income populations. Community Cohesion Several communities in the study area would be impacted to some extent by the bypass alternates. Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT would directly impact Abbott Farms, Westwind, Sutters Place, Randall Estates, Ivy Chase, Bristolmoor, Brighton Place, and Taberna. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would not directly impact any major subdivisions. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would impact Brevard, Bristolmoor, Brighton Place, and Taberna. While no major cross streets connecting to any of the residential areas would be closed as part of the proposed project, there may be individual and community property access impacts due to relocation of driveways and local roads. The NCDOT provides new access wherever possible to properties isolated by a project. All property access changes and proposed solutions developed for the preferred alternative would be presented to affected property owners. Greenville Soutbwest Bypass Page S4 1gaff hmironvnentalImpactSlalernent CII' Summary Community Facilities and Services Schools, libraries, and parks and recreation areas in the study area would not be impacted by any of the three bypass alternates. Two churches are located just outside of the study corridors but would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Utilities and Infrastructure The proposed project will cross electrical transmission lines, municipal water and sewer lines, gas lines, and telecommunication lines owned by Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) and others. Through coordination with the utility providers, the bypass alternates are not expected to affect customers. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT would cross a GUC easement three times each. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would cross the easement two times. None of the corridors would impact major water facilities, such as treatment plants or pump stations. Natural gas service lines are located within portions of the study area; however, the main lines that carry gas into the Greenville area are located north of the project area and would not be impacted. All bypass alternates under consideration cross the CSX Railroad tracks near the project's northern terminus. The alternates follow a common alignment at this location and would include a bridge over the CSX tracks. Bridging should not impact railroad facilities or operations. None of the bypass alternates cross Norfolk-Southern Railroad facilities in the project area. Historic Architectural Resources There are six properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) which are either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register. Bypass Alternates I B-EXT and 4-EXT would both directly impact the Renston Rural Historic District, which is listed on the National Register. Alternate 1 B-EXT would impact approximately 45 acres, while Alternate 4-EXT would impact approximately 120 acres. Both Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT were determined to have an Adverse Effect on the Renston Rural Historic District. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would have No Adverse Effect on the district. All bypass alternates were determined to have No Adverse Effect on the William Amos Shivers House. Archaeological Resources Based on a 1996 archaeological overview of the project study area, it was determined that all bypass alternates under consideration would have equal likelihood of impacting prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Therefore, NCDOT, in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), has determined that no further detailed studies of the corridors will be completed until a preferred corridor is selected. Once the preferred alternative is selected, NCDOT and HPO will determine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources Greenville Soutlmect B)pass Yaffe S-5 Drat 1:nrnnnmettal lrripact .Statement Summary within the corridor. Should items be located, NCDOT will coordinate with the Office of State Archaeology as needed to determine what further action should be taken. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources None of the detailed study corridors would impact Section 6(f) resources. However, there are resources protected under Section 4(f) in or affected by the bypass alternates under consideration. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT would impact the Renston Rural Historic District because of direct use of portions of the district for the proposed bypass. Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT would not use land from any contributing properties; however, Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would use land from ten contributing properties, including displacing four contributing structures. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would not impact Section 4(f) resources. Visual Impacts The overall visual character of the project area would be impacted by the introduction of a new controlled access facility. However, this portion of Pitt County is expected to continue to experience some of the highest growth rates in the area and will become more suburban in nature. Further, visual quality for travelers using the proposed bypass, regardless of which corridor is selected, would be improved compared to the visual environment along existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business). Travelers on the new roadway would have opportunities for view of agricultural, forested, and residential areas. The rural historic district and private historic properties within the project area are considered visually sensitive resources. The Cox-Ange House, the A.W. Ange Company Store Building, and the Alfred McLawhorn House are a sufficient distance from all of the alternative corridors such that there will be no impact to these resources. Visual character of the other resources, including the Williams Amos Shivers House, Charles McLawhorn Historic Property, and Renston Rural Historic District, would be within view of the new location freeway alternatives under study. Air Quality In comparing the projected CO concentration levels with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, no violations of the 1-hour standard (35 ppm) or 8-hour standard (9 ppm) are expected. The I-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are not expected to exceed 4.4 and 3.5 ppm (including background contributions), respectively, at any of the sites along any of the alternates for any of the three years investigated. Noise Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT would result in the highest number of total impacted receptors (28) without mitigation, while each of the other bypass alternates would impact a total of 17 receptors without mitigation. A preliminary review of potential noise wall locations was conducted for all Greenville Soutbwest 13ypass Page .S-6 1 draft 1nvironmenta! Impact State>vent Summary receptors predicted to approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria or to experience a substantial noise increase. Eight barriers were found to be effective in reducing noise, but above the cost per benefited property criteria and will not receive further consideration without third party funding. Two barriers along Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT were shown to be reasonable for a total cost of $504,000. These barriers benefit a total of 13 properties. One barrier along Bypass Alternate 4- EXT was shown to be reasonable for a total cost of $378,000. One barrier along Bypass Alternate 5-EXT was shown to be reasonable for a total cost of $378,000. Barriers on Bypass Alternate 4-EXT and 5-EXT would each benefit 10 properties. Based on the studies thus far accomplished, NCDOT recommends installing noise abatement measures in the form of barriers at the two locations previously discussed. However, if it subsequently develops during final design that these conditions have substantially changed, the abatement measures would be reevaluated. A final decision of the installation of the abatement ' measure will be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement processes. I As shown in Table S-1, the total number of receptors impacted with mitigation measures in place varies between seven for Bypass Alternates 4-EXT and 5-EXT and 15 for Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT. Hazardous Material and Waste Sites Thirteen facilities with the possibility for underground storage tanks (USTs), one automotive salvage yard, and one above ground storage tank were identified in the project study area. In addition, an abandoned landfill is located near the northern terminus of the project. None of the alternates under consideration would directly impact the landfill site. Table S-1 lists the number of sites potentially affecting each bypass alternate. Based on current knowledge, it is not expected that conditions at any of these sites would preclude construction of any of the bypass alternates. Soils Review of available information for the project area indicates that there are no soils or geological features that would preclude or alter the corridors of the three alternates under consideration. Detailed geotechnical investigations will be undertaken as part of the design phase if one of the three alternates is selected as the preferred alternative. Prime and Important Farmland In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) and State Executive Order Number 96, an assessment was undertaken of the potential impacts of land Greenville Soutl»rest 13)Bast Pqe S-7 Drat F.nrironivewal Impact Statement Summary acquisition and construction activities in prime, unique, and local or statewide important farmland soils, as defined by the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). As required by the FPPA, coordination with the NRCS for this project was initiated by submittal of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 should be given a minimal level of protection, and sites receiving a total score of 160 or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR Section 658.4). None of the proposed bypass alternates resulted in a total site assessment score greater than 160 points. Therefore, in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, no mitigation for farmland loss is required for the project. Surface Waters As shown in Table S-1, the number of perennial stream crossings for the bypass alternates range from nine for Bypass Alternate 4-EXT to 23 for Bypass Alternate 5-EXT; stream impacts range between 1,606.7 linear feet and 4926.6 linear feet. At this phase in the planning process, the need for stream relocation is not anticipated. Streams crossed by the proposed alignment within any of the bypass alternates may be temporarily and locally impacted by road construction. Potential short-term water quality impacts include temporarily increased sedimentation and turbidity levels. An increase in impervious road surface area will result in increased runoff with the potential for carrying higher pollutant loads. Adherence to the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters during design and construction of the proposed project are expected to minimize impacts. Floodplains and Floodways Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT cross the 100-year floodplain associated with Swift Creek and Horsepen Swamp. Corridor location and conceptual design have taken into consideration all factors to minimize impact to floodplains. Although approximately 0.2 acre of floodplain associated with Horsepen Swamp is located within the study corridor for Bypass Alternate IB-EXT, the preliminary design for this alternate does not directly impact any floodplain areas. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT, however, would impact approximately 18.3 acres of floodplain associated with both Horsepen Swamp and Swift Creek. Major drainage structures proposed for the project would cross the floodplain at or near perpendicular angles, minimizing the length of floodplain traversed. All hydraulic structures would be designed such that the proposed structures would not significantly increase upstream flooding and would not increase the flood hazard potential of the existing floodplain. Greenville Soutliwest Bypass Paige .S'-R Draft Hnvironmental lmpact Staternew Summary Terrestrial Plant Communities The maintained-disturbed community type accounts for the majority of the vegetative cover in all of the alternate corridors. The pine plantation community is the next most abundant community type within the study area. Hardwood swamp communities are represented least within the study area. Terrestrial Wildlife Most of the project area is rural in character with scattered residential and small commercial developments. Large forested areas are still present near the project study area, but are limited primarily to lands immediately adjacent to the larger streams. Clearing and conversion of land for highways, railroads, agricultural, timberland, commercial, and residential uses has eliminated cover and protection for many species of wildlife, but has increased habitat for others that are able to utilize these anthropogenic habitats. There is little habitat for interior species, but ' woodland strips bordering small tributaries often serve as travel corridors between habitat types. Agricultural fields and residential areas not only provide food for wildlife, but also create edge habitat favored by many species. 1 Improving existing roads will impact less wildlife habitat than construction that is on new location. Although some loss of maintained habitat and forested ecotonal areas adjacent to existing road shoulders would result, these areas are minimal and of limited value to habitat- sensitive wildlife due to preexisting disturbance. Since current project alternatives deviate from existing roadways, impacts to a variety of habitats, including forested communities, will occur. Fragmentation and loss of forested habitat resulting from the new location corridors will have a greater impact on wildlife and its habitat, including the loss of potential nesting and foraging areas, and displacement of animal populations. Aquatic Communities Aquatic habitats within the project study area range from ephemeral waters to intermittent streams, to permanent riverine habitat. The diversity of streams within the project study area provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species. Resident aquatic species may be temporarily displaced during construction. Water resource impacts may also result from the physical disturbance of the forested stream buffers that adjoin most of the streams within the study area. Removing streamside vegetation can cause elevated water temperatures, cause an increase in sedimentation and turbidity, and ultimately lower the species diversity in the stream. Since the project is located in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins, state regulations require that stormwater enter the 50-foot riparian buffer at non-erosive velocities. The buffers will assist in ameliorating nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants from impacting the water resources. Measures to maximize sediment and erosion control during construction would protect water quality for aquatic organisms. Greent)ille Southwest 13}pass Ila e S-9 I)ra/t 1, nrironmental hilpact Statement Summary Jurisdictional Issues Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement provisions of the Act. Table S-1 provides information regarding the area wetlands, jurisdictional ponds, and streams impacted by the proposed preliminary engineering designs within each bypass alternate. Total direct wetland impacts range from 0.1 acre for Bypass Alternate 4-EXT to 1.5 acres for Bypass Alternate 5-EXT. These quantities are based on the construction limits in the preliminary roadway design plans. Protected Species There are four federally-protected species with habitat ranges that extend unto the study area: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), Red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). Field investigations along the Detailed Study Corridors were conducted from spring 2002 to summer 2005. The proposed project is expected to have No Effect on the bald eagle, West Indian manatee, and red-cockaded woodpecker. A cursory survey of Swift Creek was conducted in 1994 and found several forms of the eastern elliptio mussel (Elliptio spp.). The species was not determined at the time of the surveys. Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) was recommended at that time to minimize impacts to this population. New surveys for this species will be completed upon determination of the preferred alternative. Until that time, the effects determination will remain Unresolved. Results of the surveys will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Indirect and Cumulative Impacts The construction of the Greenville Southwest Bypass has been anticipated since the early 1970s and has been programmed into land use plans and other local regulations, and local officials are targeting development for the major feeder roads in anticipation of the construction of the bypass. Given that water service already exists throughout the study area, and that new extensions are allowed outside of the city of Greenville and the towns of Ayden and Winterville, water is not considered the controlling factor when it comes to growth in the study area. Sewer service, however, is limited near the city of Greenville although it is not near the two towns. Sewer is therefore considered a limiting growth factor for the portion of the study area in Greenville's planning area. Given the already strong residential growth in the area, this project will not cause complete shifts in population to the project area, but will enhance a current trend. It is expected that due to Greenville .Southme rt 13ypa cr Pgge S-10 Draft Environmental Imfiact Statement Summary ' increased, and in some areas new accessibility, that residential development will occur along the ' feeder roads to the interchange locations, as well as increased densities from the current planned rural residential planned designations. It is anticipated that low-density residential growth will continue to occur along the feeder roads that support the interchange locations. The density of the growth in the area will be tempered by the lack of water and sewer infrastructure in the southern and western portions of the study area. ' The construction of the bypass and the presence of interchange locations at Forlines Road, NC 13, and NC 903 will increase access and mobility through this portion of the county, thus ' increasing the potential for highway-related development such as convenience stores, gas stations restaurants and hotels , , . The construction of the Greenville Southwest Bypass and any resultant induced development and complementary land development coupled with the construction of the other transportation projects listed in the North Carolina TIP and other private development projects could constitute a ' cumulative impact on the study area. However, it is anticipated that NPDES Phase I and II stormwater rules, enforcement of Pitt and Greenville Development Standards, zoning and ' subdivision regulations (including those in Ayden and Winterville), and adherence to the Pitt and Greenville Comprehensive Land Use Plans will support appropriate land development and in turn minimize any development-related impacts. S.7 UNRESOLVED ISSUES OR AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ' Major unresolved issues to be addressed prior to publication of the FEIS include: ¦ Federal and state regulatory and resource agency concurrence with the selection of the ' Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative and with avoidance and minimization efforts within the corridor of the selected alternative. ' Preparation of a conceptual mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts. S OT .8 HER FEDERAL OR STATE ACTIONS REQUIRED The proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass (TIP Project R-2250) would require environmental ' regulatory permits and actions as discussed in the following sections. 1 S.8.1 Permits United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. A permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is required for any activity in water or wetlands that would discharge dredged or fill materials into Waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. To obtain permit ' approval, impacts to wetlands must be mitigated through avoidance, minimization, and Grenville Soudhwest Bypass 11gke 5-11 1 Draft Environmental lmpact Statement Summary compensation measures in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of'Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (February 1991). Additional policy and guidance has been established through An Interagency Agreement Integrating Section 404INEPA (May 1997) which is usually referred to as the NEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Authority. Federal Pollution control Act Amendments of 1972 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Regulations promulgated in 33 CFR Part 323. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Section 404 Permit Review. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) responsibilities include review of Section 404 permits. The USFWS recommendations to the USACE on how impacts to fish and wildlife resources and habitats can be minimized. Authority. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 7. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Any activity which may result in discharge to Waters of the United States requires a certification that the discharge will be in compliance with applicable state water quality standards. An application for a US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit is considered an application for a water quality certification. Authority. North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1. Regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 2H and 213. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. A permit is required for projects involving sewer systems, treatment works, disposal systems, and certain stormwater runoff that could result in a discharge to surface waters. The State has the authority to administer the national NPDES program for projects in North Carolina. Authority. North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1. Regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 2H.0100. Isolated Wetland Permit. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has established rules to protect isolated wetlands and isolated waters within the state of North Carolina. Activities which result in a discharge in these areas may be authorized by the issuance of either an Individual Permit or a Certificate of Coverage to operate under a General Permit. Impacts less than or equal to 1/3 acre of isolated wetlands east of 1-95 require a Greenville Southwest Bypass Page S-12 Draft Environmental Impact ,Statement Summary permit from NCDWQ. If impacts to the isolated wetland (Wetland US 13) exceed this ' threshold, it may also become necessary to obtain an isolated wetland permit from NCDWQ. ' Authority: North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 215, Part 1. Regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 02H. 1300. ' Riparian Buffer Certification (Neuse Buffer Certification and Tar-Pamllco Buffer Certification). The Neuse Buffer Certification and Tar-Pamlico Buffer Certification will ' be obtained from NCDWQ in conjunction with a 401 Water Quality Permit Authority: North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 214, Part 20-23. ' Regulations promulgated in 15 NCAC 213 .0233 (6) for the Neuse River Basin and 15 NCAC 0213.0259 (6) for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. ' North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Land Quality S l d oi an Erosion Control Plan. Persons conducting land-disturbing activity shall take all reasonable measures to protect all public and private property from damage caused by ' such activities. Pursuant to GS I I2A-57(4) and I I3A-54(d)(4), an erosion and sedimentation control plan must be both filed and approved by the agency having jurisdiction. Authority. North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A. Department of ' Environment and Natural Resources Chapter 4. 15A NCAC 04B.0101. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - ' Division of Air Quality ' Burn Permit. Any burning done during the construction of the proposed project will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in accordance with 15 NCAC ' 2D.0520. ' S.8.2 Subsequent Actions Th l f hi DEIS d l i e approva o t s oes not comp ete the project mplementation process. The following is a summary of actions, events, and studies to be completed prior to project construction. 1 Coordination with resource agencies will be maintained throughout the entire process. The DEIS will be circulated to environmental agencies and the public for review. Then, the following studies and actions will be completed to advance the project though the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process: Gtrentille.Soutlwest Bypass 11age 5-13 ' Draft 1, ntuironmental Impact .Statement Summary ¦ A Corridor Public Hearing will be held to present the alternative corridors and solicit public comments. ¦ The comments received through the DEIS review and public hearing processes will be thoroughly considered in the selection of the preferred alternative by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and FHWA. ¦ The preliminary designs for the preferred alternative will be refined and will include efforts to further minimize impacts to the human and natural environments, specifically to streams and wetlands. ¦ A copy of the preferred alternative engineering designs will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). The NCDOT, in coordination with the HPO, will determine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources along the preferred alternative. ¦ Surveys for the Tar River spinymussel will be conducted for the selected alternative. ¦ A mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands will be developed in consultation with the USACE. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be prepared based on the results of the items listed above. The FEIS will be circulated for public and agency review. After approval of the FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD), a Design Public Hearing will be held to receive public comments on the refined preliminary design for the selected alternative. The final roadway design plans will be prepared, taking into consideration all public and agency comments received on the preliminary designs and FEIS. Other actions which must be completed prior to the start of project construction include but are not limited to the following: ¦ Preparation of an erosion control plan incorporating the NCDOT Best Management Practices for protection of'Surface Waters. ¦ Coordination with municipalities and utilities for relocation and reconfiguration of utility systems. ¦ Implementation of the Relocation Assistance Program. ¦ Approval of all required permits and certifications. Greenville Soutbwest Bypass 11aqe S-14 Draft Nnvironmentallmpact.Stateinent F I?! Summary S.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table S-1 contains a summary of environmental impacts associated with the bypass alternates selected for detailed study. The alternatives are shown on Figure S-1. TABLE? S-1: SUMMARY • Bypass Alternate 113-EXT Bypass Alternate 4-EXT Bypass Alternate 5-EXT Length of Corridor Length on New Location 10.7 11.0 10.8 Length on Existing 2.2 2.2 2.2 Total Length 12.9 13.2 13.0 Relocations Residential 60 42 90 Business 9 2 8 Total Relocations 69 44 98 Minority Populations Impacted None None None Parks Impacted 0 0 0 Schools Impacted 0 0 0 Churches Impacted 0 0 0 Major Electric Power Lines Crossed 3 2 3 Railroad Crossings 1 1 1 Historic Sites with Adverse Effect 1 1 0 Section 4(f) Resources Im acted 1 1 0 Streams Stream Crossings 22 9 23 Stream Impacts* linear feet 4037.3 1606.7 4926.6 Riparian Buffer Zone 1 (acres)* 5.5 2.2 6.9 Zone 2 (acres)* 3.7 1.5 4.7 Total Buffer Impacts (acres)* 9.2 3.7 11.6 Wetlands (acres)^ 0.5 0.1 1.5 Flood plains (acres)* 0 0 18.3 Federally Protected S ecies+ None None None Prime Farmland (acres) 767.8 753.7 811.5 Hazardous Waste Sites 6 2 6 Noise Impacts No. of properties impacted without mitigation 28 17 17 No. of properties impacted with mitigation 15 7 7 Cost Construction Cost $153,900,000 $157,400,000 $152,000,000 Right of Way Cost $25,309,050 $22,653,250 $35,769,620 Total Cost $179,209,050 $180,053,250 $187,769,620 Keiocations are caicuiated on existing occupied buildings * Impacts calculated within conceptual slope stake limits ^ Impacts calculated within conceptual slope stake limits plus 10 feet for potential clearing impacts + One species remains Unresolved Greenville Southwest 13ypass P49e 5-15 ' Draft 1,nairounientall.,1pact Stalemeul n 264 9031 '? VA . _ .A ^?e .. ' In 4 ?.._. a . m ! \ ?ptln9^ Rd ?9cras 0l M Iegor f 0.-,Rd y (, ? 4 a \ - t m°a,,,ml w mn I 91 Slnnl?„isLU.y It 281 : b \..._ B_rcM1 p CI ? a ?° U ...\E IOU SI P° " "'' a,? ° pe Sian,°naU yRd Greenville 0 Ball A M., Rd g IkmbY R° 13 F g / , (43 •\ Qoiare RO dPe \ aM "I Rd cfdF ?°xbw R \.-1 , 9e / / Ik° ffuatown?N° I'.` 1` p, T t'o, . ?..._... _...`.. ..?... ?? Onvenpon Fxr,n Rd %n? \\ SEasex 0l Ane `.... 284 , Rn S t _ - $ "'v ( v.1," 13 noq Y... , Winterville i e R at^ Ppeasa` A ? P W a `,1FILe Rd 15 RensIon.Rurali. A. i / i < c t X ?'i Q+ e r al His Dlstri oric ! e i f a ? ?q isbra 9 \" \ F I / / D o `hs \.\ FP i t? f ?x M.Y. Re v V rl ? 903 \ \ Nln°a Ur Q' 9Q I Re \ /I Rd - - g Re lip Ayder ? b (11d 5rvsw ? t e\ r? i a • c°? i 1 i M'r cAr 0. ( P 903 y hY 4 j ''.\ ? , v lnaa I ?+?' P I ? I ? \ 4 \ Slacks McLe , Rd n ? ? 1 ? gyda ° Jnckem?ir?wn I' r d U tub Rd `' °o ? ..\ 1 N s P n r EUtt?nlimU Hn 4?„ `..\ n°N Legend N ® North Carolina 1B-EXT Department of Transportation 4-EXT w e Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 8 Us 264 Bus) 5-EXT Renston Rural Historic Di strict s Slate Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Historic Property t 0 Os 1 ' Mites 2 Alternates Selected Figure S-1 for Detailed Study r l I w 0 n 0 O N 1 r- I L TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1-1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................... 1-1 1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 1-1 1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................. 1-3 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 1-3 1.5.1 Project Setting ................................................................................. 1-3 1.5.2 Project History ................................................................................ 1-4 1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE .......................................................................... 1-5 1.6.1 Existing Road Network .................................................................. 1-5 1.6.2 Modal Interrelationships ................................................................. 1-5 1.6.3 Commuting Patterns ....................................................................... 1-6 1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................. 1-6 1.7.1 Demographics .................................................................................1-6 1.7.2 Economic Data ...............................................................................1-7 1.7.2.1 Employment .....................................................................................1-7 1.7.2.2 Major Employers ..............................................................................1-8 1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING .................................................1-9 1.8.1 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program .................1-9 1.8.2 City of Greenville Thoroughfare Planning .....................................1-10 1.9 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND .....................................................1-11 1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics .....................................................1-11 1.9.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions ....................1-12 1.9.3 Year 2030 Projected Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ............1-14 1.10 SAFETY ..............................................................................................1-17 Groenville Southwest Bypass Page r ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................... 2-1 2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE ................................................... 2-3 2.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND UPGRADE EXISTING FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE ......................................................... 2-3 2.4.1 Logical Termini .............................................................................. 2-4 2.4.2 Design Criteria and Typical Sections ............................................. 2-4 2.4.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Corridors ............................................... 2-5 2.4.3.1 Description of Preliminary Corridors .......................................... .2-6 2.4.3.2 Elimination of Preliminary Corridors ...........................................2-9 2.4.3.3 Renston Rural Historic District Avoidance Alternate ................2-10 2.4.3.4 Southern Extension .........................................................................2-11 2.4.3.5 Corridors Carried Forward for Detailed Study ............................2-11 2.4.4 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives .................................... 2-14 2.4.4.1 Bypass Alternate 1B-EXT ...............................................................2-14 2.4.4.2 Bypass Alternate 4-EXT .................................................................2-14 2.4.4.3 Bypass Alternate 5-EXT .................................................................2-14 2.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF BUILD ALTERNATIVES ..................... 2-15 2.5.1 Year 2030 Build Traffic Projections ................................................ 2-15 2.5.2 Year 2030 Build Capacity Analysis .................................................. 2-17 2.5.2.1 Basic Freeway Segments ..................................................................2-17 2.5.2.2 Ramp Junctions ................................................................................ 2-17 2.5.2.3 Weaving Areas ..................................................................................2-18 2.5.2.4 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections .................................... 2-18 2.6 SAFETY .............................................................................................. 2-19 2.7 COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................... 2-20 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page ii Draft Envimnmenta/ Impact Statement Table of Contents 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Population Characteristics .............................................................. 3-1 3.1.1.1 Population and Demographics ...................................................... .3-1 3.1.1.2 Ethnicity and Race .......................................................................... .3-2 3.1.1.3 Age of Population ........................................................................... .3-2 3.1.2 Economic Characteristics ............................................................... 3-3 3.1.2.1 Unemployment Rates ..................................................................... .3-3 3.1.2.2 Income .............................................................................................. .3-3 3.1.2.3 Poverty Status .................................................................................. .3-4 3.1.2.4 Housing ............................................................................................ .3-5 3.1.3 Community Facilities ...................................................................... 3-6 3.1.3.1 Schools .............................................................................................. .3-6 3.1.3.2 Institutions of Higher Learning .................................................... .3-6 3.1.3.3 Libraries ............................................................................................ .3-7 3.1.3.4 Parks and Recreational Facilities ................................................... .3-7 3.1.3.5 Churches ........................................................................................... .3-8 3.1.3.6 Emergency Services ........................................................................ .3-8 3.1.4 Community Cohesion ..................................................................... 3-9 3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ................... 3-9 3.2.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics ................................................. 3-9 3.2.2 Land Use Plans ............................................................................... 3-10 3.2.2.1 City of Greenville - Greenville Horizons Comprehensive Plan (2004) ................................................................................................. .3-10 3.2.2.2 Town of Winterville ........................................................................ .3-11 3.2.2.3 Town of Ayden ................................................................................ .3-11 3.2.2.4 Pitt County ........................................................................................3-11 3.2.3 Transportation Planning ................................................................. 3-12 3.2.3.1 Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan .................................. 3-12 3.2.3.2 Greenville Horizons Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Component .................................................................................................3-12 3.2.3.3 Pitt County Comprehensive Transportation Plan ....................... 3-12 3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS ................... 3-13 3.3.1 Noise Characteristics ...................................................................... 3-13 ' Greenville ,Southwest Bypass Page iii Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 3.3.1.1 Characteristics of Noise ..................................................................3-13 3.3.1.2 Existing Noise Measurements ....................................................... .3-13 3.3.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.3 Farmlands ....................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.4 Utilities ............................................................................................ 3-16 3.3.4.1 Electric Power Transmission ......................................................... .3-16 3.3.4.2 Water and Sewer .............................................................................. .3-17 3.3.4.3 Natural Gas ...................................................................................... .3-17 3.3.5 Visual Quality .................................................................................. 3-17 3.3.6 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 3-18 3.3.7 Mineral Resources .......................................................................... 3-19 3.3.8 Floodplains/Floodways .................................................................. 3-19 3.3.9 Protected Lands .............................................................................. 3-19 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................... 3-19 3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources .................................................... 3-20 3.4.2 Archaeological Resources ............................................................... 3-23 3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS .................... 3-24 3.5.1 Soils, Topography, and Geology ..................................................... 3-24 3.5.1.1 Soils .................................................................................................... 3-24 3.5.1.2 Topography and Climate .................................................................3-26 3.5.1.3 Geology .............................................................................................. 3-26 3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ................................................... 3-27 3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities ....................................................... 3-27 3.5.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................ 3-31 3.5.2.3 Aquatic Communities ...................................................................... 3-32 3.5.2.4 Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Areas, and Natural Communities .............................................................................................. 3-34 3.5.3 Water Resources .............................................................................. 3-34 3.5.3.1 Groundwater ..................................................................................... 3-34 3.5.3.2 Surface Waters .................................................................................. 3-34 3.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................ 3-38 3.5.4.1 Wetlands, Stream, and Ponds ......................................................... 3-38 3.5.4.2 Riparian Buffers ................................................................................ 3-38 Greenville ,Southwest Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page iv C Table of Contents n 3.5.4.3 Protected Species .............................................................................3-39 3.5.4.4 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .................3-41 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Community ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Relocations ...................................................................................... 4-4 4.1.2.1 Relocation Assistance ......................................................................4-4 4.1.3 Community Facilities and Services ................................................ 4-5 4.1.3.1 Libraries, Schools, and Parks and Recreational Facilities ........... 4-5 4.1.3.2 Churches ............................................................................................ 4-6 4.1.3.3 Emergency Services ......................................................................... 4-6 4.1.4 Environmental justice ..................................................................... 4-6 4.1.4.1 Legislative Background .................................................................... 4-6 4.1.4.2 Analysis .............................................................................................. 4-7 4.1.4.3 Avoidance and Minimization Efforts ............................................ 4-8 4.1.4.4 Public Involvement Opportunities ................................................ 4-8 4.1.5 Economic ........................................................................................ 4-8 4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ................... 4-9 4.2.1 Land Use ......................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.1.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Impacts ....................................... 4-9 4.2.1.2 Compatibility with Area Land Use Plans ...................................... 4-9 4.2.2 Transportation Planning ................................................................. 4-10 4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................... 4-11 4.3.1 Noise ............................................................................................... 4-11 4.3.1.1 Analysis Methodology ..................................................................... 4-11 4.3.1.2 Analysis Results ................................................................................ 4-12 4.3.1.3 Noise Abatement Measures ............................................................ 4-13 4.3.1.4 Construction Noise .......................................................................... 4-14 4.3.1.5 Information on Noise for Local Officials .................................... 4-14 4.3.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 4-15 4.3.2.1 Methodology ........................................... ......................................... 4-15 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page v Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3. 4.3. 4.3. 4.4 4.4. 4.4. 4.5 4.5. 4.5. 4.5. 4.5. 4.3.2.2 Analysis Results ................................................................................4-17 4.3.2.3 State Implementation Plan Consistency ...................................... .4-17 Prime Farmland .............................................................................. 4-18 Infrastructure and Utilities ............................................................. 4-19 4.3.4.1 Utilities .............................................................................................. .4-19 4.3.4.2 Mass Transit ..................................................................................... .4-20 4.3.4.3 Railroads ........................................................................................... .4-20 Visual Environment ........................................................................ 4-20 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 4-22 Floodways and Floodplains ............................................................ 4-22 4.3.7.1 Floodplain Encroachments and Risk ............................................4-22 4.3.7.2 Floodplain Values .............................................................................4-23 4.3.7.3 Floodplain Development ................................................................4-23 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................... 4-23 Historic Architectural Resources .................................................... 4-23 Archaeological Resources ............................................................... 4-25 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................... 4-25 Soils ................................................................................................. 4-25 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ................................................... 4-25 4.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities .......................................................4-25 4.5.2.2 Wildlife ...............................................................................................4-26 4.5.2.3 Aquatic Communities ......................................................................4-26 Water Resources .............................................................................. 4-27 4.5.3.1 Major Drainage Structures .............................................................. 4-28 4.5.3.2 Streams ............................................................................................... 4-29 4.5.3.3 Ponds ................................................................................................. 4-32 Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................ 4-32 4.5.4.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................ 4-32 4.5.4.2 Riparian Buffers ................................................................................ 4-34 4.5.4.3 Mitigation Evaluation ...................................................................... 4-35 4.5.4.4 Permits and Certifications ............................................................... 4-37 4.5.4.5 Protected Species ............................................................................. 5 6 7 1 2 1 2 3 4 4-38 Gmenville Southwest Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page vi 11 r Table of Contents 4.6 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) STATEMENTS ................... 4-40 4.6.1 Section 6(f) Resources ..................................................................... 4-40 4.6.2 Section 4(f) Resources ..................................................................... 4-40 4.6.2.1 Background Information ............................................................... .4-40 4.6.2.2 Analysis of Section 4(0 Applicability ........................................... .4-41 4.7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .......................................................... 4-41 4.7.1 Energy ............................................................................................. 4-41 4.7.2 Noise ............................................................................................... 4-41 4.7.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 4-41 4.7.4 Utilities ............................................................................................ 4-42 4.7.5 Water Quality .................................................................................. 4-42 4.7.6 Maintenance of Traffic .................................................................... 4-42 4.8 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 4-43 4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM BENEFITS ................................................................ 4-43 4.10 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................. 4-43 4.10.1 Potential for Indirect Impacts ......................................................... 4-44 4.10.2 Potential for Cumulative Impacts ................................................... 4-45 4.11 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........... 446 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 5.1 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY .......................... 5-2 5.1.1 Renston Rural Historic District ...................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Relationship to Similarly Used Lands ............................................ 5-5 5.2 IMPACTS OF THE SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY ........................... 5-6 5.2.1 Displacement and Land Area Used ................................................ 5-7 5.2.2 Potential for Incompatible Development ....................................... 5-8 5.2.3 Visual Changes ................................................................................ 5-8 5.2.4 Traffic and Access ........................................................................... 5-9 5.2.5 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 5-10 5.2.6 Noise ............................................................................................... 5-10 5.2.7 Construction .................................................................................... 5-10 Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft Envimnmental Impact Statement Page vii Table of Contents 5.3 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 5-11 5.3.1 No-Build Alternative ....................................................................... 5-11 5.3.2 Bypass Alternate 5-EXT ................................................................. 5-11 5.3.3 Other Avoidance Options ............................................................... 5-12 5.4 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ............................................... 5-12 5.5 COORDINATION ............................................................................ 5-12 6 LIST OF PREPARERS 7 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT 8 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 8.1 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................... 8-1 8.1.1 Early Coordination .......................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process ............................. 8-1 8.1.2.1 Concurrence Point 1 - Purpose and Need ...................................8-2 8.1.2.2 Concurrence Point 2 - Alternatives for Detailed Study ............. 8-2 8.1.2.3 Concurrence Point 2A - Bridge Locations and Lengths ........... 8-3 8.1.3 HPO Coordination .......................................................................... 8-3 8.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................... 8-4 8.2.1 Local Officials Meetings ................................................................. 8-4 8.2.1.1 First Public Officials Meeting ......................................................... 8-4 8.2.1.2 Second Public Officials Meeting .................................................... 8-5 8.2.1.3 Third Public Officials Meeting ....................................................... 8-5 8.2.1.4 Fourth Public Officials Meeting .................................................... 8-5 8.2.2 Citizens Informational Workshops ................................................. 8-5 8.2.2.1 First Citizens Informational Workshop ........................................ 8-5 8.2.2.2 Second Citizens Informational Workshop ................................... 8-5 8.2.2.3 Third Citizens Informational Workshop ...................................... 8-6 8.2.2.4 Fourth Citizens Informational Workshop .................................... 8-6 8.2.3 Mailing List ..................................................................................... 8-6 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page viii I Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Table of Contents ' 8.2.4 Newsletters ......................................................................................8-6 ' 8.2.5 Hotline ............................................................................................ 8-7 8.2.6 Project Website ............................................................................... 8-7 ' 8.2.7 Small Group Meetings .................................................................... 8-7 8.2.8 Corridor Public Hearing ................................................................. 8-8 9 REFERENCES ' Greenville .Southwest Bypass Page ix Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES S-1: BUILD ALTERNATES FOR DETAILED STUDY 1-1: PROJECT VICINITY 1-2: PROJECT STUDY AREA 1-3: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NEAR THE STUDY AREA 1-4: TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2-1: TYPICAL SECTION 2-2: PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS (2001) 2-3: PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS (2002) 2-4: RENSTON RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AVOIDANCE ALTERNATE (CORRIDOR 5) 2-5: SOUTHERN EXTENSIONS AND BUILD ALTERNATES (2004) 2-6: BUILD ALTERNATES FOR DETAILED STUDY 3-1: CENSUS TRACTS 3-2: COMMUNITY FACILITIES 3-3: NEIGHBORHOODS 3-4: FUTURE LAND USE PLANS 3-5: PRIME FARMLAND SOILS 3-6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES 3-7: WATER RESOURCES 3-8: HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 4-1: NOISE BARRIERS 4-2: WETLANDS AND STREAMS 5-1: SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES 5-2: RENSTON RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page x Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES S-1: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................ S-15 ' 1-1: PROJECT HISTORY .......................................................................... 1-2: EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR .......................................................... 1-4 1-8 ' 1-3: PITT COUNTY MAJOR EMPLOYERS ............................................ 1-4: YEAR 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON STANTONSBURG 1-9 ROAD AND MEMORIAL DRIVE ................................................... 1-13 ' 1-5: LEVELS OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ALONG MEMORIAL DRIVE AND STANTONSBURG ROAD ' (PEAR 2004) ....................................................................................... 1-6: YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (NO BUILD) .............................. 1-14 1-16 1-7: EXISTING NC 11 AND AVERAGE STATEWIDE ACCIDENT ' RATES ................................................................................................ 1-17 1-8: 2001-2005 ACCIDENT DATA ............................................................. 1-18 2-1: BUILD ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA ................................ 2-5 2-2: PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR IMPACTS ......................................... 2-13 2-3:2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (NO BUILD VS BUILD) ...................... 2-16 ' 2-4: BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE .................... 2-17 2-5: RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ....................................... 2-17 ' 2-6: FREEWAY WEAVING SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ............ 2-7: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 2-18 SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 2-19 ' 2-8: COST ESTIMATES FOR BYPASS ALTERNATES ......................... 2-20 3-1: POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000 ............................................... 3-2 3-2: ETHNICITY AND RACE, 2000 ........................................................ 3-2 3-3: AGE DISTRIBUTION, 2000 .............................................................. 3-3 3-4: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, 1990-2000 .............................................. 3-3 ' 3-5: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1989 AND 1999 ...................... 34 ' Greenville Southwest Bypass Page xi Draft knvimmental Impact,S'tatement Table of Contents 3-6: INDIVIDUALS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL, 1990-2000 ................. 3-5 3-7: HOUSEHOLDS, 1990-2000 ................................................................ 3-5 3-8: HOUSING UNITS, 1990-2000 ............................................................ 3-6 3-9: SCHOOLS IN VICINITY OF PROJECT AREA .............................. 3-6 3-10: CHURCHES IN PROJECT AREA .................................................. 3-8 3-11: FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ..................................... 3-13 3-12: EXISTING NOISE MEASUREMENTS ......................................... 3-14 3-13: PRIME FARMLAND SOILS IN PITT COUNTY .......................... 3-16 3-14: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES ........................ 3-18 3-15: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN OR NEAR THE PROJECT STUDY AREA 3-24 3-16: SUMMARY OF NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE MAPPED SOILS FOUND WITHIN THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................................. 3-25 3-17: SUMMARY OF RIVER BASIN CLASSIFICATION DATA........... 3-35 3-18: FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES FOR PITT COUNTY ............... 3-39 3-19: FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED FOR PITT COUNTY ........................................................................ 3-42 4-1: RELOCATIONS ................................................................................. 4-4 4-2: SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS .................................................... 4-12 4-3: TYPICAL DISTANCES TO NOISE CONTOURS ........................... 4-15 4-4: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS RESULTS .............................................. 4-17 4-5: IMPACTS TO PRIME FARMLAND SOILS ..................................... 4-18 4-6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES .................................................................................................. 4-22 4-7: HISTORIC RESOURCE IMPACTS .................................................. 4-24 4-8: TERRESTRIAL PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS ........................ 4-26 4-9: RECOMMENDED MAJOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES .............. 4-29 4-10: STREAMS WITHIN THE R-2250 PROJECT AREA ...................... 4-31 4-11: STREAM IMPACTS .......................................................................... 4-32 4-12: WETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2250 PROJECT AREA .................................................................................................. 4-33 4-13: WETLAND IMPACTS ...................................................................... 4-34 Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft l:'nvimnmentalImpact Statement Page xii Table of Contents 4-14: RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS ...................................................... 4-35 4-15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................... 4-46 5-1: CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES ..................................................... 5-3 5-2: DISTRICT AND CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES USE ............... 5-7 Gmenaille Southwest Bypass Draft hmironmenta!Impact.Statement Page .,iii Table of Contents APPENDICES A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES A.2 STATE AGENCIES A.3 LOCAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS B NOTICE OF INTENT C NEPA/SECTION 404 MERGER FORMS D FARMLANDS CONVERSION IMPACT RATIN FORMS E PROJECT NEWSLETTERS Greenville Southwest Bypass Page xiv Draft Environmental Impact Statement I I I I SECTION 1 L PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION This section summarizes the proposed action studied in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and provides a summary of the need and purposes for improving the US 264 Business/NC 11 corridor in the vicinity of the city of Greenville. This document has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA). This document conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA, and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 469 Documents (Technical Advisory T6640.8A, 1987). 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This study evaluates transportation improvements proposed for the Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business)/ Memorial Drive (NC 11) corridor in Pitt County, North Carolina, southwest of the city of Greenville. The general location of this project is shown in Figure 1-1. This transportation improvement project is identified in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project R-2250. 1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The need for improvements along the Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business)/ Memorial Drive (NC 11) corridor is demonstrated by the following summary of existing and projected conditions. Detailed discussions of the existing and projected conditions and the needs for the proposed action are presented in Sections 1.6 through 1.10. Capacity deficiencies Existing level of service' (LOS) on many segments of Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) are E or F. This includes Stantonsburg Road between Barbeque Road (SR 1204) and Memorial Drive, and Memorial Drive between Stantonsburg Road and Arlington Boulevard, between Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT) and Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131), and between Fire Tower Road I Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how motorists and/or passengers perceive these conditions. A LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service, with letter designations from A (best) to F (worst), represent operations for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action (SR 1708) and Forlines Road (SR 1129). In addition, seven of eleven signalized intersections along Memorial Drive and two of three intersections on Stantonsburg Road would have undesirable LOS (E or F) during either the morning or evening peak. This trend is expected to continue and worsen by 2030, when all intersections within the project area and most of the corridor network will operate at LOS E or F. ¦ Safety Crash rates on the segment of Memorial Drive (NC 11) between Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) and Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) are nearly 20 percent greater than the statewide average for other NC urban routes. The most common crash types (rear-end collisions and angle type crashes) are indicative of the congested conditions and lack of access control along this portion of Memorial Drive. ¦ Commuting Travel time for commuters traveling from areas in southwest Pitt County, Winterville, and Ayden to job centers in the city of Greenville, including Pitt County Memorial Hospital and East Carolina University, along Memorial Drive is currently approximately 45 minutes. This represents an average speed of 18 mph over the 13 miles between Ayden and Winterville, though much of the route has a posted speed limit of more than 35 mph. This speed indicates a LOS D, the lowest desirable operating condition, which will continue to decline as additional traffic is added to the road. ¦ North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridors (SHC) The NC 11 corridor is designated by NCDOT as a North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC). The Strategic Highway Corridors initiative identifies highway corridors that play a critical role in regional or statewide mobility and seeks to protect and improve these routes in an effort to enhance transportation, economic development, and environmental stewardship. The corridors are chosen based on traffic volumes and relative importance to the state and/or region, whether they provide a connection between major activity centers or between existing and/or planned interstates, and if they serve as reliever routes to an existing interstate facility. NC 11 is included as part of Strategic Highway Corridor #52, which connects the cities of Wilmington, Kinston, and Greenville with Hampton Roads, Virginia using I-40, NC 24, NC 11, and US 13. This corridor connects I-40 to 1-64,1-264, and 1-664 in Chesapeake, Virginia. Sections of the corridor have been identified as a major hurricane evacuation route by the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, including NC 11 between Kinston and Aulander. The NC I 1 corridor is ultimately envisioned as a controlled access, median-divided freeway based on the SHC Vision Plan. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ' Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action ' 1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION The primary purpose of the proposed action is to ease congestion on Memorial Drive (NC 11) and ' Stantonsburg Drive (US 264 Business) in Greenville. Fulfilling this purpose would meet the stated needs of the project by improving traffic flow, improving safety and reducing crashes, and ' improving regional travel. ¦ Improve traffic flow and congestion on Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg ' Road (US 264 Business) within the project area. Needs addressed: Existing and projected deficiencies in levels of service and along existing NC 11 and US 264 Business cause significant travel delay, increase the potential for accidents, and contribute to the inefficient operation of motor vehicles. ¦ Relieve congestion on NC 11 in Greenville, thereby improving safety and reducing the number of crashes. ' Needs addressed: Crash rates along existing segments of NC 11 between Fire Tower ' Road (SR 1708) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) are currently above the statewide average crash rates for similar facilities . ' ¦ Improve regional travel along the US 264INC 11 corridor in compliance with regional transportation objectives. ' Needs addresse& The existing and projected traffic and land use conditions along existing NC 11 diminish this segment's ability to function as a regional connector route ' and a North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor. The roadway currently has no control of access, numerous at-grade signalized intersections, and varying numbers of lanes. The SHC Vision Plan calls for NC 11 to be a median divided freeway with full control of ' access. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 1.5.1 Project Setting The project study area is located within the Coastal Plain Region of North Carolina on the ' southwest side of the city of Greenville in Pitt County (Figure 1-1). The cities of Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Wilson, and Goldsboro are located to the west of Greenville, while the city of ' Washington and the Outer Banks are to the east. Kinston and New Bern are located to the south. As shown in Figure 1-2, the study corridor is defined by NC 11 (Memorial Drive) from Jacksontown Road (SR 1109) south of Ayden to US 264 Business (Stantonsburg Road), and ' Stantonsburg Road from its intersection with Memorial Drive to the completed portion of US 264. The project study area crosses the jurisdictions of the town of Ayden, the town of Winterville, Pitt County, and the city of Greenville and is comprised of a combination of urban ' and rural development. Dense commercial development is located along Memorial Drive and Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-3 ' Draft Fnvironmental Impact Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action Stantonsburg Road. The Pitt County Memorial Hospital, a major health complex serving eastern North Carolina, is located on Stantonsburg Road, and East Carolina University is located in the city of Greenville east of the project study area. The western portion of the study area is predominantly rural; however, several farms have plans for residential development or are currently being developed into residential neighborhoods. 1.5.2 Project History A feasibility study for the project was completed by NCDOT in 1987 to determine what improvements may be needed in the area southwest of the City of Greenville. The proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass would tie to a proposed northwest loop of Greenville at US 264 to function as a bypass around the southwest part of Greenville. The study recommended a four-lane divided facility with full control of access extending approximately 5 miles from US 264 west of Greenville to NC 11/903 south of Greenville. The project area has since been expanded to account for additional development in the area. The project was subsequently added to the NCDOT 1988-1996 Transportation Improvement Program. Planning studies, including environmental screening and corridor development, began in October 1992 and the initial agency scoping meeting was held in December 1992. Citizens Informational Workshops were held in August 1993 and March 1994, and two newsletters about the project were published in March 1995 and February 1996. Steering Committee meetings for the project were held in July 1993, January 1994, and August 1997. Between 1997 and 2005, environmental screening, alternatives development, and detailed studies based on preliminary level designs were completed in accordance with NCDOT policies and procedures. Table 1-1 contains a brief summary of the project's history. TABLE Date I-1: PROJECT HISTORY Event 1972 Southwest Bypass appears on Greenville Thoroughfare Plan 1986 Project proposed for NCDOT TIP 1987 NCDOT completes feasibility stud for bypass southwest of Greenville 1988 Project appears in the NCDOT 1998-1996 Transportation Improvement Plan 1992 Planning studies begin and the first agency sco in meeting is held 1993 First Steering Committee meeting held 1993 First Citizens Informational Workshop held in Greenville 1994 Second Steering Committee meeting held 1994 Second Citizens Informational Workshop held in Greenville 1997 Third Steering Committee meeting held 1997 FHWA, USACE, and NCDOT determine this project will follow the mutually adopted NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process. NCDOT reinitiates planning and design work 2001 Merger Team achieves Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need 2001 Agency sco in letters 2001 Third Citizens Informational Workshop held in Greenville 2004 Southwest Bypass listed as highest priority project in Greenville Thoroughfare Plan 2005 Merger Team selects alternatives for detailed studies Concurrence Point 2 2005 Merger Team achieves Concurrence Point 2A: Bridging Locations I Greenville SoutbAvest Bypass Page 14 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action I 7 I I I I 1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE 1.6.1 Existing Road Network Within the project area, Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) and Memorial Drive (NC 11) form axes along which development has concentrated. Memorial Drive, a north-south route on the eastern edge of the project area, links the towns of Ayden and Winterville with jobs and services in the City of Greenville. US 264 is the primary route into Greenville from the west, providing a four-lane, divided-median, controlled-access facility from Raleigh and Wilson. US 264 connects to I-40 and I-95, the major east-west and north-south routes, respectively, in eastern North Carolina. US 264 forms a loop around the north side of Greenville and continues east eventually joining with US 64 to access the Outer Banks. Crossing east-west through the study area are three major routes: Old Stantonsburg Road (SR 1200) and US 13-264ALT in the northern part of the study area, and NC 903 in the southern part of the study area. Each of these roads has served as a primary transportation route since the mid-nineteenth century. Minor east-west roads in the area include Forlines Road (SR 1126), Pocosin Road (SR 1125), and Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128). Major north-south roads in the vicinity of the project area include Memorial Drive (NC 11) along the east, and Frog Level Road (SR 1127) and Jolly Road (SR 1120) located near the center of the study area. 1.6.2 Modal Interrelationships Bus The Greenville Area Transit (GREAT) system operates seven buses over four routes, Monday through Saturday, and transports over 220,000 passengers on fixed bus routes in an average year. One of these routes follows Memorial Drive (NC 11) from Greenville Boulevard/US 264A to Pitt Community College. GREAT also provides service along Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) westward to Barbeque Road (SR 1204). Other public transit in the area includes the East Carolina University Student Transit Authority (ECUSTA) and the Pitt Area Transit System (PATS). ECUSTA provides transit service to, from, and around the East Carolina University campus to students, faculty, and staff. ECUSTA operates 22 vehicles during the academic year and carries 5,200 passengers per day. PATS operates 19 vehicles and provides human service and general public transportation throughout the county for over 300 passengers daily. Carolina Trailways and Greyhound Bus Lines provide scheduled intercity bus service to and from the Greenville terminal. Rail Freight-only rail service for Greenville is provided by CSX and Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The locations of the railroad tracks within the study area are shown on Figure 1-2. Both rail systems operate two trains, seven days a week. The trains on the Norfolk Southern tracks travel between Raleigh and Aurora. The trains cross Memorial Drive (NC 11) north of Dickinson Avenue (US 13). Norfolk Southern operates two locomotives called the "Wilson Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action Switcher." They travel from Wilson to Chocowinity on Monday through Friday, passing through Greenville between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. Air Air travel for the area is provided by the Pitt-Greenville Airport. It is a 1,000-acre facility that is jointly owned by the city of Greenville and Pitt County. It is located to the west of Memorial Drive (NC 11) north of the Tar River. Over 32,500 passengers passed through this facility in 2005 (FAA 2006). It is a non-hub regional (commuter) airport that is served by US Airways Express with daily round trips to Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte. 1.6.3 Commuting Patterns Commuting patterns in the project area are a result of the county's dependence on medical, institutional, and retail services in the city of Greenville. Pitt County Memorial Hospital and East Carolina University are the two largest employers in Pitt County. Pitt County Memorial Hospital is located along Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) within the project area. Memorial Drive (NC 11) serves as the primary route for commuters traveling from southern Pitt County, Winterville, and Ayden into Greenville. According to the 2000 Census, 54,411 Pitt County residents, or 86 percent of the total employed residents of Pitt County, worked in Pitt County. Of the 8,896 employed residents that worked outside of the county, the majority commuted to jobs in Lenoir County to the south and Beaufort County to the east. Of the in-commuters to Pitt County, the majority came from the surrounding counties of Beaufort, Greene, Martin, and Lenoir. Net in-commuting is greater than out- commuting for Pitt County, supporting Pitt County and Greenville as a regional job center. Commutes for Pitt County workers vary from less than five minutes to more than 90 minutes. It is noted in the Pitt County Comprehensive Land Use Plan that commuting patterns to and from work from outlying rural areas and suburbs have increased the pressure and stress on everyday commuters. According to the Pitt County Development Commission, it is common in eastern North Carolina for people to travel in excess of 45 miles to work. 1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 1.7.1 Demographics Population growth in the project study area, Greenville, Winterville, and Pitt County has outpaced that of North Carolina. Growth in the project study area during the 1990 to 2000 time period was more than double that of Pitt County and North Carolina. Much of the growth can be traced to the presence of East Carolina University (ECU) and the health care industry, specifically Pitt County Memorial Hospital and ECU's Brody School of Medicine. Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the project study area grew by approximately 49 percent. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-6 Draft Envimnmental Impact Statement ' Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action ' According to the Greenville Horizons Comprehensive Plan, much of the future growth in Pitt ' County will likely occur in the southwestern portion of the county within the extra territorial jurisdictional areas of Greenville and Winterville. Based on the assumption that the study area will capture the same percentage of Pitt County's growth between 2000 and 2010 as it did ' between 1990 and 2000, the area could add an additional 9,622 residents by 2010. It is projected that growth will occur here due to the presence of and plans for water/sewer infrastructure, access to transportation improvements, as well as the availability of developable lands. Many of these ' new residents will work at existing job centers at medical facilities and educational institutions in Greenville and will travel the Memorial Drive/Stantonsburg Road corridor to reach these facilities. 1 1.7.2 Economic Data 1.7.2.1. Employment According to the Employment Security Commission, the health care, education, retail, manufacturing, and accommodation and food service sectors constituted the largest employment ' in Pitt County in 2004 (see Table 1-2). These five sectors comprise 43,775 employees and 67 percent of the employment in Pitt County. The largest employment sector in the county is health ' care with an employment of over 12,000 (18.4 percent of the total employment). Between 1994 and 2004, Pitt County employment grew by 10,759 for an increase of 19.7 percent. The sectors with the largest real change in employment were health care (increase of 3,886 jobs), administrative (increase of 1,901 jobs), accommodation and food services (increase of 1,848 jobs), and education (increase of 1,774 jobs). According to the Pitt County Development Commission, Pitt County is the leader for retail sales in eastern North Carolina, consistently ranking in the top twelve of the state's 100 counties. This strong retail sector and pro-business environment have led to increased retail employment. In addition, retail sales in Pitt County have increased an average of 7 percent per year for the past ten years, surpassing $1.6 billion in Greenville and $2.1 billion in Pitt County during 2004. ' Sectors that experienced declines between 1994 and 2004 include manufacturing, transportation ' and warehousing, agriculture, and mining. While employment in agriculture is decreasing this sector contributes over $100 million to the local economy each year. The manufacturing sector in Pitt County, much like other North Carolina areas, experienced a substantial decrease in ' employment losing 2,057 jobs over the ten-year period. During 2004, Rubbermaid and TRW, both located in Greenville, eliminated a total of 400 jobs. J Greenville Soutbwest Bypass Page 1-7 ' Draft hnvironmental Impact .Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action TABLE1-2: EIMPLOYMENT 13Y Sector SECTOR 1994 Pitt County Employment 2004 Pitt County Employment Change in Employment 1994 to 2004 Percent Change In Employment 1994 to 2004 Public Administration 2,761 2,958 +197 +7.1% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 1,017 910 -107 -11.7% Mining 43 0 -43 -100% Utilities 405 488 +83 +20.4% Construction 3,043 3,264 +221 +7.2% Manufacturing 9,371 7,314 -2,057 -28.1% Wholesale Trade 1,616 1,833 +217 +13.4% Retail Trade 6,978 8,288 +1,310 +18.7% Transportation & Warehousing 1,198 794 -404 -50.8% Information 732 1,117 +385 +52.6% Finance and Insurance 1,335 1,658 +323 +24.2% _Real Estate & Rental and Leasing 462 636 +174 +37.7% Professional and Technical Services 976 1,571 +595 +60.9% Management of Companies and Enterprises 314 620 +306 +97.4% Administrative & Waste Services 1,734 3,635 +1,901 +109.6% Educational Services 7,631 9,405 +1,774 +23.2% Health Care & Social Assistance 8,156 12,042 +3,886 +47.6% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 515 565 +50 +9.7% Accommodation & Food Services 4,878 6,726 +1,848 +37.9% Other Services 1,357 1,304 -53 -4.1% Unclassified 0 153 +153 +100% Total 54,522 65,281 +10,759 +19.7% Source: employment Security commission, Labor Market Intormation 1.7.2.2. Major Employers The Pitt County economy and thus employment base, is well-diversified with the presence of East Carolina University, Pitt Community College, a regional medical center, major manufacturing ' companies such as NACCO, and growing retail, professional, and leisure/hospitality-based industries. The top four major employers in Pitt County are Pitt County Memorial Hospital, East Carolina University, Pitt County Public Schools, and NACCO Materials Handling Group, each ' employing over 1,000 individuals. The Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Physicians East, PA, Pitt Community College, and Wal-Mart are located within the study area. These and other major ' employers in Pitt County are listed in Table 1-3. 1 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement I Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action TABI,I-'1-3: PITT COUNTY M Employer A • • Indust Employment Range Pitt County Memorial Hospital Education and Health Services 1,000+ East Carolina Universi - Education and Health Services 1,000+ Pitt County Public Schools Education and Health Services _ 1,000+ NACCO Materials Handling Group Manufacturing 1,000+ DSM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Manufacturing 500-999 Pitt County Government Public Administration 500-999 - Pitt Community Collee - City of Greenville Dimon Inc. Education and Health Services Public Administration Manufacturing 500-999 500-999 500-999 Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. Trade, Transportation & Utilities 500-999 Royal Janitorial Services, Inc. _ Professional and Business Services 500-999 Collins & Aikman Fabrics, Inc. Manufacturing 500-999 Food Lion LLC Physicians East, PA Trade, Transportation & Utilities Education and Health Services 500-999 500-999 State of North Carolina Public Administration 500-999 Graff White Boats Manufacturing 250-499 Greenville Utilities Commission Trade, Transportation & Utilities 250-499 Dixon Foods Group, Inc. Leisure & Hospitality 250499 Aramark Campus, Inc. Leisure & Hospitality 250-499 ASMO Greenville of North _Carolina Manufacturing 250-499 Wachovia Bank Financial Activities 250-499 Cover s Customer M mt. Group Professional & Business Services 250-499 Executive Personnel Group, LLC Professional & Business Services 250-499 NC Department of Transportation -Public Administration 250-499 Mestek, Inc. Manufacturing 250-499 Source: Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Information 1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1.8.1 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program ' The North Carolina TIP is a multi-year plan for all state transportation projects. The TIP contains funding information and schedules for proposed transportation projects throughout the state and is ' updated every two years to reflect changing priorities and funding availability. The proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass project is included as Project No. R-2250 in the 2006-2012 NCDOT TIP. Th ll i f l li d i f h i ow e o ng projects are current y ste n the 2006-2012 TIP or t e P tt County/Greenville area (Figure 1-3): ' U-3613. Widen Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) to a five-lane facility from Davenport Farm ' Road (SR 1128) to east of Corey Road (SR 1709). Construction is scheduled to begin in 2006. ¦ U-3315. Construct Stantonsburg Road / Tenth Street Connector from Memorial Drive to ' Evans Street. The facility will be partly on new location with multiple lanes and a grade Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-9 ' Draft F,nvironmentalInoact Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action separation at the CSX rail crossing. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for 2007; and construction is scheduled to begin in 2009. ¦ U-2817. Widen Evans Street and Old Tar Road from Main Street in Winterville to US 264A. Planning is currently underway. ¦ U-4737. Arlington Boulevard Extension and Widening. The project is currently under construction. ¦ B-3685. Replace Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703. The project is currently under construction. B-4231. ¦ Replace Bridge No. 53 over Swift Creek on NC 102. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2006 and construction in 2007. ¦ B-4232. Replace Bridge No. 9 over Swift Creek on NC 903. Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled for 2006. ¦ B-4786. Replace Bridge No. 38 over the Tar River on US 13. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2009 and construction in 2012. 1.8.2 City of Greenville Thoroughfare Planning The first thoroughfare plan for the City of Greenville was developed in the late 1950s and adopted in 1959. Several revisions to the plan were adopted over the next decade, and in 1968 the first long range traffic forecasting model was developed for the area. The current Greenville Area Thoroughfare Plan was adopted by the Greenville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in December 2004 and the North Carolina Board of Transportation in February 2005. The plan includes the city of Greenville, town of Winterville, town of Ayden, village of Simpson, and portions of Pitt County with a planning horizon of 2025. The Southwest Bypass was originally included in the 1972 Greenville Area Thoroughfare Plan to ease projected future congestion on existing roads within the city, including NC 11, and form part of a circumferential bypass around Greenville. The current plan identifies the Southwest Bypass as the MPO's highest priority project. The bypass is described in the plan as "a new location freeway to provide easier through travel from the south to the north and to the Regional Medical Center and to relieve traffic on NC 11 and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business)." On the most recent thoroughfare plan, the northern end of the Southwest Bypass joins with the southern terminus of the Northwestern Loop (US 264), which has already been constructed. The Northwestern Loop, along with Greenville Boulevard North East (US 264/NC 33), serves as a bypass around the north side of Greenville. A Northeast Bypass and Southeast Bypass are also called for in the Thoroughfare Plan. This project, along with the Northwestern Loop and proposed Northeast and Southeast Bypasses, would complete a circumferential bypass around Greenville. The project is also included in thoroughfare plans prepared by the town of Ayden (1992), Winterville (1992), and Pitt County (1993 and 2005). The following projects have been identified as priority projects by the Greenville Urban Area MPO (Figure 1-3). The schedule for completing these projects is dependent on available funding. Greenville Southavest Bypass Page 1-10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement I Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action ¦ W.H. Smith Road Extension. New two-lane roadway to provide alternate route to Arlington Boulevard from the regional medical center facilities. ¦ US 13/Dickinson Road Widening. This route connects Greenville with areas in Southwest Pitt County and Goldsboro. The recommended cross-section is a four-lane roadway. ¦ Evans Street/Old Tar Road. This route connects the fast-growing residential areas to Greenville and Winterville. The recommended cross-section is a four-lane roadway with a raised median. ¦ Thomas Langston Road Extension. To relieve traffic on Greenville Boulevard and Fire Tower Road, Thomas Langston Road would be extended from Memorial Drive (NC 11) to Evans Street. ¦ Forlines Road Widening. Forlines Road is becoming a suburban thoroughfare and will serve as the main interchange from the proposed Southwest Bypass to Winterville. The road will be widened to four lanes. ' NC 102/Third Street Widening. The project will widen the road from two lanes to four lanes through a developing commercial area. 1.9 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND 1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics ' Existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) are arterial facilities with multiple driveways and signalized at-grade intersections. The number of lanes along existing Memorial Drive varies. In the southern portion of the project area, Memorial Drive is a four-lane ' roadway. At Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128/1149), Memorial Drive becomes a six-lane divided facility, and from Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT) to Dickinson Avenue (US 13), Memorial Drive is a five-lane curb and gutter facility. From Dickinson to Stantonsburg Road, Memorial Drive is a six-lane divided-median facility. ' Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) is a five-lane curb and gutter facility from Memorial Drive (NC 11) to Allen Road (SR 1203), and from Allen Road to the end of the project at US 264, ' Stantonsburg Road is a four-lane divided freeway. The posted speed limit along the corridor is generally 45 mph. Two exceptions exist along Memorial Drive: from NC 102 to Thomas Langston Road (SR 1134), the posted speed limit is 50 mph; and in the vicinity of Dickinson ' Avenue (US 13), the speed limit is 35 mph. There is extensive development along both Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road ' (US 264 Business). The types of development along both roads include commercial, medical, retail, and residential uses. Generally, the intensity of this development increases traveling north 1 along Memorial Drive. Development along Memorial Drive between NC 102 and Thomas Langston Road (SR 1134) is primarily retail and commercial businesses. Pitt Community College is located just south of the Thomas Langston Road intersection with Memorial Drive. ' From Thomas Langston Road to Stantonsburg Road, there is more extensive commercial, retail, Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-11 ' Draft Environmental Impact ,Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action and residential development located adjacent to Memorial Drive, including multiple shopping centers, restaurants, banks, car dealers, gas stations, motels, and office complexes. The East Carolina Regional Mall, on Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT), is also accessed from this stretch of Memorial Drive. This area of Greenville, between Thomas Langston Road and Stantonsburg Road along Memorial Drive, contains the bulk of the area's commercial and retail services. Along Stantonsburg Road, there are several major medical facilities. These facilities include several medical office buildings as well as the Pitt County Memorial Hospital. Other development includes retail shopping centers, office complexes, and apartments. These facilities comprise one of the primary job centers in the Greenville urban area. 1.9.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions For this project, the Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board 1994) and its accompanying software were used to determine the current (2004) and future (2030) levels of service. Traffic flow and LOS on urban arterials, such as the Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business)/ Memorial Drive (NC 11) corridor, are influenced by the geometric characteristics of the facility (curvature, grade, lane width, shoulder width and sight distance), adjacent land use, traffic density, truck percentage, turning movements, and the effect of traffic signals. As shown on Table 1-4, Stantonsburg Road and Memorial Drive are often currently carrying volumes at or beyond their design capacities (LOS E or F). This is due to a lack of north-south linkages with sufficient capacity to service the existing travel demand between Ayden, Winterville, and Greenville. Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road currently carry up to 44,500 cars per day. During a typical morning commute, travel along the 12.2-mile route from NC 102 to Stantonsburg Road on Memorial Drive takes approximately 41 minutes. The average operating speed, which was determined by dividing the distance traveled by the travel time, was 18 mph. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, this rate of speed indicates an overall LOS D, the lowest level of desirable operating conditions, for the Stantonsburg/ Memorial corridor during the morning peak; however, segments between Barbeque Road (SR 1204) to NC 11 on Stantonsburg Road, Stantonsburg Road to Arlington Boulevard on NC 11, Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT) to Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131), and Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) to Forlines Road (SR 1129) operate at LOS E or F. As suggested by the varied land uses along Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business), travelers on these roads are a combination of commuters traveling from areas in southern Pitt County to jobs in Greenville and retail shoppers traveling to stores, restaurants, and other services concentrated along Memorial Drive and its crossroads. The conflict between these groups and their travel characteristics adds to driver frustration on already at- or over- capacity facilities. For instance, commuters wishing to travel directly and quickly between home and work are slowed by shoppers tending to make frequent stops and turns. r Greenville southwest Bypass Page 1-12 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement ' Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action I J I'ABLE, 1-4:' MI,.MORIAI %'I','Alt 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES O , DRIVE. N STAN1'ONSI 1U RG ROAD AND Existing Arterial Segment Existing ADT LOS Delay Road AM/PM Peak seconds V US 264 to 22,200 D/C 70.1 v o Barbe ue Rd SR 1204 Barbeque Rd (SR 1204) to 29,000 F/E 198.1 Allen Rd SR 1203 Allen Rd (SR 1203) to 26,000 F/D 176.7 fq o Arlington Blvd Arlington Blvd to 21,900 E/D 261.9 NC 11 Memorial Dr Stantonsburg Rd/Farmville Blvd to 26,300 F/E 172.9 US 13 Dickinson Ave US 13 (Dickinson Ave) to 25,100 C/F 186.9 Arlington Blvd Arlington Blvd to 29,000 D/C 229.7 US 264ALT Greenville Blvd US 264ALT (Greenville Blvd) to 44,500 F/F 266.9 Thomas Langston Rd SR 1134 Thomas Langston Rd (SR 1134) to 43,800 F/F 145.8 Reed Branch Rd SR 1131 Reedy Branch Rd (SR 1131) to 36,400 D/C 80.5 Fulford Dr (SR 1152)/ Fire Tower Rd SR 1708 a Fulford Dr (SR 1152)/Fire Tower Rd 33,200 F/F 234.9 (SR 1708) to A Davenport Farm Rd (SR 1128)/ Old z NC 11 SR 1149 Davenport Farm Rd (SR 1128)/ Old 22,600 E/F 140.7 NC 11 (SR 1149) to Forlines Rd SR 1129)/Boyd St Forlines Rd (SR 1129)/Boyd St to 20,400 A/C 84.6 NC 903/ Main St SR 1133 NC 903/ Main St (SR 1133) to 20,200 B Reed Branch Rd SR 1131 Reedy Branch Rd (SR 1131) to 20,400 B Jolly Rd SR 1120 Jolly Rd (SR 1120) to 20,000 B McLawhorn Rd SR 1119 McLawhorn Rd (SR 1119) to 19,600 B NC 102/ West 3rd St NC 102/ West 3rd St to 17,000 B Old Snow Hill Rd (SR 1113)/ Snow Hill St Old Snow Hill Rd (SR 1113) to 16,400 B Old NC 11 (SR 1149) Old NC 11 (SR 1149) to 18,200 B Jacksontown Rd SR 1 109 *LOS reported from HCS 2000 Multilane Analysis due to rural location. Greenville Southu est Bypass Page 1-13 ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action Along Memorial Drive, the number and spacing of signalized intersections with their associated delay dictates the capacity and level of service as much as the number of lanes or traffic demand. Table 1-5 summarizes level of service at signalized intersections along Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road. As shown, seven of eleven signalized intersections along Memorial Drive and two out of three signalized intersections on Stantonsburg Road have undesirable LOS E or F during either the morning or evening peak. TABLE 1-5: LFWEILS • MEMORIAL STANTONSBURG • Si natized Intersections LOS AM/PM Memorial Drive NC 11 Intersections NC 102/West 3rd Street D/C NC 903/Main Street SR 1133 D/D Forlines Road SR 1129)/Boyd Street B/C Davenport Farm Road SR 1128 /Old NC 11 SR 1 149 D/E Fulford Drive SR 1152 /Fire Tower Road SR 1708 F/F Reed Branch Road SR 1131 F/F Thomas Langston Road SR 1134 C/C US 264ALT Greenville Boulevard F/F Arlington Boulevard F/F US 13/Dickinson Avenue D/E Stantonsbur Road US 264 Business /Farmville Road F/F Stantonsbur Road US 264 Business Intersections Arlington Boulevard F/E Allen Road SR 1203 F/E B's 1313Q Road SR 1204 B/C 1.9.3 Year 2030 Projected Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (No-Build Alternative) To estimate the impact of future growth on the existing transportation network, NCDOT prepared a travel demand model to project 2030 traffic volumes for the "no build" condition (i.e., no improvements are made to Memorial Drive or Stantonsburg Road and no bypass is constructed)z. Design year traffic (2030) indicates that Memorial Drive (NC 11) will carry between 41,400 and 82,300 vehicles per day between Ayden and Greenville (Figure 1-4). Travel demand in the Memorial Drive corridor is projected to nearly double between 2004 and 2030 as a result of continued growth in the area's population and employment. As noted, Pitt County's population is expected to grow by 42.5 percent by 2030, and according to the Greenville Horizons Comprehensive Plan, much of this growth will be in the southern portion of the county. As a result, Memorial Drive between Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) and Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT), which currently carries 44,500 vehicles, is forecasted to have a demand of 2 Other transportation improvements identified in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program and the Greenville Thoroughfare Plan (2004) would still be implemented (see Section 1.8 for a complete description of these projects). Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 7-74 Draft Fnvimnmental Impact Statement , I I I I I I Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action approximately 82,300 vehicles per day in 2030. As a result, the average delay experienced by commuters between Ayden/Winterville and Greenville will increase by more than ten minutes. Building all other planned TIP projects would not be sufficient to meet regional capacity needs. As shown in Table 1-6, traffic along most segments of Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road would nearly double from current levels. The corresponding delays for these segments in 2030 indicate failing levels of service for most of the corridor network. Another measure of congestion, the average network speed 3, also shows declining driving conditions under the 2030 no build scenario. Average network speed, currently estimated to be 18 mph, would decrease approximately 25 percent by 2030. Without improvements beyond those listed in the 2006-2012 TIP and Greenville Area Thoroughfare Plan, service levels will remain at LOS F with congestion increasing in severity and length and average vehicle speeds continuing to decrease. ' 3 Average Network Speed is measured in miles per hour and shows directly the ability of the street and P ' arterial network to move vehicles throughout the system. It represents the average speed along the major arterials in the study area on an average day. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-15 ' Draft I'nvironmental Impact Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action TABLE, 1-6: Y EAR 2030 TRAFFIC VOLUME'S (NO BUI Arterial Segment LD) ADT LOS Delay seconds ti US 264 to 43,600 F 294.3 v o Barbe ue Rd SR 1204 too Barbecue Rd (SR 1204) to 57,200 F 308.3 Allen Rd SR 1203 y Allen Rd (SR 1203) to 51,200 F 240.5 Arlington Blvd Arlington Blvd to 43,200 F 329.4 NC 11 Memorial Dr Stantonsburg Rd/Farmville Blvd to 50,400 F 249.9 US 13 Dickinson Ave US 13 (Dickinson Ave) to 48,500 F 261.9 Arlington Blvd Arlington Blvd to 57,500 F 433.1 US 264ALT Greenville Blvd US 264ALT (Greenville Blvd) to 82,300 F 415.3 Thomas Langston Rd SR 1134 Thomas Langston Rd (SR 1134) to Reedy 81,500 F 314.6 Branch Rd SR 1131 Reedy Branch Rd (SR 1131) to 67,600 F 269.2 Fulford Dr (SR 1152)/Fire Tower Rd (SR 1708 Fulford Dr (SR 1152)/Fire Tower Rd (SR 67,000 F 286.6 1708) to Davenport Farm Rd (SR 1128)/ Old NC 11 SR 1149 P Davenport Farm Rd (SR 1128)/ 46,600 F 318.6 U Old NC 11 (SR 1149) to z c Forlines Rd SR 1129)/Boyd St Forlines Rd (SR 1129)/Boyd St to 42,200 F 271.9 NC 903/ Main St SR 1133 NC 903/ Main St (SR 1133) to 41,800 D Reed Branch Rd SR 1131 Reedy Branch Rd (SR 1131) to 42,200 D Jolly Rd SR 1120 Jolly Rd (SR 1120) to 41,800 D McLawhorn Rd SR 1119 McLawhorn Rd (SR 1119) to 41,400 D NC 102/ West 3rd St NC 102/ West 3rd St to 36,600 D Old Snow Hill Rd (SR 1113)/ Snow Hill St Old Snow Hill Road (SR 1113) to 35,400 C Old NC 11 SR 1149 Old NC 11 (SR 1149) to 38,400 D Jacksontown Road SR 1109 *LOS reported from HCS 2000 Multilane Analysis due to rural location. Greenville .S'outhwertBypass Page 1-16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 Section 1 - Purpose and Need for Action 1.10 SAFETY The total crash rate for Memorial Drive (NC 11) between NC 102 in Ayden and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) is slightly below the state average for similar roadways (all NC routes having four or more lanes divided with no control of access). In total, between 2001 and 2005 1,308 crashes occurred on the 9.95-mile segment of Memorial Drive in the project area, representing a crash rate of 321.44 accidents per 100 MVM. However, a review of accident data by segment along Memorial Drive showed that 1,157 crashes, or 88.5 percent of the total crashes, occurred on the 4.9-mile segment of Memorial Drive between Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) and Stantonsburg Road. This represents a rate of 619.98 accidents per 100 MVM, almost 20 percent above the state average of 521.54 for urban NC routes. This section of roadway has no access control and numerous driveways to shopping centers, restaurants, and other businesses on both ' sides of the road. TABLE 1-7: EIXISTING NC 11 Accident Type AND AVERAGE STATEIWIDE' A Existing NC 11 Accident Rate per 100 MVM* CCIDEINT RATEIS Statewide Average Accident Rate per 100 MVM^ Total Accident Rate 321.44 376.19 Fatal Accident Rate 1.23 1.25 Non-Fatal Injury Accident Rate 113.54 129.73 Night Accident Rate 56.52 81.78 Wet Accident Rate 78.39 71.83 * Accident rates are expressed in accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM) of trav el. This study uses accident data for the penoa zuui-zuus for the project area. ' ^ The Statewide Average is for all NC Routes having 4 or more lanes divided with no control of access for the period 2001-2003. As shown in Table 1-8, the most common type of accident (42.7 percent) in the corridor was rear end accidents, which are common in congested, stop-and-go conditions. Approximately 20 percent of accidents were angle type accidents and nearly 12 percent were sideswipes. These types of accidents typically occur when a driver fails to respond to changes in traffic signals and ' are characteristic of congested conditions and driver frustration. Greenville Soutbwest Bypass Page 1-17 ' Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action TABLE, 1-8:2001-2005 ACCIDU Accident Type NT DATA Number Percent of Total Rear End - slow or stop 558 42.66 Angle 268 20.49 Sideswipe - same direction 154 11.77 Left Turn - same roadway 85 6.50 Lcft Turn - different roadways 39 2.98 Ran Off Road - right 29 2.22 Collision - Animal 25 1.91 Collision - Fixed Object 25 1.91 Right turn - same roadway 23 1.76 Right turn - different roadway 14 1.07 Rear End - tumin 12 0.92 Other Collision with Vehicle 12 0.92 Head on 11 0.84 Sideswipe - opposite direction 11 0.84 Backing u 6 0.46 Other Non-collision 6 0.46 Collision - movable object 6 0.46 Ran Off Road - Left 6 0.46 Unknown 5 0.38 Overturn/rollover 4 0.31 Parked Motor Vehicle 4 0.31 Pedestrian 2 0.15 Pedal Bicyclist 2 0.15 Ran Off Road - straight 1 0.08 Total 1,308 100.00 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 1-18 Draft Environmental lmpact Statement y i ? 00 ?? ? ?? g M°i1r'o° Rd siemnned ?? 264 N Qo??M° Rv S a bneb°rp ae. ` Greenville 33 -? ? J Q ? 264 64? 13 l •' t I vU- G? .! ? ?G°° Porterl? ReJJnrd D C ? R ? \ Ivy T L.1.00,6 1 FO"Mee Rd a mo" nmi Rd ??\??`?..J I_. I i n s?npne Rn eeo° PJ s ? -? 61 ?°eleYee 13 b ?!? 0 43 or? ? 2 ? Wi Walhlrglon Rd nterville M,e o H?wneG°,„nd p nftd ' g? f_ 'Un ximCR 1 l! °e Eft Rd BRnt35 ly oP I j 5P'?I15 g 46% e enen Pd o ?, Q RnWo4 Rd p ?? Met / p Rd 3 P y? ?eetBrM` i I r A -, lnMWe Rd 110 G A 0 ? G HotdY Pd 903 f '.? ?µe 0 Pme cee g° u 81ode M-U.h d Rd 9 !?" Rtl W°od Rd peeeY e1e^cn R N? y,2 *e'6 +.r*`ey, yenlnyRd Hi- D, S'II Grover HeAeO Rd ti 102 m » „q d 11: Ayden D0 Lo/IIn RD Pe ?' ...q ) Co°°r7 Club D, Yes y ? g ?b N W E Legend Project Study Area s Miles 00.51 2 Pf ?°!Sy `d Rd NM.CWm Rd OoMar Rd 4? ? v North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity M -?-- ,-7• V?Caa? 1? n Rd Farm _ n (? • lr C? S I - ' biiN? .,hurcl RBI T 'Y + .. ?! T v III. VA 1 . d n 264 A / o Be71 Arthur Rc - ? - 13 C ?- -- ?a 264 LynnMe 1 , e; 264 B 43 Qo\\ «f R 29 0_ Bei -? ion Rd as l.un9s ' ! ? , -?? N ` 0.. 1 Y? w A e Rd 1 }- T o N N T ???, =e o ` w a a I N O 1 d 264 "b N 13 g do n_? w Croswow ,- Gum h', r Dave +port F J 1. Rd +..? - U ?J Y X? / ?ro?? 1 t p 1 -l 1120 rl ?i/ 3 . I (n taint le-- W z ? f ? - r .. E a M ? e ' y - o 7 oM1h ?i 1 w v 1 f 4 r', . ,? 11 to Ih f ?tl ?='.? 901 l • J, - __--- _ _ : ?;?'? -, o s S Y1. ? ' v Y oCei• (• t5 _ - L-- ' o r?l / ?? r fl„ i ?? ?y R : - ? ?cYt (IM 903 Q r? l ` 1 Cr . j ??? 102 102 \ U r 903 _ C ? u saw,, Oisp r I 1 l J , d&ti o ka r ? I 11 ?tM?1d 1 ` ?°, Ir a Legend Project Study Area N W E -7r S Miles 0 0.5 1 2 13 a 264 43\. 903 0 ? Pe?aQ- I J ? ? ` ' ? ._ .. ?\ 11 ak Irnii?i:,eairirr „ I eckla to o J ... T t0 -. f7 ,,lingo Rd a ?Cres Ot 9re9or po s U)i ........... loth St ?\Q-a 264 ?, $rr \.,` Bunch I, '? 1 E 10th St a ?o _ _... o Greenvifle'`..._...T.?.. ?a 5 pbbOY Ln 'St"Yonsburg Rd y QD King or Oe OZ Its ? f" -''? ? ?°? r`• ? i T % ?eoo 264 I i f 13 tiM1 A Q ? I, ' $ > i e i u. rr ° Bell Arthur Rd Rd ooh (?" \ Hernb I { ALT 264 43 i J % .\\atd Rd !` j ? (? r` ••? ; `1,' ? ? wet ' r ; OA ,d I 1 Duke Rd Fu i Qc G \ f 1 ° ; npolt 6roP A ?l I T j- rn, Rd Of Rd 264 T _ d T I r --_ 13 i yy? a ,. __ - I eOr o 4 ? - - ?, U? en N ?Wintervill•e ? ?? -_ - ? bautte Ellis Rd \••\ ? 1 -- ? i? i 915: E .\ r QGq x° '966 •,\ ? 6 ? _. ?/ ?, Branc'0 rg °7,ce 1 li Ir Ioce 1 ' R sac* Mac p0en Rd I Rd /. y o a oc o`? La Moye Rd Lower T - °ja m P? `a Ge`gtancrRd 1 Po?O 903 \ co i' 'Stocks McLawhorn Rd o " 3 4 it U- _ l i ? ? f Reedy Stanch S. / D . I o ,r • a o`er I -! ( O0 Club V16, c \ co E \ Hines or Q? ?\ 903 z' 1 •\ '^ i I i I a° i I 102 l-- ? ? 102 ?( I , 1 Ayden >> _, 1\ i coonfry ?co ?!0 1 I Club or t Ora ? ' I ? ' boa, ?/ ? o. ••\ • ? L' A \, oo? Jacksontown Rd 11 -n-.._ t t - t Miles 0 0.5 1 2 G? S? ah '0R a North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No, R-2250 Figure 1-4 Traffic Comparison Index Sumrell Rd C-, N 7 "11 d, 7 a Dennis McLawhorn'Rd ti See Figure 1-48°6, o I 196 Qo 0,, `yes 04 I 414 I-------------+ - ------ rt --\ -- -- -- - Poe N 1 Z (r ?.? P I 8 50 192 - 406 27 44 ??, S t °? --- 51 ast r r > 84 82 5 i Ayden 100 ° w' 3 ¢> 150 z r 182 Z W?iodview D 109 7 N ° c' tea, r 195 , 11 Rd - - " 32 st = Z mberry o 60 as W 1st St :;t E st St C?? ? ? 40 12 110 S t 0 196 16 now 65 E 2nd St N v p a Q` ?° Hi// st a ° 6 170 o` W 4th st 102 d ° 366 > q ?' Q\? ?` m Q 5th St m W 5th St z rn ¢ ?, 1 I _i c ? a a y' ?o w'' °'f ''ro o? w6th St 05 Q x . W 6th St E stn St W W 8th st 2 c J 7 p 16 32 18 91h St Planters St 1 65 36 I j GarNs st 5? E Bad ick St V??! _C J? I Allen Dr Brown Rd ?z \ NO n Or i s 4 F Jacksontown Rd co N!, Z d? a Jacksontown Rd 6 12 11 ?a Fy C,? Legend # # # 2004 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) # # # 2030 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) City Limit Area Feet 0 650 1,300 2,600 Nort h Carolina Departmen t of Transportation Greenville Southw est Bypass Study (Improvements to N C 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 14A T No-Build raffic Comparisons 1 I I pocos h Rd L - - -- i 3S - G9? t 1 I '1 _ t i W N See Figure 1-4C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N 11 j coo I [ i o i Ll 1 Abbott Farm Rd I, A Dr Legend # # # 2004 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) # # # 2030 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) City Limit Area ?, Aa a 7 f i m y N i E Blo0n/ st ESYlvan/a Ave Me We E/Ils Rd I - --- ?I ad N -Al, W E s I I Feet 0 650 1,300 2,600 North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 1-4B No-Build Traffic Comparisons i v) dllks way ?J i 06. "idOf Oa re ?•OO 7 F17r11? Ra Forlines Rd 4P 2y o11 QP7 - I NC.9?3 903 T_ 280 - 264 1 - - . - Greenville i i i i Antler Rd U_. ..• •? Ambervc Crestline Blvd C?S?G?e W. westhap', Cedarhurst Rd 0 3 ? Winstead Rd a i? Ra?enwood Dr Kempton Dr i N U ?N °att°h C/ S h S uare Dr o ? ? all or a 28 ?°' South H i ?• 09 40 ?f Chapman Rd Coll, Wa// Ct ?.. / T°eRa 7 - ? 364 676 l1W_ - • ° ? olio oA. O a .L E Fire Tower Rd -? °° 62 222 -, O 81 343 i/ Irish Ln 332 670 r U ? t N CIO 50 132 0 258 2 t m I w 226 I ?^ / 2 Milton Dr f % s l 466 R//so i ? Jeanette St 18 Worthirgldn s N 38 20 Ave m r Bo ° oc I - _I ,0 U 38 YrI,St t? v? T 0) > 4 w Hillcre" w Ohaa oce ln? . ... _... $ 1 10 2 11 in 2 .. ° --? 1 + E ?•..l Tyson S 65 U ?... ?. i t ti a Little Dr Wir?tervilleU U ?? ?r? .VUCIe o a 204 EE 422 W Depot St North St Ti 0 U E Main St 42 88 84 3 Z5 `g a I ¢ Gayle Blvd o R L St N o See Figure 1-48 J, S Copper st I Drexel Ln Loo 4' W Blount St N I ° > po Legend # # # 2004 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) # # # 2030 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) City Limit Area I, \ See Figure 1-4D ! \ T i , 264 Greenville Blvd \ - 11z \\ 147 443 2 \. ' 26 C 40 C \ r--- 4^8 N North Carolina Department of Transportation W E Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) S State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Feet No-Build 0 650 1,300 2,600 [Figure 1-4C Traffic Comparisons ?ut12ti; 264 P Pa\ad?0 CO, 144 e6 Z? 2 ap" 192 206 ?a 406 .? C O 344 eoJe j' \:'• 2 / l°ark"'eY C/ / O` stant O` 260 yaa 60 12 ran o? ?`Oa r ?. use fan c? o?sbG"9 128 ? ? a@y0 1 O" Qa lea` GAO` O` ec D 'Ohns "00' /' r4 Q' 237 43 KO 01 0tA0 m .:;Co* sf O? O4' o ?d?ee U a" wslh s! _sr hs 0` 11 d9an ? y 301 O? 17 Sianlonsbu g 119 565 awe 1 166 0g' M432 p? 192 00? Fa d 7N 359 eF 226 %d N 144 Radio Rd C., 9e Or o` s S ?/ra e? CrossWinds St 90 0 a ? ea// PVe SPruCe St pads! ?`c Myrtle S1 N 7 \ti 263 Chestnut St n 2. 4 56/1,9 est St icklnson Ave N t o 97 149 l c 01 0 Westwood Of 163 250 .Y ra?1 sr ? `n a m /°ne 8 O NOWe// SO G/ ssyi?an ~ 4e Gy?n Sl O tak Dr wOOd r Glen ONerris sl 251 85 Pend/elonsl e0 Kenned \ \ \\Whr er T)". 4 13 \ n?ro ec Y Cir ae ? ? NO r \ •? 2? ,Q' Q Q "colt Ci P32 8q ye a ? moo 282 ea Y \• 366 V S00 'on Dr Briarcliff or 'i _ O a 916 WOO v Ellswo?h Dr ' SnPP ..,,00"47 ..,q,%, FAr/'nsl°n 8/111/ 'Orn N N reenville ? ? /57? ? \ ??? T 264 See Figure 1-4C Legend # # # 2004 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) # # # 2030 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) i City Limit Area N W F S Feet 0 650 1,300 2,600 9! ? °n,Qa °ao ?o 3 -r Q? ?ja2a Or . ae??0t .?0 ?y . rv i co, Red Banks Rd .,kAet?a SE ' Nort h Carolina Departmen t of Transportation Greenville Southw est Bypass Study (Improvements to N C 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 1-4D No-Build Tra ffic Comparisons as M a l Or 90 \ e? ier M c9re9or ?• , 00 Wnc .. % t 0 0 0 N SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Five broad-ranged alternatives were established for consideration on this project. These ' alternatives include: a No-Build Alternative, a Transportation System Management Alternative, a Mass Transit Alternative, an Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative, and a Build Alternative involving the construction of a roadway on new location. Each broad-ranged alternative may be comprised of several components or sub-alternatives. This chapter presents the range of alternatives considered for the project, a discussion of the alternatives eliminated from further consideration, and the alternatives selected for detailed study. Each alternative is assessed with respect to its ability to meet the project's purpose and need. As noted in Section 1, planning studies and alternatives development for this project began in 1993. Between 1993 and 1998, NCDOT officials evaluated the need for improvements in the area and analyzed a number of potential new locations for a bypass corridor. Collectively, these ' corridors comprised the broad-ranged Build Alternatives. Three preliminary corridors were evaluated by the project's agency Steering Committee in January 1994 and presented to the public in March 1994. Between 1994 and 1997, a fourth corridor was added for study. However, ' following the introduction of the interagency NEPA/404 Merger Process (see Section 8.1.2 for a description of this process), all previously studied corridors were reevaluated and additional corridors were developed. In addition, the broad-ranged Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative, ' Transportation Systems Management Alternative, and Mass Transit Alternative were reevaluated. The following section describes all alternatives considered for detailed study, the reasons for ' eliminating some of these alternatives, and the alternatives retained for detailed study. ' 2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE Th N B ild Al i id b i l i e o- u ve prov ternat es no su stant a mprovements to Memorial Drive (NC 11) or Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) through the year 2030, with the exception of regular maintenance such as patching and resurfacing, regrading shoulders, and maintaining ditches. The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right of way nor substantial construction costs. There ' would be no long-term disruptions during construction. There would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural resources, nor would there by any residential or business relocations. ' All th l d TIP d i ld b d o er p anne an ty projects wou e constructe c (see Section 1.8). Currently there are two projects proposed in the TIP in the project study area. The first includes widening Fire ' Tower Road (SR 1130) to five lanes east of Memorial Drive (TIP No. U-3613) and the second includes widening and extending Arlington Boulevard to NC 43/West Fifth Street (TIP No. U-4737). Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-1 '' ' Draft k nvironmental Impact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives As shown in Table 1-5, in the year 2004, seven intersections along Memorial Drive were at capacity (LOS E) or over capacity (LOS F). These intersections include Jolly Road (SR 1120), Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131), Fire Tower Road (SR 1130), Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT), Arlington Boulevard, and Stantonsburg Road. With the exceptions of Reedy Branch Road and Jolly Road, all of these intersections are signalized. The intersections of Arlington Boulevard and Allen Road (SR 1203) with Stantonsburg Road were also at or over capacity in 2004. With no improvements along the existing routes and no new routes for the future traffic, all of the existing signalized intersections along Memorial Drive will be over capacity by the year 2030. As discussed in Chapter 1 and above, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need; however, in accordance with NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A: p.15), the No-Build Alternative will be given full consideration to provide a baseline for comparison with the Build Alternative. 2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative includes limited construction activities designed to maximize the traffic flow and efficiency of the present transportation system. There are two main types of TSM roadway improvements: operational and physical. Examples of these improvements include: Operational Improvements • Traffic law enforcement ¦ Turn prohibitions ¦ Access control ¦ Speed Restrictions ¦ Signal coordination ¦ Signal phasing or timing changes Physical Improvements ¦ Addition of turn lanes ¦ Intersection realignment ¦ Improved warning and information signs ¦ New signals or stop signs ¦ Intersection geometric and signalization improvements ¦ High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes The TSM roadway improvements typically are effective in solving site-specific capacity and safety deficiencies in urban areas. However, these enhancements would not improve the level of service at the intersections or along the existing roadway network enough to make a substantial difference. Capacity problems at many of the existing intersections are due to through volumes that exceed the theoretical capacities of the roadways. In order to provide any improvement in the traffic congestion on Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business), additional through lanes are needed. High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are typically utilized for urbanized areas with a population over 200,000. Since Greenville's population lies below this threshold, HOV lanes and the other TSM measures would not adequately address the needs of the project and has been eliminated from further consideration. Greenville Southwest Bypass Pgge 2-2 Draft Environmental Aypact Statement I Section 2 - Alternatives 2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE The Mass Transit Alternative includes options such as expanding the existing bus service, implementing a light rail or fixed guideway system, or a regional rail service so that the number of vehicles and subsequent congestion on local roads would be decreased. Ayden and Winterville do not have bus or rail services. The Greenville Area Transit System (GREAT) provides radial bus service along four routes throughout portions of the Greenville urban area. Two of the four bus routes serve sections of Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business); however, because GREAT is a city bus service only, it does not serve Ayden, Winterville, or the surrounding area in southwest Pitt County. In addition, mass transit has been shown typically to serve low percentages (less than 5 percent on average) of person trips. Given the need to reduce trips by more than 50 percent to reach a LOS D by 2030, mass transit measures alone would not remove enough trips to alleviate congestion on Memorial Drive. Mass transit operations are compared to other forms of travel by evaluating the number of times people use mass transit for traveling to work, shopping, schools, etc. rather than using private automobiles. Based on the city of Greenville's Greenville Area Transit Report, the existing bus service in Greenville serves an average of 600 trips per day. Even with expanded bus services to the project area, this alternative would not address adequately the purpose and need for the project. There are several large employment centers in Greenville, two of which are the Pitt County Memorial Hospital within the project area and East Carolina University east of the project area. However, due to the rural nature of the project area there are no concentrated communities to generate enough mass transit trips to these employment centers. In addition, the people traveling through the area on Memorial Drive (NC 11) would not be served by either an expansion of the local bus services or a rail transit service. This traffic would remain on existing Memorial Drive contributing to the congestion instead of relieving the congestion as stated in the purpose and need for the project. The FHWA considers urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 as areas where Mass Transit Alternatives should be considered (FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A: p.15). As discussed in Section 1, Pitt County's existing and projected population is below 200,000 people. For this and the reasons noted above, the Mass Transit Alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 2.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND UPGRADE EXISTING FACILITIES ' ALTERNATIVE The Greenville Southwest Bypass Build Alternative includes constructing a new roadway from Memorial Drive (NC 11) in the vicinity of NC 102, continuing northwest to connect with the existing US 264/Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) interchange. The bypass is proposed as a four-lane median divided freeway with controlled-access, a design speed of 70 miles per hour, ' and a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. Grade separations would be constructed at the ' Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-3 Draft Enuironmentallmpaa.Statement Section 2 - Alternatives minor road crossings and grade separations with interchanges at the major road crossings. Interchanges are proposed at NC 102, NC 903, Forlines Road (SR 1126), US 264ALT/US 13, and US 264 for all scenarios. Several bypass alternates have been considered for the project, all of which would meet the purpose and need of the project by removing up to 50 percent of traffic from Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road, thereby easing congestion on those routes. 2.4.1 Logical Termini FHWA regulations (23 CFR 771.111(f)) outline three general principals to determine project limits. The regulations state: "In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall: ¦ Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; ¦ Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e.: be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and ¦ Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements." The proposed project has logical termini. The southern terminus connects with Memorial Drive (NC 11) south of NC 102. To the north the project terminates at, and provides access to, US 264. In addition, the project is of sufficient length (between 11.0 miles and 13.2 miles) to address environmental matters on a broad scope. It has independent utility and significance, and it would be a reasonable expenditure of capital even if additional transportation improvements in the area were not made. The proposed project would not restrict consideration of other foreseeable transportation projects within the project study area. 2.4.2 Design Criteria and Typical Sections Design criteria and typical sections were established for the proposed highway facility based on existing (2004) and projected travel demand (2030) along the facility and the long-range vision for NC I 1 defined by NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors. Design guidelines were based on desirable roadway standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1994) and the NCDOT Roadway Design Standards Manual. Design criteria for the build alternates are listed in Table 2-1. The design criteria and typical roadway cross-section are influenced by the type of facility required to fulfill the project's purpose and need. To maintain at least a LOS D with 2030 design year traffic forecasts, the proposed facility requires at least four travel lanes (two in each direction). Therefore, the primary roadway typical section for this project has four 12-foot lanes Greenville Southwest Bypass Pine 24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives with a 46-foot median and 4-foot inside and 10-foot outside paved shoulders. The design speed for the road is 70 mph, which will accommodate posted speed limits of 65 mph. The proposed typical sections are presented in Figure 2-1. Factor Area Used Criteria Functional Classification Entire Length of Project Freeway Terrain Entire Length of Project Level Freeway 70 MPH Design Speed Two-Lane Flyover 60 MPH Ramp 50 MPH desirable, 40 MPH minimum Loo 30 MPH desirable, 25 MPH minimum Right of Way Width Entire Length of Project 250 feet minimum Freeway 1,637 feet minimum radius Maximum Horizontal Curvature Two-Lane Flyover 1,206 feet minimum Ramp 760 feet minimum Loo 250 feet minimum Freeway 3% maximum Maximum Grade Two-Lane Flyover 5% maximum Ramp 5% maximum Loo 7% maximum Number of Lanes Freeway 4 Lanes Freeway 12 feet Lane Width Two-Lane Flyover 12 feet Ramp-One Lane 16 feet Loo Ram 18 feet typical varies with design) Shoulder Width Freeway 12 feet - 10 feet paved outside 12 feet - 4 feet paved inside Median Width Freeway 46 feet Maximum Superelevation Freeway 0.10 ft./ft. Other 0.08 ft./ft. Stopping Sight Distance Freeway Current AASHTO Standards Length of Vertical Curve Freeway Current AASHTO Standards Cross Slopes Normal Sect. Freeway 1/4"/foot 2% 16.6 feet min. over Interstates and Arterials Vertical Clearance Freeway 15.0 feet min. over Local and Collector Roads. 23.0 feet min. over Railroad 2.4.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Corridors The preliminary study corridors were evaluated for impacts to human, environmental, and cultural resources using conceptual construction limits (plus an additional 10 feet for potential clearing impacts) to begin the selection of alternatives for detailed studies. Preliminary impacts were assessed for the following resources: • Number of relocations (residential and commercial), ¦ Number of stream crossings and linear feet of stream impacts, ¦ Acreage of riparian buffer impacts, ¦ Acreage of wetland impacts, Greenoille Southwest Bypass Draft I:nnimnmental Lnpact Statement Page 2-S Section 2 - Alternatives ¦ Length of corridor on new location, ¦ Historic resource impacts, and ¦ Number of new interchanges. In considering preliminary impacts, planning and design objectives included: ¦ Avoiding residential housing, businesses, and public meeting places such as churches; ¦ Avoiding properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, where feasible; and ¦ Avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands, streams, and other natural resources. 2.4.3.1. Description of Preliminary Corridors Nine preliminary corridors (1, IA, 113, 2, 3, 3A, 313, 4, and 4A) on new location were developed for the project to determine the best location for a bypass on the southwest side of Greenville. Original corridors (1, 1A, 1B, 2, and 3) were developed in 1996 by NCDOT. Corridors 3A, 313, 4, and 4A were added by NCDOT in 2001 to update the project for planned or newly-constructed residential developments in the study area. Figure 2-2 shows the locations of these preliminary corridors. Corridor locations varied to avoid and minimize natural and cultural resources, where possible. All nine corridors followed the same location for approximately 1.3 miles south of the northern terminus at the existing US 264 interchange. This 1.3-mile corridor crosses the Norfolk Southern Railroad, avoids the Pitt County Landfill, and connects with the existing US 264 interchange. The corridors are described as follows: ¦ Corridor 1: follows existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) from NC 102 approximately 0.9 miles and then turns northwest on new location crossing several tributaries to Swift Creek. Corridor 1 crosses Abbot Farm Road (SR 1117) approximately 0.3 miles west of Jolly Road (SR 1120). Corridor 1 continues north crossing NC 903. From NC 903 to Dickinson Avenue (US 13), Corridor 1 extends north, almost parallel with Frog Level Road (SR 1127) to the west, crossing Pocosin Road (SR 1125) and Forlines Road (SR 1126). Corridor 1 then continues across Dickinson Avenue, crossing Old Stantonsburg Road (SR 1200), to connect with the existing US 264 interchange. Corridor 1 is 9.5 miles long with 8.6 miles on new location and includes four new interchanges located at Memorial Drive, NC 903, Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128), and Dickinson Avenue. ¦ Corridor IA: follows Corridor 1 from NC 102 to just south of Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117). From this location, Corridor IA extends east of Corridor 1 crossing NC 903, Pocosin Road (SR 1125), and Forlines Road (SR 1126). Corridor IA is approximately 0.4 miles east of Corridor 1 at the Pocosin Road crossing. Corridor IA continues northwest crossing Frog Level Road (SR 1127) and connects with Corridor 1, just north Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-6 I Draft F.nvironmentalImpact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives of Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128). Corridor IA continues along Corridor 1 to connect ' with the existing interchange at US 264. Corridor 1 A is approximately 9.6 miles long with 8.7 miles on new location. Corridor IA includes four new interchanges located at NC 11, NC 903, Davenport Farm Road, and Dickinson Avenue (US 13). ¦ Corridor 1 B: follows Corridor 1 from NC 102 to just south of Abbott Farm Road ' (SR 1117). Corridor 1 B turns northwest across NC 903 and Frog Level Road (SR 1127) to connect back with Corridor 1 at Pocosin Road (SR 1125). From Pocosin Road, Corridor 1 B follows Corridor 1 to the northern terminus of the project at the existing ' US 264 interchange. Corridor 1B was developed to avoid the Charles McLawhorn Historic Property on NC 903. Corridor 1 B is approximately 9.5 miles long with 8.6 miles on new location. Corridor 1 B includes four new interchanges located at NC 11, NC 903, ' Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128), and Dickinson Avenue (US 13). • Corridor 2: follows existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) from NC 102 to just south of Jolly ' Road (SR 1120). From Memorial Drive, Corridor 2 turns northwest crossing several tributaries to Swift Creek and Jolly Road. The corridor crosses Jolly Road a second time, approximately 0.5 miles before crossing NC 903. From NC 903, the corridor continues northwest crossing Pocosin Road (SR 1125), Forlines Road (SR 1126), Frog Level Road (SR 1127), and Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128). Corridor 2 extends northwest from ' Davenport Farm Road to connect with Corridor 1 near Dickinson Avenue (US 13/US 264ALT). The corridor continues along Corridor 1 until the northern terminus at the existing US 264 interchange. Corridor 2 is approximately 9.6 miles long with 8.2 miles on new location. Corridor 2 includes four new interchanges located at NC 11, NC 903, Davenport Farm Road, and Dickinson Avenue. ' Corridor 3: follows existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) from NC 102 for approximately 3.0 miles and turns northwest just south of the Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131) and ' Memorial Drive intersection. The corridor continues northwest crossing NC 903, Swift Creek, Red Forbes Drive (SR 2016), Forlines Road (SR 1126), Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128), Frog Level Road (SR 1127), and Dickinson Avenue (US 13) before ' connecting with Corridor 1. Corridor 3 continues along Corridor I to the northern project terminus at the existing US 264 interchange. Corridor 3 is approximately 10.1 miles long ' with approximately 7.1 miles on new location. Corridor 3 includes four new interchanges located at NC 11 NC 903 Davenport Farm Road and Dickinson Avenue , , , . ' Corridor 3A: follows existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) from NC 102 for approximately 2.5 miles. This corridor turns northwest crossing Swift Creek and NC 903 before connecting with Corridor 2 or Corridor IA. Corridor 3A was evaluated following both ' Corridors 2 and 1 A to the northern terminus at the existing US 264 interchange. Both corridor combinations with Corridor 3A are approximately 10.0 miles long with 7.4 miles ' on new location. Four new interchanges are located along these corridors at NC 11, NC 903, Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) and Dickinson Avenue (US 13) , . GreenUille ,Southwest Bypass Page 2-7 ' Drat F,ntironmentallmpact .Statement Section 2 - Alternatives Corridor 313: follows existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) from NC 102 for approximately 2.4 miles. This corridor turns northwest at this location, and extends north, parallel to Swift Creek, crossing NC 903, Swift Creek, and Red Forbes Drive (SR 2016). Corridor 3B continues west to connect with Corridor IA or Corridor 2 just southeast of the Forlines Road (SR 1126) and Frog Level Road (SR 1127) intersection. Corridor 3B was evaluated following both Corridors IA and 2 to the northern terminus at the existing US 264 interchange. Both combinations with Corridor 3B are approximately 10.1 miles long with 7.4 miles on new location. Four new interchanges are located along these corridors at NC 11, NC 903, Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128), and Dickinson Avenue (US 13). ¦ Corridor 4: follows existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) approximately 0.9 miles from NC 102 and turns north following Corridor 1 until Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117). From the crossing of Abbott Farm Road, Corridor 4 turns northwest of Corridor 1 crossing NC 903 west of the Charles McLawhorn Historic Property. Corridor 4 continues northwest crossing Pocosin Road (SR 1125), Forlines Road (SR 1126), and Dickinson Avenue (US 13). Corridor 4 turns northeast to cross Frog Level Road (SR 1127) and to connect with and follow Corridor 1 until the northern terminus at the existing US 264 interchange. Corridor 4 is approximately 10.1 miles long with 9.2 miles on new location. Three new interchanges located at NC 11, NC 903 and US 13 are proposed along Corridor 4. Corridor 4A: follows Memorial Drive (NC 11) from NC 102 for approximately 0.6 miles. From this location, Corridor 4A turns northwest on new location just east of Dennis McLawhorn Road (SR 1119) to extend north crossing Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117). From Abbott Farm Road, Corridor 4A extends northwest connecting with Corridor 4 at NC 903. Corridor 4A follows Corridor 4 until the northern end of the project at the existing US 264 interchange. Corridor 4A is approximately 10.2 miles long with 9.6 miles on new location. Three new interchanges located at NC 11, NC 903, and US 13 are proposed along Corridor 4A. Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative In addition to the nine (9) new location corridors, an upgrade existing facilities was included as a preliminary corridor. The Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative includes roadway improvements along Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) that would better serve traffic in the design year 2030. Two options for widening Memorial Drive (NC 11) and one for Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) were evaluated to improve traffic congestion. Because existing Memorial Drive varies from four to six lanes, the options for the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative include: Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft F--'nvironmentallmpact Statement Pine 2-8 7- I Section 2 - Alternatives I ¦ Option A: Memorial Drive as a six to eight-lane roadway (one additional lane in each direction) with Stantonsburg Road as a six-lane roadway, and ¦ Option B: Memorial Drive as an eight to ten-lane roadway (two additional lanes in each direction) with Stantonsburg Road as a six-lane roadway. Functional designs prepared for the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative included minimum improvements needed to maintain an overall acceptable LOS (defined as LOS D for this project). Specifically, each intersection was improved by adding as many lanes as necessary. A traffic analysis was prepared to evaluate the capacity and operation of Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road under the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative scenarios. As shown in Table 1-6, the 2030 traffic volumes projected to use existing Memorial Drive (under ' the no build scenario) range from 41,400 to 82,300 ADT. Additional left turn and right turn lanes, extended storage lengths and optimal signal timing and sequencing were evaluated at each intersection for Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road. Based on the capacity analysis, the ' intersection levels of service for the arterials range from LOS A to F for both Option A and Option B. There are several intersections along Memorial Drive that will operate at a LOS F ' even with widening to as many as eight to ten lanes. These intersections include Dickinson Road (US 13), Arlington Boulevard, Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT), Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131), Fulford/Fire Tower Road (SR 1152/SR 1708), Davenport Farm Road (SR 1149), and ' Forlines Road (SR 1129). In order for the traffic operations at these intersections to improve, interchanges would need to be constructed. ' Potential effects of the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative were evaluated and presented to representatives of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies at meetings in February 2002, April ' 2003, and February 2005. 2.4.3.2. Elimination of Preliminary Corridors ' Representatives of federal, state, and local agencies met in February 2002 as part of the NEPA/404 Merger Process for this project to select alternatives to carry through for detailed ' studies. At this point, five of the preliminary corridors were eliminated (Corridors 2, 3, 3A, 3B, and 4A). These corridors were eliminated for the following reasons: ' ¦ Corridor 3: impacts the newly-constructed South Central High School, a planned elementary school, a historic property (Alfred McLawhom House), and 64 relocations (most of any preliminary alternative). ' ¦ Corridor 3A: impacts wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest (approximately 90 and 30 acres, respectively, within the corridor) and 40 relocations, including a new unnamed subdivision. ' ¦ Corridor 313: impacts wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest (approximately 75 and 50 acres, respectively, within the corridor) and 56 relocations. 1 ' Grvenvi!!e Southwest Bypass Page 2-9 Draft I ;nvironmenta! Impact .Statement Section 2 - Alternatives ¦ Corridor 4A: impacts commercial developments in Ayden, is further removed from the Greenville urban area, and impact 41 acres of wetlands. A follow-up meeting was held in April 2002 to eliminate Corridor 2. Representatives of NCDOT and the NC Division of Water Quality determined that Corridor 2 would also be eliminated from study because of wetland impacts (approximately 85 acres within the corridor) to the Swift Creek system. Corridors 1, 1 A, 1 B, and 4 remained for further study (see Figure 2-3). Elimination of the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative The Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative would impact a substantial number of businesses (approximately 121 businesses and 87 residences) along Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) and Memorial Drive (NC 11) and require major revisions in the access provided to remaining businesses. The cost of this alternative, which was estimated to be more than twice that of a bypass alternative, was also determined to be prohibitive. The design and safety of the proposed eight- to ten-lane roadway were also questioned. Due to the impacts associated with this alternative, as well as its inability to meet the project's capacity improvement needs and opposition from the public, agency representatives eliminated it from further consideration in February 2005. 2.4.3.3. Renston Rural Historic District Avoidance Alternate (Corridor 5) In 2003, the Renston Rural Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The Renston Rural Historic District includes approximately 1,395 acres of farms, residences, churches, and cemeteries along a 2.5-mile section of NC 903 that represent the agricultural and architectural history of the area. The boundaries of the Historic District are defined by Horsepen Swamp Creek at the northeast end and by Callie Stokes Road at the southwest end. All corridors under consideration at the time (Corridors 1, 1A, 1 B, and 4) crossed the Historic District with varying levels of impact (see Figure 2-3). Therefore, Corridor 5 was developed as an avoidance alternative to avoid all impacts to the Historic District. Corridor 5 follows existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) for approximately 1.2 miles before turning northwest and crossing Jolly Road (SR 1120) approximately 3.2 miles west of NC 11. Corridor 5 continues northwest and crosses Horsepen Swamp, NC 903, and Pocosin Road (SR 1125). Corridor 5 follows Corridor 1 from Forlines Road (SR 1126) to its northern terminus at the existing interchange at US 264. The corridor is approximately 11.1 miles long and includes 8.4 miles on new location. The design for Corridor 5 includes four new interchanges at the existing intersection of NC 102 and NC 11 and at NC 11, NC 903, and Forlines Road. Figure 2-4 depicts Corridor 5. An alternative corridor to the west of the Renston Historic District was briefly investigated by NCDOT. This alternative extended at most four (4) miles west of NC 11. However, NCDOT did not pursue detailed studies for this alternative because NCDOT felt it would not relieve the traffic on the existing corridor due to the increased distance from NC 11. A western alternative was also Greenville Southwest B)pa s Page 2-10 Draft Entironmental Impact Statement I 1 Section 2 - Alternatives not supported by the MPO. In addition, preliminary environmental mapping indicated that a western alternative would have more wetland and stream impacts than the other alternatives. Due to this combination of reasons, an alternative farther west of the Renston District was not considered further. 2.4.3.4. Southern Extension In 2004, based on concerns forwarded by the town of Ayden that the NC 102 and NC 1 I intersection would exceed capacity and require an interchange that would adversely impact businesses in the area, several concepts were analyzed for interchange options at NC 11 and NC 102 and for extending the bypass south of the town. Options included interchange concepts at NC 11 and NC 102 such as a compressed diamond with a loop in the southwest quadrant of the interchange and a full compressed diamond interchange. In addition, an extension to the build alternates that would bypass the town of Ayden and tie into Memorial Drive (NC 11) near Old Snow Hill Road was considered. With any interchange at the intersection of NC 11 and NC 102, Ayden town officials indicated that twelve businesses valued at approximately $6 million would be impacted and that this would adversely affect the town's tax and employment base; therefore, the Town requested that the build alternates be extended south of Ayden. An extension to existing Corridors 1, 1A, 1B, 4, and 5 was added, referred as the Southern Extension. This created new Corridors called 1-EXT, l A-EXT, 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT. The Southern Extension lengthened each of the existing bypass alternates by approximately 3.3 miles and included an interchange at NC 102 west of Ayden and a terminus at NC 11 approximately 2.9 miles south of NC 102. 2.4.3.5. Corridors Carried Forward for Detailed Study The No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative have been retained for detailed study. Detailed study alternatives were selected in March 2005 by representatives from federal, state, and local agencies. Agencies reviewed ten bypass alternates (1, 1 A, 1 B, 4, 5, 1-EXT, lA-EXT, I B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT), shown on Figure 2-5. Comparative impacts based on functional designs for each of these alternates are presented in Table 2-2. Bypass Alternates 1, 1 A, 1 B, 4, and 5 were eliminated because of their impacts to the town of Ayden (see Southern Extension above). Bypass alternatives resulted in higher relocations as expected with a longer project but lower stream, wetland, and riparian buffer impacts than the alternatives without the bypass. Therefore, the only bypass alternates remaining under consideration were those that extended the bypass south of Ayden. Bypass Alternates 1-EXT and IA-EXT were subsequently eliminated: Alternate 1-EXT because of its direct impact to the Charles McLawhorn historic property, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and Alternate I A-EXT because of a larger number of impacts to residences, stream crossings, and wetland impacts and because it would require relocating extensive sections of existing Frog Level Road (SR 1127). Greenville Soutbwest Bypass Page 2-11 ' Draft hnvironmentallmpact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives Table 2-2 shows that 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT result in lower environmental impacts. ' Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT were carried forward for detailed study for the ' following reasons: ¦ Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT - has lower impacts to streams, buffers, and wetlands in ' comparison to Alternate 5-EXT and has less impacts to the Renston Rural Historic District than Alternate 4-EXT. ¦ Bypass Alternate 4-EXT - has the least impacts to streams, buffers, and wetlands of any ' alternate. ¦ Bypass Alternate 5-EXT - avoids impacts to all historic properties including the Renston Rural Historic District. , Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement I I r f6 1 ? N ' O V I r- 00 kn <D O? L M N N O h O O ?o V'? O ONO O O -+ O W O N N 00 \O O o00 .. 00 01, 00 H ? N O O F ''[yy ??j 00 O O M 00 ?O N N M •--? O? .--? ,--? O N N .7 M O ry'C ?'`? O ? ? oo --I 'R ' ?i r y M O U 00 00 N M """ ? N N M d' v a et ^-? o0 ,--? C ?p rf) W M O\ N - O O? N r., O •__, •., M N PG N 00 O N O? r I? ?O I- M V1 00 N ,? M - vl 'IT N M 00 [? kn 00 r- r N V) DO ?' kr) O\ M 00 vl '""' I- ? N O N M M 00 r- tr) N O N N 00 N M N i/1 N d co O O • O • N OC O ?c kr) M OO O 0 W .N- i .N- ? 00 N M O O O 4 o a v m y ? « v °" a w v v v v w v a , Z °• o o V E ' N v ?, 61 a o v o u a ?, v vi w vi ai V m U o u 0 a c 4 6 q 0 a a w 04 i$ oa n ?v H Q w n o ? sW ? Q Section 2 - Alternatives 2.4.4 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives The Build Alternates for Detailed Study are shown on Figure 2-6. Each alternate would be constructed as a four-lane, divided-median, facility with full control of access and interchanges at major crossroads. In addition, construction of any of the alternates would result in over 40 percent reduction of traffic on Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) in the design year 2030 and provide direct access from Winterville and Ayden to job centers and shopping in Greenville. 2.4.4.1. Bypass Alternate 1B-EXT Alternate 1 B-EXT begins at Memorial Drive (NC 11) approximately 2.9 miles south of NC 102 and turns northwest on new location crossing several tributaries to Swift Creek. Alternate 1 B- EXT crosses Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117) approximately 0.3 miles west of Jolly Road (SR 1120). Alternate 1 B-EXT turns northwest to cross NC 903, Frog Level Road (SR 1127) and Pocosin Road (SR 1125). From Pocosin Road, Alternate 1B-EXT continues across Dickinson Avenue (US 13), crossing Old Stantonsburg Road (SR 1200), and ties in with the northern terminus of the project at the existing US 264 interchange. Alternate 1 B-EXT avoids the Charles McLawhorn historic property on NC 903. Alternate IB-EXT is approximately 12.9 miles long with 10.7 miles on new location and includes five new interchanges located at NC 11, NC 102, NC 903, Forlines Road (SR 1126), and Dickinson Avenue (US 13). 2.4.4.2. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT Alternate 4-EXT begins at Memorial Drive (NC 11) approximately 2.9 miles south of NC 102 and follows Alternate 1-EXT for 2.5 miles before turning northwest at NC 102. Alternate 4-EXT continues on new location crossing several tributaries to Swift Creek. Alternate 4-EXT crosses Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117) approximately 1.1 miles west of Jolly Road (SR 1120). From the crossing of Abbott Farm Road, Alternate 4-EXT turns northwest crossing NC 903 west of the Charles McLawhorn historic property. Alternate 4-EXT continues northwest crossing Pocosin Road (SR 1125), Forlines Road (SR 1126), and Dickinson Avenue (US 13). It turns northeast to cross Frog Level Road (SR 1127) and Old Stantonsburg Road (SR 1200) and connect with the existing US 264 interchange. Alternate 4-EXT includes four new interchanges at NC 11, NC 102, NC 903, and US 13 and is approximately 13.2 miles long with 11.0 miles on new location. 2.4.4.3. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT Alternate 5-EXT begins at NC 11 approximately 2.9 miles south of NC 102 and follows Alternate 1B-EXT for 3.6 miles. Alternate 5-EXT then turns northeast, crossing Jolly Road (SR 1120) near its intersection with Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117). Alternate 5-EXT continues north, crossing Horsepen Swamp and NC 903 before turning northwest to cross Frog Level Road (SR 1127) approximately 1.1 miles west of its intersection with NC 903. Alternate 5-EXT follows Alternate 1B-EXT from Forlines Road (SR 1126) north to its terminus at the existing US 264 interchange. Alternate 5-EXT includes five new interchanges at NC 11, NC 102, NC 903, Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-14 I Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives ' Forlines Road, and Dickinson Avenue (US 13) and is approximately 13.0 miles long with 10.8 miles on new location. 2.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF BUILD ALTERNATIVES ' Traffic operations and levels of service were evaluated for the alternatives under detailed study for the design year 2030 (see Traffic Capacity Analysis_for the Greenville Southwest Bypass, ' 2005). The traffic projected to use the bypass in the year 2030 is 43,400 average annual daily traffic (AADT). Because the bypass alternates share common termini and some of the same route, they are included in a single capacity analysis, with the exception of the traffic analysis at the ' intersection of Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) and US 264ALT/US 13. At this location, Alternate 4-EXT is located further west than the other two alternatives. The main purpose of the build traffic analysis is to show that there will be a significant reduction in traffic on the existing route if the bypass is built. ' 2.5.1 Year 2030 Build Traffic Projections Under the build scenario, travel demand on Stantonsburg Road and Memorial Drive would be ' decreased up to 50 percent from the no build condition, as through travelers and commuters would use the Greenville Southwest Bypass instead of Memorial Drive. The resulting decrease in traffic along these roads would decrease travel time between Ayden and Greenville by more than ' five minutes from the no build scenario during peak times. In addition, it is likely that conflicts between commuting traffic traveling between Ayden/Winterville and job centers in Greenville, including Pitt County Memorial Hospital on Stantonsburg Road, and shoppers traveling to ' commercial and retail centers along Memorial Drive and Greenville Boulevard (US 264ALT) would be reduced, improving the overall driving experience and safety along Memorial Drive. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-15 ' Draft Lnvironmentallmpact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives TABLE 2 -3:2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES • 1 VS. BUILD) Existing Arterial Segment No-Build Build Alternative Road Alternative ADT ADT Reduction Compared to No-Build Alternative -d US 264 to 43,600 37,400 14.2% v o Barbe ue Rd SR 1204 Barbeque Rd (SR 1204) to 57,200 47,000 17.8% Allen Rd SR 1203 a Allen Rd (SR 1203) to 51,200 50,200 2.0% N o Arlington Blvd Arlington Blvd to 43,200 43,200 0% NC I 1 Memorial Dr Stantonsburg Rd/Farmville Blvd to 50,400 40,400 19.8% US 13 Dickinson Ave US 13 (Dickinson Ave) to 48,500 38,500 20.6% Arlington Blvd Arlington Blvd to 57,500 42,900 25.4% US 264ALT Greenville Blvd US 264ALT (Greenville Blvd) to 82,300 52,100 36.7% Thomas Langston Rd SR 1134 Thomas Langston Rd (SR 1134) to Reedy 81,500 51,700 36.6% Branch Rd SR 1131 Reedy Branch Rd (SR 1131) to 67,600 40,200 40.5% Fulford Dr SR 1152 /Fire Tower Rd SR 1708 Fulford Dr (SR 1152)/Fire Tower Rd (SR 1708) 67,000 42,400 36.7% to Davenport Farm Rd (SR 1128)/ Old NC 11 SR 1149) Davenport Farm Rd (SR 1128)/ 46,600 26,000 44.2% Old NC 11 (SR 1149) to A Forlines Rd SR 1129)/Boyd St V Forlines Rd (SR 1129)/Boyd St to 42,200 23,400 44.5% 0 Z NC 903/ Main St SR 1133 E NC 903/ Main St (SR 1133) to 41,800 24,200 42.1% Reed Branch Rd SR 1131 Reedy Branch Rd (SR 1131) to 42,200 25,600 39.3% Jolly Rd SR 1120 Jolly Rd (SR 1120) to 41,800 24,200 42.1% McLawhorn Rd SR 1119 McLawhorn Rd (SR 1119) to 41,400 20,600 50.2% NC 102/ West 3rd St NC 102/ West 3rd St to 36,600 --- --- Old Snow Hill Rd (SR 1113)/ Snow Hill St NC 102/ West 3rd Street to --- 20,000 --- Greenville Southwest Bypass Greenville Southwest Bypass to --- 35,400 --- Old NC I 1 SR 1149) Old Snow Hill Road (SR 1113) to 35,400 --- --- Old NC 11 SR 1149 Old NC 11 (SR 1149) to 38,400 38,400 0% Jacksontown Road SR 1109 Greenville Southwest Bypass Pgge 2-16 Draft LnvironmentalImpact .S'tatement D I Section 2 - Alternatives ' 2.5.2 Year 2030 Build Capacity Analysis Traffic operations analysis for individual freeway elements (basic freeway segments, ramp ' merge/diverge areas, and weave sections) were conducted. 2.5.2.1. Basic Freeway Segments ' Basic freeway segments are segments of the freeway that are unaffected either by merge or diverge movements at nearby ramps or by weaving movements. Essentially, they are located along the proposed freeway in the area between interchanges. As shown in Table 2-4, all basic freeway segments along the bypass (including Bypass Alternates ' 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT) would operate at desirable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the year 2030. TABLE, I Location Peak Hour PM Level of Service NC 11 to NC 102 A NC 102 to NC 903 T B NC 903 to Forlines Road SR 1 126 B Forlines Road SR 1126 to US 13-264A C US 13-264A to US 264 C 2.5.2.2. Ramp Junctions Merge and diverge operations are evaluated at the ramp junctions of each interchange along the proposed freeway. The merge and diverge flow rates are a measure of effectiveness for the ramp junction. Under 2030 conditions, all merge and diverge movements would operate at desirable levels of service, with LOS D or better. Table 2-5 summarizes the results of the merge and diverge capacity analysis, which would be consistent for all bypass alternates. TABLE, 2-5: RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF Ramp Junction SERVICE' Peak Hour PM Level of Service Location Northbound Ramps Loos Southbound Ramps (Loops) Diverge Mere Diverge Merge NC 11 A B A B NC 102 -- A B A NC 903 A B B B Forlines Road SR 1126 B B C B US 13-264A B B B B D B C C US 264 B C B B C 13 B C Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-77 Draft L'?nrnronmental Impact .Statement Section 2 - Alternatives 2.5.2.3. Weaving Areas A weaving area is described as a crossing of two or more streams of traffic on a highway. Weaving areas do not contain any form of traffic control; therefore, they require intense lane changing maneuvers in order for drivers to safely enter and exit the highway. Level of service in the weaving area is directly related to the speed of the weaving and non-weaving vehicles. Weaving areas are associated with the proposed interchange between the Greenville Southwest Bypass and US 264. This is a fully directional interchange with loops and ramps in all quadrants. Table 2-6 summarized weaving area LOS associated with the bypass alternates. These would be the same for each of the bypass alternates. TABLE, 2-6: FREEWAY WEAVIN Location G SEGMENT LEVEL, OF SERVICE PM Peak Hour Level of Service US 264 interchange - between Loo A and B D US 264 interchange - between Loo B and C B US 264 interchange - between Loo C and D B US 264 interchange - between Loo D and A B 2.5.2.4. Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Along the entire project, signalized and unsignalized intersections would be located at the junctions of the freeway entrance and exit ramps as well as at the cross streets. In the design year 2030, many intersections would require signalization to operate at an acceptable level of service. Table 2-7 and the following intersection descriptions summarize the intersection levels of service along the proposed project: ¦ Old NC HWY 11 - All alternates would have signalized intersections at the ramp termini at Old NC HWY 11. These intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. ¦ NC 102/NC 11 - All alternates would have signalized intersections at the ramp termini at NC 102/NC 11. The west side the intersection will have some improvements but the overall LOS will still be an F. This is due to the fact that upgrading that intersection is out of the scope of this project and will be covered under another project. This future improvement may be a Division or TIP project. ¦ NC 102/Wildwood Drive (SR 1145) - The intersection of NC 102 and SR 1145 (Wildwood Drive) currently is an unsignalized intersection that would operate at an unacceptable LOS in the design year 2030. This intersection was upgraded to an actuated coordinated signalized intersection to work in conjunction with the existing signals at the intersection of NC 102/NC 11 (Memorial Drive) and NC 102/SR 1120 (Jolly Road). An acceptable level of service is achieved with those improvements. ¦ NC 102 Interchange - All alternates would have signals at the ramp termini on NC 102. These intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. ¦ NC 903 Interchange - All alternates would have signals at the ramp termini on NC 903. These intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. Greenville .Southwest Bypass Pqke 2-18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives ¦ Forlines Road (SR 1126) Interchange - All alternates would have signals at the ramp termini on Forlines Road. These intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. ¦ US 13-264A/Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) - Davenport Farm Road was considered out of the scope of this project for Alternate 1 B-EXT and Alternate 5-EXT because of its distance away from these bypass corridors. But since Alternate 4-EXT is farther to the west, Davenport Farm Road would need to be upgraded to a coordinated signal with left and right turn lanes so that the left turners on to Davenport Farm Road would not queue back into the interchange. Once this improvement is made, the level of service will be acceptable. ¦ US 13-264A Interchange - Both ramp terminals operate at LOS B or better during peak periods for the design year 2030 as signalized intersections. TABLE 2-7: SIGNALIZEID • Intersection LEVEL OF SERVICF" SUMMARY 2030 PM Level of Service Alternates 113-EXT, 5-EXT Alternate 4-EXT Old NCH 11 / Bypass - B B Jolly Road SR 1120 / NC 102 - C C NC 102/NC 11 - E E NC 102 / Wildwood Drive SR 1145 - C C Bypass / NC 102 Interchange Ram A C C Ram D B B Bypass / NC 903 Interchange Ram A B B Ram D A A Bypass / Forlines Road (SR Ram A B B 1126) Interchange Ram D B B US 264A/US 13 / Davenport Road SR 1128 - B C Bypass / US 264A/US 13 Ram A C C Interchange Ram D B B 2.6 SAFETY The proposed project will be designed to meet current design standards (as listed in Table 2-1). The new facility would not have the geometric deficiencies of Memorial Drive, such as numerous driveways, limited turn lanes, frequent traffic stops, and, therefore, would provide a roadway that can better meet the needs of the facility users. In addition, depending on the location and the selected alternate, the proposed project would provide a reduction in through traffic on existing Memorial Drive up to 74 percent. By diverting traffic from the existing facility, the number of conflicts occurring along this development route is expected to decrease. Givenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-19 ' Draft L'nvironmental Impact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives 2.7 COST ESTIMATES Preliminary cost estimates for each bypass alternate are presented in Table 2-8. These figures include estimates for construction and right-of-way costs and range from $179.2 million (Bypass Alternate 1B-EXT) to $187.8 million (Bypass Alternate 5-EXT). These estimates are based on conceptual right of way limits from the preliminary designs for each alternate. TABLE2-8: COST Bypass Alternate ESTIMATES FO Length (miles) R BYPASS ALTEIR Right-of-Way Cost millions $ NATES Construction Cost millions $ Total Cost millions $ I B-EXT 12.1 25.3 153.9 179.2 4-EXT 12.4 22.6 157.4 180.0 5-EXT 12.4 35.8 152.0 187.8 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 2-20 I Draft Environmental Impact Statement r U CO C Ad c? c M M M m M z -i < < F -U r n m D r L1 O ? c m -i n x ? -? o ? z ? o n n ? L1 O r r 0 IF) Nort h Carolina Departmen t of Transportation Greenville Southwe (Improvements to NC st Bypass Study 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 2-1 Build Alternate Typical Section m m m m m m m m = m m = m m m = m ? ? = m = = = m = = m = m = m m = m = = ? r r r r r r r r r Ir r r r r lir¦ r r r 13 I . ....., 43 ..r 903 ?' . 264 / \\ Q O ° Qr 1 ? Jackie F\ a to J,4 WI :=m=.: OoZingo Rd ?gcres Dr M cgregor Downs R? a / "?...? ... \ , .. SIentonsbur9 Rd Slenlonur9RdOth St v _ ?Q 264 ° ° Bunch E loth St Goob ?' Qa King Dr Abbey Ln Stantonsburg Rd F 1 Fr / r° S L doll \?tj/hst GreenV ille,a T .J• r' an ?. ` •.? 264 .•?„• _ .\ f? }Q 13 ° Bell Arthur Rd A D \ i ?' ? a µa p E 7 \: ?... T \ 43 264 ? \ QolAatd Rd \\ o?{as Len9sldn Rd ` \ • \ o\61" 1 •I ? °?60 1y , ? ? ? I r1 !ak ? n Duke Rd Ce Flre'fbwerPa_ ?? ??i F ?...?..._...?... •, IDa?enPOr<.FarmRd ?_••?••lsfkl?EaseXDt VI •-• 264 ?° T ••?...>„_ a'' ?c a ern, 13 n \ o hde n a 6 t a , r /? oe `mil '` 1 uJ Wintervi?lle .: ? E 1 1 ?1 / ti.../•..,J,.? rov ^ / E Main St , Rd a vrJ ?. . ?r I ?A \. v y Ellis Rd v Renston'Rural ?e "e ?5 y E r`r Historic Di/strict a6 , ` I a c T: 1 11 n Jac- / 11 3_ •I 3 =u co O ? -? / Reedy Branch fid o /?a I P" F° ?C es? ld?ho \`• ` (opts Ra Go\f Club Rd Rd Mote La o Nines or T \ 903 z 1 \ IoW ?.. v?.. 'I \,•.\ 90 ?cc?J I Rd ?Ao N ?i 2?• 'l- I '? Pa ?O 102 w g' i Rc 102 ------------- ,? Aydenj; ° ? ? ? ?? I ? I tI c° A Count cbµd \a0 \ I 1 try Club Dr alg`ab o y'?' " ; I Pole O 903 C-31? ?e I ?I Thad L',l 00 Stocks McLawhorn Rd dnR'•\ 1 a . P I Np I co \ o " ? g U! o 2 o Legend Corridor 5 Renston Rural Historic District . Historic Property Jacksonlown Rd 11 N W E S 1 ` Miles 0 0.5 1 2 ?p I yes •\? I North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Renston Rural Historic Figure 2-4 District Avoidance Alternate Corridor 5) J o 13 \. 264 43 903 h "?. t.. eQ°o - ..k' 11 t \ \d ? a6 //? o O -N Jackia P e ¢>> s a w• rf / i, r' yingo Rd -,,.sof -M 9regor Downs R,d - h v oth St 264 o c Bench - E 10th Sf 10 %: Qa King Dr Abbey Lr' Stantonsburg Rd ° Ball Ar 4 opprd Rd m Fortines R d Greenvl 13 T T ?. 264 j \on Rd 17.1 T_, _ \'•. / . F?sLangs _...`.. I ? Dave nPort Farm Rd / .-.. ?? .? 13 •? -- , 1 ? : V N Q• Pocps\n Rd C. Rens ton/Rural v! Historic District 4 e a 107 aye` ? c rY o` La Moye Rd ?a .._, p va Ga\e an°r?d ? P°\e 903 i r G \ o \ CO .\ 41 i' Stocks McLawhorn Rd NI O N 2 0 3 ? I v! N '.d Psi y y ?3 a? ?o ?h a d" R a Jacksontown Rd Legend 5 1A Extensions - 1 B Renston Rural 4 Historic District . Upgrade Existing Historic Property ? o ,, ,Y 'T !64 ? 'S r rvill in ?- e ,: te - i' E Main St h` `Oaµd \14° v ? a,,tie Ellis Rd ?'•.\ o ? a ? t ? \I ?' v e Bran°? '1 ) 2u ?I Ja a % %• it RaedY Branch Rd !: 5. m /• a , Q- ? ? o '•? ?OplipR ? =^? •'\ Hines or y\• W 102 ntry ° h pr ? , ?° 102 ! I G?? R a??a std ?p a ? A N W --xL' E IV s f Miles 0 0.5 1 2 North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Southern Extensions e 2-5 and Build Alternates Developed in 2004 11 n 3 1 2° /! fa°? ? __ - ? a Ready Branch Rd o ? ?a C ?s s/O ''? ? i t a /'• o a re \,, r aye ?4 ?0O '\, (C 1 0 La Moye Rd Pa i i \, Hines Or ?- ??- 903 t 102 ?1- ?i Pil Rd f _ 102 ? I I Rd Ayderf N111C LL ! Oldi?now ` \ I 1 Rd o 1 country Club 1 ra?ar Or t co I Qo\g42 903 -a 1\ r 1 P v ?F ..NadU?J. 71 N ba \. o Stocks McLawhorn Rd n R •,\• ? ? N a G •••\ ?yaen Go/? t f ub Jacksontown Rd el Rd F Ra 76 11 ?,_gwjeldRa ?°'eSA `• Legend 1 B-EXT 4-EXT 5-EXT Renston Rural Historic District . Historic Property N A?- W E q;r S Miles 0 0.5 1 2 North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 2-6 Alternates Selected for Detailed Study = m = = = = m = m m m m = = = m m ? ? C 0 0 w SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section describes the economic, social, and natural environments within the project study area. The descriptions are general in nature and address the entire project area rather than ' providing a separate description of the area as it relates to each bypass alternate. Data were collected from existing sources, such as local planning documents, databases, and other ' publications; through agency scoping comments and coordination; and from field surveys of the project area. This information will be used to evaluate the possible environmental impacts of each of the detailed study alternatives. The environmental consequences of the detailed study ' alternatives are discussed in Section 4. ' 3.1 HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS For purposes of discussing socioeconomic conditions, the study area is comprised of Census Tracts 6, 13, 14, and 16 based on the 2000 Census (see Figure 3-1). For comparison, ' socioeconomic data is also presented for the city of Greenville and the towns of Winterville and Ayden. ' 3.1.1 Population Characteristics ' 3.1.1.1 Population and Demographics Population growth in the study area, as well as in Greenville, Winterville, and Pitt County, has outpaced that of North Carolina (see Table 3-1). Growth in the study area during the 1990 to 2000 time period was more than double that of Pitt County and North Carolina. According to the Pitt County Comprehensive Land U.se Plan, population growth in Pitt County has grown ' substantially but not equitably countywide. The unincorporated areas of the county have continued to grow and have kept pace with municipal growth while population growth in the towns has not been consistent, with the town of Ayden losing population from 1990 to 2000. ' Growth within the study area can be attributed to the vast amounts of agricultural and previously vacant lands that are being transformed into residential uses. This area has experienced and is ' continuing to see rapid population growth due to the presence of developable lands; presence of water and sewer infrastructure; and the desire of homeowners to "move away" from the city core ' and "move up" to newer and larger homes. The portions of the area that are serviced by Greenville Utilities Commission are being developed at higher densities while the further western portions of the study area (serviced by well and septic service) are being developed at much lower ' densities. Much of the growth in the Greenville/Pitt County area can be traced to the growth of the health care industry, specifically Pitt County Memorial Hospital, the Brody School of Medicine, and the presence of East Carolina University. According to the North Carolina State 1 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-1 ' Draft hnvironmental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment Data Center, Pitt County is expected to reach a population of 191,332 by the year 2030 for an increase of 57,519 persons or 43 percent between 2000 and 2030. TABLE, 3-1: POP Area ULATION GROW Po u TH, 1990-2000 lation Growth 1990 2000 # % Stud Area 24,086 35,905 11,819 49.1% Greenville 46,305 61,209 14,904 32.1% Winterville 3,069 4,794 1,725 56.2% A den 4,883 4,622 -261 -5.6% Pitt Count 107,924 133,813 25,889 24.0% North Carolina 6,632,448 8,046,485 1,414,037 21.36% Source: US Census Bureau American Factfinder. 3.1.1.2 Ethnicity and Race The racial composition of the project area and surrounding communities was examined in order to provide insight into the presence or absence of traditional ly-underserved populations (see Table 3-2). According to the 2000 Census, the racial make-up of the study area, the city of Greenville, the town of Winterville, and Pitt County are all very similar with a majority white population. The study area, the city of Greenville, Pitt County, and the towns of Winterville and Ayden all have larger percentages of minority populations than the state of North Carolina yet have a smaller percentage of Hispanic residents. Within the study area, Census Tract 6, located west of NC 11 and north of Davenport Farm Road in proximity to downtown Greenville, has the highest percentage of minority residents. The town of Ayden has the largest overall minority population with 49.5 percent black and 2.9 percent other. AND RACE , III White Non-White Hispanic Census Tract 6 58.3% 41.7% 1.8% Census Tract 13 69.8% 30.2% 28.8% Census Tract 14 56.2% 43.8% 3.1% Census Tract 16 71.2% 28.8% 3.1% Greenville 61.4% 38.6% 2.1% Winterville 59.2% 40.8% 1.0% A den 47.6% 52.4% 2.2% Pitt Count 62.1% 37.9% 3.2% NC 72.1% 27.9% 4.7% Source: US Census Bureau American Factfinder. 3.1.1.3 Age of Population Age distribution provides insight into the available work force, which is an indicator of population trends, employee availability and provides information relative to service provision needs. In addition, the absence of individuals of working age can reflect the availability of jobs. Table 3-3 shows the relative ages of populations in the study area and surrounding communities. In terms of age distribution, the town of Ayden had the highest median age (38.8) while the City Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment of Greenville had the lowest at 26 years of age. The younger median age in Greenville is ' indicative of the presence of East Carolina University and Pitt Community College. The burgeoning 20 to 54 age group is demonstrative of the presence of job opportunities within the area. In addition, according to city and county planners a great deal of ECU students choose to ' remain within the Greenville area after graduation, thus adding to presence of this age group. The town of Ayden has a much larger percentage of senior citizens (aged 55 and over) than the ' demographic study area, the municipalities, Pitt County, and the state of North Carolina. The smaller percentage of younger people in the 20 to 54 age group is reflective of the fact that people are leaving the area after high school to find work or pursue higher education elsewhere. TABLE, 3-3: AG Area E, DISTRIBU Under 5 TION2000 5-19 20-54 55+ Median Age Stud Area 9.2% 21.7% 55.2% 15.9% 32.9 Greenville 5.6% 21.8% 58.2% 14.4% 26.0 Winterville 8.3% 22.1% 52.0% 17.6% 33.4 A den 6.1% 21.9% 44.1% 27.9% 38.8 Pitt Count 6.5% 22.4% 54.4% 16.70/ 30.4 North Carolina 6.7% 20.5% 16.7% 21.1% 35.3 Source: US Census Bureau American Fa ctfinder. 3.1.2 Economic Characteristics ' 3.1.2.1 Unemployment Rates An important determinant of the overall economic well-being of an area is the unemployment ' rate. Between 1990 and 2000, the unemployment rate in Pitt County rose from 5.4 percent to 6.8 percent (see Table 3-4). All study areas had a higher unemployment rate in 2000 than the state. The highest 2000 unemployment rate was Ayden at 8.1 percent. The increase in unemployment ' rates between 1990 and 2000 can be attributed to an economic slow-down as well as job elimination in key industries, such as manufacturing. TABLE I Area Unem to ment Rate Change 1990 2000 1990 to 2000 Stud Area 3.9% 6.8% 2.9% Greenville 6.7% 8.7% 2.0% Winterville 3.7% 5.8% 2.1% Ayden 6.1% 8.1% 2.0% Pitt Count 5.4% 6.8% 1.4% North Carolina 4.6% 5.3% 0.7% us census bureau American racttinder. 3.1.2.2 Income The only area under study to have a higher median household income than the state of North Carolina was the city of Greenville at $44,491, over $5,000 higher than the state figure of just over $39,100 per year (see Table 3-5). This higher dollar value is indicative of the strong ' Greenville .Southwest Bypass Page 3-3 Draft NmirotimentalImpact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment employment base related to East Carolina University and the medical community. However, it is important to note that while professors and senior staff at ECU; doctors, administrators, and technical staff at Pitt County Memorial Hospital; and other skilled workers in the county enjoy a high income there are many that exist on minimum or slightly-above minimum wage. • INCOME', 1989 Median Household Income AND 1999 Chan e Area 1989 1999 $ Increase 1989 to 1999 % Increase 1989 to 1999 Stud Area $27,797 $35,451 $7,654 27.5% Greenville $22,661 $44,491 $21,830 96.3% Winterville $19,222 $37,230 $18,008 93.7% A den $18,485 $24,004 $5,519 29.9% Pitt County $23,324 $32,868 $9,544 40.9% North Carolina $26,647 $39,184 $12,537 47.0% Source: US Census Bureau American Factfinder. While the overall study area had a lower median household income than the state, Winterville, and Greenville; Census Tracts 13 and 16 had median household incomes higher than Pitt County, Winterville, and the state. The area with the lowest median household income in 1999 was the town of Ayden at just over $24,000. 3.1.2.3 Poverty Status Between 1990 and 2000, all of the areas under study, with the exception of the town of Ayden, experienced a decrease in the percentage of individuals living below the poverty line. Ayden experienced a 1.6 percent increase in individuals living within poverty. Census Tract 14, located in the southeastern portion of the study area, east and south of the southern terminus of the project including the town limits of Ayden, had the highest percentage of residents below the poverty level at 26.3 percent, more than double the state figure of 12.3 percent. Table 3-6 summarizes poverty status in the project study area and surrounding communities. Thus, the pattern in Pitt County is one of a strong economy with many middle and upper-middle income individuals but also with a substantial number below or just above the poverty line. Many of these individuals or families are "the working poor," people whose relatively large family size and low income put them below the federal poverty level. There also seems to be some relation between age of the population and poverty status in Pitt County and the study area. Ayden, with the highest percentage of persons below the poverty level, has the largest relative population of individuals over the age of 55. Similarly, the project study area and the town of Winterville have a large percentage of working age residents (ages 20 to 54) and relatively low poverty levels compared with surrounding communities. The high rate of poverty in Greenville can be partly attributed to the large population of non-working college age residents. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 34 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment TABLE3-6: INDIVID UALS BE • Below erty Level Change Area 1990 2000 % Change 1990 to 2000 Stud Area 17.4% 16.2% -1.2% Greenville 26.6% 26.1% -0.5% Winterville 17.1% 11.6% -5.5% A den 24.7% 26.3% +1.6% Pitt County 22.1% 20.3% -1.8% North Carolina 12.5% 12.3% -0.2% Source: US Census Bureau American Fadfinder. 3.1.2.4 Housing Similar to population growth, household growth in the study area rapidly grew by 62 percent between 1990 and 2000, easily surpassing the household growth rates of the city of Greenville, town of Ayden, Pitt County, and the state of North Carolina. The town of Winterville experienced an 82.5 percent increase in its total number of households, adding 868 between 1990 and 2000. As number of study area households grew at a slightly faster pace than population between 1990 and 2000, the average household size decreased from 2.62 persons to 2.41 persons. The same is true for all other comparison areas, where average household sizes also decreased during the same time period. This statistic is indicative of the overall national trend towards smaller household sizes. Table 3-7 shows change in households in the project area. TABLE • 1 11 1 Area Number of Households Household Size 1990 2000 1990 2000 Greenville 16,878 25,187 2.38 2.18 Winterville 1,052 1,920 2.63 2.57 A den 1,802 1,871 2.63 2.36 Pitt County 40,432 52,603 2.54 2.43 North Carolina 2,517,098 3,133,282 2.54 2.49 Source: NC State Data Center 1 As shown in Table 3-8, nearly 40 percent of housing units in the study area have been constructed since 1990. Since 1980, growth in the study area has outpaced that of other towns in the area, Pitt ' County, and the state. Growth has increased over time in Greenville, Winterville, and Pitt County, while growth in Ayden has slowed since the 1970s. Greenville Soutlmest Bypass Page 3-5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment TA13LE 3-8: IIOUSING Total UNITS, 1 1990-2000 1 1980- 1989 1970-1979 1969 or Earlier Area Units Units Built % of Total Units Built % of Total Units Built % of Total Units Built % of Total Stud Area 15,397 6,034 39.2 3,722 24.2 2,744 17.8 2,897 18.8 Greenville 28,276 9,365 33.1 6,600 23.3 4,594 16.2 7,717 27.3 Winterville 1,965 640 32.6 333 16.9 479 24.4 513 26.1 A den 2,069 194 9.4 266 12.9 505 24.4 1,104 53.4 Pitt Count 58,408 19,555 33.5 12,432 21.3 10,350 17.7 16,071 27.5 North Carolina 3,523,944 949,985 26.9 692,633 19.7 641,117 18.2 1,240,209 35.2 aource: ua census bureau American ractrinaer. 3.1.3 Community Facilities Community facilities and services that serve the greater Greenville area as well as the immediate study area include schools, institutions of higher learning, libraries, recreational facilities, parks and greenways, churches, and emergency services. 3.1.3.1 Schools Several Pitt County School System facilities are located within the proposed project area. The Pitt County School System includes schools within the limits of Greenville, Winterville, and Ayden. Schools in the vicinity of the project are shown on Figure 3-2 and listed in Table 3-9. TABLE 3-9: SCHOOLS IN V School ICINITY OF PROJECT AREA Location South Central High School Forlines Road SR 1129 west of Reed Branch Road SR 1131 Creekside Elementary Forlines Road SR 1129 west of Recd Branch Road SR 1131 A den-Grifton High School NC 11 approximately 3 miles south of the town of A den A den Middle School Third Street cast of NC 11 in A den A den Elementary School Third Street cast of NC 11 in A den A.G. Cox Middle School Church Street in Winterville W.H. Robinson Elementary Railroad Street in Winterville Students living within the project area may also attend Sam D. Bundy Elementary School, Farmville Middle School, and Fanrville Central High School. These schools are located in the town of Farmville, approximately 10 miles west of the study area. 3.1.3.2 Institutions of Higher Learning Pitt Community College, located at the intersection of Pitt Tech Road and NC 11 in Winterville within the study area, serves an on-campus enrollment of 5,848 students and 4,234 continuing education students. East Carolina University, located in Greenville east of the demographic study area, has an enrollment of over 22,500 students, 1,406 full-time faculty, and over 2,900 staff Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-6 0 Section 3 - Affected Environment members and serves as a major stimulus to the economy of Pitt County as well as eastern North Carolina. 3.1.3.3 Libraries Several different library services are available near the study area (as shown on Figure 3-2). Sheppard Memorial Library is located in Greenville on Evans Street, and has branches in Greenville, Bethel, and Winterville. The Quinerly-Olschner Library in Ayden is located on Second Street. None of these libraries are within the study area. Additional library service is available through the Pitt County bookmobile, which travels throughout the study area. East Carolina University operates several library facilities within or near the study area including the Joyner Library on East Fifth Street in Greenville, and the William E. Laupus Health Sciences Library near Pitt County Memorial Hospital. 3.1.3.4 Parks and Recreational Facilities In the town of Winterville, the Winterville Recreation Park offers softball/baseball fields, picnic shelters, and a playground. Hillcrest Park provides basketball courts, baseball field, picnic shelters, and playground. Ayden has a Community Center that provides basketball courts and facilities for aerobic classes. Pitt County is a member of the three-county Coastal Carolina Trail Committee, which has developed a master plan and feasibility study for the development of a 30-mile recreational trail along an abandoned rail corridor. The Coastal Carolina Trail project follows the former rights-of- way of the historic Wilmington & Weldon Railroad from Beaufort County, through northeastern Pitt County and into Martin County. The trail will link to the NC Mountains to the Sea Trail. The Draft Pitt County Greenway Plan (2004) is intended to serve as a guide for the establishment ' of a countywide network of greenways and trails. This plan is the first greenway plan for Pitt County and it recommends the formation of approximately 96 linear miles of greenway network primarily along some of the major, critical streams and rivers in the county. The plan proposes ' several greenways within the study area, including trails in the city of Greenville, town of Winterville, and town of Ayden. Pitt County does not currently operate any parks and recreation facilities. Three established and/or proposed parks and/or recreation facilities owned and operated by the city of Greenville lie ' within the study area, and are shown on Figure 3-2. The Phil Carroll Nature Preserve is located north of Highway 43 West/Fifth Street and contains 163 acres of undeveloped park land. This facility is not currently open to the public. H. Boyd Lee Park is located on Coney Road (off ' Firetower Road) and offers many recreational opportunities. It includes a recreation center, gymnasium, playground, walking trail softball fields and a picnic area. The Red Oak property on Oakdale Road is currently under development. When completed, this park will offer a ' playground and picnic facilities. ' Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-7 Draft Environmental Impact Statelaew Section 3 - Affected Environment 3.1.3.5 Churches There are twelve churches located within the project study area (Table 3-10). These churches are shown on Figure 3-2. Church PROJECT AREA Location Landmark Church US 13 near the intersection with Hollowell Road SR 1512 Pine Grove Church US 13 east of Davenport Farm Road SR 1128 Bethany Free Will Baptist Church NC 903 in the Renston Rural Historic District Zion Hill Free Will Baptist Church NC 903 in the Renston Rural Historic District Pleasant Plains Church Pleasant Plains Road Wamen Church S ei ht Seed Farm Road Community Christian Church Memorial Drive NC 11 Red Oak Christian Church Allen Road SR 1203 Unit Free Will Baptist Church Allen Road SR 1203 Evangelistic Tabernacle Allen Road SR 2103 Reedy Branch Free Will Baptist Church Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131) near Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) Christ's Church Davenport Farm Road SR 1128 3.1.3.6 Emergency Services Pitt County Memorial Hospital, located at 2100 Stantonsburg Road, east of the northern terminus of the project, is the flagship hospital for University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina and serves nearly 1.2 million people in 29 counties. The hospital hosts one of only four Level 1 Trauma Centers in the state of North Carolina. The presence of the medical community in Greenville, including the Brody School of Medicine at ECU, is such that a medical district has been developed that covers the area from Wellness Drive east to Memorial Drive (NC 11) north to West 5th Street. Pitt County has a central 911 Communications Center which serves as the public safety answering point for all agencies in Pitt County. All portions of the county are served by Pitt County paramedic services. Individuals living within the municipal boundaries of the city of Greenville, town of Winterville, and town of Ayden are protected by city/town police services; while residents living within the unincorporated portions of Pitt County are served by the Pitt County Sheriff's Department. Residents living in the city of Greenville, the town of Winterville, and the town of Ayden are protected by municipal fire service. The Greenville Fire and Rescue Department is home to the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force #10. This team is funded by the state, and has a large amount of equipment and expertise in the specialized areas of building collapse and other technical rescue incidents. The Greenville Fire and Rescue Department currently has six fire Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment stations. Station #2 and Station #5 provide service to the portions of Greenville nearest the stud Y ' area. Citizens living in the unincorporated areas of Pitt County area served by four volunteer Fire ' Service Districts: Bell Arthur, Red Oak, Winterville, and Ayden. The Red Oak Community Rural Fire Department is located within the project study area on Frog Level Road (SR 1127) east of US 13. 3.1.4 Community Cohesion Residential growth with the study area has been brisk in recent years with over 500 new lots/units approved and under construction in five subdivisions. The following subdivisions are within the project study area and are depicted on Figure 3-3: ¦ Springdale Apartments ¦ Sutters Place ¦ The Pines ¦ Gatewood ¦ Summit Village Manchester • Abbott Farms South ¦ Shady Acres ¦ Abbott Farms ¦ Mayfield ¦ The Woods at Magnolia Ridge ¦ Hampton Creek ¦ Magnolia Ridge ¦ Pinecrest ¦ Sandy Meadows ¦ Field Stream at Sawgrass Pointe ¦ Emerald Chase ¦ Augusta Trails ¦ Randall Estates ¦ Meadow Woods ¦ Tallwood ¦ Forest Pines ¦ Westwind ¦ Teakwood In addition, the following new subdivisions are proposed within the project study area: ¦ Tabema: 1 ten-acre church lot; 144 single-family lots; 9.6 acres of commercial; and 12.5 acres of multi-family residential ¦ Brighton Place: 97 single-family lots ¦ Bristolmoor: 123 single-family units ¦ Brevard: 26 single-family units ¦ Ivy Chase: currently under consideration 3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 3.2.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics The study area is located in the southwestern section of Pitt County. The study area traverses portions of three incorporated municipalities - Greenville, Winterville, and Ayden - as well as unincorporated portions of Pitt County. The map of the project study area shown in Figure 1-1 includes the municipal boundary lines. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-9 ' Drat I mironmental L»pact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment The land use characteristics described in the sections below are based upon the following: Field surveys of the study area; ¦ Adopted policy documents from Pitt County and the municipalities of Greenville, Ayden, and Winterville; and ¦ US Census Data. Land use within the study area varies greatly in type and intensity from typical suburban development (including single and multi-family residential, retail, and commercial uses) in the northern and eastern portions of the study area to rural agricultural and large-lot residential in the western and southern portions. The northern portion of the study area, near Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business), contains a mixture of institutional, retail, and residential development. Examples of this development include: Pitt County Memorial Hospital, doctors' offices, multi-family residential, restaurants, and small commercial establishments. There is extensive development along Memorial Drive (NC 11) from US 264 to the town of Ayden. This development includes strip-center development, highway-retail establishments, big-box retail, car dealerships, motels, restaurants, residential, office, institutional (Pitt County Community College), and commercial uses. The southern portion of the area, near the town of Ayden, contains retail and light industrial development. Examples of these businesses include: a shopping center (tenants include a Food Lion, restaurant, and video rental store), fast food restaurants, gas stations, and car dealerships. The western portion of the study area is predominantly rural with scattered large-lot subdivisions, single-family homes, mobile homes, and active farming operations. 3.2.2 Land Use Plans 3.2.2.1 City of Greenville - Greenville Horizons Comprehensive Plan (2004) Recognizing the need for a long range plan to guide development decisions, Greenville's first comprehensive plan was written in 1980 and adopted by the City Council in 1981. The plan established goals and policies regarding physical growth issues including water and sewer improvements, transportation, annexation, and future land use for developing areas. The plan was updated in 1992 with the 1992 Horizons Plan, which was amended in 1997 and updated in 2004. The Horizons Plan is a vision statement by the City Council and the citizens of Greenville as to how the community should look and function in the future. It created a set of goals, objectives, policies, and actions to guide local planning, development, and redevelopment issues. To help achieve the long-term vision, the city and its planning jurisdictions have been divided into nine planning regions, called Vision Areas. Each Vision Area is a collection of districts, nodes, paths and landmarks separated by natural and man-made edges such as rivers, railroad tracks, and major thoroughfares. The project study area for the Greenville Southwest Bypass project is included in the West and Southwest Vision Areas. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-10 Drat Environmental Impact .Statement ' Section 3 - Affected Environment ' The majority of the growth occurring within the study area is occurring just west of the city limits of Greenville in an area deemed "Vision Area E" in the 2004 Greenville Horizons Comprehensive Plan. This area is located south of Greenville Boulevard and Dickinson Avenue Extension, north ' of Forlines Road, west of Memorial Drive (NC 11), and east of the western extent of Greenville's jurisdictional boundary in the vicinity of Frog Level Road. According to the city of Greenville Planning Department, this area has experienced a high level of rezoning, development, and ' annexation activity in the past several years due to the availability of municipal, county, and Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) services and facilities, including water and sewer ' infrastructure. The new South Central High School is a major feature in the area, and that in addition to the availability of sanitary sewer service, has been a contributing factor in public and private development decisions. Although substantial growth has taken place to date within Vision Area E, considerable acreage remains undeveloped farmland or woodlands. According to the ' 2004 Report of Development Activities in the Southwest Quadrant of Greenville vacant lands susceptible to residential development comprise approximately 900 acres that at full development ' will yield upwards of 4,000 additional dwelling units. In addition, the area immediately west of Memorial Drive has emerged as a growth area with expansions to existing subdivisions, as well as new single and multi-family development and the construction of new office and retail ' establishments occurring over the past few years. Total build-out of all vacant lands is not expected to occur until at least 2025. ' 3 2 2 2 T f Wi ill . . . own o nterv e The town of Winterville updated its Land Use Plan in January 2005; however, the plan only ' includes a Land Use Map detailing existing land use. Property along NC 11 is classified as "Agricultural/Residential" allowing for a compatible mixture of low-density residential and agricultural uses, cultivated farmlands, and vacant/wooded areas. The minimum lot size for this ' district is 20,000 square feet or greater. ' 3.2.2.3 Town of Ayden - Building on our Heritage: A Comprehensive Plan (1996) The town of Ayden adopted Building on our Heritage: A Comprehensive Plan in 1996; however, this plan is not currently in use, and development within the town is guided through the ' application of the subdivision and zoning codes. In 2004, the town of Ayden created a future land use map detailing proposed uses within the town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) ' limits. Property along NC 11 near its intersection with NC 102 slated for industrial uses, while the proposed Pines Neighborhood will be medium-density residential. The areas between the Pines Neighborhood and the ETJ line are slated for low-density residential. 3.2.2.4 Pitt County - Pitt County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2002) ' The Pitt County Comprehensive Land Use Plan was adopted in 2002 to help address the challenges of meeting future population growth demand within the county. Land use development goals include: (1) promoting a mixture of residential and non-residential land uses Gmemille Soutbrest Bypass 11age 3-11 ' Draft liniironmentallmpact S7atement Section 3 - Affected Environment while protecting prime agricultural areas from the adverse effects of intensive development and (2) protecting future development from natural hazards by identifying and limiting development within flood prone areas. Figure 3-4 shows future land use in areas of Pitt County outside of municipal ETJ areas. 3.2.3 Transportation Planning 3.2.3.1 Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan The Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (also referred to as the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan) was adopted by the Greenville Urban Area MPO in December 2004 and by the NC Board of Transportation in February 2005. The plan covers the city of Greenville, town of Winterville, town of Ayden, village of Simpson, and portions of Pitt County. Thoroughfare plans, designed to guide the development of the overall street and highway system, were initially developed via a mutually adopted sketch plan in Greenville in 1959 with periodic updates since then. Winterville, Ayden, and Pitt County (including Simpson) have also adopted thoroughfare plans over the years. The 2004 Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan combines these thoroughfare plans into one metropolitan area plan and updates the thoroughfare planning horizon to the year 2025. The primary aim of a thoroughfare plan is to guide the development of the urban street system in a manner consistent with managing traffic demands. The Southwest Bypass is included in the thoroughfare plan for the purpose of providing easier travel from the south to the north and to the regional medical facilities and to relieve congestion on NC 11 and Stantonsburg Road. 3.2.3.2 Greenville Horizons Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Component The goal of the transportation component is to achieve a system of safe, efficient, reliable, environmentally sound, and economically feasible transportation within Greenville. The objectives include: (1) ensure that streets in new developments are properly designed, built, and maintained; (2) coordinate highway planning and improvements to ensure that adequate transportation is provided to existing, developing, and proposed activity centers, and residential areas; and, (3) reduce traffic congestion and safety problems. 3.2.3.3 Pitt County Comprehensive Transportation Plan Pitt County, in coordination with NCDOT, completed the first Pitt County Thoroughfare Plan in 1993. The plan was updated in 2005 and recommends the transportation improvements necessary to provide an efficient transportation system within the 2005-2030 planning period. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-t 2 Draft F,nvironmental Impact .Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment 3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS 3.3.1 Noise Characteristics A Noise Study and Evaluation was prepared for this project (Lochner 2006) and summarized in the following sub-sections. 3.3.1.1 Characteristics of Noise ' The noise impacts for the proposed improvements have been assessed in accordance with FHWA guidelines published in 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772. In order to determine the ' degree of impact of Highway traffic noise on human activity, the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) established by Part 772 were used. The NAC, listed in Table 3-11 for various activities, represent the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise conditions, as well as a measure of that which may be desirable with that which may be achievable. The NAC apply to areas having regular human use and where lowered noise levels are desired. They do not apply to the entire tract of land on which the activity is based, but only to that portion where the activity takes place. Activity Leq (h) Description of Activity Category dB(A) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary A 57 significance and serve an important public need and where (Exterior) the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 67 Picnic areas, recreational areas, playgrounds, active sports B (Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed land, properties or activities not included in Exterior Categories A or B above. D ---- Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, Interior churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. The NAC are given in terms of the hourly, A-weighted, equivalent sound level in decibels or dB(A). The A-weighted sound level is a single number measure of sound intensity with weighted frequency characteristics that correspond to human subjective response to noise. However, since most environmental noise fluctuates from moment to moment, it is common practice to condense all of this information into a single number called the equivalent sound level (Leq). The Leq is the value of a steady sound level that would represent the same sound energy as the actual time- varying sound levels evaluated over the same period. For highway traffic noise assessment, Leq is typically evaluated over a one-hour period, and is denoted as Leq(h). 3.3.1.2 Existing Noise Measurements Noise monitoring was performed at eleven locations in or near the study area to validate the noise model and to establish a background noise level. As shown in Table 3-12, existing noise levels ranged from 43 dB(A) to 69 dB(A). Greemdlle Southwest 1 yp_ss Pale 3-13 Drat 1-,nutroniventalImpact, Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment TAJ3L E 3-12: EXISTING NOISE MEASUREMENTS Site Location Description Monitored Level dBA * A Pine Forest Road Measurement of traffic noise on NC 11 64 and Cedar Lane Near NC 11 B Abbott Farm Road Measurement of background noise levels away 67 from traffic C NC 903 50 feet from road - measurement of traffic noise 68 on NC 903 D cul de sac on Measurement of background noise levels away 58 Davenport Place from traffic E Pocosin Road 50 feet from road - measurement of traffic noise 67 on Pocosin Road F Forlines Road 50 feet from road - measurement of traffic noise 64 on Forlines Road G Davenport Farm 50 feet from road - measurement of traffic noise 60 Road on Davenport Farm Road H Dickinson Road 50 feet from road - measurement of traffic noise 68 US 264A/US 13 on Dickinson Road I Frog Level Road 50 feet from road - measurement of traffic noise 62 on Fro Level Road J End of Teakwood Measurement of background noise away from 43 Road traffic K Stantonsburg Road 50 feet from road - measurement of traffic noise 69 near US 264 on Stantonsburg Road Bypass interchange Measurements were taKen in uecemoer zuu i. equipment used included an integrated Sound Level Meter, Larson-Davis Model 824, with a half inch random incidence microphone (accuracy t 2.0 dB(A) for normal frequency range). In order to accurately establish the existing noise level for each analysis area for use in the noise impact study, a background level was added to the results from the existing noise model. The measured background levels are 43 dB(A), 58 dB(A) and 67 dB(A). Upon review of the measurements which resulted in readings of 58 dB(A) and 67 dB(A), it was determined that unusual noise events and atmospheric conditions may have influenced the results. Therefore, the measurement which recorded a 43 dB(A) level was used as a background level for the entire project area. 3.3.2 Air Quality An Air Quality Technical Memorandum was prepared for the project in 2005 (Lochner 2005) and describes existing air quality conditions in the project area. The air quality analysis was performed in accordance with the Federal-Aid Policy Guide. The principal air pollutants of automotive emissions are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC), and Nitrogen Oxides. Other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulates, are produced to a lesser degree. A wide range of photochemical oxidants (ozone) also result through Greenville SoutInvest Bypass AiO 3-14 I Draft Environmental Lnpact Statement ' Section 3 - Affected Environment ' a complex series of light-induced reactions between emitted hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. ' Automobiles are not regarded as significant source of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less then seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. ' All i hi N h li d i d i areas w t n ort Caro na are gnate es as e ther attainment, non-attainment, or unclassifiable with respect to each of the six pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality ' Standards (NAAQS). Areas that have pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS are designated as attainment. Areas where the NAAQS are exceeded are designated non-attainment. Pitt County ' and Greenville, including the project area, is designated as attainment. Highway vehicles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this ' reason, and because CO is a relatively non-reactive pollutant, CO was used in the analysis as an indicator of the air pollutants produced by traffic activities on the proposed roadway. CO 1-hour and 8-hour concentration of 2.9 parts per million (ppm) and 2.3 ppm, respectively, were used for ' background concentration in the analysis. These values were recommended for background concentrations in the Greenville area by the Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. 1 3.3.3 Farmlands ' The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR 658) requires all federal agencies to consider the impact of their activities on prime, unique, statewide and locally important farmland soils, as ' defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (Public Law 97-98, Subtitle 1, Section 1540). The NRCS, in cooperation with the state and local agencies, developed a listing of Prime and Statewide Important Farmland of North ' Carolina. Prime Farmland is defined as soils best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed ' crops. These soils are favorable for all major crops common to the county, have a favorable growing season, and receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields on an average of eight out of every ten years. Land already in or committed to urban development or water ' storage is not included. ' Unique Farmland is used for production and specific high-value food or fiber crops. It has the special combinations of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and ' managed. State and Locally Important is defined by the appropriate state or local government agency as ' soils important in the agriculture of an individual county. These definitions are based on measures of the soil's capacity to support productive farm activity, not of current cultivation. 1 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-15 ' Drat I nrironmental Impact Statenieat Section 3 - Affected Environment The NRCS completed a soil survey in Pitt County. Soils in the study area considered to be prime or of statewide importance are listed in Table 3-13 and mapped in Figure 3-5. There are no soils designated Unique Farmland in Pitt County. TABLF" 3-13: PRIM Ma Ty-M701 E FARMLAND SOILS IN PITT COUNTY Ma Unit Name Farmland Classification A113 Altevista sandy loam, 0-4 % slopes All areas are rime farmland AyA* Aycock fine sand loam, 0-1 % slopes All areas are rime farmland AyB Aycock fine sand loam, 1-6 % slopes All areas are rime farmland Ay132 Aycock fine sand loam, 1-6 % slopes, eroded All areas are rime farmland CrA Craven fine sandy loam, 0-1 % slopes All areas are rime farmland CrB* Craven fine sandy loam, 1-6% slopes All areas are rime farmland ExA* Exum fine sandy loam, 0-1% slopes All areas are rime farmland ExB* Exum fine sandy loam, 1-6% slopes All areas are rime farmland GoA* Goldsboro sandy loam, 0-1 % slopes All areas are rime farmland GoB* Goldsboro sandy loam, 1-6% slopes All areas are rime farmland MaB Masada sandy loam, 0-1 % slopes All areas are rime farmland NrA* Norfolk sandy loam, 0-1% slopes All areas are rime farmland NrB* Norfolk sandy loam, 1-6% slopes All areas are rime farmland NrB2* Norfolk sandy loam, 1-6% slopes, eroded All areas are rime farmland WkB Wickham sandy loam, 0-6% slopes All areas are rime farmland Ly* Lynchburg fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Na* Nahunta silt loam Prime farmland if drained P'* Pantego loam Prime farmland if drained Po* Portsmouth loam Prime farmland if drained Ra* Rains fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Tu* Tuckerman fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained * Soil tvoe found within t he oroiect area 3.3.4 Utilities There are various utility systems operated throughout Pitt County, including electrical, water, sewer, and gas services. 3.3.4.1 Electric Power Transmission Several companies provide electrical service to the Pitt County/Greenville Area. These include: Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC), Progress Energy, the town of Ayden, and Pitt-Greene Electric Membership Corporation. GUC is the primary provider within the city and ETJ limits of Greenville and Winterville. It has a broad base of customers, including Pitt County Memorial Hospital and numerous residences in the project area. In the project area, the following electrical power substations provide service: ¦ Westside - serves the western portions of the city including the hospital and medical district along Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) and B's Barbecue Road (SR 1204) Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-16 Draft I "npiron#lentallnrpact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment 1 ¦ Frog Level - serves southwest areas of the county including Frog Level Road (SR 1127), ' Dickinson Avenue Ext (US 13), Lake Ellsworth, Red Oak, Ballards Crossroads, Bell Arthur, Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128), and Rountree ¦ Winterville - serves areas in the southwestern city/county including West Firetower Road ' (SR 1708), Old Tar Road (SR 1700), Pitt Community College and Landmark Street ¦ MacGregor Downs - serves western areas of the county including Stantonsburg Road ' (US 264 Business) and NC 43 from US 264 Bypass to Falkland 3.3.4.2 Water and Sewer ' Pitt County and the project study area are served by a variety of municipal and rural community water systems. The Greenville Utilities Commission operates two wastewater treatment plants: ' one with a capacity of 22.5 million gallon per day (mgd) and one with a capacity of 17.5 mgd. The water treatment plants use water from the Tar River with supplemental deep wells. All water and sewer services for the city of Greenville are owned, operated, and maintained by the ' Greenville Utilities Commission. Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District (CMSD) serves the towns of Ayden and Winterville. In rural areas, septic tanks and private wells provide sewage disposal and water for residents. ' 3.3.4.3 Natural Gas ' Piedmont Natural Gas and the GUC supply natural gas within Pitt County and Greenville. Piedmont Natural Gas supplies natural gas to Pitt County via a 4-inch high pressure transmission line, which runs east-west through the central portion of the county. GUC receives gas from ' Piedmont Natural Gas for distribution to more than 19,500 customers in Greenville, Ayden, and Winterville. 3.3.5 Visual Quality The study area is rural with sporadic development consisting mainly of residential properties and ' farm complexes. Some commercial properties exist along the project area, consisting of a few small businesses. ' The introduction of any large facility in an area alters the local perception of the visual environment. A location may be deemed visually sensitive for its visual quality, uniqueness, ' cultural importance, and viewer characteristics. According to Federal Highway Administration Guidelines, high visual quality is obtained when area landscape components have impressive characteristics that convey visual excellence. Striking landscapes are not limited to the natural ' environment and can be associated with urban areas as well. Visual quality is subjective in that it is also determined by a viewer's perception of an area. ' A field review was conducted in order to investigate the area for its overall visual quality. The review did not yield any significant findings of special or unique natural areas, officially ' designated recreation areas, or officially designated scenic overlooks within the immediate ' Greenville .Southwest Bypass Page 3-17 Draft Envimamental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment project area. The open fields and flat terrain are characteristic of much of Pitt County and eastern North Carolina. A historic district and several private historic properties do exist within the project area. These properties were investigated further for their visual sensitivity (see Section 4.3.5). 3.3.6 Hazardous Materials In September 2005, NCDOT conducted a study to identify properties within the project study area that are or may be contaminated. Such properties may include, but are not limited to: active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills, and unregulated dumpsites, Based on the study no hazardous waste sites or landfills were identified within the project corridor limits. Thirteen possible UST facilities, one automotive salvage yard, and one above ground storage tank facility were identified within the proposed project corridor. These sites are described in Table 3-14 and shown on Figure 3-6. The project area also crosses a borrow site formerly used by the Pitt County Landfill for daily cover and cap material. The borrow site is located on the western side of an inactive landfill. Since the closure of the landfill, Pitt County has backfilled the borrow site with yard waste, leaves, and scrap concrete blocks. The borrow pit does not contain any contaminated materials; however, the presence of concrete blocks within the site could cause foundation problems if a structure were built on them. TABLE' 3 Site # -14: POTENTIAL Type HAZARDOU UST Facility ID S MATERIALS SITES Anticipated Contamination Anticipated Severity 1 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 2 UST 0-036537 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 3 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 4 Salvage Yard None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 5 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 6 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 7 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 8 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 9 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 10 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low I 1 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 12 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 13 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 14 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 15 UST None Petroleum and herbicide contaminated soils and water Low Greenville Southwest Bypass Pa{e 3-18 Draft ?nvironmentallLnpact.S'tatement Section 3 - Affected Environment ' 3.3.7 Mineral Resources ' While there are more than 30 sand and gravel mines in Pitt County, there are no mining operations or quarries within the project study area. ' 3.3.8 Floodplains/Floodways A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988 "Floodplain ' Management" and with 23 CFR 650 Subpart A "Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Floodplains." This evaluation is based on the results of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 2004 detailed flood insurance study and FEMA's Federal ' Insurance Rate Mapping (FIRM) for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Pitt County. The community panels used to determine the 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries ' covered Pitt County (370372, revised January 2, 2004) and the town of Ayden (370189, effective January 2, 2004). The project study area contains portions of the floodway and floodplain for Swift Creek and Horsepen Swamp. The location of the floodplain crossings associated with the proposed project are shown in Figure 3-7. The area between the floodway and the 100-year ' floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water surface ' elevations above FEMA's published floodway elevation. Relic floodplains are located along many of the streams within the study area. All of the streams ' in the study area are channelized, at least for a portion of their lengths, and extend in nearly straight lines along their courses. They are also deeply entrenched, reducing the amount of over- bank flooding and floodplain access. 3.3.9 Protected Lands ' There are no federal or state protected lands within the study area. There are also no waters within the study are that are considered by the National Park Service to be Wild and Scenic Rivers ' (USDA, FS 2005). 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ' Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800), requires the identification of all properties eligible and potentially eligible for listing in the ' National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects associated with American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture are considered eligible for the NRHP if they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, ' workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria: ' ¦ Criterion A - resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; or ¦ Criterion B - resources associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 1 Greenville .Southwest Bypass Page 3-19 ' Draft 1 "mironmental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment • Criterion C - resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ¦ Criterion D - resources that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. The following sections summarize the cultural resources identified within the project study area. 3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources In 1995, NCDOT conducted a Phase Il survey (NCDOT 1995) to determine the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), defined as the geographic area or areas within which a project may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The Phase 11 survey identified all significant resources within the APE and evaluated these resources according to the National Register of Historic Places criteria. Background research was compiled from The Historic Architecture of Pitt County, North Carolina (Pitt County Historical Society, 1991). Three properties were identified that are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP: Charles McLawhom Houses, Alfred McLawhorn House, and William Amos Shivers House. In 2002, two additional historic properties were identified within the APE, one of which, the Cox-Ange House, is listed on the NRHP. The other, the A.W. Ange and Company Store Building, was included on the NC Historic Preservation Office's (HPO) North Carolina Study List. These properties are depicted on Figure 3-8. Charles McLawhorn Houses The Charles McLawhorn property contains two houses once occupied by Charles McLawhorn and his family: Windy Oaks and Charles McLawhorn House. Windy Oaks is located on the north side of NC 903, approximately 0.4 mile west of the intersection of Frog Level Road (SR 1127). The house is a one and a half story, three-bay frame dwelling with exterior end chimneys and a brick foundation. The house was constructed ca. 1850 as a hall-and-parlor plan house with a loft. The current owner's grandfather, Charles McLawhorn, purchased the house in 1886 and moved it and the kitchen structure to its current site. At that time, the house was reconfigured to a central-hall plan, adding two shed rooms to the rear and removing the enclosed stair to the loft. In 1903, a three-room rear ell was joined to the house. The kitchen was added to the rear ell in 1952 and the full-length porch on the rear ell was enclosed. The exterior of the house is intact with the exception of the front porch. The original front porch was removed in 1952. The change has slightly diminished the integrity of the design. In the interior of the building, however, the original Greek Revival mantel is still extant. The Charles McLawhorn House is located on NC 903 approximately 0.25 mile west of the intersection of Frog Level Road. The house was constructed ca. 1910 by Charles and Mary Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-20 Draft I:nvironmentallmpact,Statement I Section 3 - Affected Environment McLawhom, who lived in Windy Oaks prior to moving into this house. The building follows a traditional center-hall plan. A central bay projects from the second story, capped by a large hip- roof dormer. A deep one-story porch with a projecting pedimented entrance is located on the front and sides of the building. The porch is supported by Doric columns. The interior of the building contains Colonial Revival elements as well, and the farmstead retains an exceptionally well- preserved collection of outbuildings, including a large stilted dairy, a smokehouse, a storage shed with carbide pit, a washhouse, a farm commissary with an excavated root cellar and connecting two-stall wagon barn, and a large gambrel roof dairy barn. ' The Charles McLawhom House is virtually unchanged since its construction in 1910. The original woodwork, sash, light and plumbing fixtures remain intact, as do the majority of the outbuildings. ' Th Ch H l l M L h f f l h h b e two ar ouses are part o a arger arm comp es c aw om ex t at as een continuously owned by the same family since its establishment and retains a number of period ' outbuildings, as well as its historic field patterns. The HPO determined that the property is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for agriculture as well as Criterion C for architecture. The National Register boundaries include the two houses and their immediate settings, two tenant ' houses, six tobacco bams, and a frame stable across NC 903 from the houses, as well as open agricultural fields still associated with the property. Alfred McLawhorn House The Alfred McLawhom House is located on the east side of Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131), approximately 0.35 mile south of the intersection of NC 903. The house, constructed ca. 1875, is a frame three-bay, two-story, center-hall plan house. The gable end chimneys have decorative, vertically laid bricks located at the shoulder of the stacks. Two-story pilasters with stock molded caps wrap each corner of the structure. A highly decorative one-story porch, covered by a modified hip roof is supported by turned columns. Spindles, elaborate sawn work, and turned balusters span the columns. The front door, transom, and side lights have the original starburst pressed molded glass. With the exception of new plumbing fixtures and kitchen furnishings, few alterations to the house have occurred since its construction ca. 1875. The house is an example of a vernacular house form with outstanding applied Victorian ornamentation. The Alfred McLawhorn House is part of a larger farm complex that has been home to three generations of the same family. The HPO determined the property to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A (agriculture) and Criterion C (architecture). In addition to the house, the property includes a grouping of domestic and agricultural outbuildings to the rear of the house, a stand of frame tobacco barns, and open agricultural fields. William Amos Shivers House The William Amos Shivers House is located on the east side of Pocosin Road (SR 1125), approximately 0.15 mile north of NC 903. This ca. 1900 T-shaped, frame, one-story dwelling has Gtrenrille Sontlmest 13ypass Page 3-21 Draft h nt?irontwental hnpact .S tatelnent Section 3 - Affected Environment a projecting front gable with a porch covered by a modified hip roof. The porch is supported by turned columns with stock, modest sawn brackets located between the columns. The building has one exterior-end and one interior chimney stack. The original structure had a detached kitchen and dining room, connected by a breezeway. The breezeway has since been enclosed. The interior arrangement of the house has been altered only by the addition of new closets, bathrooms and door placement. Also located on the property are a smokehouse, a packhouse, a barn, and one former tobacco barn. The William Amos Shivers House remains relatively intact. Modern bathroom and kitchen facilities have been added to the house, as well as closets and doors. The breezeway, which once connected the kitchen and dining room to the main house, has been recently enclosed. However, the property is considered an example of a modest, turn-of-the-century Pitt County farmstead and was determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for agriculture and Criterion C for architecture. The National Register boundaries include the 43-acre home tract that was created with the farm and subdivided following the death of William Amos Shivers. Cox-Ange House The Cox-Ange House, one of the best surviving examples of Victorian architecture in the town of Winterville, was built ca. 1901 for Fountain Cox. Mr. Cox and his wife lived in the house for only one year and then sold it to A.W. Ange in 1902. The Cox-Ange House was added to the National Register in 2000 under Criterion A for social history and Criterion C for architecture. A. W. Ange and Company Store Located on the corner of West Main Street and Mill Street in the town of Winterville, the building is a two-story, brick commercial building with large plate glass display windows. The store was constructed in 1922 and was the first commercial building in Winterville to be oriented toward the highway (NC 11) rather than the railroad. Some of the building's original interior features, such as display cases, were removed during the recent conversion of the store into a restaurant, but others, such as the decorative pressed-tin ceiling, remain. The A.W. Ange and Company Store Building is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as an intact example of early 201h_ century commercial architecture. Renston Rural Historic District The Renston Rural Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2003 under Criterion A for agriculture and Criterion C for architecture with a period of significance of 1840 to 1953. The Historic District is comprised of approximately 1,395 acres of farms, residences, churches, and cemeteries along a 2.5-mile section of NC 903 in Pitt County. The boundaries of the Historic District are defined by Horsepen Swamp Creek at the northeast end and by Callie Stokes Road at the southwest end. Flat, open agricultural fields punctuated by 19`h- and 20`h-century residences and their corresponding farm buildings remain, with crops and cattle occupying the fields as it has for the past 200 years. The landscape reflects the prevalence of tobacco cultivation beginning in the 1890s and peaking in the early 1950s. Historic buildings line both sides of NC 903, which developed as a connection between the farms, houses, and churches Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement I Section 3 - Affected Environment and served as the route between the towns of Winterville in Pitt County and Snow Hill in Greene County. According to the district's National Register nomination (Van Dolsen 2003), the Historic District contains 166 resources, 111 of which are contributing elements to the historic appearance of the area. Ninety-six buildings, seven sites, seven structures, and one object date from the period of significance and retain sufficient integrity to support the district's agricultural and architectural heritage. 3.4.2 Archaeological Resources An overview study of archaeological resources in the project area was conducted in 1996 (NCDOT 1996). The study utilized previously-collected archaeological data from the project area and surrounding region to identify the types of archaeological resources that might be located in the highway project area. The potential effect of the project on significant archaeological resources was also considered. The project's Archaeological APE consists mainly of the three separate 1,000-foot wide corridors ' and the 1,000-foot wide shared corridor, as well as additional area at proposed interchange locations. At the time of the study, the NC Office of State Archaeology had records of eleven archaeological sites within or near the study area (see Table 3-15). Nine of the sites have ' prehistoric components and five have historic era components. ' Archaeological studies in Pitt County and the surrounding region indicate a fairly intensive occupation of the region throughout the prehistoric and historic past. Even though few archaeological sites are presently recorded in the study area, this can be attributed to a lack of ' archaeological survey rather than a lack of archaeological sites. It is likely the study area contains a number of archaeological sites, and a few of the sites could be significant enough to warrant intensive documentation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as ' amended. The Department of Cultural Resources found that the alternatives have roughly the same potential for containing archaeological resources. Therefore, the HPO agreed to postpone the archaeological survey until the final corridor is selected (see HPO letter in Appendix A.2). 1 Greenr)i!!e.Soutbwest Bjpass Page 3-23 ' Drat I ;nrironmenta/ Lnpad Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment IDENTIF WITHIN • PROJECT S IED ARCIIAEOLOGICAL SITE'S LOCATED TUDY ARE.A Site Number Type of Site 31PT79 Prehistoric and historic 31 PT82 Prehistoric 31 PT85 Prehistoric 31 PT86 Prehistoric 31 PT87 Prehistoric 31 PT88 Prehistoric 31 PT266 Historic 31 PT272 Prehistoric 31PT287 Prehistoric and historic 31 PT288 Historic 31PT289 Prehistoric and historic 3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS 3.5.1 Soils, Topography, and Geology 3.5.1.1 Soils Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors which include past geologic activities, nature of the parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal activity, the age of sediments, climate, and topographic position. General soil associations incorporate areas with distinctive patterns of soils, relief, and drainage. The proposed project study area is reported to contain 16 soil series in 20 soil mapping units (USDA 1974). Of these soil mapping units, nine are classified as hydric, and three of the other soils may contain inclusions of a hydric soil in depressions. Soils mapped in the project area are listed in Table 3-16. Norfolk-Exum-Goldsboro is the general soil association for the northern and southern portions of the project study area. This association is dominated by moderately well drained and well drained soils that have subsoil dominated by friable sandy clay loam or clay loam. These soils are typically found on uplands. Lynchburg-Rains-Goldsboro is the general soil association for the center uplands area of the project. This association consists of moderately well drained to poorly drained soils that have subsoil dominated by friable sandy clay loam. These soils are typically found on uplands. Bibb-Portsmouth is the general soil association found on the flood plains and stream terraces of the natural drainages. This association consists of poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that are underlain by very friable fine sandy loam or have a subsoil of friable sandy loam and sandy clay loam. Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft L'nvironmentallrrmpact Statement Pgge 3-24 Section 3 - Affected Environment Bibb (Bb) and Rains (Ra) soils are the most common soil types along drainageways within the ' study area. Norfolk sandy loam soils (NrA, NrB) are the most abundant type in upland areas. C TABI, EI 3-16: SUMMARY • FOUND WITHIN THE. STUDYAREA Map Code Soil Series Name Taxonomic Classification Hydric Soil A B g Alaga loamy sand, banded substratum, 0 Thermic, coated T rc yp Quartzipsamments Yes to 6 percent slopes Bb Bibb complex Coarse-loamy, siliceous active, acid, Yes _ thermic Typic Fluvaquents Bd Bladen fine sandy loam Fine, mixed semiactive, thermic Typic Yes Alba uults By Byars loam Fine. kaolinitic, thermic Umbric Yes Palea uults Co Coxville fine sand loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic T is Palea uults Yes CrB2 Craven fine sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent Fine, mixed, subactive, thermic Aquic No slopes, eroded - Hapludults ExA Exum fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent Fine-silty, siliceous, subactive, thermic No --- slopes- - ----- - -Aguic Paleudults -- -- - - ExB Exum fine sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent Fine-silty, siliceous, subactive, thermic No slopes Aquic Paleudults GoA Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent Fine-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic slopes - Aquic Paleudults GoB Goldsboro sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent Fine-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic No slopes - Aquic Paleudults Le Leaf silt loam Fine, mixed, active, thermic Typic Yes Alba uults Ly Lynchburg fine sandy loam Fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic _ Aguic Paleaquults - Na Nahunta silt loam Fine-silty, siliceous, subactive, thermic Yes Aerie Palea uults NrA Norfolk sandy loam, 0 to I percent slopes Fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Typic No Kandiudults NrB Norfolk sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Typic No Kandiudults NrB2 Norfolk sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes _ Fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Typic No Kandiudults OcB Ocilla loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent Loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic slopes Aquic Arenic Paleudults Pg Pantego loam Fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Yes Umbric Palea uults Ra Rains fine sandy loam Fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Yes Typic Paleaquults WaB Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes Loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Arenic No Kandiudults -ray nave nyaric mcwsions or rains (Ka) in aepressions. ' (USDA,SCS 1991; USDA,SCS 1974) Greenville Southu est Bypass Page 3-25 Drat I'twironnlentalImpact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment 3.5.1.2 Climate and Topography The climate of Pitt County is influenced by elevation, distance from the Atlantic Ocean and Pamlico Sound, and by latitude and location of the county. It is also somewhat influenced by the Tar River. The lowest temperature ever recorded was 0 degrees and the highest on record was 106 degrees. The temperature reaches 90 degrees or higher on about half the days during an average summer. The average length of the freeze-free growing period is approximately 220 days, lasting from late March through early November. Thunderstorms account for a large part of the rainfall received during the growing season. During this time of year precipitation is highly variable from month to month, day to day, and place to place within the county. By autumn, rainfall amounts frequently increase overall. Tropical storms in late summer and fall sometimes contribute to this increase. Rainfall in winter is usually associated with large low-pressure systems moving over the Eastern seaboard. Snow and sleet usually occur annually, but amounts are small and usually melt within a day. The sun shines, on average, more than half the total number of daylight hours in winter and nearly two-thirds of the total number of daylight hours in other seasons. The average relative humidity is approximately 85 percent, dropping to about 50 percent by midafternoon (USDA 1974). Pitt County is in the Middle and Upper Coastal Plain physiographic province of the Atlantic Coastal Plain (NCCGIA 1997) and slopes gently to the east, southeast, and west. The project spans the interstream divide separating the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River Basins, and the interstream divide separating the Middle Neuse and Contentnea subbasins of the Neuse River Basin. The broad, flat interstream areas are the dominant topographic features. Marked topographic variations are lacking. Slopes generally are less than 4 percent. In the portion of the study area within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (Stantonsburg Road to US 264A), elevations range from 39 to 82 feet above mean sea level (msl). Drainage is to the northeast and east with the lowest elevation along Greens Mill Run as it exits the study area. The highest elevations are along US 264A (USGS 1981, 1982). In the portion of the study area within the Neuse River Basin (US 264A to NC 102), elevations also range from 39 to 82 feet. Lowest elevations here are in the Middle Neuse subbasin where Swift Creek exits the study area. Highest elevations are along the interstream divide with the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, and along the divide separating the Middle Neuse and Contentnea subbasins (USGS 1981, 1982). 3.5.1.3 Geology Pitt County is underlaid by unconsolidated beds of sand, clay, and calcareous sediment. Inclined south southeasterly at a rate slightly greater than the land's surface, the beds thicken as they near the coast and reach their greatest thickness offshore. For the most part, these beds were deposited Greenville Southwest I Ypass Pqq 3-26 I Draft Environmental Lnpact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment in sea water as the sea advanced and retreated during the geologic development of the Atlantic ' Coastal Plain. To a much lesser extent, streams deposited layers of sediment which mixed with that deposited on the sea floor. About 750 feet underneath the sedimentary cover underlying Greenville is a basement rock floor consisting of weathered granite, gneiss, schist, and slate. Load ' bearing capabilities of soils vary widely; many areas of the county can support heavy industrial loads without the need for pilings. 2 Bi 3 5 i C i i d Wildlif . . ot c ommun t es an e Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in this description of biotic resources. Living ' systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in ' the context of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative faunal species that are likely to occur in these ' habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the floral species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name only. 3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities ' Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use practices. Agriculture, development, and forestry practices have resulted in the present vegetative ' patterns. There is often some degree of overlap, or intergrade, between biotic communities, where characteristics of multiple community types are present. All community types have had some degree of past or continued human disturbance and do not reflect, in totality, the ' characteristics of "natural communities" described in Schafale and Weakley (1990). Seven plant communities occur within the study area: Pine Flatwoods, Cutover, Pine Plantation, Mixed Pine- Hardwood Forest, Hardwood Swamp, Bottomland Forest, and Disturbed-Maintained Community. Four of these communities (Pine Flatwoods, Mixed-Pine Hardwood Forest, Hardwood Swamp, and Bottomland Forest) can be classified as natural communities by Schafale and Weakley (1990). A description of each community type follows. ' Pine Flatwoods In the project study area this plant community type is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The understory varies, but is generally sparse or absent. When present, the understory consists of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), American holly (Ilex opaca) and red maple (Ater rubrum). ' The shrub layer is dominated by inkberry (Ilex glabra), dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), stagger bush (Lyonia mariana), doghobble (Leucothoe racemosa) and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Red bay (Persea borbonia) and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) are abundant in the wetter areas of this community type, and in many cases are also minor Greenr)ille Southwest Bypass Page 3-27 Drat Enrironmentallmpact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment components of the canopy and understory layers. Horsesugar (Symplocos tinctoria) occurs in the understory/shrub layer, most commonly at community edges. The herbaceous component is dominated mainly by wiregrass (Aristida .stricta) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), with several other species abundant locally. These species include broomstraw (Andropogon spp.), panic grass (Panicum virgatum) and goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and in the wetter areas sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata). Vines such as yellow jessamine (Gelsemium semperviren.s), greenbrier (Smilax spp.) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are common. This vegetative association most closely resembles the Wet Pine Flatwoods community described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Cutover This community includes recently cleared forested areas that are in early but varying stages of regeneration. This classification makes no attempt to categorize the community type by the previous unconfirmed community or the expected mature community. Some of the cutover areas have been replanted with loblolly pine, while others have been allowed to regenerate naturally. The composition of naturally colonizing species is dependent on adjacent community types, the previous community type and hydrologic conditions among other factors. The majority of the cutover tracts are in a successional scrub/shrub stage, with sweetgum, loblolly pine, red maple and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) being the most dominant species. Other shrub species such as doghobble, fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), inkberry, and blueberry are also prevalent. The high density of shrubs, along with greenbrier, blackberry (Rubus sp.), and poison ivy create nearly impenetrable thickets in some areas. Dominant herbaceous species include broomstraw, soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.) and bracken fern. Seedboxes (Ludwigia spp.) and meadow beauties (Rhexia spp.) are prevalent in the wetter areas. A comparable community type is not described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Pine Plantation Various tracts within the study area are being used for commercial forestry operations. These operations include the establishment and management of loblolly pine plantations. This practice generally involves harvesting the current vegetation and clearing the debris, bedding the site, and then planting seedlings on the beds. Typically these plantations are also ditched and drained. Most of the pine plantations range in age from a few to 15 years old (estimated). Older pine dominated stands are also present, but it is not clear whether they originated as planted plantations. These mature pine stands vary from closed to open canopies, with stagger bush and giant cane occurring sporadically underneath. The understory and shrub layer is typically sparse, and the herbaceous layer is usually absent. A comparable community type is not described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-28 Draft F;nvironrnental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest Variations of this community type, based on topography (flat and rolling), landscape position, and past levels of disturbance, occur in the study area. Differences in vegetation between the two subtypes are too subtle to warrant separate community classification. Slight topographic differences and species dominance result in some of this community type being classified as jurisdictional wetlands. ' Dominant canopy species include loblolly pine, water oak, red maple, and sweetgum. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and southern magnolia (Magnolia grandifolia) are common in some areas ' but are absent from others. Understory species include red bay, ironwood (Carpinu.s i ll l d A h Th d di ib i f i di id l i b y. e percentage an caro iniana), sweet ay an mer can o str ut on o n ua p ne v trees varies widely from one forested area to another. b h A dense shrub layer dominated by doghobble, stagger us , horsesugar, highbush blueberry, giant cane and inkberry occurs throughout, but is most prevalent in the lower-lying areas of this ' community type. Vines include greenbrier, poison ivy, grape (vitis spp.), yellow jessamine, and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). The herbaceous component is sparse, with ' bracken fern, partridge berry (Mitchella rpens), and sweet goldenrod (Solidago odora) most abundant. Royal fern (Osmunda regalis) and netted chain fern are present in some of the low- lying wetter areas. This vegetative association most closely resembles the Mesic Mixed ' Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hardwood Swamp ' Although the majority of the water bodies in the Swift Creek subbasin are channelized, and the adjacent floodplain communities have been impacted by draining/ditching and clearing, some ' swamp forest still exists in the study area. This community type is located in floodplain areas adjacent to Swift Creek, Horsepen Swamp and Greens Mill Run, and is characterized by permanently to semi-permanently flooded conditions. This community is a marginal example of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) as described by Schafale and ' Weakley (1990); however, components of the Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) are also present. ' The uneven aged canopy is dominated by red maple, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), sweetgum, and Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana). The presence ' of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) knees and a few scattered sub-canopy size trees indicates that this species was once a component of this swamp system. The understory consists of red maple, sweetgum, ironwood, red bay, and Carolina ash. Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), giant cane, and Hercules'-club (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis) comprise the shrub strata. ' The herb layer is dense and consists of lizard s tail (Saururus cernuus), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) netted chain fern, cinnamon fern, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), smartweed Greenrille Southwest Bypass Pgge 3-29 ' Draft hinironmentallmpact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment (Polygonum spp.), pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.), and arum (Peltandra virginica). Vines are very prevalent and include greenbrier, cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata), poison ivy, and grape. Bottomland Forest This community type typically occurs in low-lying areas associated with some of the streams in the project area. Along Swift Creek this community grades into the Hardwood Swamp community. This community is flooded less often than the swamp community, and in some areas it appears that the hydrology has been altered to the extent that jurisdictional wetland criteria are not met. Canopy species include laurel oak, water oak, yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, sweetgum and loblolly pine. The understory consists of red bay, sweetbay, American holly and ironwood. The well developed shrub layer is dominated by titi (Cyrilla racemiora), sweet pepperbush, Hercules'-club and Virginia willow (Itea virginica). Prevalent vines include greenbrier, poison ivy and grape. This community is a marginal example of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Disturbed-Maintained Communities Disturbed-Maintained Communities are located on tracts of land where the vegetation is kept in a low growing, or early successional stage. This community includes roadside shoulders, utility corridors, agricultural fields, residential lots, and urban landscapes. This managed community type varies greatly with land use and past history, and contains various kinds of man-made structures and other hard surfaces (roads, driveways). A comparable community type is not described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The shoulders of the existing roadway are maintained in a low growing condition by mowing. Dominant species include crab grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), coastal bermuda (Cynodon dactylon), finger grass (Chloris petraea), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), trumpet-creeper (Campsis radicans), and wild onion (Allium canadense). Various shrubs including silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and inkberry occur at the border of this community and the forested communities present in the project area. A large utility corridor occurs within the northern section of the study area. Much of this corridor meets jurisdictional wetland criteria. The vegetation is kept in a low-growing stage by routine mowing. Dominant species include those early successional species found in the roadside habitats, as well as yellow-eyed grass (Xyris sp.), cinnamon fern, and saplings of red maple, sweetgum, and yellow poplar. Residential lots are covered with a variety of grasses such as winter ryes (Lolium spp.), coastal bermuda, fescue (Festuca spp.) and crab grass. Native and exotic herbs, shrubs and trees are abundant landscape species, and many lawns have large native trees such as loblolly pine, sweetgum, and red maple, which are residual from previous forested communities. Ornamental species are also prevalent. Greenville Southwest Bypass Pqe 3-30 Draft I nvimnmental Impact Statement 1 Section 3 - Affected Environment ' Agricultural fields are the most abundant land use in the study area. Most of the fields are actively farmed for tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), soybeans (Glycine max), and corn (Zea mays), with few tracts left fallow. Vegetative diversity is low. ' Species common to disturbed habitats, particularly cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), morning glory Qpomoea purpurea), and rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium) frequently occur along field edges. 3.5.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ' Most of the mammals that may occur within the project study are conspicuous larger and medium-sized species that have wide habitat tolerances and commonly occur in anthropogenic landscapes. These species include white-tailed deer*' (Odocoileus virginianus), grey squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), and raccoon* (Procyon lotor). Other medium-sized mammals with wide habitat tolerances expected to occur within the project study area include bobcat (Felis rufus), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), beaver (Castor canadensis), Virginia opossum* (Didelphis virginiana), and eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagus floridanus). Several species of bats are also likely to inhabit the study area, including silver-haired bat (Lasionyeteris noctivigans), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis). No quantitative surveys were conducted to document the small mammal populations within the ' project study area. The forested communities in the area are expected to provide habitat for small mammals including insectivores such as southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) and southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), and rodents such as white-footed mouse (Peromyscus ' leucopus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli). Early successional habitats and weedy disturbed areas likely provide habitat for different insectivores, such as least shrew (Cryptotis parva) and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), and for rodents such as the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). ' The avian component of the respective biotic communities is the most dynamic, since many species are migratory, and thus species composition varies seasonally. Bird sightings within the project study area include a combination of permanent residents and summer breeders or visitors. ' Some birds are habitat-specific, while others have more general habitat requirements. ' Birds observed in the study area include species commonly occurring in both natural and anthropogenic habitats throughout eastern North Carolina. These include northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura), blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), ' American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren* (Thyrothorus ludovicianus), northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos), and northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis). Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), downy woodpecker* (Picoides An asterisk (*) indicates that the species, or evidence of the species, was observed during field surveys in the project area. Gtrenville Soulbwest Bypass Page 3-31 Draft 1:uvironmental Lapact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment pubescens), tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), and song sparrow* (Melospiza melodia) are other common species that likely inhabit the project area. Forested areas are important habitat for many wildlife species, providing crucial foraging, nesting, and/or denning/roosting areas. Neotropical migratory birds, in particular, are dependent on these areas. Species such as Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) and Louisiana waterthrush* (Seiurus motacilla) thrive in wooded riparian areas, while summer tanager* (Piranga rubra), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), and red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus) prefer the upland woods. Red-shouldered hawk* (Buteo lineatus) and barred owl (Strix varia) hunt their prey in wooded riparian areas, while red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) forage in upland forests and adjacent open areas. Species such as downy woodpecker*, pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), and the tufted titmouse* are found in wooded areas throughout the year. Two aquatic avian species, great blue heron* (Ardea herodias) and wood duck (Aix sponsa), were also seen during the study. Other water birds expected to occur within the project study area include great egret (Casmerodius albus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and Canada goose* (Branta canadensis). Two reptiles were observed within the project area: an eastern box turtle* (Terrapene carolina) and a 3-foot long snake skin of unidentified species. Reptiles expected to occur within the study area include rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), black racer (Coluber constrictor), northern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), and broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps). Common terrestrial or arboreal amphibians expected to occur within the project study area include American toad* (Bufo americanus) and spring peeper* (Pseudacris crucifer). Small ponds, semi-permanently inundated floodplain wetlands, and ephemeral pools located throughout the project study area are expected to provide suitable breeding habitat for an array of other amphibians as well as for turtles. 3.5.2.3 Aquatic Communities Aquatic habitats within the project study area range from ephemeral waters present in intermittent, channelized, first order streams to permanent, riverine habitat within Swift Creek. Swift Creek and Horsepen Swamp are the largest streams within study area. The diversity of streams within the project study area provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species. Large streams with good water quality and a diversity of aquatic habitats are expected to support a more diverse assemblage of fish and other aquatic organisms than smaller tributaries. No recent sampling for fish has been conducted within the project study area. The NC 102 crossing of Swift Creek was sampled in 1995, and the following species were reported: eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), chain pickerel (Esox niger), comely shiner (Notropis Greenville .S'outlitvert Bypass Page 3-32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment amoenus), satinfin shiner (Cyprinella analostana), dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), largemouth bass ' (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), and pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) (NCDWQ 2003f). Little Contentnea Creek was also sampled in 1995 at the US 264 crossing, and the following species were recorded there: eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), eastern mosquitofish, yellow bullhead catfish, redfin pickerel, golden shiner (Notemigonus crvsoleucas), flier (Centrarchus macropterus), mud sunfish ' (Acantharchus pomotis), pumpkinseed, warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), bluegill, pirate perch, and American eel (Anguilla rostrata) (NCDWQ 2003f). ' The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) indicated that anadromous fish are present in the major tributaries of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins. Likely species present include Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American Shad (Alosa sapidissima), Hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and American eel (Anguila rostrata). The NMFS was advised that during the field meeting on October 31, 2005, the EPA, WRC, and USFWS ' concurred with the decision for no bridging since the streams are small. NMFS believes that the potential impacts to these fisheries are likely minimal due to the presence of small streams in the ' corridors. According to North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), no in-water work moratoriums are required for fisheries concerns, including anadromous fish, at any of the proposed stream crossings in the study area. ' i S hi h i d id i d treams w t n t e project stu y area prov e r par an an benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians and aquatic reptiles. Ephemeral pools and other flooded wetlands provide additional ' aquatic habitat, especially for breeding amphibians. No aquatic amphibians or reptiles were observed within the project area, although unidentified frogs or toads were heard near Swift Creek. Amphibians and reptiles expected to occur within aquatic habitats throughout the project study area include green frog (Rana clamitans), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), and southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus). Evidence of aquatic macroinvertebrates was observed during other field work. Numerous ' crayfish chimneys were observed along streams. All stream banks within the project study area were visually surveyed for mussel shells; however, no signs of freshwater mussels were observed. Earlier field studies (NCDOT 1993) documented numerous aquatic macroinvertebrates. Also, ' water striders (Family Gerridae), damselflies and dragonflies (Order Odonata), water beetles (Order Coleoptera), and mosquitoes (Anopheles spp.) were seen on several of the ponds. ' Within the study area, one type of wetland system exists: palustrine. The palustrine system (denoted in the classification system by a "P") consists of all nontidal wetlands dominated by ' trees, shrubs, and persistent emergents. Subclasses for this system and the corresponding definitions include: ' Forested (FO) - Characterized by woody vegetation over 20 feet in height ' Greenrille Sonthuert B)pass Page 3-33 Draft I:nrirowwental Lwpaa Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment ¦ Emergent (EM) - characterized by erect, herbaceous vegetation present for most of the growing season. All wetlands identified within the study corridors were palustrine forested (PFO) wetlands. One wetland also contained an emergent wetland (PEM) component. No high quality wetlands were identified in the project area. Detailed descriptions of each wetland are included in the Jurisdictional Waters Report (NCDOT 2006). 3.5.2.4 Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Area, and Natural Communities Natural Heritage Areas are North Carolina registered protected areas with known occurrences of protected plant or animal species. Natural Areas are areas with no current protection status but with known occurrences of protected plant or animal species. Natural Communities represent exceptional examples of a particular natural community. There are no Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Areas, or Natural Communities within the study area. 3.5.3 Water Resources This section summarizes information contained the Hydraulic Technical Memorandum (Lochner 2003), Natural Resources Technical Report (NCDOT 2004), and the Natural Resources Technical Memorandum (NCDOT 2006) prepared for the project. 3.5.3.1 Groundwater Underground aquifers in eastern North Carolina provide water for municipalities, industries, and agriculture. The Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear Aquifers extend from Pitt and Lenoir counties through Craven and Onslow counties. The aquifers yield between 250 and 800 gallons per minute through wells at depths of 350 to 550 feet. Average yields are 450 gallons per minute. Throughout eastern North Carolina, extensive land-drainage networks installed to increase farmable land have lowered the water table and reduced the rate of recharge to deeper aquifers. Additionally, withdrawals by municipalities and rural water systems have increased pressure on these aquifers. Water levels in aquifers in Pitt County are declining at a rate of 6 feet per year due to withdrawals. 3.5.3.2 Surface Waters The project is located in subbasins of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River watersheds. These river basins are classified by Hydrologic Cataloging Units, to which Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) are assigned; HUC number 03020103 for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and HUC numbers 03020202 and 03020203 for the Neuse River Basin (USGS 1987). Approximately one third of the project study area, on the north end, is in the Tar-Pamlico River drainage. Greens Mill Run is the only named tributary to the Tar-Pamlico River within the study area. Harris Mill Run, a Tar-Pamlico River tributary farther north, receives drainage from a small portion of the study area but is not crossed by any of the alternatives. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-34 Draft F-nvironmetitallmpact.Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment The southern two-thirds of the project study area are located in the Neuse River basin. The study area crosses the interstream divide separating the Middle Neuse (03020202) and Contentnea (03020203) HUCs. Most of the study area falls into Middle Neuse HUC and is drained to the south and east by Swift Creek and its named and unnamed tributaries. Major named Swift Creek tributaries include Horsepen Swamp, Gum Swamp, and Simmon Branch. The remaining area, a small portion of the western edge of the study area, drains to unnamed tributaries and into Little Contentnea Creek. ' Best Usage Classification A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the state of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. Four ' named streams within the project study area are crossed by the project alternatives, and five other named streams receive drainage from the project area. The unnamed tributaries (UT) present ' within the project area have not been individually classified by NCDWQ; therefore, they carry the same classification as their receiving streams. Table 3-17 lists the Stream Index Numbers (SIN) for the named streams that are either crossed by the alternatives or that receive drainage from the project study area. The eight-digit hydrologic unit code, Best Usage Classifications, and Subbasin Numbers are also listed (NCDWQ 2003b, ' NCDWQ 2003c). All of the streams that receive drainage from the study area have been assigned a Best Usage ' Classification of C. Class C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life (including propagation and survival), and wildlife. Secondary recreation is any activity involving human bodily contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis (NCDWQ 2003c). n TABLE 3-17: SUMMAR Stream River Basin Name Y OF RIVER BASIN C USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Cataloging Unit Number HUC LASSIFICATIO Stream Index Number SIN * N DATA Best Usage Classification BUC * Subbasin Number SBN * Tar-Pamlico Lower Tar Harris Mill Run 28-92 C; NSW 03-03-05 Greens Mill Run 03020103 28-96 - C; NSW 03-03-05 Neuse Middle Neuse Swift Creek 27-97-tO.5) C; Sw; NSW 03-04-09 Gum Swamp - 27-97-1 C; Sw; NSW 03-04-09 Nobel Canal 27-97-2 C; NSW 03-04-09 Horsepen Swamp Simmon Branch 03020202 27-97-3 27-97-3.5 C; Sw; NSW C; Sw; NSW - 03-04-09 03-04-09 Fork Swamp 27-97-4 C: SW; NSW 03-04-09 Neuse Contentnca Little Contentnca Creek 03020203 27-86-26 C; Sw; NSW 03-04-07 *NCDWQ 2003b ' Givenville .Southwest Bypass Page 3-35 Draft I"m4 omnentalImpact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment Swift Creek, Simmon Branch, Gum Swamp, Fork Swamp, Little Contentnea Creek, and Horsepen Swamp all carry the supplemental classifications of Sw (Swamp waters). Swamp waters are defined as those waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from adjacent streams. All streams that receive drainage from the study area are supplementally designated Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). (The entire Neuse River Basin is designated as NSW.) Nutrient Sensitive Waters are those waters that require additional nutrient management, because of their susceptibility to excessive growth of microscopic and macroscopic vegetation. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supplies (WS I or WS 11), which are waters that are afforded special protection, occur within 1 mile of the project area. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network Basinwide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the NCDWQ through the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN). BMAN is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are interpreted as reflections of water quality. The samples are evaluated on the number of intolerant taxa groups (i.e., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT)) present and a taxa richness value, or EPT S. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species of each collection. The taxa richness and biotic index values are given equal weight in final site classification. Both values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution. The values poorly measure the effects of physical water pollutants such as sediment. Streams can then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent. According to the Basinwide Assessment Report, Neuse River Basin (NCDWQ 2001) and the Basinwide Assessment Report, Tar-Pamlico River Basin (NCDWQ 2003a), there are no BMAN monitoring stations within the study area. In the Neuse River subbasin 03-04-07, the Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station closest to the project area is on Little Contentnea Creek, approximately 4.0 miles west of the project study area. This monitoring site (B-8) was sampled in 2000, and received a bioclassification of Fair. In the Neuse River subbasin 03-04-09, Site B-l, located on Swift Creek approximately 18 miles downstream of the study area, where it crosses NC 188 in Craven County, received bioclassification ratings of Fair in both 1995 and 2000. Section 303(d) Waters North Carolina's §303(d) List is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that is damaged by pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria, or by pollution such as hydromodification or habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from point sources, non-point sources, and atmospheric deposition. The standards violation might be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-36 Draft h''nvironmentallmpact.Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment cause of impairment. This list is compiled by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and submitted to the EPA by April l of every even year. Little Contentnea Creek (SIN 27-86-26), west of the study area, is on North Carolina's 2000, 2002 and Draft 2004 Section 303(d) lists for biologically impaired waters due to low dissolved oxygen (NCDWQ 2004). Non-point source pollution is the likely cause of impairment to this stream. Swift Creek (SIN 27-97-[0.5]), from its headwaters near Thomas Langston Road to its confluence with the Neuse River, is on the 2002 and Draft 2004 Section 303(d) list as biologically impaired. The probable causes of impairment are channelization and agricultural runoff. These segments are shown on Figure 3-7. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be employed by the construction contractor to first avoid and then minimize impacts to impaired waters. Erosion and sediment should be controlled by implementation of a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Permitted Dischargers Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater "point source" discharges include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants, and small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential ' subdivisions, and individual homes. Storm water "point source" discharges include storm water collection systems for municipalities and storm water discharges associated with certain industrial activities. "Point source" dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a National ' Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program and delegated to NCDWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ' There are six permitted point source discharges (three major and three minor), located within the subbasins that receive drainage from the project area (NCDWQ 2003e). However, none are ' located within the project study area. Non-Point Source Discharges ' Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source (NPS) pollution comes from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt runoff moves over the earth's surface, natural and man-made pollutants are collected, carried, and ultimately deposited into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and groundwater. Non-point source pollution includes fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from farms and residential areas; hydrocarbons and chemicals from t urban runoff, sediments from construction sites, land clearing, and eroding stream banks; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal wastes, and faulty septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. The effects of NPS pollutants on water resources vary, and in many instances, may ' not be known. These pollutants generally have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, wildlife, and fisheries. Greens ille.S'ontbwe rt Bypass Page 3-37 ' Draft I;nvim nmentallmpad Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment Biologists conducted a visual observation of potential NPS discharges located within and near the project study area. Atmospheric deposition from passing vehicles; fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from nearby residential and agricultural areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby residential driveways were identified as potential sources of NPS pollution near the project area. Overall, the threat of non-point source discharge is moderate due to the small to moderate width of the riparian buffer along many of the streams in the project area, and the large expanses of agricultural lands. According to the Basinwide Assessment Report, Neuse River Basin (NCDWQ 2001), there is moderate nonpoint source pollution potential in the 03-04-09 subbasin. This is likely due to the many hog farms that are located in the subbasin, especially in the northwestern region. Within the 03-04-07 subbasin, most of the subbasin has a high nonpoint source pollution potential, including runoff from cropland, forageland, and animals operations. 3.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues 3.5.4.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Ponds Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, wetlands are also classified as "Waters of the United States" and are subject to jurisdictional consideration by the USACE. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and USACE as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" [33 CFR §328.3(b)(1986)]. Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soil; hydrophytic vegetation; and evidence of wetland hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands and streams within the project study area are depicted on Figure 3-7. 3.5.4.2 Riparian Buffers North Carolina Riparian Area Rules are in place for the protection and maintenance of Vegetated Riparian Buffers in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) and Neuse River Basin (15 NCAC 2B .0233). The buffer protection rules require that up to 50 feet (16 meters) of riparian area be protected and maintained on the banks of waterways in the basins. The rules apply to perennial and intermittent channels, lakes, ponds, and estuarine waters that are shown on the most recent version of either the County Soil Survey or USGS topographical map. These rules do not require establishment of new vegetated buffers unless the existing use of the buffer changes. Streams within the study area were evaluated for applicability of the buffer rules. In particular, completion of the NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms aided in determining whether Greenville Southwestl3ypass Pq{e 3-38 I Draft hnvironnlental Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment L I a stream is subject to riparian buffer rules. Only a NCDWQ representative can determine whether a stream is exempt from buffer requirements. 3.5.4.3 Protected Species Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) as amended. Federally protected species listed as occurring in Pitt County (USFWS 2003a) are shown in Table 3-18. Descriptions of these federally protected species along with habitat requirements are presented in the following table. Note that although these species are listed for Pitt County, none are listed as occurring within the area depicted by either of the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps that cover the study area. Impacts to these species, including Biological Conclusions, are discussed in Section 4.5.4.5. TABLE, 3-18: 1 LISTED SPECIE'S LISTE1 1) FOR PITT COUNTY Federal State Potential Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status Status Present Vertebrates West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E Yes Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoee halus V Ta No Rcd-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E E No Invertebrates Tar Rivers in mussel Elll )tio .steinstansana E E Yes This species is being considered for delisting. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) Family: Trichechidae Federally Listed: 1967 The West Indian manatee is a native of the warm waters of sub-tropical south Florida (USFWS 1993). They prefer shallow saltwater bays, slow-moving rivers, canals, estuaries, and coastal waters. Manatees spend most of their time feeding, resting, or traveling. They are completely herbivorous marine mammals, feeding on turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), manatee grass (Syringodium filliforme), various species of marine algae, and water hyacinths (Eichhornia crassipes). They can consume up to 10 percent of their body weight daily in vegetation. Manatees are a sub-tropical, air breathing species that can grow to over 13 feet in length and weigh up to 3,500 pounds. West Indian manatees have very little fat and are susceptible to cold. Manatees are able to use shallow channels that may not seem suited for such a large mammal. O'Shea and Ludlow (1992) wrote that the primary habitat requirements for this species are access to vascular aquatic plants, freshwater sources, and proximity to a channel 3.3 to 6.6 feet deep. Manatees are migratory animals which may use marine, brackish, or freshwater habitats, moving freely between salinity extremes. In coastal areas of the United States, West Indian manatees congregate in Florida in winter. During the summer season, when waters are warmer, manatee Greenville Soutbwest I3Ypass Page 3-39 Draft I `nvirorunentallnrpact Stateareut Section 3 - Affected Environment may be found as far west as Alabama and as far north as Virginia and the Carolinas. Very rarely are they found further north. In November 1989, a manatee was reported in the Tar River, approximately 54.7 miles from the Pamlico Sound, and near the city of Greenville. Another manatee traversed 36 miles up the Tar River from the Pamlico Sound, to the town of Washington. This sighting occurred in September 1985 (Schwartz 1995). Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Family: Accipitridae First Listed: 1967 Proposed for Delisting: 1995 The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan reaching seven feet. Adults have a dark brown body with a pure white head and tail, whereas the juvenile plumage is chocolate brown to blackish with white mottling on the tail, belly, and underwings. Adult plumage is fully acquired by the fifth or sixth year. The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near large bodies of water where it feeds. It preys primarily on fish, but will feed on birds, mammals, turtles, and carrion when fish are unavailable. In the southeast, the nesting and breeding season runs from September to December. Large nests up to six feet across and weighing hundreds of pounds are constructed from large sticks, weeds, cornstalks, grasses, and sod. Preferred nesting sites are usually within one-half mile of water, have an open view of the surrounding area, and are in the largest living tree, usually a pine or cypress. Excessive human activity may exclude an otherwise suitable site from use. Wintering areas generally have the same characteristics as nesting sites, but may be farther from shores (USFWS 2003b). The bald eagle ranges throughout all of North America. Breeding sites in the southeast are concentrated in Florida, coastal South Carolina, and coastal Louisiana, and sporadically located elsewhere (USFWS 1987). Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Family: Picidae Federally Listed: 1970 This small, non-migratory woodpecker measures 7 to 8.5 inches long, has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back (USFWS 2001). Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary nest sites for red-cockaded woodpecker include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 3-40 raft Environmental Impact Statement 1 d I ' Section 3 - Affected Environment ' Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, ' long-leaf, slash, pond, or other southern pine species. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pine trees, generally older than 60 years ' that have been infected with red-heart disease. Excavation of a cavity usually initiates through an old dead branch opening in the bole of the tree. An aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20+ cavity trees on 3.0 to 60 acres. The average size of a cluster is about 10 acres. The typical cluster is occupied by a related group of individuals called a clan. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the excavated cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, ' resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. The typical territory for a clan will range from 60 to 600 acres in size. Red-cockaded t woodpecker prefers mature, open, pine forests and will not generally range greater than about 130 feet over cleared ground or hardwood stands. The clan will only exploit those pine stands for food that are contiguous with their nesting habitat. Pine flatwoods and pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by frequent natural fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees. Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Family: Unionidae Federally Listed: 1985 ' The Tar River spinymussel is a recently described (Johnson and Clarke 1983) species endemic to North Carolina and the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River watersheds (NCNEWP 2003). This species ' is most closely associated with unconsolidated beds of coarse sand and gravel in relatively fast flowing water. It prefers streams with banks that are shaded by mature trees, which form a closed canopy over smaller streams, creeks, and headwater river habitats. It also prefers areas with stable stream banks held in place by extensive root systems, and with good to excellent water quality. The species breeds from late May to the end of June. ' 4 4 F d 3 5 l S i f C d St t Li t d S i . e era . . pec es o oncern an a e s e pec es Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species that may or may not be listed in the future. These species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or ' listed as threatened or endangered. Table 3-19 includes FSC and state-listed species for Pitt County and their state classifications ' (Franklin and Finnegan 2004 and LeGrand, et al. 2004). The table also includes information on whether suitable habitat is present for each species. Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of ' Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act (GS 113-331) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (GS ' 106-202.12 et seq.). However, the level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply Greeni)i!!e Southwest Bypass Pgge 341 ' Draft Enaironmenta! Impact Statement Section 3 - Affected Environment to NCDOT activities. Species with the status of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), Watch List (WL), and Proposed (P) do not receive State protection. SPEICIES FOR PITT COUNTY Federal State Natural Heritage Potential Common Name Scientific Name Program Record Habitat Status Status. T eb Present Vertebrates Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC SR Current Yes Neuse madtom Noturus uriosius FSC --- Historic Yes Pinewoods shiner L thrurus matutinus FSC SR Obscure Yes Star-nosed Mole - Coastal Plain Condylura cristata pop I --- SC Current Yes Population Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus --- SC Current Yes ludovicianus Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus --- SC Obscure Yes Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus --- SC Obscure No Pigmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius --- SC Current No Neuse River Waterdo Necturus lewisi --- SC Historic Yes Least Brook Lamprey Lampetra aepyptera --- T Historic Yes Carolina Madtom Noturus i riosus --- SC PT Historic Yes Invertebrates Atlantic i toe Fusconaia ma.soni FSC E Historic Yes Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulata --- T Historic Yes Yellow Lam mussel Lam silis cariosa --- E Historic Yes Eastern Lampmussel Lampsilis radiata --- T Current Yes radiata Eastern Pondmussel Li =umia nasuta --- T Historic No Green floater Lasmi ona subviridis FSC E None° No Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis FSC --- --- --- North Carolina Spiny Crayfish Orconectes carolinensis --- SC Historic Yes Vascular Plan ts Carolina asphodel To eddia glabra FSC --- --- --- a E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SC=Special Concern, (PT)=Proposed Threatened, SR=Significantly Rare b Current: The element was seen in the county within the last 20 years. Historic: The element was last observed in the county more that 20 years ago. Obscure: The date the element was last observed in the county is uncertain. c This range of this species covers Pitt County, however NCNHP has no records of this species in Pitt County d This species is no longer tracked by NCNHP NCNHP records reviewed June 19, 2006 htt207.4.179.50 nh coun .html ' ' A review of the NCNHP records on June 22, 2006 indicate that the Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) is the only FSC reported in the project vicinity, but this record is based on an obscure record of uncertain date. The location of the sighting is currently an agricultural field ' south of US 13/264 BUS, in an area with newer subdivisions. The NHP does not have records of Greenville Southwest I ypasr Page 342 Draft Environmental Impact Statement t Section 3 - Affected Environment any other state-listed species within the project study area, other than the records previously discussed under Federal Species of Concern. Greenville Southivest Bypass Page 343 ' Draft l ,nviro nirnetitallmpact ,S'tatement Mozingo ,Q Macgr go Downs R / 13 ':\ o ? _ Q • Stanto% 9 264 s % 0 1110nsbo19 903 90th St bar R o n ?.,• 0?nob Sta a aA ..loth St ?p(onroe Sl'" ?.: t' d ?a o Al 1 ?a ?a r ?r Stanto g ns 1 r m Gree.nwill:e 264 e_ ,\ /• -Bell Arthur Rd!'? - 1 ,\ wd I t i. i. ? .•?• i? a? Hemb`I ?d A T \\ 43 264 ???777 m Q0\\ar dRd 0a P° vN I 0, I ?OtlsPolk Rryrs m? Tract 6 i.• Tract 16 Block Groups` Rd d Block Group 2 AZ `"' 1 vam ) ?F\reT we 1 j A T l1 0QO lY i r 264x" Davon F parr Farm Ra ? • ? ? s?0x or 13 Imo' r°. i?? c1o\`s i p. o _.in Rd T P E h x ?n ,£ w `, G1 Q0oF% Mac P11en Rd ca F 1 / La Moye Rd p\arence 410yeRry?1 Gri a a tea, 0 4 N ` J C 0 1 o l Ca?glacc?? 903 po\e 0 CO / Stock "Afcl-awhornRd o of N 11W, ` ~ g N d'. x N 16 oup 3 TMC t Block o\d Tract lock G? 4? Up 1i f I ?p 6 Q f kit 3 m ? ?...- chen Rd cg ' _tLy?e?F?drl Wood Rd _ Q-a Fit%`, l z ?? X01 Rd GarrO TV• .?'? 'tea nu Rd a v S??s y4so? ShepRd G`a?? ?>'.r /I ?' ; `? ?0 ?a > IP- a c o a D o7? ,c Rd Gr/? S c ?a1m r.... 0j co r o ti? r . P I Rd w G riff Legend N - Build Alternate 1 B-EXT W --xL, E _ Build Alternate 4-EXT 7r Build Alternate 5-EXT S Census Block Groups Studied Miles 0 0.5 1 2 vg Farm R / Co 1 /uP `.J?o Ellis Rd \ @ranch Ra 0ca 1 Haddock Rd : ?++ R 9 dy , F ? I ?? P sr fop/i 1 n Ra '"• Raymond Harms Rd '•? •? Hines or ? ' I ?cc I d Rd \ Or I "9y P aP, Go/` y'?o i Ci?b Ra ?'a 1 1 oo?? a a0` n I via Rd Fast tiaa?ah North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 3-1 Census Tracts 264 •._...-.. 43 903 Nlorlnyo Rd 'ores Dr cnrTr Downs JR T7 1 Pitt C ••-.•. A \ Phil ?an'oll Nature Pr?•snr vc Mem? ?t?l East w7w Carolina j Hos itai y nlversltyl 264 / ter , r , ? •? °o S 1 ° ? l 1 1 ®m0 264 ?,?...•,,.. G ree "nvi I le i J i- r 13 Greenville Golf //"lr(hr,rR,l ??. and Country Club - '.. P,ollosod I'I ryground ,n 1 ..•1 •?l ? r ?til A T ??, - t?l f II ?i / 264 u. ? 43 I -?-? wd I„k I Qrpao Rr Se ` d ? ? P o? fang ? ? I ?? mac, j ?? ?? Wei d r •j ll - _ l / Id ?FrreT HkBoyd Lea Pa,k v I ?r Drrvenpo ( ''? ?1 For Irp .. ? e 17T R i? l C ?I 1?? Rrl - ? ?••? ? ? ? '? ?, i Irlsh L _ ?264 1 13 I C7 r. u ?RQ i 4r / p Winterville i r,: `^..,'..,V •?' i• .. ??• E Main `lt •r t.i?µd ?? t ? J f 1 ,Y . ye Ellis R4 \'• m ?e 6 CO J a / 1 _ qd •''? a t t•• , j CA?O P11e ?? /C? I ? `? - ?• ?? I 1`i i edy Bray°h Rd ?'? ?• ,?: r or° 77f ? I ° MoY° i -',I a JJJfff \,• f a f/rS _ I •'\ I lines Dr 903 ' •••? A ?y 102 m oil lid I .._ I Aydcr 102 it pl. .1 Ayden,? P! ,Golf 4I1 Old now Hilt Re nd Country Club. i 1, ( Cou tryClU ' n ii I I 903 -o G d N N I d •\ elj ? V ?GN 1 \7,O t N a \a •/• D I , Stocks Mcl_alwhorn Rd ?rY h l Jacksanlown Rd \, I 1 Legend Build Alternate 1B-EXT © Hospital - - Build Alternate 4-EXT Build Alternate 5-EXT . Firehouse g School -qq? Golf Course Park Within Study Area Church Cemetery N Ait- W E 7r S I I I Miles 0 0.5 1 2 North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 ure 3-2 Community Facilities T3? ?G \ +I v? T 264 13 i ,, P,UyH r,' `v tL ,11 y'?\d aJ :TI1 Ala \i= m 1 1 lr "Greenville Ir, E 10th St T s# 264 1 13 x - 1 i T _ 264 43 3 ?? r? r` nlll,.? z1 ?, u,.l F .i: r?,vyr fill I ? f i?.ld Stream r ,ap, l inrt• i?r, puke r 1J eel llampt „? q."! - 1 YI y ?' ? )H;C pt ' May,irdi7 Pla, - Sh.i?yrm" iVhlfS of Au. .n .1.1.. Nnlrh•. Winterville .? I L.. E Nkiin ?A JIM ... fall IF i t? r fflnl rr.I,- t\e EIII r -d Ch-c = ,4?•. 0 ? ?i ?" 4 , • _ Fau. j ,t 1 `z !4 ?;F Jn t'n 903 will e ! ? -;??,? ? r "?• - fir; ;, \ ?,. - t . 102 102 a aaaa ¦ Wpm it \,,\H l yld F(U Legend Build Alternate 1 B-EXT Build Alternate 4-EXT Build Alternate 5-EXT Neighborhood N W '41, E TT- S Miles 0 0.5 1 2 North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 3-3 Neighborhoods in Study Area ?...? - - U % N ?... N „ 9cresOt m regor Downs CO 13 ? I C1 4qj L d1111 d R r Greenville'' s` T ?..264 13 ?a T 264 43 1_ Q ore SILO" 9st of pld??Y C jam' ?? it l I> KS even ? O port Fann Rd c? t\ Dr Ninterville -,., E Main St -4 \NoO .0e Ellis ltd fi / La MoYe Rd?a 1 \ r ? l 903 tow" T 102 e ?? f a e'Rda Ayden Hitt Rd a t o?' fur d ? Gag agar o j Polo 903 ?m I I o , \P? I •'\ Thad LIB •/r a Stocks McLewhorn Rd ? N of Jacksontown Rd n o, oo y vv) d" ` OaF E ° C, 11 L,00 Old R Rd Legend - Build Alternate 1 B-EXT Commercial Light Industry -- Build Alternate 4-EXT K Rural Agricultural Build Alternate 5-EXT K Rural Residential Current City Limits and ETJ K Suburban Residential Projected City Limits and ETJ K Community Crossroads N ?TN North Carolina Department of Transportation -7V Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 t t millill Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Fiaure 3-4 Future Land Use Plans 13 43 \\ 903 m 1 264 AMC Ad,, (,. "fir°S. :?'J':-•?::_...? - ' , reenvi I le 264 o' 'h? wh. 1' i 1c 264 i / ? ,?;./ •.?.• ? ? fry c 264 43 1113 I u` P u. MAN"I`0 ? ter. /? Lower - ry,n '6 O??d yon` z? 903 rrJ ? t y whom FZd Stocks Mr,La n 1 o/ U ? ? O U Legend -?-- Build Alternate 1 B-EXT Build Alternate 4-EXT Build Alternate 5-EXT 4W Pitt Co. Prime Farmland Soils AM lip / I? e 8t@t ..., ? ? Jet 0 '1 102 a.ir^ _- -Ayden, \ ri r, 17 fa ? I/ ?nt ?J ?? 11 "\0I r.Id R N W 'V?L, E I?r S I I I Miles 0 0.5 1 2 0 ti Co , 'r t 1 i I ?.. R 1 North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study nprovements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 3-5 Prime Farmland Soils 13 43 264 / •\\, 903 ?ackleF o\?D QJea - ?`Ri 11 I t y M°gingo Rd gcros of M gregor Downs Rd _ j N Greenville so- sm"tonsbur9 Rd S?n?OO Utg 0th st Qa o S', \.. Bunch a E 10th oaf 264 ova c \...- .. ?? ! ?e : \: ?•..` St r. 'PIP / QD King Dr AbbeY Ln Stantons F T 264 o I I, ?f ? Ii rl ' 13 Bell Arthur Rd D - a Homb`I T f 264 43 I- I l ? °0atd Rd I t\, _ , \ OWef---. d tot r o Duke Rd i . o. to I m b; Vivo ?, ?op0 m. 1? ??.....?.,. davenport ?• fl o far f '??f F 1 mRd iE?$exDr v E "•- 264 v I ?. d? o le J $ 13 1 Pa - V :, rnO Ito ?a ?n i! cg / • om _ i +- t _ ll' N . to t' ?l e • A D l % ? ?? ?I n Or I ?y o /•• _t ? •? I t2 I J. Rd WInterville ?,oh,?e,? d o"wo R 6y X J \ G 5 dire Ellis Rd \ Low., G,; 3s N . N ?a ?°- Pa G+ l 1 a I a aoch ? I ""V 1 Poke o 903 1 0 N t stocks McLawborn Rd N,p as o, a: y i I ?' rn ? 0 U O N Wood Rd 7R ? •? f ^ voce / o J Q? u co A11en Rd a o ? ?<' ? War 1 Branch Rd o. ROOM A i Oe' \\ Fie \,A ?°ptr? Vi CAub Rd• i J o f \ Ra ° „ a o Hines Or Q? \ 903 'Po b Rd e? N c =i i E a 102 W 102 i _ Ayden 1 NAM Rd a o\ayc0 Country Club or i 1 ror' Thad L??? aaaha' \' \ 'Pc i Apo •\ c \ 1 Jacksontown Rd G i 11 \, I 6,??? I I E Lnaenatd Rd °? •. VV Ullefield Rd S,Q I a ? Legend B ild Al EXT u ternate 5- - Build Alternate 4-EXT Build Alternate 1 B-EXT Underground Storage Tank Above Ground Storage Tank Auto Salvage Yard • Landfill N /0_4LS North Carolina k?n Department of Transportation W E Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 S T.I.P. No. R-2250 t t Miles Hazardous 0 0.5 1 2 Figure 3-6 Materials Sites Ztllt i? %? 13 264 //[11'I'I?r•. 43? 903 o%?? )10 1.01, l?' I Ip yr ri ••?... \ IT `?1 Its rmD ?• ? iil ?... O n ?'uIingo Rd '9cres dr IM cc1recJor Downs R0 ...••_ G re e n v i ?\ ntonsburgrRd 264 .? ;,? '•?• ,?n', k ?,'; --_._= I11; ,•? f3Ul c 1:. 1. 1 ???e I ?ti P • iv _ C? f?$.. l ,?G yo . ? t tin ?' ? ? ? ? ebb.;yln `SlUnfans I ?`M? I ? L ?? gyp, i ? ?'• n ••?r. m I 1 b (ryY••t p. Ile .i' m 13 8eq Arthur Rd A,? x_ 1 4 / T y 264 a l j. T' 1\ ? f Z 81 Co Wog..-? ? ° Uu1.?, I;?I A i. R ((}} d 1 b 264 .,'port Ferl 6 Ili n 13 F , J ?d E.?ace l-e. o I' z Winterville - c?l,llni Or j: V„ •? 1 V ` V a '*+.•-.._?-`? \e Ellis Rd 1 ? 'ib ? ?raa° t•• f ?,tF pp ^ '? J I q, y o Allen Rrl `' -b . co la Siinin,;i? (Srlrr'1?11 ROaave« ' Q," tub Rtt; ¢, ,14( 4 G 1 c - \ Vilnes 903 ? l ?? ors v7 _ m I? y r a 102 i 1,3 _.c 'I Gl 5 R I ---y-? ?? - Ay en- ?1-IIIIRd ' S + r ??o , r•o?infry Clubl?j_v/ t P U t - 903 Q _ _ i 1 •? v - ?' Thad LA?? 3. DAd ;Iwhorn "'p t '? ?• ?slr,,.ks Rd Jacksonlown Rd o in; 11 Legend --- Build Alternate 1 B-EXT _ Build Alternate 4-EXT Build Alternate 5-EXT Jurisdictional Stream Wetland Streams On 303(d) List 100 Year Floodzone I i I I Miles 0 0.5 1 2 \\L"J r:1i112r1 •f ???iP North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 Figure 3-7 Water ResourceE 13 N,' ?. 264 _ 43 ?•\V 903 ... ?- N'Greenville 7 a (Slantonsbur ! Slanlonsbot9 Rd 0th st 264 0'i \. Bunch g Rd - E 10th King Dr AUbdY Le l 1 o L dull ? \ \?, \ r9?h si %: r•..% y_ J .\ /7, ! 9r.j/ `° ALT 2?7 t' 1 'r _• Duke Rd v l 1 ?enPo parer Rd /7( _ i lDr T ?EBSex v I? Rd / J 8 -•- 264 ?.. 13 I ? j zr r `' Win'terville `:1- ...` Main St Rd s n Rd _, (? II 6?n pocA iii It= `r \\ l ?, i i.r INodh11 •. granch Rd B \Aee La Move Hines or 903 ! \ 102 ?a w ? I ' 102 Ayden 1 I a I? l 1 Snout Hiles ..-?_ .... -• N .' M \ I c i 1? : o ? I? ? ? ? entry Club Dr 1 Key y f ` i Cox - Ange House (Listed on National Register) v © A. W. Ange & Company Store (National Register Eligible) © \ I Alfred McLawhorn House (National Register Eligible) '`•\ ? \., ! Jacksontown Rd William Shrivers Historic House (National Register Eligible) •\ ? v v ,1 Charles McLawhorn House (National Register Eligible) Rd E Uttlef1e\d moo' .. 00a Mu 1 Legend N North Carolina Build Alternate 1 B-EXT Department of Transportation Build Alternate 4-EXT W 'VL' E Greenville Southwest Bypass Study Build Alternate 5-EXT (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) -7r 8. Renston Rural Historic District State Project No. 401 S T.I.P. No. R-2250 2250 (Listed on National Register) 40 Contributing Feature Miles Figure 3-8 Historic Individually Eligible Feature 0 0.5 1 2 Architectural Resources L 0 u 0 0 A SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section describes potential positive and negative impacts of the three build alternates (Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT) on the social, physical, and natural environments within the project study area. Where applicable the No-Build Alternative is also discussed. Preliminary plans were prepared for each of the bypass alternates and slope stake limits (width of side slope). In the case of wetlands, impacts are based on slope stake limits plus ten feet of clear zone on each side to more accurately estimate the impacts. These limits may be revised during the final design, as alternatives are shifted to accommodate design requirements or further impact minimization efforts. A summary of the environmental consequences is provided in Section 4.11. 4.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Impacts to the human environment may include impacts to communities, changes in community access, relocations, disruption of community services or facilities, and economic impacts. 4.1.1 Community Community cohesion impacts include the effects of neighborhood division, social isolation, changes in community character, increased/decreased neighborhood access, and shortened travel times. In the cases of all neighborhoods within the bypass alternate corridors, the suburban and agrarian visual character of these neighborhoods and their surrounds would be altered with the presence of a major highway facility. The following sections describe the impacts specific to neighborhoods identified within the study area. These neighborhoods are shown on Figure 3-3. The No-Build Alternative would not impact community cohesion. Springdale Apartments (Old Snow Hill Road) This complex is located east of NC 11, on the south side of Old Snow Hill Road. The apartments are within the study corridors of all of the bypass alternates under consideration; however, the preliminary designs of the proposed bypass would not directly impact the apartments. In fact, existing NC 11 would be shifted to the west at this location and would be further from the apartments than it is currently. An existing access from NC 1 I to the apartments would be closed, but a new access would be provided off of Old Snow Hill Road. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-1 ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Pines Neighborhood (NC 102) Small areas around the perimeter of this neighborhood are within the study corridors of each of the bypass alternates; however, there would be no direct impact to the neighborhood. Access to the neighborhood from NC 11 and NC 102 would be maintained. Summit Village (Dennis McLawhorn Road) Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT would pass just to the west of this subdivision but would not directly impact any of the homes in the neighborhood. Access to the neighborhood would be retained from Dennis McLawhorn Road. Alternate 4-EXT is located further west of Summit Village than either of the other alternates and would not directly impact any of the homes in this neighborhood. Abbott Farms and Abbott Farms South (Abbott Farm Road) Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT would pass through these neighborhoods and would impact several properties. Abbott Farm Road would cross the proposed bypass with a grade separation. Access to remaining properties in Abbott Farms South would be provided via a new road from Abbott Farm Road, while access to Abbott Farms would be provided from Jolly Road. Neither Bypass Alternate 4-EXT nor 5-EXT would directly impact Abbott Farms or Abbott Farms South. Brevard (NC 903) The majority of this neighborhood would be directly impacted by Bypass Alternate 5-EXT. Less than ten of the 25 existing lots would be unaffected by the preliminary designs associated with a proposed interchange at NC 903. Access to the remaining parcels would be provided by a new access road from NC 903. Neither of the other options would directly impact this subdivision. Emerald Chase, J.L. Nobles Division, and Sandy Meadows (Pocosin Road) Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would pass to the west of these subdivisions and Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT and 5-EXT would pass to the east. There would be no direct impacts to these subdivisions from any of the bypass alternates. Westwind, Sutters Place, Randall Estates, and Ivy Chase (Pocosin Road) These neighborhoods would each be impacted to some extent by Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT. Properties in Westwind and Sutters Place would be required for construction of the bypass in this location. Only two to three properties located in the rear of the Sutters Place neighborhood would be impacted. Right of way would also be required from several parcels in Ivy Chase along Pocosin Road and Randall Estates along Frog Level Road to allow for improvements on these roads. Access to remaining properties in these neighborhoods would be available from Pocosin Road and Frog Level Road. Greenville .Southwest Bypass Page 4-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement I Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Gatewood, Shady Acres, and Mayfield (Frog Level Road) Right of way would be required from two parcels in Gatewood at the entrance to the community. These properties would be impacted by construction associated with improvements to Frog Level Road under Alternate 5-EXT only. Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT would not impact this subdivision. Shady Acres and Mayfield would not be directly impacted by any of the bypass alternates. A new interchange would be provided under all alternates just west of these neighborhoods on Forlines Road. Pinecrest, Hampton Creek, Field Stream at Sawgrasse Pointe, Augusta Trails, Meadow Woods, and Forrest Pines (Davenport Farm Road/Frog Level Road) These neighborhoods would not be directly impacted by any of the bypass alternates. A new interchange would be provided under all alternates just west of these neighborhoods on Forlines Road. Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT and 5-EXT are the closest alternates to these neighborhoods. Bristolmoor, Brighton Place, and Taberna (Frog Level Road) These are new neighborhoods, currently under construction, and all three would be impacted to some extent by Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT. Bristolmoor would be the most impacted because of its location in close proximity to a proposed interchange at Forlines Road. In Brighton Place, approximately 15 lots near the back of the subdivision would be impacted by Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT. Access to remaining parcels would continue from Frog Level Road. In Taberna, a small number of parcels along the road would be impacted by the preliminary ' designs for Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT. ' Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would not impact these subdivisions. Community Access ' Through traffic traveling on Memorial Drive (NC 11) is anticipated to transfer to the new facility. Local community and social patterns, however, are not expected to change. Since through traffic ' would be diverted from existing NC 11, accessibility to facilities and services within the develo ed communit centers is ex ected to im r ve for l l t ff p y p p o oca ra ic. ' Likewise, accessibility to employment, services, and facilities along Stantonsburg Drive (US 264 Business) and in Greenville is expected to improve for residential neighborhoods in the study area. Residents would have a shorter distance to travel to reach a controlled-access facility, which would provide for faster travel times to regional destinations. ' While no major cross streets connecting to any of the residential areas would be closed as part of the proposed project, there may be individual and community property access impacts due to relocation of driveways and local roads. The NCDOT provides new access wherever possible to properties isolated by a project. All property access changes and proposed solutions developed for ' Groenville.S'outbuert Bypass Page 4-3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences the preferred alternative will be presented to affected property owners through NCDOT's public involvement process. 4.1.2 Relocations Potential residential and business relocation impacts based on preliminary designs for each bypass alternate are shown in Table 4-1. The number of relocations is based on information provided with the NCDOT Relocation report (2006) for the project. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would relocate the most residences of the three detailed study corridors, requiring 98 relocations, including eight business relocations. Alternate 4-EXT would require the least relocations with 44. In addition to these potential relocation impacts, several secondary structures such as barns, garages, and sheds on properties are affected. In general, parcels where these structures are impacted are large enough to allow for relocating or rebuilding these structures elsewhere on the property. 4.1.2.1 Relocation Assistance A detailed relocation report will be prepared by NCDOT and will include information on comparable replacement housing in the project area. It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing is available for relocatees prior to construction of state and/or federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the NCDOT has three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving payments, and relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplements. With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist displacees with information such as; availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent, and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payment 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 at higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 44 Draft Environmental Impact Statement * Based on NCDOT Relocation report from June 2006 Section 4 - Environmental Consequences L n n 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). This program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocation 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 without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiation and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The relocatees are given a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement housing will be within the financial budget of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer also will 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) purchases of replacement housing; 2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public; and 3) moving existing owner-occupied housing to another site (if practicable). The relocation officer also will 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. Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. Since opportunities for replacement housing appear adequate within the study area, it is not likely that the Last Resort Housing Program would be necessary for the proposed project. However, this program will still be considered as mandated by State law. 4.1.3 Community Facilities and Services The No-Build Alternative would not directly impact community facilities or services. 4.1.3.1 Libraries, Schools, and Parks and Recreational Facilities Schools, libraries, and parks and recreation areas in the study area would not be impacted by any of the three bypass alternates. Greenville Soutliwest Bypass Page 4-5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.1.3.2 Churches While there are no churches located within any of the proposed bypass alternate corridors, two are located just outside of the alternate corridors. Landmark Church, located on US 13 near the intersection with Hollowell Road (SR 1512) in Greenville, is located east of Bypass Alternate 1B -EXT's proposed interchange location at US 13. Piney Grove Church, located on the south side of US 13 east of Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128), is located east of Bypass Alternate 4-EXT's proposed interchange with US 13. 4.1.3.3 Emergency Services The proposed project would not relocate any emergency facilities. By adding a new freeway southwest of Greenville, accessibility to the area for emergency reasons would be improved over the current condition. In addition, travel time to medical facilities, including Pitt County Memorial Hospital, would be substantially decreased. The positive effect on emergency services would be similar for each of the bypass alternates. 4.1.4 Environmental justice 4.1.4.1 Legislative Background It is important to take into consideration the effects the project would have on minority and low- income groups. This is supported by several federal laws and regulations that require the evaluation of the effects of a transportation action on communities which, historically, have not actively participated in the decision-making process. Impacts to individuals are covered through Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires that Federal agencies ensure that no person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance on the basis of their race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, or religion. This protection is expanded to communities through the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1970 (23 CFR Section 109 (h)), which emphasizes the equitable treatment of communities being affected by transportation projects. This act requires the consideration of the anticipated effect of proposed transportation projects on residences, businesses, accessibility of public facilities, tax base, and other community resources. The need to identify low-income and minority populations and include them in the project's decision-making process gained greater emphasis as a result of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations (February 11, 1994). This order directs all federal agencies to determine whether a proposed action would have an adverse or disproportionate impact on minority and/or low-income populations. FHWA guidelines regarding environmental justice are contained in FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (December, 1998). Grvenville Southwest Bypass Pale 4-6 Draft environmental Impact .Statement I Section 4 - Environmental Consequences I 1 This publication serves as guidance for analysis in compliance with Executive Order 12898 and defines Low-Income/Minority Population as: "any readily identifiable group of low-income/minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed FHWA program, policy, or activity." 4.1.4.2 Analysis A comparison of minority and low income populations at the census block group level was performed to determine potential impacts of the project on these populations. For the purposes of this analysis, the study area consists of Census Tract 6, Block Group 2; Census Tract 13, Block Group 1; Census Tract 14, Block Groups 1, 5 and 6; and Census Tract 16, Block Groups 2 and 3 (see Figure 3-1). Based on 2000 Census Data, the non-white population of the entire study area (36.9 percent) is comparable to that of Pitt County (37.9 percent); however, non-white population varies among census block groups impacted by the project. The highest concentration of minority population (74.1 percent) occurs in Census Tract 14, Block Group 5, which includes the town of Ayden and the project's southern terminus at Memorial Drive (NC 11). Census Tract 14, Block Group 6, which is bounded to the east and west by Memorial Drive and Pleasant Plain Road and to the north and south by NC 102 and Old Snow Hill Road, has the lowest concentration of minority residents (9.2 percent). Impacts of the project on these two tracts would not differ among the alternates, as all of the bypass alternates share a common alignment at this location. Other census block groups in the study area have minority populations ranging from 12 percent to 39 percent, which is less than or comparable to the minority population for Pitt County. Census Tract 14, Block Group 5 also had the highest percentage of population living below the poverty level and the lowest median household income, both of which deviate significantly from the county and overall study area. In this area, approximately 38 percent of residents live below the poverty level, compared to 20 percent and 17 percent for the county and study area, and the median household income is $18,864, more than 50 percent lower than the study area and more than 40 percent lower than the county. The highest median household incomes are in Census Tract 13, Block Group 1 and Census Tract 14, Block Group 6. Tract 13, Block Group 1 is located along Memorial Drive (NC 11) between Jolly Road and Forlines Road. All other block groups have median incomes above the county and comparatively low populations living in poverty. While the area surround the project's southern terminus has the highest minority population, ' highest percentage of population in poverty, and lowest median household income, impacts to this area would be the same for all bypass alternates. Other portions of the project area have relatively low minority populations and high incomes compared to the county. It is not ' anticipated that the proposed project will have disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low income communities. 1 1 Greenville.Soutbwest Bypass Page 4-7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.1.4.3 Avoidance and Minimization Efforts The bypass alternate corridors were located to avoid passing through the centers of neighborhoods and subdivisions. Preliminary engineering designs further minimized relocations where possible. Based on the above analysis, one low income minority population was identified. However, the bypass alternates share a common alignment and terminus in this area and would therefore have the same impacts to this community. The alignment and proposed interchange in this area were located to avoid residential impacts as much as possible. 4.1.4.4 Public Involvement Opportunities NCDOT has attempted to include all residents and property owners in the study area in the project's decision-making process. Efforts to include residents of communities within the area are discussed in Section 8. 4.1.5 Economic The Greenville Southwest Bypass project will not inhibit positive economic growth and development within the immediate study area or the towns of Ayden and Winterville, the city of Greenville, and Pitt County. Service-oriented developments such as gas stations, restaurants, and other related facilities may choose to locate at or near the proposed interchange locations. In addition, given the robust housing market and extension of water and sewer infrastructure within the study area it is presumed that additional residential subdivisions will be built. Each of the alternates under consideration would be likely to positively impact the town of Ayden. The alternates all interchange with NC 11 just south of NC 102 within the town. This new connection would greatly enhance access to and cut travel time to job centers in Greenville, including Pitt County Memorial Hospital and other facilities along Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business). Commuters would be drawn to Ayden by these quicker travel times, easy access to the freeway, and relatively low land costs. The city of Greenville is projecting development in the area of the proposed Southwest Bypass to increase over the coming years, labeling it the Southwest Greenville Growth Area. The availability of water and sewer service is currently driving growth in this area. The various alternatives, because of their locations at different distances to the west of existing development, would have slightly different impacts on development patterns in this portion of the county and therefore on the area's economy. Bypass Alternate 1B-EX7 Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT follow a common alignment from Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) to Forlines Road (SR 1126). This area is experiencing growth as a result of its proximity to jobs in Greenville and the availability of water and sewer services. The proposed project would have little influence on the pattern or pace of development in this area. South of Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-8 Draft Fnvironmental Impact Statement 7 Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Forlines Road, Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT is located close enough to existing and planned future development in Winterville that it would also not be expected to have a substantial influence on development. Bypass Alternate 4-EX7 Bypass Alternate 4-EXT is farther to the west than the other alternatives under consideration. Development would likely concentrate first around interchange locations and then spread east toward existing development and water/sewer service areas. There is likely to be more development further to the west at a more rapid pace as a result of this alternate. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT Bypass Alternate 5-EXT is located closest to existing development and therefore would have the ' least influence on growth and development in the area. 4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ' 4.2.1 Land Use Since the proposed project would be constructed on new location, existing land uses within the ' project corridor would be changed under all three detailed study bypass alternates. The No-Build Alternative would not introduce any impacts to existing land use. ' 1 1 E 4 2 i ti L d U d Z i I . . . x s ng an se an on ng mpacts Land use impacts resulting from highway construction include physical displacement or alteration of adjacent land uses (direct impacts) and alteration of existing or planned uses of lands occurring because of the project, but removed from the project in time or space (indirect impacts). Land use ' decisions are typically made by the land owner in concert with local jurisdictions (county and municipal governments). These decisions are guided by the inclinations of the owners, economic conditions, physical constraints of the land, local land use policies, zoning restrictions, and the ' issuance of building permits. State or federal governments have no controls over these decisions except through regulatory permitting legislation. As such, a detailed discussion of development trends and potential indirect impacts of the project is included in Section 4. 10, Indirect and ' Cumulative Impacts. ' 4.2.1.2 Compatibility with Area Land Use Plans L d l i ll dd h l an use p ans typ ca y a ress t e genera area of a proposed transportation improvement rather than a specific location; therefore, the anticipated land use plan impacts of the proposed project ' would be the same for each of the three bypass alternates. ' The proposed project has been under consideration for many years and is acknowledged and supported in the Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (2004) as well as local land use and comprehensive plans for the city of Greenville, the towns of Winterville and Ayden, and Pitt ' County. These plans were developed or updated with the assumption that the proposed Greenville Soutbwest Bypass Page 4-9 D ' raft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Greenville Southwest Bypass would be constructed before the end of their planning period. If the project were not built, these plans would require modification. City of Greenville The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies established by the city of Greenville in its 2004 Horizons Comprehensive Plan. It is noted in the plan that access to the proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass should be fully controlled and that commercial uses should be limited to focus areas along the bypass. It is the desire of the city of Greenville that office and employment uses adjoin the selected corridor with the provision that vegetation be used to screen these uses from both the highway and any existing/planned residential communities. In the Greenville Horizons Plan, the area between the CSX Railroad and Frog Level Road (SR 1127) in the vicinity of the three bypass alternates is slated for industrial development. The area between Frog Level Road and US 13/US264A is targeted for office/institutional/multi- family development with the intersection of US 13/US 264A and Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) targeted for commercial use. The remainder of the area surrounding the three bypass alternates is primarily planned for medium-density residential uses with a few pockets of conservation and open space in wetland areas. Town of Winterville While none of the proposed corridors are located within the boundaries or ETJ of the town of Winterville, the town, through its comprehensive land use plan, supports the proposed bypass. Town of Ayden All of the proposed bypass alternates are consistent with the town's future land use plans. Each of the alternates under detailed study includes the Southern Extension, tying to Memorial Drive (NC 11) south of the town of Ayden near Snow Hill Road with an interchange at NC 102 west of NC 11. The 2004 comprehensive plan calls for property along NC 11 near its intersection with NC 102 to be developed for industrial use. Pitt County The proposed Southwest Bypass project is included in the county's current and future land use plans as shown in the 2002 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. All alternates under consideration are consistent with the bypass as shown in the county's plans. Areas of the county adjacent to proposed corridor locations are planned for suburban residential use. 4.2.2 Transportation Planning The proposed project is consistent with local and state transportation plans for the area. The project is included in the NCDOT 2006-2012 TIP as Project Number R-2250. The southern Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-10 Draft N'nvironmental Impact Statement ' Section 4 - Environmental Consequences ' terminus of the project is NC 11 in the vicinity of NC 102, and the northern terminus is the ' existing interchange of US 264/US 264 Bypass. All three of the bypass alternates are also consistent with the Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (2004). The proposed bypass is included as a top priority project in the thoroughfare plan. The plan shows the bypass as a new location road extending from the town of Ayden to the interchange of US 264/US 264 Bypass. The plan calls for the new freeway to ' provide easier travel from the south to the north and to Pitt County Memorial Hospital, as well as relieve traffic on Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business). 4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT This section describes potential impacts of the proposed project to the following aspects of the existing physical environment: noise, air quality, farmlands, utilities, visual environment, hazardous materials, floodplains and floodways, and protected lands. ' 4.3.1 Noise ' A noise analysis was conducted to determine if noise levels generated along each alternate would exceed criteria established by FHWA. Detailed results of the noise analysis are presented in the Noise Study and Evaluation Technical Memorandum. The following text provides a summary of ' the analysis methodology, results, and abatement measures considered for the project. F 4.3.1.1 Analysis Methodology The primary task in determining noise impacts is to identify activity areas along the project corridors sensitive to noise. These areas are then represented by a specific site (typically a building or residence) chosen because of its proximity to the roadway in question. The areas are defined not only by differing activities, but also by traffic changes or spatial groupings that clearly separate land use. Impact assessments have been performed for 267 areas within the project corridors which represent 424 residential properties and three churches. Noise levels in these areas have been determined for three conditions: 1) existing (2004); 2) design year (2030) no build; and design year (2030) build. Eight measurements were taken along the project where noise was expected to be predominantly traffic related. All of the measurements except one are within 3 dB(A) of what a noise model predicted, which validates the accuracy of the noise model. One measurement was 5 dB(A) higher than what the computer model predicted which is due to an unusual noise event which occurred during the measurements. The three other measurements were taken at locations where traffic was not expected to be a major contributor to the noise level in order to establish a background noise level. The background noise level can result from noise sources other than roadway traffic, such as weather, Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-11 ' Draft hnvironmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences environmental or ordinary neighborhood activity. Background, non-traffic noise levels were observed to vary from 43 to 67 dB(A), based on the measurements that were taken. At sites where traffic is a major contributor to the ambient noise level, an FHWA approved highway noise prediction computer model (FHWA Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5) was used to determine the traffic generated noise. The model accounts for such factors as ground absorption, roadway geometry, receptor distance, vehicle volumes and speeds, and volumes of medium trucks (vehicles with two axles/six tires) and heavy trucks (three axles or more). Noise levels have been predicted for that hour of the day when the vehicle volume, operating speed and number of heavy trucks combine to produce the worst traffic noise conditions. This condition usually occurs at Level of Service (LOS) C. If the Design Hourly Volume (DHV) is not predicted to exceed the LOS C volume for a given segment, the DHV was used in the model. If the DHV for a given segment exceeds the LOS C volume, then the LOS C volume was used. The assessment of traffic noise impacts requires three comparisons: (1) The noise levels under existing conditions must be compared to those under build conditions. This comparison shows the change in noise level that will occur between the present time and the design year if the project is built. (2) The noise levels under design year no-build conditions must be compared to those under build conditions. This comparison shows how much of the change in levels will be attributed to the proposed project. (3) The noise levels under build conditions must be compared to the applicable NAC. This comparison determines the compatibility of noise levels under build conditions and present land use. 4.3.1.2 Analysis Results Table 4-2 summarizes the properties affected by noise. The No-Build Alternative (2030) levels range from 44 dBA to 66 dBA. The maximum noise levels encountered from the build alternatives is 69 dBA along Bypass Alternate 4-EXT. 'rABLE4-2: SUMMARY OF NOISE IM13ACTS Impacted Properties Bypass Alternate Bypass Alternate Bypass Alternate 113-EXT 4-EXT 5-EXT Approaching or Exceeding the NAC 14 12 11 With Substantial Noise Increase 14 5 6 Approaching or Exceeding the NAC 4 0 1 and with Substantial Noise Increase Total Impacted Properties without 28 17 17 Mitigation Total Impacted Properties with 15 7 7 Mitigation Greenville Southwest 11ypass Puke 4-12 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences I u I A comparison of the design year build noise levels with the applicable NAC, as shown in Table 4-2, reveals that fourteen residential properties along Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT, eleven residential properties and a church along Bypass Alternate 4-EXT, and eleven residential properties along Bypass Alternate 5-EXT will receive traffic noise levels which approach or exceed the NAC. Fourteen properties along Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT, five properties along Bypass Alternate 4-EXT, and six properties along Bypass Alternate 5-EXT will experience design year build noise levels which will be substantially higher than existing levels. Of those properties impacted, four properties along Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT and one property along Bypass Alternate 5-EXT will receive traffic noise levels which both exceed the NAC and will be substantially higher than existing levels. 4.3.1.3 Noise Abatement Measures The construction of sound barriers has been considered for the impacted receptors. Preliminary barrier investigations were performed to determine their feasibility. In order for a barrier to be effective, it should be continuous along the roadway adjacent to the impacted site or sites. Openings for pedestrian or vehicular access greatly reduce the ability of a noise barrier to attenuate noise levels. In addition to physical constraints, the feasibility of a sound barrier is based on its effectiveness in reducing traffic noise levels. A barrier which reduces noise levels by a minimum of five dB(A) is considered effective. Noise barriers should preferably reduce noise levels by eight dB(A) at receptors located adjacent to the proposed wall. A noise abatement measure is considered cost-effective by NCDOT policy if the cost of the ' measure per protected residential property does not exceed $35,000 plus an incremental increase of $500 per dB(A) average increase. In the analysis, each residential unit is considered a single residential property. When a noise barrier is determined to exceed the cost criteria, the ' opportunity exists for a third party to contribute the entire cost of the abatement measure. To remain in compliance with Federal regulations, the cost analysis must also consider properties ' which are not impacted but which would also benefit from the construction of a sound barrier. Barrier costs are estimated at $15 per square foot of noise wall . Eight barriers were found to be effective but above the cost per benefited property criteria and will not receive further consideration without third party funding. Two barriers (Sites 2 and 5) along Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT were shown to be reasonable for a total cost of $504,000. One ' barrier (Site 5) along Bypass Alternate 4-EXT was shown to be reasonable for a total cost of $378,000. One barrier (Site 5) along Bypass Alternate 5-EXT was shown to be reasonable for a total cost of $378,000. These barriers are shown on Figure 4-1. 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 identifies certain noise abatement measures that may be ' incorporated in the project design to reduce traffic noise impacts. These abatement measures ' Greenville Southmest Bypass Page 4-13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences include: traffic management, alteration of vertical and/or horizontal alignments, landscaping and the construction of sound barriers. Due to design constraints and access and space requirements, noise barriers were found to be the only feasible method of abatement. Based on the studies thus far accomplished, NCDOT intends to install noise abatement measures in the form of barriers at the two locations previously discussed dependent upon which alternate is selected through the NEPA process. However, if it subsequently develops during final design that these conditions have substantially changed, the abatement measures would be reevaluated. A final decision of the installation of the abatement measure will be made based upon barrier cost, decibel reduction achieved, public support, the degree of noise impact, required sound barrier height, and consideration of potential safety and/or drainage problems. 4.3.1.4 Construction Noise The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and grading equipment. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. 4.3.1.5 Information on Noise for Local Officials It is the policy of NCDOT that the type of material used in construction of noise abatement measures be an engineering decision based on economics, effectiveness, and to a limited degree, visual impact. Visual impact considerations assure that a barrier meets a basic aesthetic level and a basic durability level such that excessive deterioration or corrosion will not occur. It is also a part of this policy to have traditional highway resources pay for the required noise abatement. Should a local jurisdiction request that a material be used for the noise barrier that is more costly than that proposed by NCDOT, the requesting body must assume all of the additional cost. If a local jurisdiction insists on the provision of a noise abatement measure deemed feasible but not reasonable by NCDOT, a noise barrier may be installed, provided the locality is willing to assume all of the cost of the abatement measure, including but not limited to preliminary engineering, construction, maintenance, and that NCDOT's material, design and construction specifications are met. In an effort to prevent future noise impacts on currently undeveloped lands, NCDOT uses the following criteria: Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-14 I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 Section 4 - Environmental Consequences ¦ The "Date of Public Knowledge" is the approval date of the Record of Decision (ROD) or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. After the Date of Public Knowledge, Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of the proposed highway project. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, it is the responsibility of the local governing bodies to ensure that noise compatible designs are utilized. ¦ The date for determining when undeveloped land is "...planned, designed and programmed..." for development will be the issuance of a building permit for an individual site. CONTOURS Bypass Segment Contour Distances* feet 66 dB(A) 71 dB(A) Old NC 11 to NC 11 170 100 NC 11 to NC 102 120 60 NC 102 to NC 903 140 80 NC 903 to Forlines Road 150 90 Forlines Road to US 13 170 100 US 13 to US 264 190 110 Distances measured from centerline of nearest roadwav and are common to all three alternates. The information on projected noise level contours for each bypass alternate shown in Table 4-3 should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within the local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. 4.3.2 Air Quality The air quality analysis conducted for this project, Air Quality Study Technical Memorandum (2005), evaluated the impacts of the proposed improvements on future air quality conditions in the project vicinity. A summary of the methodology, procedures, and conclusions is provided below. 4.3.2.1 Methodology ' The air quality analysis was performed in accordance with the Federal-Aid Policy Guide. The principal air pollutants of automotive emissions are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulates, are produced to a lesser degree. A wide range of photochemical oxidants (ozone) also result through a complex series of light-induced reactions between emitted hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. ' A bil i ifi utomo es are not regarded as s gn cant sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions ' and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide Grvenville Southwest BYplss Page 4-15 ' Draft Environinentallmpact.Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded. Highway vehicles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, and because CO is a relatively non-reactive pollutant, CO was used in the analysis as an indicator of the air pollutants produced by traffic activities on the proposed roadway. In order to evaluate the future air quality effects of the proposed project, two concentration components must be identified; background and local. Added together, the two concentrations indicate the concentration of CO in the study area and can be compared to the NAAQS. Local CO concentrations were predicted at selected sensitive sites adjacent to the proposed alignments for specified years using a line source model. The combined CO concentrations (background and local) were then assessed against the NAAQS to determine the extent of the impact the proposed project would have on the air quality in the project study area. For each of the three build corridors being studied, the intersection having the potential for generating the highest CO concentration was identified. Since all three corridors being considered are along new alignments in new right of way, proposed intersections are not constrained in size and are all designed to operate at an acceptable level of service. Therefore, the determination of which intersection has the potential for generating the highest concentration of CO becomes primarily dependant on traffic volume. For all three corridors, the intersection with the highest volume of entering vehicles is the US 13 interchange. The analysis at this intersection was performed in each of the two eastern quadrants, where the highest volumes of entering vehicles were identified. Air quality projections were calculated for the estimated year of project completion (2010, subject to availability of funds), interim year after project completion (2020), and the design year (2030). CO 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of 2.9 parts per million (ppm) and 2.3 ppm, respectively, were used for background concentrations in the analysis. These values were recommended for background concentrations in the Greenville area by the Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-16 I Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences ' 4.3.2.2 Analysis Results ' Table 4-4 lists the predicted one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations for the No- Build and Build Alternatives for receptors located at the right-of-way line. In comparing the projected CO concentration levels in Table 4-4 with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, ' no violations of the 1-hour standard (35 ppm) or 8-hour standard (9 ppm) are expected. The 1- hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are not expected to exceed 4.4 and 3.5 ppm (including ' background contributions), respectively, at any of the sites along any of the corridors for any of the three ears investi ated y g . 1-Hour Concentrations for Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT and 5-EXT* Year Anal sis Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2010 3.2 3.2 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.4 2020 3.2 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 2030 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 1-Hour Concentrations for Bypass Alternate 4-EXT* Year Anal sis Site 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2010 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.5 2020 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.5 2030 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 8-H our Concentrations for Bypass Alternates 113-EXT and 5-EXT^ Year Anal sis Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2010 2.5 2.5 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2020 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2030 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 8-Hour Concentrations for Bypass Alternate 4-EXT^ Year Analysis Site 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2010 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2020 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.8 2030 3.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 * Includes 2.9ppm background concentration ^ Includes 2.3ppm background concentration 4.3.2.3 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Consistency Pitt County has been determined to be in compliance with the SIP and the NAAQS. Because the proposed project is located in an attainment area, the provisions of the November 24, 1993, ' USDOT regulation provisions (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) are not currently applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. ' The temporary air quality impacts from construction are not expected to be significant. During construction, 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 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-17 Drat E''nvimnnrental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to ensure that 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. Also, 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. 4.3.3 Prime Farmland In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) and State Executive Order Number 96, an assessment was undertaken of the potential impacts of land acquisition and construction activities in prime, unique, and local or statewide important farmland soils, as defined by the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). In order to determine the potential impacts to farmlands, the acreage of soil types within the proposed corridors has been TA • BLE 4-5: IMPACTS T Bypass Alternate O PIUME, FARMLAND Prime Farmland Soils Impacted* acres By pass Alternate 113-EXT 767.8 By pass Alternate 4-EXT 753.7 By pass Alternate 5-EXT 811.5 *impact based on conceptual right of way limits determined (see Table 3-13 for a listing of these soils). Table 4-5 summarizes impacts to farmland soils. As required by the FPPA, coordination with the NRCS for this project was initiated by submittal of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. This coordination effort served as the basis for determining the farmland impacts of the bypass alternates. The NRCS responded by completing their portions of this form and providing a relative value of farmland that may be affected (converted) by the proposed project. The NRCS assigns ratings to potential farmland impacts in order to determine the level of significance of these impacts. The ratings are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation Criterion Value represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted and is determined by the NRCS on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a sale of 0 to 160 points, evaluates farmland soil based on its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in the immediate area. The two ratings are added together for a possible total rating of 260 points. Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 should be given a minimal level of protection, and sites receiving a total score of 160 or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR Section 658.4). Completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Rating Forms are provided in Appendix D. None of the proposed bypass alternates resulted in a total site assessment score greater than 160 points. Therefore, in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, no mitigation for farmland loss is required for the project. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-18 I Draft Environmentallmpact.Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 1 4.3.4 Infrastructure and Utilities ' 4.3.4.1 Utilities Electric ' Ayden, Greenville Utilities Corporation (GUC), and Pitt-Greene EMC provide electrical service within the study area. None of the Bypass Alternates would directly impact any of the distribution substations in the project area; however, all of the alternates would cross transmission ' easements. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT would cross a GUC easement three times each. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would cross the easement two times. ' The easement extends from a substation approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection of Frog Level Road (SR 1127) and US 13/264ALT northward to the CSX railroad tracks near the ' northern end of the project area. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT follow a common corridor in this area and include improvements or crossings at three locations alon this line: g ' ¦ Improvements along US 13/264ALT east of a proposed interchange would cross the easement. This crossing would be approximately 1,000 feet west of Frog Level Road and 1,500 feet east of the mainline of the bypass. ' ¦ Frog Level Road would be relocated just south of its crossing with the bypass. The realigned Frog Level Road would cross the easement approximately 400 feet west of the ' existing crossing. ¦ The bypass would parallel the easement to the west from Frog Level Road before crossing the easement approximately 2,500 feet south of the CSX Railroad tracks. ' Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would cross the same easement at two of the three locations noted above: ' ¦ On US 13/264ALT approximately 1,000 feet west of Frog Level Road for improvements to US 13/264ALT; and I ¦ Approximately 2,500 feet south of the CSX Railroad tracks. I Through coordination with the electric power companies during development of final plans and construction, the bypass alternates are not expected to affect customers. Water and Sewer Existing water and sewer lines serve portions of the project area, particularly in the northern and eastern areas. These lines are underground and generally follow existing roads. None of the corridors would impact major water facilities, such as treatment plants or pump stations. Temporary disruptions in service could result during construction of any of the alternates; however, this impact would be minimized through coordination with GUC or other providers. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-19 Draft Environmental Impact ,Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Natural Gas Natural gas service lines are located within portions of the study area; however, the main lines that carry gas into the Greenville area are located north of the project area and would not be impacted. As with water and sewer service lines, natural gas service is concentrated in portions of the project area within municipal or ETJ limits and the lines are underground and generally follow existing roads. Temporary disruptions in service are possible during construction of any of the alternates; however, this impact would be minimized through coordination with GUC. 4.3.4.2 Mass Transit The project area is not currently served by a fixed-route public transportation service. The City of Greenville's GREAT (Greenville Area Transit) system operates within the city limits of Greenville. The Pitt County Area Transit Services (PATS) provides services on a referral basis. Individuals are referred for special transportation assistance by either the Department of Social Services, the Council on Aging, or Vocational Rehabilitation Services. The service operates across the entire County providing transportation to medical appointments, to school, or to Pitt Community College. As the routes are not fixed, the proposed project would not have any negative impact on existing service; however, PATS will be advised of any detours or road- closings that result from the construction of the preferred alternative. 4.3.4.3 Railroads All bypass alternates under consideration cross the CSX Railroad tracks near the project's northern terminus. The alternates follow a common alignment at this location and would include a bridge over the CSX tracks. Bridging should not impact railroad facilities or operations. None of the bypass alternates cross Norfolk-Southern Railroad facilities in the project area. 4.3.5 Visual Environment The introduction of any large facility in a rural area alters the local perception of the visual environment. A location may be deemed visually sensitive for its visual quality, uniqueness, cultural importance, and viewer characteristics. According to Federal Highway Administration Guidelines, high visual quality is obtained when area landscape components have impressive characteristics that convey visual excellence. Striking landscapes are not limited to the natural environment and can be associated with urban areas as well. Visual quality is subjective in that it is also determined by a viewer's perception of an area. Each of the bypass alternates under consideration would include a new location freeway constructed at grade, but would introduce a visual intrusion into the primarily agricultural landscape. Because the area is relatively flat, the freeway would be visible from some distance in unforested areas. Further, elevated overpasses or bridges would be visible from a greater distance. Measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize visual impacts. These include avoiding dense residential areas and minimizing cut and fill slopes by following existing ground lines where possible. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences The overall visual character of the project area would be adversely impacted by the introduction of a new controlled access facility. However, as discussed in Section 3, this portion of Pitt County ' is expected to continue to experience some of the highest growth rates in the area and will become more suburban in nature. Further, visual quality for travelers using the proposed bypass, regardless of which corridor is selected, would be improved compared to the visual environment ' along existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business). Travelers on the new roadway would have opportunities for views of agricultural, forested, and residential areas. 1 Visually Sensitive Resources ' A rural historic district and several private historic properties exist within the project area. NCDOT will coordinate with HPO during selection of a preferred alternative to identify potential minimization or mitigation measures for visual impacts to these resources. Visual impacts to ' these sites have been categorized using the following rating: ' ¦ No Impact - The view of the alternative has minor implications to the existing landscape or there is no impact at all. ¦ Low Impact - The view of the project is limited, the visual resource is limited in ' importance, there are dominating visual intrusions in the viewshed from other sources, or there is a weak visual contact between the facility and the landscape. If any of the proposed actions are closer to the resource than the existing facility, but do not ' necessarily create a visual impact due to visual intrusions, it has been rated as having a low impact. ¦ Moderate Impact - The view of the project is a moderate intrusion into the visual ' environment with greater contrast than the low impact but not as great as a high impact. ¦ High Impact - The project is in proximity and visible to viewers, has a strong contrast with the landscape, is in an area of importance with limited visual intrusions, or involves ' substantial view sensitivity. I The Cox-Ange House and the A.W. Ange Company Store Building are both sufficient distance from all of the alternative corridors such that there will be no impact to these resources. Likewise, the Alfred McLawhorn House, though closer to the proposed corridors, is separated by adequate I distance and other visual obstructions due to topography and vegetation and will not be impacted. ' The William Amos Shrivers House is located just east of Bypass Alternate 5-EXT and its proposed interchange with NC 903. The project would have a low impact on the visual environment of the property. The Charles McLawhom Historic Property is located adjacent to Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT and just east of Bypass Alternate 4-EXT. Due to distance and topography, Bypass Alternate 4-EXT will have a low impact on the property. However, Bypass Alternate IB-EXT will have a Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-21 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences moderate visual impact on the resource. This alternative would introduce a visual contrast between the surrounding agricultural landscape and the freeway. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT both pass through the Renston Rural Historic District. Bypass Alternate I B-EXT would cross the southernmost portion of the district and would have a moderate visual impact, primarily attributable to a proposed interchange with NC 903. At-grade portions of the roadway would likely be shielded by vegetation. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT passes through a larger portion of the district and would have a high visual impact. The highway would contrast with the rural, agricultural landscape and historic homes in this area and would bisect the historic district, creating a visual barrier. 4.3.6 Hazardous Materials Based on field surveys described in Section 3.3.6, thirteen facilities with the possibility for underground storage tanks (USTs), one automotive salvage yard, and one above ground storage tank were identified in the project study area. In addition, an abandoned landfill is located near the northern terminus of the project. None of the alternates under consideration would directly impact the landfill site. Table 4-6 lists the number of sites potentially affected by each bypass alternate. If any of the potential hazardous materials sites can not be avoided by the Preferred Alternative, further assessments of the properties will be conducted and the results reported in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. These assessments will evaluate the properties for specific types and amounts of hazardous materials and will include right of way acquisition recommendations. It is not expected that conditions at any of these sites would preclude construction of any of the bypass alternates. 4.3.7 Floodways and Floodplains Bypass Alternate Number of Hazardous Materials Sites within Corridor Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT 6 Bypass Alternate 4-EXT 2 Bypass Alternate 5-EXT 6 A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management and with 23 CFR 650 Subpart A Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Floodplains. This evaluation is based on the results of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 2004 detailed flood insurance study and FEMA's Federal Insurance Rate Mapping (FIRM) for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Pitt County. 4.3.7.1 Floodplain Encroachments and Risk Encroachment on floodplains by structures and fill can reduce flood carrying capacity, increase flood height and velocities, and increase flood hazards beyond encroachment itself. As part of the Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-22 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA has determined floodway boundaries as a tool for floodplain management. Based on FEMA's definition, the 100-year floodplain can be divided into a floodway and floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that need to be kept free of encroachment so that the 100-year flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum federal standards limit such increases to 1 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. However, when a detailed flood study has been performed, as in the case of Pitt County, site specific elevation limits of flood height increases are established. The area between the floodway and the 100-year floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT cross the 100-year floodplain associated with Swift Creek and Horsepen Swamp. The location of the floodplain impacts are shown on Figure 3-7. Corridor location and conceptual design have taken into consideration all factors to minimize impact to floodplains. Although approximately 0.2 acre of floodplain associated with Horsepen Swamp is located within the study corridor for Bypass Alternate 1B-EXT, the preliminary design for this alternate does not directly impact any floodplain areas. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT, however, would impact approximately 18.3 acres of floodplain associated with both Horsepen Swamp and Swift Creek. Major drainage structures proposed for the project would cross the floodplain at or near perpendicular angles, minimizing the length of floodplain traversed. All hydraulic structures would be designed such that the proposed structures would not significantly increase upstream flooding and would not increase the flood hazard potential of the existing floodplain. 4.3.7.2 Floodplain Values Construction of any of the bypass alternates under consideration would increase the amount of impervious surface area within the study area, thereby increasing stormwater runoff to local waterways. The area impacted by this increased runoff would be minor in relation to the remaining pervious surface areas. The increased amount of road surface draining into the area would be small in relation to overall drainage areas. 4.3.7.3 Floodplain Development ' The Greenville Southwest Bypass has been planned as a controlled access facility, where access to the roadway is limited to proposed interchanges at primary crossroads. As such, the bypass ' should not induce development along the facility that will have adverse impacts to the beneficial values of natural floodplains. Further, the Pitt County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance sets forth strict provisions for any development within the 100-year floodplain. I 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES I 4.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources The potential effect of the proposed project on historic architectural resources was evaluated in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. I ' Greenville Soutbwest Bypass Pqge 4-23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences According to the criteria for Effect and Adverse Effect developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, potential effect is based upon the following: ¦ No Effect - There would be no effect, neither adverse nor beneficial, on potential cultural resources. ¦ No Adverse Effect - There would be an effect, but it is determined that the effect would not compromise those characteristics which qualify the property for listing on the National Register. ¦ Adverse Effect - There would be an effect that would compromise the integrity of the property. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, there are six properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) which are either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register. These resources, shown in Figure 3-8, include the Charles McLawhorn Houses, Alfred McLawhorn House, William Amos Shivers House, Cox- Ange House, A.W. Ange and Company Store Building, and the Renston Rural Historic District. The Cox-Ange House and Renston Rural Historic District are currently listed on the National Register. The Charles McLawhorn Historic Property is contained within the Renston Rural Historic District, so any impacts to this property are included with the historic district. None of the proposed bypass alternates would require right of way from the Alfred McLawhorn House, Cox-Ange House, or A.W. Ange and Company Store Building properties. The HPO concurred with the determination of No Effect for these properties on February 8, 2005. The alternates would have No Adverse Effect on the TABLE 4-7: I-IISTORIC RESOURCE IMPACTS Renston Rural Historic District Alternate 1B-EXT 45 acres Adverse Effect Alternate 4-EXT 120 acres Adverse Effect Alternate 5-EXT 0 acres No Adverse Effect William Amos Shivers House (see Appendix A.2). Bypass Alternate 1B-EXT - Although approximately 5.5 acres of the Charles McLawhorn Historic Property is located within the study corridor for Alternate 1B-EXT, the preliminary design for the alternate avoids all direct impact to the property. At this time, no right of way would be required from this property for construction of the bypass alternate. This alternate would require approximately 45 acres of right of way within the Renston Rural Historic District. No contributing properties would be directly impacted. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT - Alternate 4-EXT would use approximately 120 acres of the Renston Rural Historic District for right of way. Land from ten contributing properties would be used; however, only four contributing structures would be displaced for required right of way. This alternate would also use a very small portion of the Charles McLawhorn Historic Property (less Greenville Soutbvest Bypass Page 4-24 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement L I Section 4 - Environmental Consequences than 0.25 acre). It is possible that this impact may be avoided or further minimized during final design. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT - Alternate 5-EXT would not adversely effect any historic properties within the project study area. 4.4.2 Archaeological Resources Based on a 1996 archaeological overview of the project study area, it was determined that all bypass alternates under consideration would have equal likelihood of impacting prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Therefore, NCDOT, in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office, has determined that no further detailed studies of the corridors will be completed until a preferred corridor is selected. Once the preferred alternative is selected, NCDOT and HPO will determine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources within the corridor (see letter dated May 16, 1996 in Appendix A.2). Should items be located, NCDOT will coordinate with the Office of State Archaeology as needed to determine what further action should be taken. 4.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT This section describes potential impacts of the proposed project to the following aspects of the existing natural environment: soils, biotic communities and wildlife, and water resources. 4.5.1 Soils Review of available information for the project area indicates that there are no soils or geological features that would preclude or alter the corridors of the three alternates under consideration. Detailed geotechnical investigations will be undertaken as part of the design phase if one of the three alternates is selected as the preferred alternative. 4.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife 4.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities Table 4-8 summarizes acreages of terrestrial communities located within the study area. Impacted areas are based on conceptual slope stake limits of preliminary design plans plus ten feet for mechanized clearing. Maintained communities may include the impervious surface associated with the existing roads. Detailed descriptions of these communities are included in Section 3.5.2.1 and in the Natural Resources Technical Memorandum. The maintained-disturbed community type accounts for the majority of the vegetative cover in all of the alternate corridors. The pine plantation community is the next most abundant community type within the study area. Hardwood swamp communities are represented least within the study area. Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft hnvimnmewal Impact Statement Page 4-25 Section 4 - Environmental Consequences TABLE, 4-8: TEIR Terrestrial REISTRIAL PLANT COM Bypass Alternate 1B-EXT MUNITY IMPACTS* (A Bypass Alternate 4-EXT CRI, S) Bypass Alternate 5-EXT Community Corridor Slope Stakes Corridor Slope Stakes Corridor Slope Stakes Cutover 156.8 56.5 107.1 39.1 132.0 54.1 Pine Plantation 187.8 67.9 285.2 87.2 163.6 59.6 Mixed Pine- Hardwood Forest 465.7 116.3 496.7 160.3 496.6 120.7 Hardwood Swam 9.0 0.1 0 0 8.4 1.3 Bottomland Forest 31.8 8.9 0 0 21.2 2.0 Pine Flatwoods 24.9 4.6 3.0 0.1 26.0 6.6 Maintained- Disturbed" 1543.8 ' 350.5 1450.4 355.1 1,583.5 374.5 TOTAL 2,419.9 604.7 2,342.3 641.8 2,431.4 618.9 * Plant community impacts are calculated in acres based on slope stake l imits plus ten feet for mechanized clearing. ** Maintained communities may include the impervious road surface located within the project study area. 4.5.2.2 Wildlife Most of the project area is rural in character with scattered residential and small commercial developments. Large forested areas are still present near the project study area, but are limited primarily to lands immediately adjacent to the larger streams. Clearing and conversion of land for highways, railroads, agricultural, timberland, commercial, and residential uses has eliminated cover and protection for many species of wildlife, but has increased habitat for others that are able to utilize these anthropogenic habitats. There is little habitat for interior species, but woodland strips bordering small tributaries often serve as travel corridors between habitat types. Agricultural fields and residential areas not only provide food for wildlife, but also create edge habitat favored by many species. Since the bypass would be on new location, impacts to a variety of habitats, including forested communities, will occur. Fragmentation and loss of forested habitat resulting from the new location corridors will have a greater impact on wildlife and its habitat, including the loss of potential nesting and foraging areas, and displacement of animal populations. Movement between habitats on one side of the road to the other will become more dangerous for many large and medium sized mammals such as deer, raccoon, rabbit, and opossum. Smaller mammals such as mice and squirrels, as well as reptiles and amphibians, are also expected to suffer increased mortality along the new alignment due to land clearing and traffic operations. Measures to be implemented during design and construction of the project that can minimize impacts to local wildlife include Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and the construction of culverts that can provide passage from one side of the road to the other. No bridges are recommended for wildlife crossings on this project. 4.5.2.3 Aquatic Communities Among the project alternatives, there are several crossings of named streams. Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT and 5-EXT crosses Simmon Branch, Gum Swamp and Horsepen Swamp. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT crosses Simmon Branch and Gum Swamp. The diversity of streams within the Greenville.Southwe t Bypass Page 4-26 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences project study area provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species. Large streams with good water ' quality and a diversity of aquatic habitats are expected to support a more diverse assemblage of fish and other aquatic organisms than smaller tributaries. ' Water resource impacts may also result from the physical disturbance of the forested stream buffers that adjoin most of the streams within the study area. Removing streamside vegetation ' increases direct sunlight penetration, which ultimately elevates water temperatures within the stream. An increase in stream water temperatures decreases the levels of dissolved oxygen in the water, often resulting in reduced species diversity. Disturbing stream buffers can also create ' unstable stream banks, further increasing downstream sedimentation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial ' fauna that rely on them as a food source. ' The removal of the riparian buffer may also increase the amount of sediment released into the stream. Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from this increased sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and recolonize ' the disturbed area once it has stabilized. Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water ' chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity. ' Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 feet from the stream channels. In situations where water depth is 3 to 18 feet and the velocity is slow (such as in a swamp) silt fences should ' also be erected around any stockpiled material in order to minimize the chance of erosion or run- off from affecting the stream channel. Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction as it can adversely affect aquatic life. NCDOT's Best ' Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters (1997) should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts during all construction phases. I 4.5.3 Water Resources The majority of the proposed project occurs in the Middle Neuse subbasin. However, Bypass Alternate 4-EXT traverses the subbasin divide and drains east and south to Swift Creek or to unnamed tributaries of Little Contentnea Creek to the west. Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from construction-related activities. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation would be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The contractor would be required to follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution pursuant to NCDOT's Greenville .Southwest Bypass Page 4-27 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff. Measurements include the elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be revegetated with herbaceous cover after construction to help reduce runoff and sediment loadings. Direct discharges into streams should be avoided whenever possible. Runoff effluent should be permitted to filter through roadside vegetation in order to remove possible contaminants and to decrease runoff velocities. Long-term impacts on water quality are also possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria that are often found in highway runoff. The following mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce short-term and long-term water quality impacts would be incorporated wherever practicable: ¦ Development of roadway alignments that avoid streams and ponds to the extent possible; ¦ Use of design measures to protect water supplies, minimizing stream crossings, and minimizing segments of roadway that closely parallel streams; ¦ Use of grass shoulders, grass lined ditches, and vegetative buffers to intercept highway runoff; ¦ Implementation of construction practices that protect stream bottom habitat from siltation by sedimentation control, retention of riparian vegetation buffers, and restoration of stream bottom habitat taken by construction; and ¦ Restricting use of bridge deck drains in bridges. 4.5.3.1 Major Drainage Structures Each of the bypass alternates under consideration crosses several streams or drainages for which box culverts or pipe culverts would be required to maintain hydraulic flow. Drainage areas, calculated structure sizes, and recommendations are listed in Table 4-9 for Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT. A detailed description of the hydraulic analysis is presented in the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (Lochner 2005). As shown in Table 4-9, for hydrologic purposes, culverts would be adequate for all stream crossings. The Merger Team concurred with the use of culverts for these crossings at a meeting in October 2005. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would have the fewest stream crossings since it is located roughly along the divide between the Contentnea Creek and Swift Creek subbasins. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would have the greatest impact on stream and swamp crossings. This alternative has the largest drainage area, resulting either in larger culvert sizes or box culverts for hydraulic maintenance. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement L r I I J Section 4 - Environmental Consequences • 1 MAJ OR 1 Calculated Structure Bypass Site Station Drainage Size Alternate Number Number Stream Name Area mil Recommendation 1 B-EXT, upgrade existing 72" 4-EXT, RCP or add second 5-EXT 1 N/A UT to Swift Creek 0.6 culvert 1 B-EXT, 5-EXT la 184+10.04 UT to Swift Creek 0.2 72" RCP 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, UT to Contentnea Double barrel 5-EXT 2 100+89.77 Creek 1.2 5'x 5' RCBC No major structure 5-EXT 3 241+44.73 Simmon Branch 0.2 Two 2 60" RCP 1 B-EXT 4a 263+94.13 UT to Swift Creek 0.3 84" RCP 5-EXT 4b 259+93.69 UT to Swift Creek 0.4 84" RCP UT to Horsepen Double barrel 113-EXT 5 296+64.53 Swam 0.7 Y x 5' RCBC Double barrel I B-EXT 6a 327+23.11 Horse en Swam 1.5 6'x 6' RCBC Double barrel 5-EXT 6b 295+33.86 Horse en Swam 2.8 8'x 8' RCBC 1 B-EXT Y l l Double barrel 5-EXT 6c 39+16.97 Horse pen Swam 1.7 7'x 7' RCBC No major structure 1B-EXT 7a 358+99.63 UT to Swift Creek 0.1 Two 2 48" RCP 5-EXT 7b 354+92.77 UT to Swift Creek 0.3 Two 2 60" RCP 4-EXT 8a 438+15.89 Gum Swam 0.3 Two 2 60" RCP 1 B-EXT 5-EXT 8b 426+32.49 Gum Swam 1.2 Two 2 84" RCP Y15 T 5-EXT 8c 29+13.86 Gum Swam 1.6 Two 2 84" RCP 4.5.3.2 Streams Twenty-seven jurisdictional streams are located within the study area and can be seen in Figures 4-2A and 4-213. Eleven of the streams were entirely perennial, thirteen are entirely intermittent, and three streams grade from intermittent to perennial. There are also several streams and ditches within the study area that have been determined to be non jurisdictional by NCDWQ. Physical characteristics of the surface waters in the study area were observed during site visits in August, September, October, and November 2002, March 2003, April, May and December 2004, and July ' Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-29 Draft Environmental IVact.Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 2005. All of the streams in the study area are channelized, at least for a portion of their lengths, and extend in nearly straight lines along their courses. They are also deeply entrenched, reducing the amount of over-bank flooding and floodplain access. The streams typically have a substrate of sand or silt. Stream determinations were based on information gathered during the completion of USACE "Intermittent Channel Evaluation Forms" or "Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets" and NCDWQ "Stream Classification Forms." Table 4-10 lists characteristics of the streams found within the study area, including the stream identification code, stream name, the USACE quality assessment score (where applicable), the NCDWQ Stream Classification Score, jurisdictional status, and whether or not stream and riparian buffer mitigation will be required. A discussion of state riparian buffer rules is included in Section 3.5.4.2. Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page 4-30 I Section 4 - Environmental Consequences J TABLE, 4 -10: STREAMS WI THIN T USACE HER-2250 NCDWQ STUDYARVA Stream Buffer Stream ID Stream Name Score Score Jurisdictional Status* Mitigation Mitigation Required? Required? A UT to Swift Creek 28 19.75 Perennial Yes Yes B UT to Little Contentnea 16 23.5 Intermittent NC-I I East No Yes Creek 24 25.5 Peren nial C 11 West Yes Yes D UT to Swift Creek 21 16.5 __ _ Perennial Yes Yes CC 1 UT to Swift Creek N/A 21.25 intermittent No Yes Trib 1 UT to Swift Creek N/A 25.5 Perennial Yes Yes w 5/ N/A 25.25 Intermittent (Jolly Rd. West_ Yes Yes UT to Swift Creek ranch B Branch N/A 28.0 Perennial (Jolly Rd. East) Yes Yes 4SB UT to Swift Creek N/A 18.5 Perennial (Jolly Rd. West) Yes Yes N/A 24.5 Perennial (Jolly Rd. East Yes Yes UT2HP UT to Horsepen 45 23 Perennial Yes Yes Swamp UT3HP UT to Horsepen 25 24.25 Intermittent No Yes Swam 3BD UT to Horsepen 26 15 Perennial Yes Yes Swam Horsepen H S N/A 28.5 Perennial Yes Yes Swam orsepen wamp 36 51 Perennial (Jolly Rd. Yes Yes UT to Horsepen UTHP Swam N/A 37.5 Intermittent Yes Yes UT to Horsepen Swam 39 22 Perennial Yes Yes HR3 UT to Little Contentnea 17 15.75 Intermittent No No Creek HR28 UT to Horsepen 28 22 Intermittent Yes Yes Swam UT to Horsepen 18 I I.5 Perennial (adjacent to Frog Yes Yes I ER Swam Level Rd.) - p 42 19.5 Perennial downstream -- Yes Yes 2ER UT to Horsepen 49 16.5 Intermittent Yes Yes Swam HR16 UT to Horsepen 31 18.5 Intermittent Yes Yes Swam 4X UT to Swift Creek N/A 14 Intermittent (Ivy Chase Dr. Yes Yes West 4SA UT to Swift Creek N/A 8.0 Intermittent Yes Yes M40A UT to Gum Swam N/A 24.75 Intermittent No Yes H18 UT to Gum Swam N/A 13.5 Intermittent No Yes Gum G S N/A 20.75 Perennial headwaters Yes Yes Swam um wamp 38 25.5 Perennial Yes Yes 20 UT to Gum Swam N/A _ 9 Intermittent Yes Yes Swift Creek Swift Creek 53 40 _ _ Perennial Yes Yes UT to Swift Creek N/A 16.5 Perennial 1 Case Dr.. East Yes Yes YY21 UT to Gum Swamp I N/A 13.5 perennial Yes Yes * Jurisdiction al Status is derived from information aathered durin g the completion of USACE Intermittent Channel Fvaluatinn Forms or Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets and NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms Table 4-11 contains a summary of stream impacts by alternate. Impacts are shown both for the entire study corridor and for conceptual preliminary design slope stakes. As shown, Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would impact the greatest amount of streams, with direct impacts to 4,926.6 linear feet. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would directly impact the least stream area, with impacts to 1,606.7 linear feet. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-31 ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Str m ID Bypass Alternate 1B-EX T Bypass Alternate 4-EXT Bypass Alternate 5-EXT ea Corridor Slope Stakes Corridor Slope Stakes Corridor Slope Stakes A 572.1 572.1 --- 572.1 --- B 2,728.7 964.0 2,728.7 964.0 2,728.7 964.0 D 135.1 --- --- --- 135.1 4.6 CC 1 569.5 118.4 569.5 116.1 569.5 118.4 Trib I --- --- --- --- 139.0 82.2 W5/ Simmon Branch __ 923.6 410.4 4SB 1,261.5 189.7 1,089.0 299.9 UT2HP --- --- --- 96.6 --- UT3HP --- --- --- 345.9 66.1 3BD 140.8 --- --- --- --- Horsepen Swamp 2,320.1 538.4 --- --- 1,765.2 199.4 6SA 1,862.8 478.9 3,019.2 122.5 --- --- HR3 --- 266.9 91.2 HR28 --- 49.3 --- --- HER 371.2 --- --- --- --- 2ER --- --- --- --- --- --- HR16 213.4 9.6 --- --- --- 4X 2,075.2 301.0 --- 2,557.5 294.5 4SA --- --- --- --- 519.1 68.7 M40A 1,221.2 960.6 1,860.7 1,437.7 H18 1,344.6 19.1 1,976.2 334.7 Gum Swamp 1,250.5 238.7 1,013.2 312.8 1,726.2 387.2 20 --- --- --- --- 179.8 33.1 Swift Creek --- --- --- 391.9 --- YY21 983.0 218.8 983.5 226.0 Perennial 10 929.8 2,628,6 31660.3 11276 ' 8 91230.5 2,342.1 Intermittent 6,120.0 1,408.7 4,558,6 329.8 9,329,4 2,584.5 Total 17 049.7 4,037.3 8,218.9 1,606.7 18 559.9 4,926.6 4.5.3.3 Ponds There are no jurisdictional ponds within the study area; therefore, none will be impacted by this project. 4.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues 4.5.4.1 Wetlands Wetland functions taking place within a wetland ecosystem and their perceived or measured values are generally described under six categories including: water storage or the ability to store or convey flood waters or ground water seepage, or the retardation of runoff; bank shoreline stabilization; pollutant removal; wildlife habitat; aquatic habitat; and recreation / education. Wetland scores from 0-30 indicate low quality wetlands, 31-60 are deemed medium quality, and 61-plus are considered high quality resources. Wetlands in the project area have a similar species composition and topographic setting and, generally have similar functions occurring in the Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-32 I Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences ecosystems. Many wetlands in the coastal plain of North Carolina and Pitt County were ' historically drained through ditching, generally to provide more tillable land or allow for commercial development. Pitt County is no exception. Most wetlands in the project area are relatively small in size, lie along streams, and serve an important function as riparian buffers. ' These wetlands also serve as islands of refuge or travel corridors for many wildlife species. ' The NWI mapping (USFWS 1994a, 1994b) identifies multiple wetlands within the study area, and the field assessment of the project study area for jurisdictional wetland boundaries based on r current USACE methodology (Environmental Laboratory 1987) identified thirteen (13) areas meeting the federal criteria for wetlands within the study area (see Figure 4-2). The wetland/non- wetland boundaries were located with sub-meter TrimbleTM Global Positioning System (GPS) units. A USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form and a NCDWQ Wetland Rating Form were completed for each wetland. Table 4-12 lists characteristics of the jurisdictional wetlands within the study area, including the Cowardin classification, NCDWQ Wetland Rating score, the riverine or non-riverine classification, and the Schafale and Weakley Classification. TABLE Wetland 4-12: WE NCDWQ TLANDS LO Cowardin CATEID WITHIN NCDWQ Wetland THE' R- NCDWQ 2250 STUDY AREA Schafale and Weakley Riverine or Isolated / Name Sub-basin Classification Classification Rating Classification* Non-Riverine Contiguous 6K 03-04-09 PFO Headwater Forest 19 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Non-Riverine Contiguous Forest Coastal Plain Subtype) 6A 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 31 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Non-Riverine Contiguous Forest Forest Coastal Plain Subtype) 4B 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 57 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subtype) 4A 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 57 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subtype) 14 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 61 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subtype) 3 03-04-09 PEMlPFO Bottomland Hardwood 29 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subtype) 17 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 27 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subtype) 18 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 34 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subtype) 4C 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 57 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subtype) 41) 03-04-09 PFO Bottomland Hardwood 57 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Forest Swam Blackwater Subt e HRA 03-04-09 PFO Ephemeral Wetland 25 Coastal Plain Small Stream Riverine Contiguous Swam Blackwater Subtype) US13 03-04-07 PFO Ephemeral / 34 Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Non-Riverine Isolated Headwater Forest Forest F2 03-04-09 PFO N/A Pine Plantation 48 Wet Pine Flatwoods Non-Riverine Contiguous 1 * Schafale and Weakley (1990) I I Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-33 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Table 4-13 contains a summary of wetland impacts by alternate. Impacts are shown both for the entire study corridor and for conceptual preliminary design slope stakes plus 10 feet for possible clearing. As shown, Bypass Alternate 5- EXT would impact the greatest amount of jurisdictional wetlands, with direct impacts to approximately 1.5 acres. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would directly TABLE W tl nd 4-13: WETLAND IM Bypass Alternate IB-EXT PACTS (ACRE.S) Bypass Alternate 4-EXT Bypass Alternate 5-EXT e a Name Corridor Slope Stakes +10, Corridor Slope Stakes +10, Corridor Slope Stakes +10, 6K 0.2 6A 0.3 0.3 --- --- --- --- 4B 1.0 0.1 --- --- 0.3 --- 4A 1.1 0.1 --- --- 0.9 0.02 4C 1.4 --- --- --- --- 41) 1.9 --- --- --- --- --- 14 --- --- 1.7 --- 3 --- --- --- 2.4 1.5 17 --- --- --- --- 0.04 18 --- --- --- 0.6 --- HRA --- --- --- --- 0.3 --- US 13 2.8 0.01 --- 2.8 0.01 F2 --- --- 2.9 0.1 --- --- Total 8.7 0.5 2.9 0.1 9.1 1.5 impact the least wetland area, with impacts to only 0.1 acre. 4.5.4.2 Riparian Buffers Estimated impacts to the riparian buffers within the study area are quantified in Table 4-14. Impacts to Zone 1 are based on a buffer width of 30 feet measured landward from the top of bank or rooted vegetation. Impacts to Zone 2 are based on a buffer width of 20 feet measured from the outer edge of Zone 1. Zones 1 and 2 should consist of an undisturbed vegetated area except for uses provided in 15 NCAC 2B .0233 (6) for the Neuse River Basin and 15 NCAC 02B .0259 (6) for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Grading and revegetating in Zone 2 is allowed, provided that the health of the vegetation in Zone 1 is not compromised (NCDWQ 2003c). The acreages presented in this table represent buffer areas impacted by current conceptual right-of-way designs. Impacts may be considerably less, upon completion of final design plans. Greenville Southwest Bypass Aage 4-34 I Draft Environmental Impact ,Statement n d C Section 4 - Environmental Consequences TABLE, Str am I B ass Alternate 1B-EXT I Bypass Alternate 4-EX I - B ass Alternate 5-EXT e ID Corridor Slo a Stakes Corridor Slope Stakes Corridor Slope Stakes Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone l Zone 2 Zone l Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 A 0.8 0.5 --- 0.8 0.5 --- --- 0.8 0.5 --- --- B 3.8 2.5 13- -0.9 3.8 2.5 1.3 0.9 3.8 2.5 1.3 0.8 D 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.05 --- --- --- 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.1 CC 1 0.8 0.5 -- - 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 _ 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 Trib I --- - - --- --- - --- -- - --- - -- -- --- -- -- --- - 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 W5/ Simmon Branch --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.5 4SB 1.7 - 1.7 - .3 0.3 - - 0.2 --- -- --- - --- --- 1.5 -1.0 ---0.-4 -0.3 UT2HP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.1 0.1 UT3HP --- --- 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 3BD 0.2 0.2 --- --- --- --- Horsepen Swam 3.3 2.3 0.7 0.5 --- --- --- --- 2.4 1.6 0.3 0.2 UTHP 2.6 1.7 0.7 0.4 4.1 2.7 0.2 0.1 --- --- --- HR3 --- ------ --- ------- --- - - ----- ------ --- --- 0.4 ------ 0.2 -- --- 0.1 0.1 --- --- --- --- HR28 ER 0.4 0.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2ER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- HR16 0.3 0.2 0.01 0.01 --- -- --- --- --- --- 4X 2.9 1.9 0.4 0.3 --- --- --- --- 3.5 2.3 0.4 0.4 4SA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 M40A 1.7 1.1 1.3 0.9 --- --- --- 2.6 1.7 1.9 1.3 H18 1.9 1.2 0.02 0.01 --- --- --- 2.7 1.7 0.5 0.3 Gum Swam 1.7 1.1 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 2.3 1.5 0.5 0.3 20 --- --- --- --- --- 0.3 0.3 0.04 0.03 Swift Creek -- --- --- -- --- 0.5 -------- 0.4 --- YY21 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 --- --- --- --- 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 Total 23.5 16.2 5.5 3.7 11.3 7.3 2.2 1.5 25.5 16.9 6.8 4.7 4.5.4.3 Mitigation Evaluation Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; ' c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with ' Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644-7663) (1981). Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990 stress ' avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands. Practicable alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed. 1 Federal Highway Administration policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands which will be affected by federally funded highway ' construction. A sequencing (step-down) procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is ' Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-35 Draft F,nvironmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences impossible. Mitigation employed outside of the highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis. Avoidance and Minimization During development of preliminary designs for the proposed project, efforts were taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers where possible. Impacts can be avoided to streams, wetlands, and federally protected species with the use of environmentally sensitive design. Impacts to the jurisdictional surface waters were minimized by crossing streams at a perpendicular angle, and can be further minimized by avoiding construction activities in the stream channels, and avoiding deposition into the stream channel during roadway construction. Adjustment to the roadway alignment was made to avoid these sensitive areas. Due to the location of Waters of the United States and wetlands within the project study area, avoidance of all jurisdictional impacts is not be possible. All of the bypass alternates under consideration cross Gum Swamp, Horsepen Swamp, and Simmon Branch. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT crosses Gum Swamp and Horsepen Swamp further upstream than the other alternates and avoids wetlands associated with the Horsepen Swamp drainage. Other Avoidance and Minimization Measures Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented in an effort to further minimize impacts. Reduction of fill slopes at stream and wetland crossings will reduce necessary wetland impacts. Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement of drainage structures will minimize further degradation of water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat viability in streams and tributaries. Compensatory Mitigation The USACE may require compensation under an Individual Permit if the discharge causes the loss of greater than 0.1 acres of waters of United States or if the activity causes more than 150 linear feet of perennial streambed impacts or intermittent streambed impacts if the intermittent stream has important aquatic function(s) as denoted on USACE's "Intermittent Channel Evaluation Form." In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), NCDWQ may require compensation for impacts to 150 linear feet or more of jurisdictional streams and/or one acre or more of wetlands. The USACE may require compensation for all cumulative jurisdictional impacts to wetlands and perennial streambed or important intermittent streambed that result from activities authorized under an Individual Permit. The NCDWQ may require compensation for all cumulative jurisdictional stream and wetland impacts for activities authorized under a Major WQC. Impacts incurred during project construction may require mitigation. Final compensation requirements for stream and wetland impacts are left to the discretion of USACE and NCDWQ. Appropriate compensatory mitigation requirements for wetland and stream impacts from the preferred alternative would be determined in consultation with these agencies. A conceptual Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-36 ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 Section 4 - Environmental Consequences i mitigation plan would be developed for the preferred alternative and presented in the Final 1 Environmental Impact Statement. A final mitigation plan would be completed prior to issuance of a Section 404 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 1 North Carolina Riparian Buffers Unavoidable impacts to stream buffers in the Neuse or Tar-Pamlico River Basins are dependant 1 upon the buffer zone where the impact occurred. Impacts to Zone 1 will require mitigation on a 3:1 basis, and impacts to Zone 2 will require mitigation on a 1.5:1 basis. Mitigation may consist of payment of a compensatory mitigation fee into the state Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund, 1 donation of real property, or restoration or enhancement of a non forested riparian buffer. As shown in Table 4-14, Bypass Alternate 5-EXT has the highest potential for impacts to ' Riparian Buffer Zones 1 and 2, while Bypass Alternate 4-EXT may have the fewest impacts to these areas. 1 4.5.4.4 Permits and Certifications The design and construction of the proposed project will dictate the magnitude of the impacts to ' surface waters. If impacts occur, permits and certifications will be required from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources. Surface 1 water systems and wetlands receive similar protection and consideration from the regulatory agencies. These permits are authorized under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and are under separate state laws regarding significant water resources. Section 401 and 404 Permits In accordance with provisions of the CWA §404 (33 USC 1344), a permit will be required from 1 the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." If the total impacts exceed 300 linear feet or 0.5 acres, or multiple crossings of the same stream are 1 incurred, an Individual Permit is necessary. Due to the extensive nature of jurisdictional streams and wetlands associated with this project, it is likely that an Individual Permit may become necessary. If an individual Permit is required, a corresponding Major 401 Water Quality 1 Certification will be required by NCDWQ. The USACE will determine final permit requirements. 1 This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the NCDWQ prior to the issuance of any Section 404 Nationwide Permit or an Individual Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certifications for any federally permitted or 1 licensed activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction 1 or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 Certification from the DWQ is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit. 1 Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-37 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences During construction activities, NCDOT's BMPs will be utilized, including erosion control measures. Isolated Wetland Permit The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has established rules (15A NCAC 02H. 1300) to protect isolated wetlands and isolated waters within the state of North Carolina. Activities which result in a discharge in these areas may be authorized by the issuance of either an Individual Permit or a Certificate of Coverage to operate under a General Permit. Impacts less than or equal to 1/3 acre of isolated wetlands east of 1-95 require a permit from NCDWQ. If impacts to the isolated wetland (Wetland US 13) exceed this threshold, it may also become necessary to obtain an isolated wetland permit from NCDWQ. Riparian Buffers North Carolina Riparian Area Rules are in place for the protection and maintenance of Vegetated Riparian Buffers in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) and Neuse River Basin (15 NCAC 2B .0233). The rules state that roads, bridges, stormwater management facilities, ponds, and utilities may be allowed within the 50-foot riparian buffer area of subject streams where no practical alternative exists. They also state that these structures shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal disturbance, to provide maximum erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat, and to protect water quality to the maximum extent practical through the use of best management practices. Every reasonable effort must be made to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts. Estimated impacts to the riparian buffers by each alternative in the study area are quantified in Table 4-14. Impacts to Zone 1 are based on a buffer width of 30 feet measured landward from the top of bank or rooted vegetation. Zones 1 and 2 should consist of an undisturbed vegetated area except for uses provided in 15 NCAC 2B .0233 (6) for the Neuse River Basin and 15 NCAC 02B .0259 (6) for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Grading and revegetating Zone 2 is allowed, provided that the health of the vegetation in Zone I is not compromised (NCDWQ 2003c). Impacts to Zone 2 are based on a buffer width of 20 feet measured from the outer edge of Zone 1. The acreages presented in this table represent buffer areas impacted by current right-of-way design plans. Impacts may be considerably less upon completion of final design plans. Mitigation for impacts to riparian buffers is discussed above. The Neuse Buffer Certification and Tar-Pamlico Buffer Certification will be requested from NCDWQ in conjunction with a 401 Water Quality Permit. 4.5.4.5 Protected Species Complete surveys for all federally protected species were conducted along all build alternatives for the project. Prior to conducting field surveys suitable habitat was defined for each species. Suitable habitat for each species is defined in Section 3.5.4.4. Once the habitat requirements and life history information for each species were compiled, areas of likely suitable habitat were Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-38 I Draft F:nvironmentalImpact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences identified. These areas were established through review of project aerial photography, field notes from project wetlands delineation and determination efforts, and data from previous natural systems surveys done in the study area. Literature searches regarding natural resources in the project area were initiated in the spring of 2002. Subsequent field work began in the summer of 2002 and continued through the summer of 2005 additions were made to the alternative corridors. The areas of likely suitable habitat were visited and surveyed for the particular species. The field surveys first consisted of an assessment of the area's likelihood of being suitable habitat as identified in the research material and element occurrence records. Each area was visually inspected by a team of experienced biologists. If the field visit determined that the area was suitable habitat, then intensive searches for the particular species were conducted. Additional research and field investigations for the Tar spinymussel were conducted by biologists from NCDOT. Prior to conducting field surveys, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) element occurrence records were reviewed to determine the status of known element occurrences in the area. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect No manatees were observed during the site visits in December 2004 and July 2005. Marginal habitat for the West Indian manatee exists within the project study area. Swift Creek is the only stream that contains water of minimal depth to support habitation by this species. However, there is a distinct lack of submerged aquatic vegetation in this stream to support foraging by manatees. NCNHP records were reviewed on July 26, 2005 and revealed no West Indian manatee present within the study area. Within the study area, Swift Creek is more than 15 miles from its confluence with the Neuse River, a location where the species has been identified in the past. The occurrence of West Indian manatee in the streams of this project area is highly unlikely, and a Biological Conclusion of No Effect has been rendered. ' Bald eap-le (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect NCNHP records (reviewed July 26, 2005) indicate that an active bald eagle nest was located near ' the US 264 and NC 43 interchange (approximately 2.5 miles north of the study area) in 2002. This nest was active for the three previous years, and fledged one chick in 2002. (No information ' was available for the 2003 and 2004 nesting seasons at the time of the NCNHP records search). No suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species was observed within the study area or project vicinity. The surface waters are either too small, impacted by development or agriculture, ' or have a closed canopy, all of which would impair nesting and foraging activity. Furthermore, few forested riparian areas exist within the study area, as most of these areas have been eliminated or significantly impacted by agricultural activities. Given these circumstances, the ' proposed project will have No Effect on this federally protected species. I I Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-39 Draft 1--'nvironmental Impact ,Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Red-cockaded woodpecker (Pieoides borealis) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect The project study area and project vicinity are dominated by land drained for agricultural or development purposes, or for commercial loblolly pine production. No contiguous suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker occurs within the project study area. No pine dominated stands of sufficient size, age and stand characteristics are located within or contiguous to the study area. NCNHP records do not document any known red-cockaded woodpecker populations within 3.0 miles of the project study area (NCNHP records review July 26, 2005). The proposed project will have No Effect on this federally protected species. Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanal BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved The project area spans portions of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico watersheds in Pitt County. The Tar River spinymussel is reported to occur in both river basins; however, it is not currently known to exist in Pitt County. The substrate of streams in the study area is soft sand or mud, unlike the loose gravel beds preferred by this species. Also, the mussel prefers fast-flowing water which generally does not occur in the streams located in the study area. Furthermore, sedimentation, channelization, and nutrients have all degraded the water quality of these streams. A survey was conducted by NCDOT in Greens Mill Run in 1994 (NCDOT 1994) and reported no suitable habitat present. A cursory survey of Swift Creek was conducted at the same time and found several forms of the eastern elliptio mussel (Elliptio spp.). The species was not determined at the time of the surveys. Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) was recommended at that time to minimize impacts to this population. New surveys for this species will be conducted prior to construction. The biological conclusion must remain unresolved until new surveys can be conducted by a trained biologist. 4.6 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) STATEMENTS 4.6.1 Section 6(f) Resources None of the bypass alternates being considered would impact Section 6(f) resources. 4.6.2 Section 4(0 Resources 4.6.2.1 Background Information If a Section 4(f) resource would be directly impacted or a "constructive use" would occur due to a proposed action, a separate document called a Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared. This evaluation would establish whether there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from a Section 4(f) resource and whether the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource resulting from its use. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 440 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences ' 4.6.2.2 Analysis of Section 4 Applicability 1 There are resources protected under Section 4(f) in or affected by the bypass alternates. Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT and 4-EXT were determined to have an Adverse Effect on the Renston Rural Historic District. The Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Both ' bypass alternates would take land directly from the district. Therefore, a Section 4(f) Evaluation is included as Section 5 of this DEIS. 4.7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ' All of the build alternates under consideration would have similar construction impacts. All of the construction impacts listed below would be temporary in nature. Construction activities for the proposed facility would have air, noise, water quality, traffic flow, and visual impacts for ' those residents and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the project. 4.7.1 Energy Construction of any of the bypass alternates is expected to result in less total energy utilitzation than the No-Build Alternative. Construction of the facility would initially require the consumption of energy and resources that would not be used if the project were not built. Operation of the facility, however, would compensate for the energy lost during construction by increasing the efficiency of the regional roadway system. ' Increased energy efficiency on the new facility would be attributed to its controlled access ' features and would result in the following: ¦ Decreased vehicle delays, ' More efficient vehicle operating speeds; and ¦ Diversion of traffic away from less convenient and less efficient roadways. ' 4.7.2 Noise Noise and vibration impacts would be from the heavy equipment movement and construction ' activities such as pile driving. Noise control measures would include those contained in NCDOT's Standard Specifications. ' 4.7.3 Air Quality The air quality impact would be temporary and would primarily be in the form of emissions from ' diesel powered construction equipment, dust from embankment and haul road areas, and burning of debris. Air pollution associated with the creation of airborne particles would be effectively controlled through the use of watering or other techniques in accordance with all local laws and ' ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for Air Quality in compliance with the 15 NCAC 2D.0520. In addition, all construction activities would follow the I Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 441 Draft Envimnmentallmpact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences NCDOT Best Management Practices, for Protection of Surface Waters (March 1997) as applicable and NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. 4.7.4 Utilities The proposed project would require some adjustment, relocation or modification to existing utilities. Any disruption to utility service during construction would be minimized by close coordination with utility providers and property owners in affected areas. 4.7.5 Water Quality Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation would be controlled in accordance with NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures and through the use of NCDOT's Best Management Practices, for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable. Short term water quality impacts would result from erosion and sedimentation associated with the proposed construction of the outer loop. Erosion results when the ground surface is bared from clearing and earthwork operations. After entering streams, the eroded material may increase turbidity levels and sedimentation downstream. 4.7.6 Maintenance of Traffic Maintenance of traffic and sequence of construction would be planned and scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. Signs would be used where appropriate to provide notice of road closures and other pertinent information to the traveling public. The local news media would be notified in advance of road closings and other construction related activities which could excessively inconvenience the community so motorists, residents, and businesses could plan their day and travel routes in advance. Access to all businesses and residences would be maintained to the extent practical through controlled construction scheduling. Traffic delays would be controlled to the extent possible where many construction operations are in progress at the same time. For residents living along the proposed facility some of the materials stored for the project may be displeasing visually; however, this would be a temporary condition and should pose no substantial problem. Construction of the roadway and bridges may require excavation of unsuitable material, placement of embankments, and use of materials such as asphaltic concrete and portland cement concrete. Disposal would be on-site in retention areas or off-site. The removal of structures and debris would be in accordance with local and state regulatory agencies permitting this operation. The contractor would be responsible for the methods of controlling pollution on haul roads, in borrow pits, other material pits, and areas used for disposal of waste materials from the project. Temporary erosion control features could consist of temporary grassing, sodding, mulching, sandbagging, slope drains, sediment basins, sediment checks, artificial coverings, and/or berms. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 u n Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.8 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Implementation of the proposed bypass alternative involves a commitment of the range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Land used in the construction of the proposed facility is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for highway facility. However, if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted to another use. At present there is no reason to believe such a conversion will be necessary or desirable. Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as cement, aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. They are not in short supply and their use would not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. Any construction would also require a substantial one-time expenditure of state funds which are not retrievable. 4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONG- TERM BENEFITS In general, the bypass alternates would have similar impacts on the local short-term uses of resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The construction phase of the project would cause limited adverse effects on the human environment which are deemed to be of a short-term nature. There would be minor siltation of local surface waters during construction; however, careful attention would be given to these problems during design and strict adherence to the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (March 1997) would be applied. These control measures, both temporary and permanent, would minimize adverse short-term effects and avoid any substantial long-term damage. Another short-term effect would be the displacement or relocation of people, businesses, and non- profit organizations; however, the North Carolina Board of Transportation's relocation and financial assistance program would minimize this inconvenience. The proposed project would be classified as a long-term productive facility. This project, with its desirable design characteristics, would provide for safe and efficient vehicle operation. The benefits such as reduced operating costs, reduced travel time, and general economic enhancement of the area offered by the long-term productivity of this project should more than offset the short- term inconvenience and adverse effects on the human environment. 4.10 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS An assessment of potential indirect and cumulative impacts that may result from the proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass project as well as other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development activities within the vicinity of the project was completed using NCDOT's GmenWle Soutbwest Bypass Page 443 Draft F_nvirommental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (2001). 4.10.1 Potential for Indirect Impacts The methodology used to determine if the Greenville Southwest Bypass project would induce growth and affect changes in land use was comprised of a two-step process. First, the overall conditions of the study area were evaluated to define existing conditions, identify supportive factors, and determine the likelihood for growth to occur within the study area. The second step was to identify and evaluate locations where changes to land use were likely to occur as a result of an indirect/induced impact under the Build and No-Build scenarios. The No-Build evaluation describes the future development scenario that would likely occur if the project was not built. The potential for development for the Build scenario was determined by evaluating the study area, including a one-mile radius surrounding the proposed interchange locations as well as major feeder roads, for impacts using a set of characteristics that influence the propensity for land use change. The Greenville/Pitt County area has recently emerged as the commercial, cultural, educational, retail, medical and biotechnology hub of Eastern North Carolina with the presence of East Carolina University and Pitt County Memorial Hospital, coupled with the Brody School of Medicine and a diverse array of large-employer manufacturing industries, a large concentration of small businesses and the eleventh-largest retail presence in the state. Population growth within the study area has outpaced that of Pitt County and the city of Greenville. This growth can be attributed to the vast amounts of agricultural and previously vacant lands that are being transformed into residential uses. This area experienced and is continuing to see rapid population growth due to the presence of developable lands; the presence of water and sewer infrastructure; and the desire of homeowners to "move away" from the city core and "move up" to newer and larger homes. Recent transportation projects in the Greenville region have been constructed to improve congestion on existing facilities rather than to spur additional development. At this time, developability of the area is dependent on water and sewer infrastructure, which are considered to be the limiting growth factors for the project area. Until this infrastructure is in place, the density of the area will be limited to what can be supported by well and septic or community water. In fact, even without construction of the Greenville Southwest Bypass, it is anticipated that current growth and rural residential and agricultural development patterns for these areas will continue within the study area throughout the planning period as they currently have been. The areas with current high growth that would predict to remain that way are: US 264 and Stantonsburg Road, Southwest Vision Area, and the Winterville extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The areas with minor to low growth are: Ayden city limits and ETJ and unincorporated Pitt County. Given the already strong residential growth in the area, this project will not cause complete shifts in population to the project area, but will enhance a current trend. It is expected that due to Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 4-44 Draft Environmental Impact Statement I Section 4 - Environmental Consequences increased, and in some areas new accessibility, that residential development will occur along the feeder roads to the interchange locations, as well as increased densities from the current planned rural residential planned designations. It is anticipated that low-density residential growth will continue to occur along the feeder roads that support the interchange locations. The density of the growth in the area will be tempered by the lack of water and sewer infrastructure in the southern and western portions of the study area. As the construction of the bypass has been anticipated since the early 1970s and has been programmed into land use plans and other local regulations and local officials are targeting development for the major feeder roads in anticipation of the construction of the bypass, no further study or analysis is recommended at this time. ' 4.10.2 Potential for Cumulative Impacts The construction of the Greenville Southwest Bypass and any resultant induced development and ' complementary land development coupled with the construction of the other transportation projects listed in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and other private development projects could constitute a cumulative impact on the study area. However, it is anticipated that NPDES Phase I and II stormwater rules, enforcement of Pitt and Greenville Development Standards, zoning and subdivision regulations (including those in Ayden and ' Winterville), and adherence to the Pitt and Greenville Comprehensive Land Use Plans will support appropriate land development and in turn minimize any development-related impacts . ' The following projects are currently listed in the 2006-2012 TIP for the Pitt County/Greenville area (Figure 1-3): ¦ U-3613. Widen Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) to a five-lance facility from Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) to east of Corey Road (SR 1709). Construction is scheduled to begin in 2006. ' ¦ U-3315. Construct Stantonsburg Road / Tenth Street Connector from Memorial Drive to Evans Street. The facility will be partly on new location with multiple lanes and a grade separation at the CSX rail crossing. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for 2007; and construction is scheduled to begin in 2009. ¦ U-2817. Main Street/Worthington Road Connector. Connect NC 11 to Worthington ' Road with a major thoroughfare instead of a minor thoroughfare (Cooper Street). ¦ U-4737. Arlington Boulevard Extension and Widening. The project is currently under construction. ' ¦ B-3685. Replace Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703. The project is currently under construction. ' ¦ B-4232. Replace Bridge No. 9 over Swift Creek on NC 903. Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled for 2006. ¦ B-4786. Replace Bridge No. 38 over the Tar River on US 13. Right of way acquisition is ' scheduled to begin in 2009 and construction in 2012. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 445 t Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.11 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ' Estimated environmental impacts and costs associated with each of the bypass alternates are summarized in Table 4-15. ' TABLE, 4-15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONM ENTAL Bypass Alternate lB-EXT Bypass Alternate 4-EXT Bypass Alternate 5-EXT Length of Corridor Length on New Location 10.7 11.0 10.8 Length on Existing 2.2 2.2 2.2 Total Length 12.9 13.2 13.0 Relocations Residential 60 42 90 Business 9 2 8 Total Relocations 69 44 98 Minority Populations Impacted None None None Parks Impacted 0 0 0 Schools Impacted 0 0 0 Churches Impacted 0 0 0 Major Electric Power Lines Crossed 3 2 3 Railroad Crossings 1 1 1 Historic Sites with Adverse Effect 1 1 0 Section 4(f) Resources Im acted 1 1 0 Streams Stream Crossings 22 9 23 Stream Impacts* linear feet 4,037.3 1,606.7 4,926.6 Riparian Buffer Zone 1 acres * 5.5 2.2 6.9 Zone 2 (acres)* 3.7 1.5 4.7 Total Buffer Impacts (acres)* 9.2 3.7 11.6 Wetlands (acres ^ 0.5 0.1 1.5 Flood plains (acres)* 0 0 18.3 Federally Protected S ecies+ None None None Prime Farmland (acres) 767.8 753.7 811.5 Hazardous Waste Sites 6 2 6 Noise Impacts No. of properties impacted without mitigation 28 17 17 No. of properties impacted with mitigation 15 7 7 Cost Construction Cost $153,900,000 $157,400,000 $152,000,000 Right of Way Cost $25,309,050 $22,653,250 $35,769,620 Total Cost $179,209,050 $180,053,250 $187,769,620 Keiocations are caicwatea on existing occupies nunaings. * Impacts calculated within conceptual slope stake limits ^ Impacts calculated within conceptual slope stake limits plus 10 feet for potential clearing impacts + One species remains Unresolved Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 446 I Draft t:nvironmental Impact Statement Mar-Te9of OoV s Rd Oo`NaS?d t tego 264 ?ac9 Julia Ln 264 Barrier 5 John P East Memorial Hwy O CO -n 0 r- cu (D n. Greenville 13 2 T 264 Wlnterville Legend -- Build Alternate 1 B-EXT Build Alternate 4-EXT Build Alternate 5-EXT v Candidate Barrier Location Number ¦¦¦¦¦? Candidate Barrier Barrier 2 •• f N W +E S I? I I I I Feet 0 200 400 600 800 North Carolina Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 & US 264 Bus) State Project No. 8.1221401 T.I.P. No. R-2250 ;figure 4-1 Candidate Noise Barrier Locations w = m r w = = w m w m w r = = = w ? i I L C r I I 0 0 J SECTION 5 DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION In accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 USC 303), an evaluation of the project area was conducted for properties determined to be qualified for Section 4(f) evaluation. This requires that no publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife refuge or land from a significant historic site be used for federal-aid highway projects unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative. Specific alternatives and actions to minimize harm must be considered if 4(f) properties are involved. In addition, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, protects those properties that are included on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Section 3.4.1 of this DEIS identifies and describes historic architectural resources, archaeological resources, and public parks in the project area. Within the project area, shown on Figure 5-1, there are no public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges affected by the proposed project. It is likely the study area contains a number of archaeological sites, and a few of the sites could be significant enough to warrant intensive documentation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. However, all bypass alternatives under consideration would have equal likelihood of impacting prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Therefore, a complete archaeological survey will be conducted along the Preferred Alternative corridor once the final corridor is selected. There are several historic architectural resources within the project area. These include one property and one historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places and three properties considered to be eligible for listing on the National Register. The Cox-Ange House and the Renston Rural Historic District are listed on the National Register. The A.W. Ange and Company Store Building, Alfred McLawhorn House, and William Amos Shivers House were determined eligible for the National Register. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Charles ' McLawhorn Houses are considered part of the Renston Rural Historic District. Three bypass alternates are being studied in detail for the project - Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT, ' 4-EXT, and 5-EXT. The No-Build Alternative does not fulfill the transportation needs in the project area and is not consistent with the purpose of the project; but, is retained for comparison purposes. Figure 5-1 shows the location of the Section 4(f) properties in relation to the bypass alternates. J Greenville .Southwest Bypass Pgge 5-1 ' Draft I 'nvironmental Impact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation No right of way acquisition or construction easement would be required from the Cox-Ange House, A.W. Ange and Company Store Building, Alfred McLawhom House, or William Amos Shivers House; therefore, these properties are not discussed further in this Section 4(f) Evaluation. One Section 4(f) property would be impacted by bypass alternates under consideration. Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT would impact the National Register listed Renston Rural Historic District, including the Charles McLawhorn Historic Property. Specific impacts to this district are discussed in more detail in Section 5.2 of this evaluation. 5.1 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY This section describes the setting and activity of the Renston Rural Historic District and contributing elements, including the Charles McLawhorn property (considered to be individually eligible for listing on the National Register). 5.1.1 Renston Rural Historic District The Renston Rural Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2003 under Criterion A for agriculture and Criterion C for architecture with a period of significance of 1840 to 1953. The Historic District is comprised of approximately 1,395 acres of farms, residences, churches, and cemeteries along a 2.5-mile section of NC 903 in Pitt County (see Figure 5-2). Boundary and Contributing Features The boundaries of the Historic District are defined by Horsepen Swamp at the northeast end and by Callie Stokes Road at the southwest end. The district encompasses several large private farms as well as private residences and churches. Flat, open agricultural fields punctuated by nineteenth and twentieth century residences and their corresponding farm buildings remain, with crops and cattle occupying the fields as it has for the past 200 years. The landscape reflects the prevalence of tobacco cultivation beginning in the 1890s and peaking in the early 1950s. Historic buildings line both sides of NC 903, which developed as a connection between the farms, houses, and churches and served as the route between the towns of Winterville in Pitt County and Snow Hill in Greene County. The district was listed on the National Register in 2003 for importance to the architectural and agricultural history of the area. A total of 111 contributing elements to the historic district were identified in the National Register nomination (2003). These include 96 buildings, seven sites, seven structures, and one object which date from the period of significance and retain sufficient integrity to support the district's agricultural and architectural heritage. Table 5-1 identifies the properties containing these elements and the attributes that make them contributing features of the district. Greenville Soutbwest Bypass Pgge 5-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation I I TABLF" 5- 1: CONTRIBUTI NG 13ROPI-,R TIPIS Number* Property Name Type of Year Historical Architectural Other features Property Built Renston Rural District 1840- Represents Houses, outbuilding Fields, dirt roads, Historic District 1953 agricultural and farm structures drainage ditches, heritage of the are examples of and woodlands area vernacular buildings characteristic of of coastal North agricultural Carolina landscape Distr ict Contributin Properties 1 house Residential C.1900 One-story dwelling 2a [garage] Residential C.1900 One-story frame Dairy, outbuilding outbuilding 3 McLawhorn Farm Residential c. 1910, One of two One-story tenant privy Tenant House # 1 1940 remaining tenant house houses on the farm 4 McLawhorn Farm Residential C.1910 One of two One-story outbuilding Tenant House #2 remaining tenant weatherboarded houses on the frame house farm 5 Charles and Residential C.1910 Well-preserved Smokehouse, Maggie Colonial Revival dairy, storage McLawhorn farmhouse shed, washhouse, House garage, commissary, barns, pumphouse, ackhouse 6 Charles Residential C.1880 Associated with smokehouse and McLawhom 1910 Charles well/pumphouse House McLawhom House 7 Edwards Commercial/ c.1950 Constructed as One-story frame Store/House Residential an office for structure selling insurance 9 Edwards Family No additional information available for this site. Cemetery 10 Tenant House Residential c. 1920 One-story Shed weatherboarded frame house 11 Tenant House Residential c. 1920 One-story frame house 12 Baker House Residential c. 1915 One-story frame Shed, cemetery house 13 Charles V. Residential c. 1948 One-story Tudor Garage Edwards House Revival style house 14 Edwards Residential c. 1840 Two-story single- Outbuilding, Privy Home lace pile main block 16 Edwards Farm Residential c. 1920 One-story frame Shed, Shed, Tenant House house sawmill shed. 17a [barn] Residential c.1920 3 tobacco barns, 2 sheds 18 House Residential C.1910 One-story frame Barn/packhouse, house shed ' Greenville .S'ontfiwert Bypass Page 5-3 Dra/1 I environmental Impact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 19 Dail Tenant House Residential c. 1940 One-story concrete block, double pile house. 20 [barn] Residential c. 1930 tobacco barn 21 Dail House Residential c. 1850 Two story single pile Washhouse, shed, frame house stable, pumphouse, Dail Cemetery. 22 Dennis Residential 1948 Two-story double Barn, tenant McLawhorn pile frame house house, shed, shed, House cemetery 24 [barn] Residential c.1920 25 barn Residential c.1920 28 Worthington Residential c.1840 One-and-a-half story frame house. 29 R.H. McLawhorn Residential c.1922 One-story frame Smokehouse, house washhouse, delco generator house, Bell, garage, dairy, corn barn, six tobacco barns, ackhouse. 30 Charles L. Residential c.1946 One-story frame Packhouse, Barn, McLawhorn house on brick two tobacco barns House foundation. 31 Zion Hill Church Church C.1910 One-story frame Cemetery building 32 Worthington Residential C.1900 Two-story frame Barn, Shed, House house tobacco barn 33 Tenant House Residential C.1900 One-and-one-half sto frame building 34 Bethany Free Will Church c.1922 Brick building. Parsonage, Baptist Church Cemetery 35 [bungalow] Residential c.1925 One-story frame Shed, outbuilding, bungalow barn, former Bethany Church, pumphouse, two tobacco barns 36 [barn] Residential c.1920 37 House Residential c.1955 One-story brick house 39 House Residential C.1910 One-story double Shop/garage, two pile house outbuildings 40 Stokes House Residential c.1920 One-story frame Privy, washhouse, house barn, um house 41 House Residential C.1900 One-story framed outbuilding dwelling 42 -- Landscape c.1840 1,395 ac. agricultural land *Numbers used in the Renston Rural Historic District Nomination (Van Dolsen 2003). Missing numbers correspond to non-contributing I features. The Charles McLawhorn property (Number 30 in Table 5-1) is located within the Renston Rural ' Historic District and is considered to be individually eligible for listing on the National Register. The property contains two houses once occupied by Charles McLawhom and his family: Windy Oaks and the Charles McLawhorn House. Windy Oaks is located on the north side of NC 903, ' Gmenville Southwest Bypass Page 54 ' Draft Lnvironmental Impact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation approximately 0.4 miles west of the intersection of Frog Level Road (SR 1127). The Charles McLawhorn house is located on NC 903 approximately 0.25 miles west of the intersection with Frog Level Road (SR 1127). The two Charles McLawhorn Houses are part of a larger farm complex that has been continuously owned by the same family since its establishment and retains a number of period outbuildings as well as its historic field patterns. The Dennis T. and Madge McLawhorn House and Farm, a noted contributing feature to the Historic District (Number 22 in Table 5-1), was also individually added to the State Historic Preservation Office's Study List by the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee in 2003. The committee determined that the property is potentially eligible for individual listing on the National Register and warrants further study. The property is located on the northwest side of NC 903 northeast of the intersection with Abbott Farm Road and Cheek Farm Roads. The ' property consists of 85.77 acres and includes a 1948 house, two concrete block domestic outbuildings, a 1942 gambrel-roof barn, four grain bins, one tobacco bulk barn, a ca. 1910 tenant house, and a ca. 1920 mule stable. The house is an outstanding Colonial Revival style residence ' with architectural integrity. The gambrel roof barn and mule stables are also examples of significant vernacular architectural buildings types, and the farm retains its acreage and field ' patterns from the period of significance, ca. 1925 to 1953. Use and Ownership ' Most of the contributing properties in the district are residential and privately owned. There are two churches within the district that are considered contributing structures - the Bethany Free ' Will Baptist Church and the Zion Hill Church. Architectural and Landscape Features t The landscape and architecture of the Renston Rural Historic District represent the agricultural heritage of the area. The houses, domestic outbuildings, and farm structures are examples of the ' vernacular buildings of the coastal plain of North Carolina from the 1840s to the 1950s. The agricultural buildings document the tobacco era of farming and are representative of the common agricultural buildings found on farms throughout the region. The fields, dirt roads, drainage ' ditches, and woodlands also represent the agricultural landscape once found in the region. Access ' The primary roads accessing the Renston Rural Historic District include NC 903, Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117), and Frog Level Road (SR 1127). There are numerous unpaved private roads ' providing access to properties and farms within the district. ' 5.1.2 Relationship to Similarly Used Lands M h f Pi C i l i l l i h l uc o tt ounty rema ns re at ve y rura w t numerous arge farms that have been in continuous operation for many generations. The architectural and landscape features of the ' Renston Rural Historic District are evident throughout Pitt County and eastern North Carolina. Gizenville .S'outbmest Bypass Page 5-5 ' ' Draft h nrironnientalImpact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation There are a number of National Register listed Historic Districts in counties surrounding Pitt County that are similar to the Renston Rural Historic District. These include: ¦ Woodville Historic District - Located in Bertie County, this historic district represents the rural life of the gentry in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. ¦ Black Creek Rural Historic District - This district is an example of antebellum architecture in Wilson County. ¦ Conoho Creek Historic District - Like the Renston Rural Historic District, this district shows the development of a small rural community and has a period of significance that covers both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This district is located in Martin County. 5.2 IMPACTS TO THE SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY The purpose of the proposed project is to provide transportation improvements southwest of the city of Greenville to address capacity and safety deficiencies on existing Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) and Memorial Drive (NC 11). Two broad based alternatives are evaluated in detail in The Build Alternative Draft Environmental Impact Statement - the No-Build Alternative and a Build Alternative, includes three different bypass alternates (Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT, 4- EXT, and 5-EXT). Two of the three bypass alternates under consideration (Bypass Alternates 1 B- EXT and 4-EXT) would utilize land within the Renston Rural Historic District. The Build Alternative would be a four-lane, median-divided, freeway with full control of access and interchanges or grade separations at major crossroads. The bypass would have a design speed of 70 mph. Control of access would extend along arterial roads a minimum of 1,000 feet from interchanges. The impacts of the Build Alternative's bypass alternates were evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) in accordance with Section 106 requirements. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT were determined to have an Adverse Effect on the Renston Rural Historic District. Alternate 5-EXT would have No Adverse Effect on the district. Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT and 4-EXT would adversely affect the district by converting district land to highway use. While Bypass Alternate iB-EXT would use land from the district, it would not require land from any contributing properties within the district. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would use land from the district and would displace four contributing structures and use land from six additional contributing properties. In addition to the use of property within the district, both bypass alternates would have visual and construction-related impacts. The potential impacts to the Renston Rural Historic District and its contributing properties are discussed below. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 5-6 Draft b'nvironmental Impact .S'tatement 1 Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 1 5.2.1 Displacement and Land Area Used Table 5-2 shows the effects of each of the bypass alternates on the Historic District and contributing properties. These effects are described by alternate below. Bypass Alternate IB-EXT A total of approximately 45 acres of new right of way would be acquired and converted to highway use within the district for Bypass Alternate 1B-EXT. This alternate would impact the eastern edge of the Historic District, and no contributing properties would be directly impacted. The majority of the impact associated with this alternate is related to a proposed interchange at NC 903. The northeast and northwest quadrants of the proposed diamond interchange would be located entirely within the district, as would a portion of the southwest quadrant. Additional use would result along NC 903 due to improvements along that road to accommodate traffic from the interchange as well as from extending control of access on either side of the interchange. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would use approximately 120 acres of the Renston Rural Historic District for new right of way. The alternate, which passes through the Historic District just east of the intersection of NC 903 and Abbott Farm Road (SR 1117), would require land from ten contributing properties. On four of these properties, one or more contributing structure (see Table 5-2) would be displaced. Right of way for this alternate would use a very small portion of ' the Charles McLawhorn Historic Property (less than 0.25 acre). It is possible that this impact may be avoided or further minimized through design refinement. Approximately 51 acres of right of way would also be required from the Dennis McLawhom House and Farm. 1 J DISTRICT TABLEI 5-2: AND CONTRIBUTING Number Property Name Structure Other New ROW taken from Displaced Features Used Property Renston Rural Alternate 1 B-EXT: 45 acres Historic District Alternate 4-EXT: 120 acres District Contributing roperties* 4 McLawhom Farm No R/W: 0.43 acre Tenant House #2 Easement: 0.28 acre 9 Edwards Family No 0.11 acre Cemetery 12 Baker House Yes 0.18 acre 13 Charles V. Yes 0.64 acre Edwards House 14 Edwards No Outbuilding 0.24 acre Home lace 19 Dail Tenant House No R/W: 0.84 acre 21 Dail House Yes Easement: 0.41 acre 22 Dennis Yes Sheds, barn 50.9 acres McLawhorn House 25 [barn] No R/W: 19.8 acres Easement: 0.12 acre 28 Worthington No 0.50 acre * Use from Bypass Alternate 4-EXT only. Gtrenville Southwest Bypass Page 5-7 ' Dra/1 hntironmentalImpact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation As with Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT, a large portion of the right of way required for this alternate would be used for a proposed interchange with NC 903. Additional right of way would also be required along NC 903 on each side of the interchange for improvements to the existing facility, extended control of access, and construction of service road to access remaining parcels. Of the contributing properties used for new right of way, two are within the proposed interchange; six are immediately adjacent to NC 903 and would be impacted by improvements and extended access control along that road; and two would be impacted by proposed service roads. Bypass Alternate S-EXT Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would not use land from the Historic District or its contributing properties. 5.2.2 Potential for Incompatible Development The land within the Renston Rural Historic District is zoned RR (rural residential) and RA (rural agriculture). Pitt County anticipates that much of the area within the Historic District will develop into suburban residential use in the future, which would allow for residential development at a density of one to four dwelling units per acre and limited multi-family, commercial, office, light industrial, and public/institutional uses. Non-residential uses would be required to meet certain locational criteria including frontage and access to a major state highway or secondary road, location at a major intersection, proximity to similar uses, and separation from non-compatible uses such as existing residential development. The decision to develop property within the district at a higher use, however, will be ultimately at the discretion of the individual property owner and the county planning staff. 5.2.3 Visual Change Visual impacts of alternatives under consideration are evaluated in Section 4.3.5 of this DEIS. Visual impacts would result from introduction of a new highway facility, changes in topography, and loss of vegetation. Views from properties within the district and views of the district from existing roads would change. NCDOT will coordinate with HPO during selection of a preferred alternative to identify potential minimization or mitigation measures for visual impacts to these resources. As noted in Section 4, impacts to visually sensitive resources, including the Historic District, were categorized using the following ratings: ¦ No Impact - The view of the alternative has minor implications to the existing landscape or there is no impact at all ¦ Low Impact - The view of the project is limited, the visual resource is limited in importance, there are dominating visual intrusions in the viewshed from other sources, or there is a weak visual contract between the facility and the landscape. If any of the proposed actions are closer to the resource than the existing facility, but do not Greenville Soutbwest Byparr Page 5-8 Draft 1--mironmentallmpact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation necessarily create a visual impact, per se, due to visual intrusions, it has been rated as ' having a low impact. ¦ Moderate Impact - The view of the project is a moderate intrusion into the visual environment with greater contrast than the low impact but not as great as a high impact. ' High Impact - The project is in proximity and visible to viewers, has a strong contrast with the landscape, is in an area of importance with limited visual intrusions, or involves n fl substantial view sensitivity. Bypass Alternates 1B-EXT and 4-EXT both pass through the Renston Rural Historic District. Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT would cross the southernmost portion of the district and would have a moderate visual impact, primarily attributable to a proposed interchange with NC 903. As NC 903 would bridge over the bypass, the bypass would be constructed at or below existing grade to minimize visual intrusions on the surrounding landscape. At-grade portions of the roadway would likely be shielded by vegetation. Bypass Alternate 4-EXT passes through a larger portion of the district and would have a high visual impact. The highway would contrast with the rural, agricultural landscape and historic homes in this area and would bisect the historic district, creating a visual barrier. As with Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT, Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would include an interchange at NC 903, with NC 903 bridging over the bypass and the bypass constructed at or below existing grade. Alternate 5-EXT passes east of the district and would have no visual impact on the area. Visual quality for travelers using the proposed bypass, regardless of which corridor is selected, would be improved compared to the visual environment along existing Memorial Drive (NC 11) and Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business). Travelers on the new roadway would have opportunities for views of agricultural, forested, and residential areas. 5.2.4 Traffic and Access Traffic traveling east and west along NC 903 will increase with construction of a bypass, as travelers may use NC 903 to access the bypass. It is likely also that traffic on other roadways leading into the district would increase from local traffic accessing the bypass. Traffic volumes along existing routes and on the bypass are considered to be consistent for all bypass alternates because the alternates share common termini and some of the same route. The primary roads leading into and through the Historic District, including NC 903, Abbott Farm Road, Dennis McLawhom Road, and Frog Level Road, would remain open with grade separations from the bypass. Smaller farm roads within the district would be severed by the bypass. Cheek Farm Road, for example, would be cut by Bypass Alternate 4-EXT. Access to parcels along this road would be provided via a service road from Abbott Farm Road. Additional service roads may be constructed to access parcels cut off from their existing accesses. ' Greenville Sontbwest Bypass Page 5-9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation As Alternate 5-EXT is located east of the Historic District, the district would not be impacted by increased traffic traveling to the bypass from NC 11 or other areas to the east. There could be a minimal increase in traffic crossing the district on NC 903 from the west to access the bypass. There would also be no impacts to roads within the Historic District during construction, and there would be no permanent road closures within the district. 5.2.5 Air Quality National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and state air quality standards would not be exceeded in the Renston Rural Historic District with the bypass alternates (see Section 4.3.2). 5.2.6 Noise With the No-Build Alternative, increased traffic volumes would raise peak noise levels 4dBA or less at receptors within the Historic District (noise level changes of 3 dBA or less are not detectable by the human ear). With Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT, noise levels at two receptors in the district would increase 7 and 8 dBA to 55 and 58 dBA, respectively. FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) would not be exceeded. With Bypass Alternate 4-EXT, ten receptors in the district would experience increases of 6 to 8 dBA, with a maximum noise level of 63 dBA. This would not exceed the NAC. (See Section 4.3. 1) Due to its distance from the Historic District, Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would not impact receptors in the district. There would be no increases in noise detected in the district that would exceed the NAC. 5.2.7 Construction Section 4.7 describes potential temporary impacts from construction of the bypass alternates. In developing and implementing its construction projects, the NCDOT strives to minimize inconveniences and disturbances as much as possible. Construction operations would be conducted in a manner that minimizes noise and dust, protects landscaping outside of the proposed right of way, and maintains traffic flow and access. In both bypass alternates that cross the Historic District, an interchange is proposed within the district at NC 903. In both cases, NC 903 would cross the bypass with a bridge. Access to properties along NC 903 and for through traffic along NC 903 will be maintained throughout construction of the bridge. Construction of Bypass Alternate 5-EXT would have minimal impacts on the Historic District. All construction activities would take place outside of the district's boundaries. Access to the district from the east along NC 903 could be temporarily disrupted, though through traffic would be maintained throughout the construction process. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 5-10 I Draft 1 invironmentalImpact ,S'tatement ' Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation ' 5.3 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives that would avoid using the Renston Rural Historic District are analyzed in detail in this DEIS: the No-Build Alternative and Bypass Alternate 5-EXT. These alternatives are described in Section 2 of the DEIS. t 5.3.1 No-Build Alternative ' The No-Build Alternative would not require land acquisition from the Renston Rural Historic District. Although the No-Build Alternative would not impact the district, it is not considered a prudent alternative since it would not fulfill the transportation needs in the project area. 1 5.3.2 Bypass Alternate 5-EXT ' Bypass Alternate 5-EXT was developed as a new location avoidance alternative for the Renston Rural Historic District. In 2003, when the Historic District was identified, all alternates under consideration directly impacted the district. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT was designed to avoid ' impacts to all historic properties, including Renston Rural Historic District. Bypass Alternate 5-EXT begins south of the intersection of NC 11 and NC 102 in Ayden and consists of 10.8 miles on new location. The corridor passes east of the Renston Rural Historic District and Charles McLawhorn Property and west of the William Amos Shivers House before joining with Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT just north of Forlines Road (SR 1126). 1 Th h i i e c aracter st cs and impacts of this alternate relative to the two other bypass alternates under consideration are described in Section 4 of this DEIS. Key differences between the alternates in terms of their characteristics and impacts are: ' • Bypass Alternates I B-EXT and 4-EXT would have an adverse effect on the Renston Rural Historic District . ' Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT would displace fewer homes than would Bypass Alternate 5-EXT. Alternates 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT would impact 60 and 42 homes, respectively, while Alternate 5-EXT would impact 90 homes. ' ¦ Bypass Alternate 4-EXT would have the least impacts on natural resources, including ' streams (1,600 linear feet and 9 crossings), wetlands (0.1 acre), riparian buffers (3.7 acres), and floodplains (0 acres). Impacts from Alternate 1 B-EXT and 5-EXT on these resources would be comparable, with impacts to streams of 4,037 to 4,927 linear ' feet of stream in 22 and 23 crossings; impacts to wetlands of 0.5 to 1.5 acres; impacts to buffers of 9.2 to 11.6 acres. Alternate 5-EXT would also impact more than 18 acres of floodplain associated with Swift Creek and Horsepen Swamp. ' ¦ The bypass alternates would cost between $179.2 and 198.8 million. Their total right of way and construction costs would be: Greenville Southwest Bypass Pqe 5-11 ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 5 - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation • Bypass Alternate 1 B-EXT: $179.2 million • Bypass Alternate 4-EXT: $180.0 million • Bypass Alternate 5-EXT: $198.8 million 5.3.3 Other Avoidance Options Other options were considered early in the planning process for this project that avoided the Renston Rural Historic District. Preliminary corridors, including 2, 3, 3A, and 313, passed to the east of the Historic District. These were eliminated prior to the development of the Renston Rural Historic District and were not reconsidered after the district was established. The reasons for eliminating these corridors (discussed in Section 2.4.3.2) remained valid and were considered sufficient for excluding these corridors from detailed study. The Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative also avoided the Historic District. However, the alternative was eliminated due to substantial impacts to businesses and residences along Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) and Memorial Drive (NC 11), the alternative's questionable ability to fulfill the area's transportation needs, public opposition, and the overall cost. An avoidance alternate that bypasses the historic district to the west was not studied in detail. A western avoidance alternative would not fulfill the transportation needs of the project area. Because of the distance to Memorial Drive, there would not be sufficient traffic removed from the existing facility to meet the purpose of the project. In order to avoid the district, a bypass would be nearly 4 miles west of Memorial Drive, as compared to the 1.5 miles separating Bypass Alternate 4-EXT, the westernmost detailed study alternate, and Memorial Drive. An alternative to the east of the town of Ayden was not evaluated in detail because of the potential for longitudinal impacts to Horsepen Swamp and Swift Creek. Residential relocations would be higher if the alternative passed to the east of Ayden. In addition, alternatives south and east of NC 11 do not meet purpose and need of the proposed project. 5.4 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM For unavoidable impacts to the Section 4(f) resource, efforts will be made to modify the designs and locations where feasible to minimize harm to the resource. The determination of where the alternates could be adjusted or modified would be made following the selection of the Preferred Alternative. The current preliminary designs for the bypass alternates represent a "worst-case" scenario. 5.5 COORDINATION Coordination with the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Officer, and other agencies has taken place throughout the course of the study. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 5-12 Drat Environmental Impact Statement L u Section 5 - Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation Coordination and meetings with HPO and other agencies included discussions concerning the determination of Section 4(f) properties, avoidance alternatives, and measures to minimize harm. This coordination will continue through selection of a preferred alignment and further minimization of impacts from the selected alternative. Greenville Sonthmest Bypass Page 5-13 I)rafi hnvironmentallmpad Statement I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I or 'N SECTION 6 LIST OF PREPARERS This document was prepared by the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation with assistance from H.W. Lochner, Inc. Federal Highway Administration Clarence Coleman, PE Operations Engineer; 13 years experience Ron Lucas, PE Area Engineer; 14 years experience North Carolina Department of Transportation Colista Freeman, PE Rob Hanson, PE Beth Smyre Brian Yamamoto, PE H.W. Lochner, Inc. Project Development Engineer; 5 years experience Eastern Region Unit Head; 20 years experience Project Development Engineer; 5 years experience Eastern Region Consultant Engineering Group Leader; 17 years experience Tim Bassette* M.S. in environmental science and B.A. in biology with Environmental Biologist 7 years experience in natural resources investigations/ environmental permitting and 4 years experience in environmental chemistry Stephen C. Browde, PE B.S. degree in civil engineering with 21 years experience Senior Roadway Design Engineer in roadway design Roy D. Bruce, PE M.S. and B.S. degree in civil engineering with 26 years Project Manager experience in transportation engineering, environmental analysis, and document preparation Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 6-1 Draft hntnronmental Impact Statement Section 6 - List of Preparers Brian Eason, PE B.S. degree in civil engineering with 16 years experience Project Manager/Design Unit in roadway design Michelle Fishburne, PE* B.S. degree in civil engineering with 17 years experience Project Manager in transportation planning and document preparation Eric Galamb, PWS B.S. in environmental management and biogeography Project Manager/Natural Resources with 17 years of experience in natural resources investigations/environmental permitting, wetland and stream mitigation Emily Rackley* B.S. in biology with 4 years experience in natural Environmental Biologist resources investigation Heather Renninger B.S. in ecology with 5 years experience in natural Environmental Biologist resources investigation/environmental permitting and stream restoration. Suzanna Rea, PE* Senior Transportation Planner Dave Shannon, PE Design Engineer B.C.E. degree in Civil Engineering with 7 years experience in transportation planning and document preparation B.S. degree in civil engineering with 12 years experience in engineering and environmental analysis Christina Shumate, AICP M.E.M. degree in environmental management with 5 Environmental Planner years experience in environmental planning and NEPA documentation. Michelle Suverkrubbe, AICP B.S. in biological science with 20 years experience in Senior Land Use and environmental and land use planning and NEPA Environmental Planner document preparation Cindy Szwarckop, AICP* M.U.R.P. in urban and regional planning with 11 years Senior Land Use Planner experience in land use planning and NEPA document preparation. Chris Werner, PE B.S. degree in civil engineering with 5 years experience Transportation Engineer in environmental planning and roadway design. Doug Wheatley, El B.S. in civil engineering with 2 years experience in Transportation Engineer roadway design Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 6-2 I Draft hnvironmental Impact Statement Section 6 - List of Preparers Jonathan Williamson B.S. in applied geography with 5 years experience in GIS Technician GIS data analysis and map preparation Dave Zawada, PE M.S. and B.S. degrees in civil engineering with 32 years Environmental Engineer experience in environmental analysis and document preparation * No longer employed with H.W. Lochner, Inc. Grenville Southwest BYpds.r Iha%t Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ll? I '101? I I SECTION 7 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT Federal Agencies US Environmental Protection Agency US Department of Transportation US Department of Interior US Department of Commerce US Department of Agriculture US Department of Energy US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Environmental Affairs Federal Rail Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of Management and Budget Interstate Commerce Commission Regional Offices Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Emergency Management Agency General Services Administration Federal Transit Authority State Agencies NC Department of Human Resources NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC Department of Cultural Resources NC Department of Public Instruction NC Department of Commerce NC Department of Economic and Community Development State Clearinghouse Greenville .S'onthirest Bypass Drat Environmental Impact Statement Page 7-1 Section 7 - List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement are Sent Local Governments and Agencies Chairman, Ayden Town Council Chairman, Greenville City Council Chairman, Pitt County Commissioners Chairman, Winterville Town Council City of Greenville Planning Department Greenville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Commission Pitt County Planning Department Town of Ayden Planning Department Town of Winterville Planning Department Greenville SontbPest Bypass I)ra%t Environmental Impact Statement Page 7-2 J I I I 1 SECTION 8 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 8.1 AGENCY COORDINATION 8.1.1 Early Coordination An initial scoping meeting for this project was held on December 16, 1992. Representatives from various NCDOT departments discussed the purpose of the project and known environmental constraints that would limit new projects. A follow-up to this meeting was held on March 26, 1993 and included representatives from state environmental regulatory agencies. Project limits and potential alternatives were discussed. Formal agency scoping comments for this project were solicited in 1993. NCDOT implemented the scoping process through the distribution of a scoping letter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as well as local officials. The scoping letter was distributed on October 8, 1993 and solicited comments related to the project. Pertinent comments received from these agencies and officials are included in Appendix A. FHWA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project on January 7, 1994 (see Appendix B). 8.1.2 Combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process In a May 1, 1992 agreement, the US Department of Transportation, the Office of the Assistant of the Army (Civil Works), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), developed policy that (a) would improve interagency coordination and (b) would integrate NEPA and Section 404 procedures. On May 14, 1997, the Wilmington District of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) signed an Interagency Agreement that provided procedures to integrate NEPA and Section 404 for transportation projects in North Carolina. In 1997, NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE agreed that "these procedures apply to all projects needing Federal Highway Administration action under the National Environmental Policy Act and a US Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These procedures are limited to those projects determined by Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation to be processed with an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPA, and/or those projects that require an Individual Section 404 Permit." Greenville Southwest Bypass Page X 7 Drat I'nrironmental Impact Statement Section 8 - Coordination and Public Involvement The NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process is based on concurrence from Merger Team Members at four major milestones (concurrence points) during project studies. For the Greenville Southwest Bypass project, the Merger Team includes representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, including FHWA, USACE, EPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), Greenville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, and NCDOT. The four points for concurrence are (1) project purpose and need, (2) alternatives selected for detailed study, (3) least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), and (4) avoidance and minimization. The NEPA/404 Merger Process was amended in 2001 and is referred to as the "Merger 01 Process." The amended procedures for the Merger 01 Process were implemented in March 2003. The Concurrence Points amendments in the Merger 01 Process include the addition of Concurrence Point 2A and the separation of Concurrence Point 4 into three items: A, B, and C. Concurrence Point 2A includes coordinating the bridge locations, lengths, and cost with the Merger Team, and the three items for Concurrence Point 4 (A, B, and C) include Avoidance and Minimization, a Hydraulic Design Review, and a Permit Drawing Review, respectively. In 2001, the Greenville Southwest Bypass Study became subject to the Merger 01 Process. Following this development, a second agency scoping letter was distributed to obtain comments on the project. A copy of this letter and relevant agency comments can be found in Appendix A. The project has proceeded through Concurrence Points 1, 2, and 2A as described below. After further public involvement and distribution of this DEIS, it is expected that the Merger 01 Process will continue with Concurrence Point 3. Copies of the signed Concurrence Forms can be found in Appendix C. 8.1.2.1. Concurrence Point 1 -- Purpose and Need Members of the Merger Team concurred with the purpose and need for the project on February 15, 2001. The purpose and need of the project is to "ease existing and anticipated traffic congestion on NC 11 (Memorial Drive) in Greenville." 8.1.2.2. Concurrence Point 2 - Alternatives for Detailed Study A series of meetings were held to identify alternatives for detailed study. On February 20, 2002, the Merger Team met to discuss which of the preliminary alternatives and corridors (Bypass Alternates 1, 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 3A, 4, and 4A) should be evaluated in detail for the project (see Figure 2-2). At the conclusion of the meeting, the Transportation Systems Management and Mass Transit Alternatives were eliminated, as were Bypass Alternates 3, 3A, 313, and 4A. A follow-up to this meeting was held on April 11, 2002 to further discuss Bypass Alternate 2. This meeting was attended by representatives from NCDOT and NC Division of Water Quality. Ultimately, Bypass Alternate 2 was eliminated from further study. At this point, Bypass Alternates 1, IA, 1 B, Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 8-2 Draft F.nvironrnentallmpact Statement Section 8 - Coordination and Public Involvement L and 4 remained, along with the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative, for more detailed evaluation, including preliminary design, construction and right of way cost estimates, and environmental studies. A second formal Concurrence Point 2 Merger Team Meeting was held on April 23, 2003 to reevaluate the Upgrade Existing Alternative and Bypass Alternate 1 as alternatives for detailed study. The Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project and included a large number of relocations, including large businesses such as hotels, car dealerships, and shopping centers; therefore, Merger Team members concurred it should be eliminated from further study. The right of way cost for this alternative was also considered prohibitive. Agencies also discussed eliminating Bypass Alternate 1 from further study because of its impacts to the Charles McLawhorn historic property and to natural resources. No concurrence form was signed during this meeting, and a follow-up meeting was held on June 18, 2003 to further discuss Bypass Alternates I A, 1 B, and 4 and their relation to the newly identified Renston Rural Historic District; however, because the boundaries of the district had not been fully identified, concurrence on alternatives was postponed and all Bypass Alternates as well as the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative remained for consideration. A third and final Concurrence Point 2 Merger Team Meeting was held on February 15, 2005 to evaluate the remaining Bypass Alternates (I A, 1 B, and 4) along with newly developed alternatives that avoid the Renston Rural Historic District (Bypass Alternate 5) and that connect to NC 11 south of the town of Ayden (Bypass Alternates I-EXT, IA-EXT, 1B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT) and the Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative. The Upgrade Existing Facilities Alternative and Bypass Alternates 1, 1 A, 1 B, 4, 5, 1-EXT, and 1 A-EXT were eliminated from detailed study. Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT were maintained for detailed study and are examined in detail in this DEIS. 8.1.2.3. Concurrence Point 2A - Bridge Locations and Lengths 1 The Merger Team met on October 20, 2005, to review the stream and wetland crossings along the three alternatives selected for detail study (Bypass Alternates 1 B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT) and ' determine the need for bridge crossings. No bridges were proposed at any of the wetland or stream crossings, as none of the wetlands or streams crossed by the project are considered to be high quality. ' A f ld i ld h ie meet ng was e on October 31, 2005, to review selected sites to determine if structures for wildlife crossings are warranted. It was determined that no wildlife crossings are needed due ' to the fragmented nature and relatively low quality of wildlife habitat adjacent to the project. ' 8.1.3 HPO Coordination Representatives of NCDOT, FHWA, and HPO met on April 15, 2003, to review project alternatives for effects to historic properties. The following conclusions were reached: ' Greenville SoutI est Bypass Page 8-3 D q t I:nvironmentalImpact. Statement Section 8 - Coordination and Public Involvement ¦ William Amos Shivers House - No Effect for Corridors 1, 1A, 1 B, 4, and Improve Existing NC 11 ¦ AW Ange & Company Store - No Effect for Corridors 1, 1A, 1 B, 4, and Improve Existing NC 11 ¦ Alfred McLawhom House - No Effect for Corridors 1, 1A, 1B, 4, and Improve Existing NC 11 ¦ Charles McLawhom House - No Effect for Corridor 4 and Improve Existing NC 11; adverse effect for Corridor 1; No Adverse Effect for Corridors 1 A and 1 B ¦ Cox-Ange House - determined to be outside the APE for all corridors Due to the addition of the Southern Extension corridor and the establishment of the Renston Rural Historic District within the project area, representatives of NCDOT and HPO met again on February 8, 2005 to evaluate effects of the proposed project to historic resources. The following determinations were made for study corridors: ¦ Renston Rural Historic District - No Effect for Improve Existing NC 11; Adverse Effect for Corridors 1, 1-EXT, 1 A, 1 A-EXT, 1 B, 1 B-EXT, 4, and 4-EXT; No Adverse Effect for Corridors 5 and 5-EXT ¦ Alfred McLawhom House - No Effect for Corridors 5 and 5-EXT; Adverse Effect for Improve Existing NC 11 ¦ William Amos Shivers House - No Adverse Effect for Corridors 5 and 5-EXT Final determinations for the detailed study alternatives are: ¦ Renston Rural Historic District - Adverse Effect for Corridors 1 B-EXT and 4-EXT; No Adverse Effect for Corridor 5-EXT ¦ Alfred McLawhorn House - No Effect for Corridor 5-EXT ¦ William Amos Shivers House - No Adverse Effect for Corridor 5-EXT 8.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The early and continued involvement of citizens who may be affected by the study's outcome has been a vital part of the planning process for the Greenville Southwest Bypass project. The public involvement program for this project included local officials meetings, citizens informational workshops, small group meetings, newsletters, and a toll-free project hotline. 8.2.1 Local Officials Meetings 8.2.1.1. First Public Officials Meeting A public officials meeting was held August 31, 1993 at Pitt County Community College in Greenville. This meeting was held to give NCDOT personnel an opportunity to hear suggestions and concerns related to the location of the proposed bypass. Eight local officials attended this meeting. Greenville Soudmest Bypass Page 84 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement Section 8 - Coordination and Public Involvement C 1 u C 8.2.1.2. Second Public Officials Meeting The second Public Officials meeting was held March 22, 1994 in the Pitt County Community College library. Seven local officials attended this meeting. This meeting was held to allow public officials to review and discuss potential corridors. 8.2.1.3. Third Public Officials Meeting A public officials meeting was held October 25, 2001 in Conference Room A of Boyd Lee Park in Greenville. The purpose of this meeting was to inform public officials about the current status of the project and to provide information for them to use when answering questions from the public. Information provided to public officials included a meeting agenda, the handout for the Citizens Informational Workshop (to be held later the same day), and the preliminary evaluation matrix. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting. Several comments were made at the Public Officials Meeting about the project schedule and the need to protect a corridor from future development in the area. Several other comments were made concerning the feasibility of the Upgrade Existing Alternative and the location of Corridors 4 and 4A. The impacts to the existing businesses and also the proposed businesses located along existing Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road were considered unreasonable because of the right of way expense involved with the impacts to and relocations of the properties adjacent to the roadway. Several officials commented that Corridor 4 appeared to be too far west to serve traffic currently using Memorial Drive. An additional comment was made to extend the southern terminus of Corridor 4A to south of NC 102. 8.2.1.4. Fourth Public Officials Meeting A meeting for public officials was held on April 12, 2005 preceding the Citizens Informational Workshop. Public officials were shown a formal presentation on the project's status and schedule. Eight people attended the meeting. The majority of comments received at this meeting related to schedule for selecting a preferred corridor. 8.2.2 Citizens Informational Workshops 8.2.2.1. First Citizens Informational Workshop The first Citizens Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT on August 31, 1993. The meeting was to introduce the project and solicit comments or suggestions concerning the proposed improvements or areas of environmental concern. Approximately 50 people attended. 8.2.2.2. Second Citizens Information Workshop The second Citizens Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT on March 22, 1994. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the public to review the proposed study corridors. Approximately 50 people attended. ' Greenville Southwest R)Pass ]'age 8-5 Ihaft Envimnmentallmpact Statement Section 8 - Coordination and Public Involvement 8.2.2.3. Third Citizens Informational Workshop A third Citizens Informational Workshop was held on October 25, 2001 to present the additional corridor locations and receive input. The Workshop was held at Boyd Lee Park in Greenville. Approximately 150 people attended. At the Citizens Informational Workshop, twenty-four comment sheets were submitted. An additional thirteen were received in the mail. Several people commented that they would prefer the Upgrade Existing Alternative while 64 percent preferred Corridor 4 because it also avoided a lot of the residential development. Approximately 50 percent stated that they thought the most important consideration in selecting the location of the new roadway was neighborhood impacts and approximately 25 percent stated that they thought the environmental impacts were the most important. Other concerns included the long term planning of the area and the economic impacts Several residents from the Gatewood Subdivision on Frog Level Road (SR 1127) came to the workshop. They expressed concern that they had lived in the neighborhood a short time (two to five years) and were going to be impacted by several of the corridors. 8.2.2.4. Fourth Citizens Informational Workshop The fourth Citizens Informational Workshop was held on April 12, 2005 at South Central High School south of Greenville. Approximately 225 people attended the workshop, where the three alternatives selected for detailed study were presented (Bypass Alternates I B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT). In addition, preliminary impacts of the selected alternatives were given and comments were collected regarding community concerns. 86 comment sheets were returned at the workshop, and an additional 56 were received via mail or email following the workshop. The majority of comments received at the workshop (approximately 53 percent) favored Bypass Alternate 4-EXT, with most noting that the alternative impacts the fewest homes and environmental resources. The vast majority of comments received via mail or email following the workshops (more than 80 percent) advocated Bypass Alternate 5-EXT, wishing to avoid impacts to the Renston Rural Historic District. 8.2.3 Mailing List A mailing list was developed in order to distribute project information to interested persons. The list was compiled from property owner data for the project study area and nearby communities. In addition, any individual, group, or government official expressing an interest in the project was placed on the mailing list. The list contains approximately 8,000 names and addresses. 8.2.4 Newsletters To date, six project newsletters have been published and mailed to citizens, groups, and officials on the mailing list (see Appendix E for copies of these newsletters). These newsletters provided information on the bypass study process and progress. Additional newsletters will be mailed at Greenville Soutbwest J3ypa.u Pgge S-6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 8 - Coordination and Public Involvement 7 upcoming project milestones to announce the Corridor Public Hearing, the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the selection of a preferred alternative, the publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision, and the Design Public Hearing. 8.2.5 Hotline A toll-free hotline (1-800-554-7849) was available for public comments, suggestions, or questions. The hotline service is available Monday through Friday during regular business hours. More than 100 hotline calls have been received to date. 8.2.6 Project Website NCDOT maintains a project website for the public to access information regarding the status of this project. The website is updated periodically at project milestones and to detail project progress. Included on the website are descriptions of the study process, maps of the study area and alternatives under detailed study, the project schedule, frequently asked questions, and contact information. In addition, the website contains links to copies of recent newsletters and meeting summaries. The website is located at http://www.ncdot.org/projects/Greenville. 8 2 7 S ll G M i . . ma roup eet ngs ' In 1994, the town of Ayden requested a formal presentation from NCDOT be given to the Town Council. On May 2, 1994, representatives from NCDOT presented background, project development process, and schedule information for the project. The town council expressed concern with the location of an interchange at the project's southern terminus just north of Ayden. Representatives of NCDOT attended an informal citizen meeting on August 4, 2003 at the ' Bethany Freewill Baptist Church to answer questions regarding the proposed Bypass Alternatives and the project schedule. Approximately 120 citizens attended the meeting, many of whom resided in the vicinity of the Renston Rural Historic District. NCDOT reviewed the project ' history and alternatives selected for detailed study. Many questions were raised concerning the design of the proposed bypass in the vicinity of NC 903 and Pocosin Road (SR 1125); however, ' preliminary designs were not available at the time. A small group meeting was held in Ayden on October 15, 2003 in coordination with the town of ' Ayden Planning Board meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to inform citizens about the status of the project. Twenty-four people signed the attendance register at the meeting. The format of the meeting was a formal presentation followed by questions. Several members of the ' planning board requested that an alternative bypassing the town of Ayden be examined, as they were concerned about the possibility of an interchange in the town between the proposed bypass and NC 102 and its impacts on businesses in that area. A second small group meeting was held in Ayden on November 10, 2003 in conjunction with the ' town's Board of Commissioners meeting. At this meeting, options for the possible interchange of Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 8-7 1)raft Environmental Lnpact .Statement Section 8 - Coordination and Public Involvement the Greenville Southwest Bypass with NC 102 were presented to Ayden's Board of Commissioners. The Town expressed concerns over impacts to businesses along NC 102. A small group meeting was held in Ayden on April 7, 2004 to discuss the town of Ayden's concerns with the Greenville Southwest Bypass. Concerns noted included: access to businesses along NC 102, relocation of businesses along NC 102 and NC 11, access off of NC 11, accuracy of traffic forecasts, accessibility to Ayden, and safety of school children. Representatives from NCDOT attended a Public Forum hosted by the Pitt County Planning Department on July 20, 2005 in the Pitt County Commissioner's Meeting room. The primary focus of the forum was the Pitt County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. A table was provided for answering specific questions related to the Greenville Southwest Bypass project. Twelve people stopped at the table to discuss the Greenville Southwest Bypass Project. Representatives from NCDOT, the city of Greenville, and the Pitt County Economic Development Commission attended a small group meeting in the City of Greenville Public Works Conference Room on September 20, 2005 to discuss the Greenville Southwest Bypass and access to the Worthington Industrial Park. An aerial map showing the location of the Industrial Park in proximity to the three alternates was presented and discussed. A follow-up meeting was held on Aril 16, 2006 to provide updates in the projectsince the previous meeting. At the request of the Pitt County Planning Department, representatives from NCDOT attended a Pitt County Planning Commission meeting on September 21, 2005 in the Pitt County Commission Board Room. The primary focus of the presentation was to provide a brief history of the project and update the Commission on the status of the project. 8.2.8 Corridor Public Hearing A corridor public hearing for the project will be held following the publication of this DEIS. Greenville Southwest Bypass 11age 8-8 Draft Environmental Impact .Statement L C r u u SECTION 9 REFERENCES City of Greenville. Horizons, City of Greenville Comprehensive Plan, 2004. City of Greenville. Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. 2004. Coastal Carolina Trail Committee, Master Plan and Feasibility Study. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Draft Pitt County Greenway Plan, December 2004. ' Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. August 2003. Historic Architectural Resources Report, Determination of Eligibility: Renston Historic District, R-2250, Southwest Bypass of Greenville, Pitt County. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Farmland Protection Policy Act 1981 (7CFR 658). Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) Reports. http://www.faa.gov/airports airtraffic/airports/planning_capacity_/npais/reports. FEMA. January 2, 2004. Flood Insurance Study - A Report of Flood Hazards in Pitt County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas. Franklin, Misty and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. H.W. Lochner, Inc. December 2001. Preliminary Alternatives, Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264). Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 9-1 ' Drgft Environmental Impact Statement Section 9 - References H.W. Lochner, Inc. December 2003. Hydraulic Technical Memorandum, Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264). Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2004. Natural Resources Technical Memorandum, Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2005. Traffic Analysis for Bypass Alternatives Chosen for Detailed Study, Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2006. Natural Resources Technical Memorandum for Southern Extension and Service Road Areas. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2006. Air Quality Technical Memorandum. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2006. Noise Study and Evaluation Technical Memorandum. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2006. Community Impact Assessment Study. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. Johnson, R.I. and A.H. Clarke. 1983. A new spiny mussel, Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana (Bivalvia: Unionidae), from the Tar River, North Carolina. Occas. Pap. Mollusks. 4(61):289-298. LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S. McRae, S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. June 22, 2006. Personal communication. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). (Public Law 97-98, Subtitle 1, Section 1540) [NCNHP] North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records reviewed June 19, 2006 (http://207.4.179.50/nhp/coun ..html) North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. http://www.cgia.state.nc.us/cost.html Greenville Soutbirest Bypass Page 9-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 9 - References [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 1987. Feasibility Study for the ' Greenville Southwest Loop From US 264 to NC 11-903, Pitt County, R-2250. Division of Highways, Planning and Research Branch. ' [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1993. Environmental Screening of Natural Resources for the proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass, Pitt County. State of North ' Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Project Planning Unit, Project Memorandum. ' [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1994. Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Greenville. State of North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Statewide Planning Branch, Systems Planning Unit. [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1994. Protected Mussel Surveys for ' proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass, Pitt County, State Project # 81221401, T.I.P. # R-2250. Memo from Tim Savidge to Wilson Stroud, Unit Head, Project Planning Unit. ' [NCDOT]North Carolina Department of Transportation. August 8, 1995. Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report Phase II (Abridged), NC 11 /NC 903 Southwest Bypass From NC 11 South of Greenville to US 264 West of Greenville, Pitt County, TIP R-2250, State Project # ' 8.1221401. ' [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. March 1996. Archaeological Background Report, Greenville Southwest Bypass Corridors from NC 11 to US 264, Pitt County, North Carolina, TIP R-2250. ' [NCDOT]North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. 1997. State Map of North Carolina, Physiographic Provinces. Raleigh, N.C. ' [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. October 14, 2002. Pitt County Landfill Borrow Site. Memo from Cyrus Parker, Project Manager, Geotechnical Unit/GeoEnvironmental ' Section. [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Natural Resources Technical ' Report, (TIP No.R-2250) Greenville Southwest Bypass. ' [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2000. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. ' [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2001. Basinwide Assessment Report, Neuse River Basin. http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/NEU200I.pdf ' Greenville Southwest Bypass Page 9-3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 9 - References [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2002. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2002. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Neuse/2002/plan.htm [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003a. Basinwide Assessment Report, Tar-Pamlico River Basin. http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003b. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.htmi. [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003c. North Carolina "Redbook" Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/rb040lO3.pdf. [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003e. Active NPDES Permits. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/docs/permits803.PDF [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003f. Fish Community Database. http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/NCIBI.htm [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004b. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IntegratedReporttext 001.12df [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List [Draft 2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report]. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdUdocuments/20041RCategories4-7 OOO.PDF NC Floodplain Mapping Information System. www.ncfloodmaps.com [NCNEWP] North Carolina Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. 2003. North Carolina Atlas of Freshwater Mussels and Endangered Fish. http://www.ncwildlife.org_/pg07 WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7bl.htm North Carolina State Data Center. http://sdc.state.nc.us/ O'Shea, T.J. and M.E. Ludlow. 1992. Florida manatee. pp. 190-200 in S.R. Humphrey (ed.). Greenville Southnvest Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page 94 F Section 9 - References Pitt County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2002. Pitt County Economic Development Commission, www.locateincarolina.com. Pitt County Historical society. 1991. The Historic Architecture of Pitt County, North Carolina. Pitt County Thoroughfare Plan. 2005 Pitt County website, www.co.pitt.nc.us. Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press - Chapel Hill. Power, Scott, ed. 1991. The Historic Architecture of Pitt County, North Carolina. Greenville: Pitt County Historical Society, Inc. Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 1. Mammals. University of Florida, Gainesville. Report of Development Activities in the Southwest Quadrant of Greenville. 2004. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. Schwartz, F.J. Florida manatees, Trichechus manatus (Sirenia: Trichechidae), in North Carolina 1919-1994. Brimleyana 22: 53-60, June 1995. Town of Winterville, Land Use Plan. January 2005. Town of Ayden, Building on our Heritage: A Comprehensive Plan. 1996. Town of Winterville website, www.wintervillenc.com. Town of Ayden website, www.ayden.com. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR94/lartab13.htm. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. Gmenville Southwest Bypass Page 9-5 Draft Environmental htlpact Statement Section 9 - References United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [USFWS] United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 1993. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus). http://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa0c.html [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Ayden, North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Greenville SW, North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. [USFWS] United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2001. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov/rcw.htm [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Pitt County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. January 29, 2003. http://nc- es.fws.gov/es.cniylist/caldwell.html [USFWS] United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2003b. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) http://nc-es.fws.gov/birds/baide.html [USGS] United States Geologic Survey. 1981. Greenville SW, North Carolina 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. [USGS] United States Geologic Survey. 1982. Ayden, North Carolina 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. [USGS] United States Geologic Survey. 1987. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina. Van Dolsen, Nancy. 2003. Renston Rural Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Nomination (DRAFT). Greenville Southwest Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page 9-l J Y b b a y APPENDIX A I AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ' A. I -FEDERAL AGENCIES A.2 - STATE AGENCIES A.3 - LOCAL AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS H I 0 L APPENDIX A.1 AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FEDERAL AGENCIES ' FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 5, 1993 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE - OCTOBER 28, 2003 US DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS - NOVEMBER 24, 2003 US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE - NOVEMBER I8, 2004 J a?AIM C?Iy FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSIO ' ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE 3125 Presidential Parkway - Suite 300 C ?a Atlanta, Georgia 30340 z Q NOV 1993 °'?Js ' 0 5 %vOP MENI'P? ' Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch State of North Carolina ' Department of Transportation Division of Highways Post Office Box 25201 ' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 Dear Mr. Vick. ' This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated October 8, 1993, soliciting comments on the proposed construction of the ' Greenville southwest bypass in Pitt County, North Carolina. It appears that the improvements will not impact hydroelectric ' developments under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy ' Regulatory Commission. Therefore, we have no comment. Very truly yours, -b ? - Ir Robert Crisp, P.E. ' Director United States Forest National Forests United States Federal Department of Service in North Carolina Court House Building Agriculture 100 Otis Street P.O. Box 2750 Asheville, NC 28802 Reply to: 2730 Date: October 28, 1993 /_ F_ V Mr. H. Franklin Vick U Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch N.C. Division of Highways P . 0 . Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 Dear Mr. Vick:Thank you for the opportunity to comment on NC 11-903 (Greenville.Southwest Bypass) from NC 11-903 South of Greenville to US 264 West of Greenville, Pitt County, NC, SP: 8.1221401, FAP: STP-11(1), TIP: R-2550, as requested by your October 8, 1993 letter. There are no Forest System lands impacted by the project; therefore, we have no, comments on the project. Please contact Joe Moore at 704-257-4247, if you have any questions. Sincerely, '??e H U A?GA S Director, LMinerals Enclosures i DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1890 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 November 24, 1993 IN REPLY REFER TO 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: NOV 2 9 t"S DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS cflr? This is in response to your letter of October 8, 1993, requesting our comments on the initiation of a study of the project, "NC 11-903 (Greenville Southwest Bypass), From NC 11-903 South of Greenville to US 264 West of Greenville, Pitt County, Federal Aid Number STP-11(1), State Project Number 8.1221401, TIP Number R-2250" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199400192). From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective, our review and comments focus on impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed project would not impact any COE-constructed flood control or navigation projects. The proposed project study corridor is sited in Pitt County and a portion of the jurisdiction of the city of Greenville, both of which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the September 1990 Pitt County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), it appears that the proposed roadway may affect the flood plain of Swift Creek, an approximate study stream. Based on the April 1986 Greenville FIRM, a portion of the study corridor appears to cross Green Mill Run, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. If the study reaches of either of these streams are impacted by the selected road alignment, we suggest that you coordinate with the affected jurisdictional unit(s) for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and possible changes to their flood insurance maps and/or reports. In addition, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should address the effects of potential upstream flooding from stream crossings. Executive Order 11988 should also be complied with. Q -2- Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has the following comments. a. For each alternative, wetland impacts must be described in terms of acreage, location, and type. b. It is recommended that median construction be eliminated through all waters and wetlands crossings. c. Wetland impacts associated with borrow and waste areas should be identified. d. Level and type of mitigation anticipated should also be addressed. 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 within waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the project, extent of fill work within waters and wetland areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors. If you have any questions regarding Department of the Army permits, Mr. Henry Wicker of our Washington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, may be contacted at (919) 975-5811, Extension 26. 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, La ence W. aunder Chief, Planning Division BCF (w/cy of inc. corres.): CESAW-CO-E/Taylor CESAW-PD-E/Long CESAW-CO-EW/Wicker I 7 SN1 OP C •?'? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 'A?ss01? Southeast Regional office 9450 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 November 18, 1993 Mr. H. Franklin Vick Planning and Environmental Branch N.C. Department of Transportation P. O. Box 25201 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 Dear Mr. Vick: GE! V?N' 16 WN P 1 "95 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Please reference your October 8, 1993, letter requesting our input into the scoping process prior to preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed NC 11-903, Greenville Southwest Bypass (from NC 11-903 south of Greenville to US 264 west of Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Number STP-11(1), State Project Number 8.1221401, TIP Number R- 2250). ' Based on the information provided with your letter, alternative bypass alignments may adversely impact wetlands in the upper reaches of Swift Creek and Fork Swamp, tributaries of the Neuse River. These streams and their associated wooded wetlands provide ' habitat for anadromous fishery resources for which we are responsible. Therefore, the DEIS should address the following issues and information needs. ' 1. The DEIS should describe the streams and wetlands found in the project corridor and assess the type and acreage of wetlands ' impacted by each alternative. 2. The DEIS should discuss each alternative alignment considered with regard to wetland avoidance and environmental impact ' minimization. 3. The DEIS should describe the anadromous fishery resources ' found in the project area and potential adverse impacts on these resources. Of particular concern are new stream crossings with bridges or culverts. ' 4. The DEIS should describe construction techniques (e.g., bridging, steep side slopes, narrow medians) that will be incorporated into project plans to minimize wetland losses. We ' recommend bridging wetlands to the maximum extent practical to avoid loss of these important resources. ' 5. If, after avoidance and minimization of wetland involvement, the selected bypass alignment requires unavoidable wetland losses, the DEIS should provide a mitigation plan to compensate for a wetlands lost. Unless compensation for wetland losses is incorporated as a part of the project, we will likely recommend against federal authorization of this project. Accordingly, we encourage the North Carolina Department of Transportation to address wetland mitigation early in the project planning process and in accordance with the publication Applying the Section 404 Permit Process to Federal-Aid Projects and the Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are excellent sources of information concerning specific fishery resources in the project area. A representative of our Beaufort Branch Office is available to discuss National Marine Fisheries Service's concerns at any time. Since y, aw 6 And eas Mager, Ass stant Regional Director Habitat Conservation Division cc: FWS, ATLA, GA FWS, Raleigh, NC EPA, ATLA, GA NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC NCDEHNR, Morehead City, NC COE, Wilmington, NC F/SEO2 L n APPENDIX A.2 AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE STATE AGENCIES NC DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES - FEBRUARY 22, 2005 -- APRIL 15, 2003 -- MAY 1, 1997 -- MAY 16, 1996 -- SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 -- JULY 7, 1995 -- NOVEMBER 30, 1993 NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH -OCTOBER 31, 2001 -- NOVEMBER 10, 1993 NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT -- NOVEMBER 10, 1993 NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES -- NOVEMBER 1, 1993 NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES -- OCTOBER 26, 1993 NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES -- NOVEMBER 12, 1993 NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE -- NOVEMBER 15, 1993 GRIFFITHS FORESTRY CENTER -- NOVEMBER 15, 1993 NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION -- NOVEMBER 1, 2001 -- JANUARY 21, 1990 State Project # 8.1221401 TIP # R-2250 County: Pitt ' CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ' Project Description: Southwest Greenville Bypass On February 8, 2005, representatives of the ® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) ? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ' ® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) ? Other ' Reviewed the subject project and agreed There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the ' project's area of potential effects and listed on the reverse. There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within ' the project's area of potential effects and listed on the reverse. There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the ' project's area of potential effects. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse. There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the project's area of potential effects. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse. ' Signed: 2.n- Represents ' N DOT Date 1 FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date ?. as -o' ' Representative, HPO Date qs 2.22. o s ' State Historic Preservation Officer Date State Project # 8.1221401 TIP # R-2250 County: Pitt Properties within the area of potential effects for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE). Renston Rural Historic District (NRl No Effect for Alternative to Upgrade Existing NC 11 Alfred McLawhorn House (DE) No Effect for Alternative 5 and Alternative 5 Extension Properties within the area of potential effects for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE) and describe the effect. Renston Rural Historic District (NR) Adverse Effect for Alternative 1 and Alternative 1 Extension Adverse Effect for Alternative 1 A and Alternative 1 A Extension Adverse Effect for Alternative 1B and Alternative 1B Extension Adverse Effect for Alternative 4 Adverse Effect for Alternative 4 Extension No Adverse Effect for Alternative 5 and Alternative 5 Extension Alfred McLawhorn House (DE) Adverse Effect for Alternative to Upgrade Existing NC 11 (this is a change in effects from the form signed 411512002; due to additional design work) William Amos Shivers House (DE) No Adverse Effect for Alternative 5 and Alternative 5 Extension Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable). Renston Rural Historic District (NR) NCDOT shall consult with the.HPO and the property owners to develop environmental commitments. William Amos Shivers House (DE) There will be no construction activities within the historic boundaries of the property. 7 t r Initialed: NCDOT MPS F14WA HPO , L 1 Federal Aid # STP-11(1) TIP # R-2250 County: CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ' P t D i ti ill S th G t B s NC 11 G ill h rojec escr p on: reenv e ou wes ypa s, to reenv west Bypass e Nort On 4/15/2003, representatives of the North Carolina Department of. Transportation (NCDOT), . th ederal Highway Administration (FHWA) C li St t Hi i P i Off 2??N aro or e stor na a c reservat on ice WO) ? Other ' Reviewed the subject project and agreed ? There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the ' project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. ere are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within ' the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. ? There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the ' project's area of potential effect. The ?fdperty/properties and the effect(s) are listed on . the reverse. There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the ' ' project s area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.. ' Signed: i 1 i N H -1-5. ?20 Date FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency . 4)iS103 - Date I Is, Kepre, ttrv ? Date State Historic Preservation Officer Date Z ?•w f..•N.T{1?, S?.' 1 1. -•? - """"'""`"'"'""'`F"e'"deral Aid # STP-11(1) TIP # R-2250 County: Pi" Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE). William Amos Shivers House (DE) No effect for Alternatives 1, la, lb; 4, and Improve Existing NC 11 A.W. Ange and Company Store (DE, SL) No effect for Alternatives 1, 1a, lb, 4, and Improve Existing NC 11 Alfred McLawhorn House (DE) No effect for Alternatives 1, la, lb, 4, and Improve Existing NC 11 Charles McLawhorn House (DE)' No effect for Alternative 4 and Improve Existing NC 11 Cox-Ange House (NR) Determined to be outside the APE for all alternatives and Improve Existing NC 11 Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE) and, describe the effect. Charles McLawhorn House (DE) Adverse effect -for Alternative 1 No adverse effect for Alternative la No adverse effect for Alternative lb t Reason(s)' why the effect'is not adverse (if applicable). Charles McLaWhorn House (DE) ' Effect.is not adverse for Alternatives la and lb because: 1'lb tZ?Uv W bO 0.C.C?u i rQ.OQ ?rom ?'\.i sl-m.i ? ?U ? Y1O . CD?'1S'?.UC,.h'p v ? I w cA.wi.i n bov ? ll 4? a rk yl^ ? e- c??-?-c o I l a c ces ? coo ? ?o ?m raxn Ps ; Initialed: NCDOT ny d FHWA two 1 Federal Aid # ? p 1 t'? TIP # ?• Z Z 5 D County ' CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Brief Project Description NG 11 /IBC. 103 Cjpti}?'1.Y11?S '. ?u9?? kom NC. 11 J I On • 9- representatives of the ? _ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) ? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Other reviewed the subject project at A seeping meeting ? Historic architectural resources photograph review scssion/consultation Other All parties present agreed there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects. ? thcrc arc nopropcrtics less than fifth- %-cnrs old which are considered to meet Criterion Consideration G within the project's area of potential cffccts. ? there arc properties over fifth- hears old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects, but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each propem, properties identified as Pro wk-e-. '?; l - 1-7 arc considered not eligible for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary. ? there arc no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects. Signed: DOT FHNvta; jfor the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date -D? ),k i a ?,&A,-I- :±? I I ? -?- Representative, SHPO Datc State Historic Preservation Officer D'atc 11'a s ucy report is 1)rct)arcd a liml cupy of this rune and the aitachcd list X011 tk: included. 4/1-1/°I J Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Historical Background Report, NC 11-903 (Greenville Southwest Bypass) from NC 11-902 south of Greenville to US 264 west of Greenville, Pitt County, Federal Aid Number STP- 1 1(1), State Project Number B. 1221401, TIP R- 2250, GS 93-0035, ER 96-8768 Dear Mr. Graf: Division of Archives and History Jeffrey J. Crow, Director (MAY 2 1 1996; MiSICN, OF "I"A" Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1996, concerning the above project. We have completed our review of the Historical Background Report by Kenneth W. Robinson and offer the following comments. We concur with the report findings that the three corridor alternatives have roughly equal potential for containing archaeological resources and are unlikely to contain archaeological remains that will require preservation in place. Further, we agree with the recommendation that an archaeological survey be conducted along the preferred alternative, once the final corridor is selected. Upon identification of the preferred alternative, we should be consulted about the extent and types of surveys appropriate to the project area. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic ' Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. ' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. ' Sincerely, ' avid Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer ' DB:slw c• H. F. Vick 1 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g? James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary May 16, 1996 y North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources J d ?,a SU7F a? North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary July 7, 1995 Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr.. Director MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of TFan ortation// FROM: David Brook (/ Deputy State H to Preservation O icer SUBJECT: NC 11-903 (Greenville Southwest Bypass), from NC 11-902 south of Greenville to US 264 west of Greenville, Pitt County, R-2250, Federal Aid Project STP-1 1(1), State Project 8.1221401 Q` !? I V E 1995 'JU` A 2 ptV IS??N QF We have received a verbal request from your staff to clarify our recommendation regarding historic architectural resource surveys for the above project. A comprehensive survey of historic architectural resources in Pitt County was conducted in 1989. In our letter of November 30, 1993, we identified twenty structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project. After a review of our survey site files for these properties, we believe the following are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places: Alfred McLawhorn House (PT 358). This property was included in the state study list on January 12, 1989. ' Charles McLawhorn Houses and Farm (PT 360 and PT 361). This property was included in the state study list on January 12, 1989. ' William Amos Shivers House (PT 377) We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department ' of Transportation evaluate these properties for National Register-eligibility and report the findings to us. No further historic architectural survey is necessary for this project. ' The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. I Nicholas L. Graf July 7, 1995, Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. DB:slw cc: N. Graf B. Church L North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary September 29, 1995 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for NC 1 1 /NC 903 Southwest Bypass from NC 11 to US 264 west of Greenville, Pitt County, R-2250, Federal Aid Project STP-1 1(1), State Project 8..1221401, ER 96-7933 Dear Mr. Graf: 4 CE F? OCT v 4 1995 Thank you for your letter of August 16, 1996, transmitting the historic structures survey report by Ed Davis concerning the above project. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited: Charles McLawhorn Houses. Windy Oaks is an unaltered vernacular dwelling with applied Greek Revival ornamentation and the Charles McLawhorn House is one of the most exuberant examples of the Colonial Revival style in the county. Both houses are eligible for the National Register under Criterion C ' for architecture. Please see our comments in the attachment regarding eligibility under Criterion A for agriculture. ' Alfred McLawhorn House. This house is an excellent example of a vernacular dwelling with outstanding applied ornamentation, and is eligible under Criterion C for architecture. Please see our comments in the attachment regarding eligibility under Criterion A for agriculture. ' We also believe that, contrary to your determination of non-eligibility, the William Amos Shivers House is eligible for the National Register. Please see our comments ' in the attachment regarding this property. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations ' for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr., Director 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Nicholas L. Graf September 29, 1995, Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. Sincerely, VIU avid Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw Attachment cc: ?H. F. Vick B. Church North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso es I ON. James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Divi oH. Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Wi ce, ' ' November 30, 1993 ' MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of Tra ortation ' FROM: David Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SUBJECT: NC 11-903 (Greenville Southwest Bypass)), from NC i 11-902 south of Greenville to US 264 west of Greenville, Pitt County, Federal Aid STP-1 1(1), State Project 8.1221401, TIP R-2250, GS 93-0035, CH 94- E-4220-0271 ' We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse. A comprehensive survey of historic architectural resources in Pitt County was ' conducted in 1991. 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: PT 47 Noah Forbes, Jr., House I? l ¦ PT 48 Joseph F. Pollard Tobacco Barn PT 50 (former) Red Oak Christian Church ' PT 53 Joseph Franklin Pollard Store PT 159 School ' PT 358 Alfred McLawhorn House PT 360 Charles McLawhorn House PT 361 Charles McLawhorn House and Farm PT 368 House PT 369 Samuel Kittrell House ?' PT 370 Allen House H. Franklin Vick November 30, 1993, Page 2 PT 373 Charlie Case House PT 375 House PT 376 John J. May House PT 377 William Amos Shivers House PT 378 Godfrey A. Evans House PT 379 Benjamin F. Manning House PT 381 Reedy Branch Free Will Baptist Church PT 382 Josephus Moye House PT 383 May School We have enclosed maps showing the locations of the above properties. The Charles McLawhorn House and Farm (PT 361) and the Alfred McLawhorn House (PT 358) were both placed on the state study list on January 12, 1989, because they appear worthy of further investigation to definitely determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and barring a finding to the contrary, we consider these properties eligible for the National Register and protection under federal law. A review of our archaeological site files indicates that there are no recorded sites within the general corridor alignment currently under consideration. However, there is a high probability that both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites exist within the corridor, particularly in the vicinity of Swift Creek and Horsepen Swamp. We recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted along the impact' corridor prior to initiation of construction activities. 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 Enclosure cc: State Clearinghouse N. Graf (w/enclosure) B. Church T. Padgett t nwnucn v i i•umocn ?i u.+n Y Yr. Y ' STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1?G? o RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 66:K N SW GREENVILLE It KM 1NTERVILLE 7 KM 27'30" 278 (GRE&WILLE SW) 180 WINTERVI LE 3.4 KM 25' '81 1116 ? _ ? _ ?^\ ' 1120 i / n n I \\? - ?- \\` ?; •? '? 1149 Q, 20 ? aC m - --?,? BM 14.7 p - i? ? 1119 X .o .20 19 ?p \ J / ? \? ; I QQ ?- 20.0 •f ri - a ? n--r- o o ? ? ` ?--?K •Cemr. ? > i C; - --fir tier s` ... f - ) Ce D - I ark ' 1120 19.0? n / x--?r _ •, i? ?, , \ J •\ ' / /? Mid e BM / Sch / • Ay en Co •lll 20.2 102 • , t, The Pines 'Cem .. 21 D 84 - o \ r ' ?_? a 13 20 20 4.1 190 ti? / 0V1 isp ` ? .b `, / .. F?T1 1 i /i •\176-1' \` 1 // ti 1149 I\ 4! /'s i c90 21 u 1., --24,.. T • 1203 nV F ? ,I I I. \.,, '.?o 1 a? 26 P'T' 50. PT'3 U* f Frog Level 1127.. r \ N Landmark 1 Ch •D 1 3- * i Rnxa •cv x ; 1/ \ 1 , i? i II i D4 N rF • ' I F -,, 1 Reed 3' ' .Cem l? a/;a N __ FF Y Y ry `00 22 Ya ?+ N ?U O 2 n W n NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax=919-733-9794 Jan 8 '02 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT" AND ' NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF:ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH n Inter-Agency' Project ki VWW Response 11 : 59 P. 08 Project Number e924- ?" County Project Name Type of Project ? The applicant should be;advised.th'at`pians 800 specifications or all water system Improvements must be -approved, by ttie. Divisicq of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the Inltlatio o1 construction (as required by 1SA NCAC 18C .0300et. seq.). For information, Contact:the P0611c, Water Supply Section, (919) 733-2321. ? This project wits be classified as a non-community <public water supply and must comply with state and federal drinking water, cnon.toting,requirements. For more Information the applicant should contactdhe Public Water Supply. Section, (919) 733.2321. ? It this project Is constructed as proposed; we twill'recommend closure of feet of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish: For ithforination regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant shouldcorntact the.Shelttish Sanitation Section at (252) 726-6827. ? The soil disposal area(s) proposed tot this project:may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For information concerning: appropriate-mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact; the' Publl( °+Walth Pest Management Section at (252) 726-8970. ? The applicant should 69: advised th'atprlgr to;the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures, a extensive rodent contiot:progr4m m_4 be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents?td adjacent'areas.:For,information concerning rodent control. contact the. local health department or the. 0? blic Health Pest Management Section at (919) 733-6407. ? The applicant should be advised to;.sontact the local health department regarding their requirements for septic tank Instailations (ais required under 15A NCAC 18A.1900 et. sep.). For information: conceming septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at,(919) 733-2895. ? The applicant should be advlsed:lo contact .the local health department regarding the sanitary facilities requlced for this project. ?" If existing water lines.%i fll:be reiocatsd'dudng. the construction, plans for the water line t relocation must be sikmitted to the'bivlsl'li of Erivironmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Technical Setvice6;erartck.1034 Mait Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634,;(919) 733.2321.. ? For Regional and Central Office comments, see, the reverse side of this form. octio ranch Date n DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Project Number ' AND NATURAL RESOURCEi 1213 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ^ ALTI3? ??Sl nioV Syr ??, C Inter-Agency Project Review aponse m Project Name \/MV eL? `` ?? Type of Project k. F R?.JG 1V ' The applicant should be advised that _ plans and specifications for all water system 0 improvements must- be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.). ' For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)'733-2460. This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with ' state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919} 733-2321. ' If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish.. For information regarding the shellfi'sI sanitation progra m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at (919) 726-6827. The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding -problem. 0 For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should. contact the Public Health Pest Management. Section at (919) 726-8970. The applicant should be advised that prior to the 'removal or demolition of dilapidated. ' structures, an extensive. rodent .control program may be necessary . in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to adjacent'areas. The information. tAcerning rodent control, contact the .local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 733-6407. ' The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding. their 0 requirements for septic tank installations (as required .under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,. contact the ' On-Site Wastewater Section.at (919) 733-2895. ' The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary facilities required for this project. If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-2460. 1 Reviewer Section/Branch Date DEHM 3198 (Revised 8/93) State of North Carolina ' Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management ' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F1 ' A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director ' November 10, 1993 ' MEMORANDUM ' TO: Melba McGee, Policy and Development FROM: Monica Swihart?;?Water Quality Planning ' SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0271; Scoping Comments - NC DOT Proposed Improvements to NC 11-903 South of Greenville to US 264 West of Greenville, TIP #R-2250 ' The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the ' environmental documents prepared on the subject project: A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The ' stream classifications should be current. Based on the information provided, the project appears to cross portions of several creeks classified C SW NSW (Gum Swamp, Swift Creek, Horsepen Swamp) in the Neuse River Basin and Harris Mill Run ' classified as C NSW in the Tar River Basin. B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/ ' relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channel ized/ relocated stream banks be revegetated. ' C. Number of stream crossings. D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests ' that these catch basins be placed.at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance. ' E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed. F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures ' are not placed in wetlands. ' P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 FAX 919-733-2496 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper Melba McGee November 10, 1993. Page 2 G'. Wetland Impacts 1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. 2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible? 3) Have wetland impacts been minimized? 4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected. 5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted. 6) Summarize the total wetland impacts. 7). List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DEM. H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM. I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not (if applicable)? J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate.the traffic problems in the study area? K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following: 1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. 2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation. . 3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 10430er.mem cc: Eric Galamb DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES ' LAND QUALITY SECTION November 1, 1993 i TO: FROM: Nancy Smith Regional Manager Washington Regional fice Floyd Williams Regional Engineer Land Quality Section Washington Regional Of ce RE: Project #94-0271 Review of Scoping Statement N.C. Department of Proposed NC 11-903 NC 11-903 South of Greenville Pitt County Process for Environmental Impact Transportation (Greenville Southwest Bypass), from Greenville to US 264 West of State Project Number 8.1221401 This project must be consistent with the N.C. Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 as amended. Temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and/or devices must be utilized throughout the project to prevent sediment from leaving the limits of construction and entering adjacent properties, wetlands and natural watercourses. Borrow and waste areas, along with other associated land- disturbing activities, must be addressed according to the Memorandum of Agreement between DOT and the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. Periodic inspections will be made by personnel of the Land Quality Section to ensure compliance. State of North Carolina- I-VD QU/a . ? ' Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourceg ~r Y 'IV . Division of Land Resources James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW oommENTS Gardner Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 'rector Project Number: County: O CT ' Project Name : D Z 7% ``? nE?•' ;.' .: Geodetic Survey %„P-- Policy Dt,?. This project will impact J geodetic survey marke S..C. G`' etic Survey should be contacted.prior'to construction at P(-0014.F lJ7687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 (919) 733-3836. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4. his project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers. Other (comments attached) For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at (919) 733-3836. Review r Date Erosion and Sedimentation Control No comment This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more than 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. (919) 733-4574. Reviewer Date P.O. Box 27687 • Relelgh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone (919) 733-3833 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer State of North Carolina ' r Department of Environment, Health and. Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries ' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Director ANK. ED FE " ["'*4 F1 '* MEMORANDUM Q n• NOV 1993 s TO: Melba McGee N 0? THROUGH: Mik St t e ree ; FROM : Katy West 6e 6/e!<<9 ?'?,` ' 1 Sltl DATE: 12 November 1993 ' SUBJECT: Scoping for TIP #R-2250 Greenville Southwest Bypass, from NC 11-903 south of Greenville to US 264 west of Greenville, Pitt. County The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries offers the following suggestions for your consideration in the preparation of ' an Environmental Impact Statement for the Greenville Southwest Bypass: ' 1. Include a description of wildlife and fishery resources in the vicinity. Potential impacts on the migration and spawning of anadromous fish should be considered. ' 2. Impact on wetlands should be minimized and mitigation measures for direct and indirect degradation in habitat ' quality should be proposed. 3. The option to bridge streams, wetlands and other sensitive habitat should be fully considered. 1 ' 1424 Carolina Avenue, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone 919-946.6481 FAX 919.946.3716 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer State of North Carolina ' Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office: Washin ton R Office INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: nDueDate: k-=OZ,']1 93 After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law, ' 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 Regional Office. Normal Process Time PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time limit) ' ? Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of - 30 days facilities, sewer system extensions, E sewer construction contracts On-site Inspection. Post-application systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 daysi ' 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 (NIAI time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES ' permit-whichever Is later. (J Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days ' 1N:At ? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days prior to the installation of a well. 115 days; ' Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days D Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre application conference usual. Filling may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days) ' Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. E] Permit to construct 8 operate Air Pollution Abatement f ilt 60 days ac t?e dior Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA 190 days ny open burning associated with subject proposal ' must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520. Demol) or renovations of structures containing asb os material must be in compliance with 15A 60 clays ' AC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group 919-733.0820 (90 da s Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800. y ' The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentallo ? control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30 20 days days before beginning activity, A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan (30 davs? ' h L The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 clays) On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount ?1 Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 160 days) ' must be received before the permit can be issued. ? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day exceeds 4 days (NIAI ' ? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site Inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day counties Iri 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 burn is planned." ' ? Oil Refining Facilities NIA 90.120 days NIA ) ( If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. ' ? Dam Safety Permit Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv. 30 days ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And 160 days) a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces- sary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 520000 must ac. company the application. An additional processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion Ya l! Continued on reveist: Normal Process Time PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time limit ? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. 10 days (NIA) ? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application by letter. No standard application form. 10 days (NIA) ? State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 6 drawings of structure 6 proof of ownership of Hparian property. 1520 days (NIA! 401 Water Quality Certification far NIA 60 aays (130 daysi El CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days 1150 days, ? CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days (25 daysi ? 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 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100 ? Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation ? Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days (N A? " Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority): REGIONAL OFFICES Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. ? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office , 59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301 (704) 2516208 (919) 486.1541 ? Mooresville Regional Office 919 N rth Main St t P O B 950 ? Raleigh -Regional Office ' ree o ; ox . . 3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101 Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609 (704) 663.1699 (919) 733.2314 ? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office , 1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405 (919) 946.6481 (919) 395•.3900 ? Winston-Salem Regional Office 8025 North Point Blvd. Suite 100 Winston-Salem, NC 27106 Griffiths Forestry Center 1 2411 Old"US 70 West Clayton, North Carolina 2752 November 4, 1993 C MEMORANDUM 1a C;1 TO: Melba McGee Policy Development NOV 1993 DEH'I 11 Patfir. FROM: Don H. Robbins A/14L -117 Staff Forester SUBJECT: DOT-DEIS/Scoping for the Proposed--Improvements to NC 11- 903 Greenville S/W Bypass TIP #R-2250 in Pitt County PROJECT: #94-0271 1 DUE DATE: 11-15-93 This project will impact woodland and some of it is pine 1 plantations under intensive forest management. The attached map shows the approximate locations of these plantations as follows - 1 • Blue represents private plantations that are.50 acres or less in size. • Orange represents private plantations that are 50 acres 1 plus in size. • Yellow represents Weyerhaeuser and Champion Company plantations. ' Efforts should be made to avoid these areas if.at all possible. The DEIS should address the following - ' 1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as a result of this project. ' 2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within the proposed project. ' 3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project. 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. Page 2 5. The provisions that the contractor will take during 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 a route could be chosen, that would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that area. DHR:la pc: Warren Boyette - CO Ralph Cullom - D4 Tom Harris - Pitt County File L J 7 NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Pax:919-733-9794 Jan 8 '02 11:59 P.07 DATE: Nov=6=1`100f,.. S1JW- T: Reegqt,est: for 3nfoJmatioa VM tht?.N C. Departmeof of Txarlspurtolion (NCDOT).ra fish ? id;viritdl?l6 alnce?nc for the ptopoeed Gr+peovills Southwest DY IM*@ais ttl t6 NC 11 and US 264 Bosiness, Pitt Cow ortM;Cai+olislw. ?lPl4a. $L2UQ,SCH-Project No. 02-U0176. Y This memorandum responds. to.-srqut"flvs it=3Vic, iliistll D. Gilmore of tho ..: NCDO T for our couccrm rca lmpada :on hh and. wfl`dl#fc mources hsuWns ham the svlijcct projK..-. 8ivlvgrtats steff of:thel!l:;C:?Vildlifc Resouroae Comneissioa (NCWRC) have review the UWipygU . . .. I our trottlmatyta art provided In ?°p°ssd. accordance wish cedm pmvi- >oua of t1,e:Nati6W,&tviroffiiGDhdT6Hc-y Act (42' t1.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and thoTish and.Wildlife,Coa duiativit:AOt(0-Stet ".40Y at ttrxlencttd; 16 US.C_ 661-6674). We have no ipecino colic=$ tltu caject.. However, to help. f0cili late docu#ient prcpamtioa and thv review p?oos :.ou>?grtisral°Infbrmdoattl nocdlimv outlittcd below: I. Deeoriptivn of Sshwy-w d.vriMfe rwowm within the project area, . including u lietitlh of 11Y&. f - @ "Smdad tluvatene4, endangatd, or special conceva . P. Ow. al.boft.-W lam to be used !br projat construction ahmMim acluded in fimbveatories. A listing of designated plant species em b4 developod ftQUO."Mulqution with: 1heN IWter.Progat N. C: Iriviatoet of ftiwand. ReaswAon 1613 MW Sieiv O'W. ?I.1?T. ?.: 27499-1615 (4.19) 73?3-77'45 and, Mat!(ag Addm,: Uiri4ion of Iniasd Pisherks'_ 1721)4&BSM-ACCCcnter • Rale*h. NC 27699-1721 Telephones (9)9) 733-3633 on, 281 • Pat (919) 715-7643 f L 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director ?,???c,21 Z8?g?0 9 January 21, 1990 (I'J?Icti ivOll MEMO RANDUM ""0/ TO: Melba McGee, Environmental AssessmeonDepartment of NRCD b/cl?1 FROM: Robert C. Maddrey N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission SUBJECT: Request for information from the N.C. Department of Transportation regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed construction of the NC 11-903 (Greenville) bypass, Fitt County, North Carolina. ' This correspondence responds to a request from H.F. Vick of the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for Out concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the proposed construction of the- Greenville bypass of NC 11-903 from NC 11-903 South of Greenville to US 264 West of Greenville. The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned over potential adverse impacts to wildlife. fisheries, and wetland resources within and adjacent to the construction corridor. We are especially concerned over impacts on wetland ' resources in and adjacent to Horse Branch, Southwest Creek ane the Trent River. These wetland areas are important to a variety of avian and terrestrial species and provide important travel corridors for wildlife. ' Due to limited information in Mr. Vick's memorandum of 10-8-93, we can express our concerns and requests for information only in general terms. We would be more ' favorable to options which use existing roadway alignments. Our ability to evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when reviewing the project t Environmental Assessment will be enhanced by inclusion of the following information: ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries resources within, adjacent. to, or utilizing the study corridors. Potential borrow areas to be used for.pro.ject construction should be included in the inventories. 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 undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction. on. 4. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of such activities. S. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included. 6. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation. 7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. If we can be of further assistance, please call on us. cc: Dennis Stewart C APPENDIX A.3 LOCAL AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS CITY OF GREENVILLE - NOVEMBER 8, 2001 CITY OF GREENVILLE - DECEMBER 29, 1993 CITY OF GREENVILLE - DECEMBER 14, 1992 TOWN OF AYDEN - MARCH 23, 1994 1 NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:919-733-9794 Jan 8 '02 1156 P.02 P.O. Box 7207 CITY OF GREENVILLE NORTH CAROLINA 27035-7207 ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT November 6, 2001 Nov Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E.,Manager. Project Development and Environmental Analysis 13ranch North Caz'olina Department of Transportation. ' 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 t Dear Mr. Gilmore: RE: Greenville Southwest Bypass; ID No. - -22Sf} In response to your September 27 20011 letter, we: ve! the following updated comments about the project: ' 1. We are concerned that the "westem'` Alfemative (Ali. 4 and 4A) will not fulfill the purpose ...... and need, because it may be too far west. Good modeling and adequate thought about the traffic likely to use the bypass aid traffic cucrenEly-on NC-11 is needed to provide the analyses necessary to select or.reject tbi& alternative: for further study. ' 2. Related to comment #1, we are concerned .that A.citcuitous nature of the western alternative will not provide the time savings that would encou mge traffic in the southern and western portion of the metropolitan area from using the bypass. Constructing the Southwest Bypass closer to residents who may use it would improve the success in meeting the purpose and need. ' 3. The "improve existing corridor" alternative does not help relieve the current and future congested thoroughfares and intdrsections. It would also severely affect the numerous homes and businesses along the corridor at a tremendouscoinnaunity, economic, anal financial cost. ' It does not adequately relieve the critical roadway and intersection congestion problems. This alternative should not be 'selected for furt?.study. 4. Corridor #3 would cross the new high school, sife anti a farm identified by NCDOT as ' potentially historic. 1`his alternative should riot be selected for fiuher study. NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:919-733-9794 Jan 8 '02 11:56 P.03 ' 1 William Gilmore November b, 2001 ' Page 2 5. Substantial developments (housing; ahigh.school,:.future middle and elementary school) are ' occurring along Forlines Road. This may aRect.tl a ultimate location of the Fire Tower Road extension project. The success of that project depends on the Southwest Bypass project. , 6. The area west of Allen Road; :south of the railroad. tracks, and north of US-13 has been recently added to the City's EtJ and is zoned by the City and identified by the Pitt County ' Development Commission for fiitdm:light,industi.ia)/warehouse development. 7. Our recent discussions with NCDOT staff find that there are no regular progress meetings to keep this project on track. We would' be'mare than happy to attend these meetings and to ' provide whatever assistance is needed tamake the study successful. S. We are greatly concerned abonI .the increaso in the,nwribet of alternatives. Too many alternatives will lengthen the planning ano enviroiamental process. If you have any further questions,,dq not:hesitate to call me at (252) 329-4520. Thank you for , the opportunity to provide updated comments on this?critical project. Sincerely, , T. N. Tysinger. Jr., PE Director of Public Works Cc: Marvin Davis, City Manager Tom Robinson, Pitt County Manager.. John Connet, Wi nterville Town ti mwr-r Collice Moore; Bvard:ofThisportatioii Member - Transportation Advisory'Coiurrmittee'Members Technical Coordinating Committee Members ' I n C I t ?-- :? City of Greenville 2ec \Ja North Carolina -bee )G tagz, P.O. Box 7207 - Greenville, N.C. 27835.7207 December 14, 1992 Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch NC Department of Transportation P. O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611-5102 Dear Mr. Ward: Subject: Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements to NC 11 From US 264.to NC 11-903,.Greenville, Pitt County, TIP Project R-2250. The City of Greenville appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the referenced project. This is a high priority project for the Greenville Urban Area as indicated at the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Transportation Improvement Program hearings held in Greenville on December 10, 1992. We have several concerns for Which we offer comments: 1) PROJECT LIMITS - The limits of this project have received significant discussion by both the Technical Coordinating Committee and Transportation Advisory Committee of the newly formed Greenville Urban Area MPO. Both committees strongly recommend that this project extend to NC 11 south of Winterville as depicted on both the Greenville and Winterville Thoroughfare Plans. 2) ACCESS CONTROL - It is recommended that this project be a limited access freeway type facility with interchanges and grade separations at mutually agreed upon locations. 3) DESIGN SPEED - It is recommended the design speed be established such that the posted speed limit can be 55 mph. 4) SPECIAL FEATURES - It appears the proposed alignment will cross the Pitt County Landfill. It is suggested that Pitt County be contacted to minimize potential conflicts between roadway construction and landfill operations. Please understand that. we recognize this project. is of utmost importance to this growing area. Mr. Glen Whisler, City Engineer is planning to be present at the December 16 scoping meeting. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Tom Tysinger, Jr., Director of Public Works at (919) 830-4520. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate. Sincerely, " Ronald R. Kimble City Manager cc: G. R. Shirley, P.E., NCDOT Division Engineer Ed Lewis, NCDOT Project Planning Engineer T. N. Tysinger, Jr., P.E, Director of Public Works, City of Greenville Glen Whisler, P.E., City Engineer, City of Greenville ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT r CITY OF GREENVILLE NORTH CAROLINA 27835-7207 December 29, 1993 P.O...-BOX 7207 Ms. Jane Daughtridge Regional Clearinghouse Coordinator Mid-East Commission P. O. Drawer 1787 Washington, NC 27889 RE: NC-11 903 (Greenville Southwest Bypass), From NC 11-903 South of Greenville to US-264 West of Greenville, Pitt County, Federal Aid Number STP-11(1), State Project Number 8.1221401, TIP Number R-2250 State Application Identifier 494-E-4220-0271 Dear Ms. Daughtridge: In response to the NC Intergovernmental Review Process/Review and Comment Form for the referenced project, attached -are our comments as requested. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 830-4520. spc ' Enclosure Sincerely, T. N. Tysinber r., P.E. Director of Pu 1 c Works cc: Ronald R. Kimble, City Manager ' Glen E. Whisler, P.E., City Engineer 'r State Application Intention 94-E-4220-0271 NC-11-903 (Greenville Southwest By Pass) Comments The City of Greenville. has strongly supported this project for a number of years. The Southwest Bypass in conjunction with the nearly completed Northwest Bypass will provide relief for Memorial Drive. Currently Memorial Drive is the major north - south route in Greenville and carries in excess of 30,000 vehicles per day. Numerous traffic signals and the resulting congestion make Memorial Drive an undesirable route for north - south through traffic. Originally the southwest Bypass ' facility that would connect the Northwest at Memorial Drive. However, as a result Update adopted in 1990 the Southwest continue southerly as a bypass facility of Winterville. was proposed as a loop Bypass to Fire Tower Road of the Thoroughfare Plan Bypass was proposed to connecting to NC-11 south To minimize environmental impacts, the City of Greenville supports a corridor that avoids the Pitt County Landfill and crossing of Swift Creek. This results is a westward shift as compared to the location shown on the Thoroughfare Plan and allows for a routing that avoids existing development. The suggested location is also considered beneficial in terms of anticipated traffic increase on NC-11 as the Global Transpark in 'Kinston develops. The construction of the Southwest Bypass as a fully controlled limited access freeway similar to the Northwest Bypass is also recommended. The City of Greenville will continue to strongly support a Southwest Bypass and recommends that a location as far west connecting to NC-11 south of Winterville and moved westerly to avoid existing and planned residential development be considered by NCDOT. I I L TOWN OF AYDEN P.O. Box 219 • Ayden. North Carolina 28513 Fax 919-746-7001 2 1994 Phone 919-746-7030 VDIVISIGNIGHWAOF March 23, 1994 YS VIROI?N? Mr. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways NC DOT PO Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear Mr. Vick: I am writing in reference to the proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass project in Pitt County, Project R-2250 in the TIP. Ayden will certainly be impacted by the bypass as all proposed corridor alternatives intersect with NC 11 just north of our current city limits. We are interested in the project and see many benefits to our community from a proposed interchange in this area. I feel it would be beneficial to our Town Board members, for information and for seeking input from others, if we could have representatives from your Branch make a presentation of the proposed bypass project to our Board. I know the corridor information you have at this point is very preliminary, but the information would be useful to them and would provide an opportunity for them as a group to ask questions. Our Board meets the 1st and 2nd Mondays each month. I hope you will consider making a presentation to our Board. I will contact you in the next few days regarding this opportunity. Sincerely, Rick Benton Town. Manager t 1 1 t t f APPENDIX B NOTICE OF INTENT JANUARY 7, 1994 ' 4910-22 ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. ' SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a ' proposed highway project within the City of Greenville and Pitt County, North Carolina. ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy C. Shelton, Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, Telephone (919) 856-4350. ' SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will ' prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass in the City of Greenville and Pitt ' County. The proposed action will be the construction of a ' multilane divided controlled access highway on new location from NC 11-903 south of Greenville around the southern and ' western -portions. of the. city to.-.US 264 west of Greenville. This proposed facility is a portion of a planned complete ' bypass facility which ultimately will provide for travel around Greenville and will relieve existing traffic congestion 1 along NC 11-903 through Greenville. The proposed action is ' part of the 1990 Greenville Thoroughfare Plan. 1' Alternatives under consideration include: (1) The "no- ' build" alternative, (2) improve existing facilities, and (3) a controlled access hi9hwaYon new location. ' Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting , comments are being sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Citizens Informational Workshops and meetings , with local officials and neighborhood groups will be held in ' the study area. Public hearings will also be held. Information on the time and place of the workshops and ' hearings will be provided in the local news media. The draft EIS will-be available for public and agency review and comment ' at the.time of the hearing. ' To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues ' identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the , proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at.the address ' provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number ' 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental ' consultation on Federal. programs and activities.-apply .to_ this program). Issued on: JAN 0 i 1994 ' o Sh ton Op rations Engineer Raleigh, N. C. 1 2450 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 10 / Friday; January 14, 1994 / Notices 245 is currently being designed and/or constructed around the south side of Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas. The southern terminus will he at the Louisiana state line, and its location determined based on existing and new location U.S. 71 corridors. Alternatives to be considered are: (1) The "Do-Nothing" Alternative, .. where roads are constructed according to the regional plan with the exception of the proposed facility; (2) The "Reconstruction" Alternative, where existing U.S. 71 and roads on the regional plan are upgraded to handle traffic forecast for the proposed facility, but with less than full control of access; and (3) The "New Location" Alternative, considering several different alignments and full control of access. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting'comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies and to private organizations, including conservation groups and groups of individuals who have expressed interest in the project in the past, and to major Arkansas, Louisiana and northeast Texas newspapers. A series of public involvement sessions: will be held in the areas to be affected. In addition, 'a formal public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the public involvement sessions and the public hearing. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. An agency scoping meeting was held on December 7, 1993 at the Arkansas State. Highway and Transportation Department offices in Little Rock, Arkansas. ' To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited frunl aivinteY-asteo parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations impleMenting.Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: January 3. 1994. , Wendall L. Meyer, Environmental and Design Specialist, FHWA, Little Rock, Arkansas. (FR Doc. 94-983 Filed 1-13-94; 8:45 aml BILLING CODE 4910-=-M Environmental Impact Statement: Multiple Counties, Alabama AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. • • . • . . SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that two Environmental Impact Statements will be prepared for a proposed highway that will traverse the northern section of the State of Alabama. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Mr. Joe D. Wilkerson, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 500 Eastern Boulevard, suite 200, Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2018,Telephone (205)223-7370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the State of Alabama Department of Transportation, will prepare two Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) for Project bPS- A002(001). The proposal is to construct a multi-lane,7imited access roadway that will function as a major segment of a Memphis to Atlanta transportation corridor. The facility will provide a direct link between the two metropolitanareas. The facilit'. approximately 273.58 kilometers (170 miles) in length; will be divided into two segments for location studies and assessment of . environmental impacts. Two Environmental Impact Statements will . be prepared. one for the western part of the route, approximately 120.7 kilometer (75 miles) in length, from'the Alabama/Mississippi State•line and extending to an undermined point near Interstate Hig, way 65 near'the center of Alabama and the second Impact Statement written for the eastern part of the project, approximately 152.9 kilometers (95 miles) in length, beginning at an undetermined point near Interstate Highway 65 -near Huntsville, Alabama, and extending to the Alabama/Georgia border. There will be coordination in the location and environmental studies to establish a common location at I-65.• Alternatives under consideration include: (1) Alternate route locations, (2) a no action alternative, and (3) . postponing the action Alternative. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or, are known to have an interest in this -proposal. A series of public meetings will be held beginning in early 1994. In addition, public hearings will also be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and hearings. The Draft Environmental Impact Statements will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearings. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from'all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed'action and the EIS's should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Joe D. Wilkerson, Division Administrator, Montgomery, Alabama. (FR Doc. 94-940 Filed 1-13-94-,84:45 am) BILLING CODE 1910-22-M Environmental Impact Statement: Pitt County, NC AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project within the City of Greenville and Pitt , County, North Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy C. Shelton, Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, suite 410,310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, Telephone (919) 856-4350. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an environmental impaci Ms" on a proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass in the City of Greenville and Pitt County. The proposed action will be the construction of a multilane divided controlled access highway on new location from NC 11-903 south of Greenville around the southern and western portions of the city to US 264 west of Greenville. This proposed facility is a portion of a planned complete bypass facility which ultimately will provide for travel around Greenville and will relieve existing traffic congestion along NC 11-903 through Greenville. The proposed action is part of the 1990 Greenville Thoroughfare Plan. Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 0 / 17f4day, January 14, 1994 / Notices 2431' Alternatives under consideration include: (1) The "no-build" alternative, (2) improve existing facilities, and (3) a controlled, access highway on new location. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments are being sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Citizens Informational Workshops and meetings with local officials and neighborhood groups will be held in the study area. Public hearings will also be held. Information' on the time and place of the workshops and hearings will be provided in the local news media. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment at the time of the hearing. To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number'20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: January 7. 1994. Roy C. Shelton, Operations Engineer, Raleigh. NC. IFR Doc 94-941 Filed 1-13-94. 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-.22-M Federal Railroad Administration /Application for Approval of .Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 Pursuant to 49 CFR part 235 and 49 U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads have petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below. Block Signal Application (BS--AP)-No. 3273 Applicant: Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc., Mr. R. T. Haley, Signal Supervisor C&S, 201 North Penn Street, Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania 15767. ' The Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc., seeks approval ofthe proposed discontinuance and removal of the signal system, on the single main track, between Macklin, milepost 282.4 and Eidenau, milepost 303.5, near.Butler, Pennsylvania, on the Butler Branch. The reason given for the proposed changes is to retire'facilities no longer required for present operation. Rules Standards & Instructions Application (RS&I-AP)-No. 1089 Applicant: Consolidated Rail Corporation, Mr. J. F. Noffsinger, Chief Engineer--C.&S, 2001 Market Street, P.O. Box 41410, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101-1410. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) seeks relief from the requirements of § 236.566 (49 CFR 236.566) of the Rules, Standard and Instructions to the extent that they be allowed to operatemonequipped locomotives in automatic cab signal territory, on the two main tracks between "CP Jacks," milepost 191.3 and "CP Gray," milepost 223.3, on the Pittsburgh Line, Harrisburg Division, for the following operations: 1. Wire trains, work trains, wreck trains, and ballast cleaners to and from work; 2. Engines and diesel cars moving to and from shops; and . . 3. Engines used in switching and transfer service, with or wfthout cars, not exceeding 20 miles per hour. The reason given for the proposed changes is that exemptions are already authorized for operation of nonequipped locomotives under the same circumstances in cab signal territory at other locations on Conrail, and.that this relief request would be an extention of those already existing exemptions. RS&I-AP-No. 1090 Applicants: Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Mr. E. J. McCaddon, Director of Locomotive Maintenance Operations, Harriman Dispatching Center, 850 Jones Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2920. The Union Pacific Railroad Company and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (UP&MP) jointly seek relief from the requirements of Section 236.590 (49 CFR 236.590) of the Rules, Standard and Instructions for all locomotives owned, leased, or operated under contract by the UP&MP, equipped with. Automatic Train Control Systems (including automatic train control, automatic-train stop, and coded cab signals), to the extent that the carrier be permitted to extend the current 2 year time limit (736 days) to 3 years, for Change out or removal and cleaning of the following pneumatic valves associated with Automatic Train Control Systems: i. "EBPS"-Engine Brake Pressure , Switch 35/20 PSI. 2. "SBPS"-Service Brake Pressure Switch 35/20 PSI. ' 3. ATC-Magnet Valve. 4. CCS-Magnet Valve. Applicant's justification for relief: To allow easier scheduling of air brake work since time limits-would coincide with other locomotive valves, providing improved inventory control; reducing required inventory, and reducing locomotive down-time. The carrier also states the failure frequency is less than air brake valves currently changed and cleaned on a 3 year basis. Any interested party desiring t6 protest the granting of an*application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the protestant in the proceeding.. The original and two copies of the protest shall be filed with the Associate Administrator for Safety, IRA, 400 Seventh Street, SIN., Washington, DC 20590 within 45 calendar days of the date of issuance of this notice. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to.the' applicant at the address listed above: PIRA expects to be able to determine these matters without oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing. Issued in Washington. DC on January 7. 1994. Phil Olekszyk,. Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety. [FR Doc. 94-901 Filed 1-13-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Secretary Notice of Call for Redemption Washington, January 11, 1994. ToHolders. of 81/7 Percent Treasury Bonds of 1994-99, and Others Concerned 1. Public notice is hereby given that all outstanding 81/2 percent Treasury Bonds of 1994-99 (CUSIP No. 912810 BR 8) dated May 15,1974, due May 15, 1999, are hereby called for redemption at par on May 15, 1994, on which date interest on such bonds will cease. 2. Full information regarding the- presentation and surrender of such bonds held in coupon and registered form for redemption under this call will be found in Department of the Treasury - Circular No. 300, Revised, dated March 4.1973. Coupon bonds must have all unmatured coupons attached to the APPENDIX C ' NEPA/SECTION 404 MERGER Ol PROCESS CONCURRENCE FORMS t CONCURRENCE POINT NO. I FEBRUARY 2001 CONCURRENCE POINT NO. 2 - MARCH 2005 CONCURRENCE POINT NO. 2A - OCTOBER 2005 Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Agreement Project Name/Description: Greenville Southwest Bypass, from NC 11-903 to US 264, Greenville, Pitt County; Federal-Aid project STP-11(1); State Project No. 8.1221401; TIP Project R-2250 Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and Need. The purpose and need of the proposed highway project is to ease the existing and anticipated traffic congestion on NC 11 (Memorial Drive) in Greenville. See attached Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project statement for details The Project Team Members indicated below have concurred on this date, February 15, 2001, with Concurrence Point No. 1. USACE NCDOT - • '. USEP USFWS USNMFS NCWRC ' NCDMF SHPO MPO? FHW N e 6601 1 i Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Agreement Project Name/Description: Greenville Southwest Bypass, from NC 11-903 to US 264, ' Greenville, Pitt County; Federal-Aid project STP-1 l(1); State Project No. 8.1221401; TIP Project R-2250 1 Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and Need. The purpose and need of the proposed highway project is to ease the existing and anticipated traffic congestion on NC l 1 (Memorial Drive) in Greenville. See attached Purpose and Need o the Proposed Peoiect statement for details The Project Team Members indicated below have concurred on this date, February 15, 2001, with Concurrence Point No. 1. USACE NCDOT ?• USEPA USFWS USNMFS NCWRC -? NCDMF 'e/ U7 SHPO FHWA ?'?V MPO .r i I i 1 1 1 I E 0/2005 :HON 14:08 FAX 252 728 8728 NMFS,HCD,BEI Section 404/NEPA Merger.-Project Teams Meeting Agreement Concurrence Point No. 2 Alternatives to be Studied in Detail in the NEPA. Document. Project No./TIP No./N'ame/DescriQtion: State Project No. 8.1221401, WBS Element: 34411.1.2, TIP No. R-2250, Greenville Southwest Bypass (Improvements to NC l l and. US 264 Business), Pitt County, North Carolina. Project R-2250 proposes to provide transportation improvements in the southwest area of Greenville, west of Winterville and north of Ayden, to relieve traffic congestion on existing NC 11 (Memorial Drive) and US 264 Business (Stantonsburg Road). Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document: Alternative IB-FAT Alternative 4-EXT Alternative 5-ELI' These alternatives are shoe on the attached map. The Project Team concurred on this date of February 17, 2005 with the alternatives to be studied in detail for the proposed project as stated above. USACE i ?. NCDOT 14YA S& USFWS ?/ - USNM , S NCWR J~` ' DENS.-DNIF NCDWQ / Ste' ,? ? MPO) 'e ;4 =1 Ar- J Section 464/N-P 4 VYexgger, Project Teaxn Meeting , v rcei6eRt Coucurrcncc Point No. 2A BridWGn; Locations =nd:4lig*m=t Review Proiact N*JTIP N* J;an a/Dp-kariptlOU cnvwnvi Ito $outhwirm Syp 34 ?Jmvprawraantx wNlr 1 and US 264 SrsSitr m), Pitt county t?C:?OT r rejwt 1Vo.: $-1=1401.' WBS rlk"=v 34,:1 i . t ,2, W No. R-22250 :`?C;1uc1 A?230 propu?:s, to pro?vida xa?a.poR.atan ia+?w?r?vnt;, in trx ,wuth?•^c.+1 aret? t?? Cyx?tvatlc. wc?t c t Wirrcr?riltc anG lf4rt?t of Ay^drn. co rr]? uat>Qc Co tuuA vn cxia;ing MC Y 10&-m th (5Saraecsbur? koad). L)Tivcl snd U5 =04 Euvineim ' PTaimirary bCSigt YI= VWvC pmvidcd t0117,1 Merger Teiut. W&O"U aS and rcviowcd at a mrtdtz on Ocwber 20, 2005. !Afkv a rcwiew of the pmUvnrtuiry dt:? gn v3wvq aadhy&*Jogia M-morect is tlao vlady area. it w:w d??et??•atad mit 179 W%dbcs w oyld w cao mxvcd far dw rot': p!frpowe of etAtrUD56"S' irnpzr% to wDjor MMMS U04 ea' >a &,4U8I* arvCWids. I IU: rx-oivct Tcwn =a.-urxr.-d or. a2i% 4aft of 4cwD, r q 2005. Witt: Ow br;d,-t ]oeacienri an,f s APPENDIX D I FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT FORMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service NRCS-CPA-106 FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING (Rev. 1.91) FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 1. Name of Project Greenville Southwest Bypass 4. type or t-ro)ecr New Location Freeway PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly. Or To Rttceive Services PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Ma Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained In 7 CFR 658.5(c)) 1. Area in Nonurban Use F 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 7. Availablllit Of Farm Support Services 5 6. On-Farm Investments ?n 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Su port Services 25 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Velua Of Farmland (From Part V) Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site assessment) TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) Midi Mcres Or rarmianos Converted by Project: 11/7/05 F sheet t of 1 6. County and State Pitt County, NC Alternative Corridor For Segment orrldorAIS Corridor??f Corridorflg Ct p. 0 0 I,I 1 0 ,I'1 1 0 100 160 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 )ate Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? YES ? NO n Signature o arson Completing this art: DATE NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse) CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent - 15 points 90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent - 0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent -10 points 90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent - 0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent - 20 points 90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent - 0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected - 20 points Site is not protected - 0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger - 10 points Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available - 5 points Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available - 0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment - 0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently Incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s) Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points I APPENDIX E NEWSLETTERS NEWSLETTER NO. 1 - MARCH 1995 NEWSLETTER NO. 2 - FEBRUARY 1996 NEWSLETTER NO. 3 -.TUNE 1999 NEWSLETTER NO. 4 - SEPTEMBER 2001 NEWSLETTER NO. 5 - APRIL 2002 NEWSLETTER NO. 6 MARCH 2005 I GREENVILLE SOUTHWEST BYPASS CORRIDOR STUDY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT R-2250 NEWSLETTER MARCH 1995 NO. 1 This newsletter is being sent to you because you have expressed interest in the proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass (Transportation Improvement Program Project R-2250) at one of our two Citizens Informational Workshops or by phone or letter. This newsletter represents an update on the status of this project. The three corridors that were presented at the March, 1994 Citizens Informational Workshop held at Pitt Community College are still being studied. There is UQ preferred alternative at this time. Environmental and design studies are being performed on each corridor to assess the environmental impacts. Over the course of the next few months you may notice N.C. Department of Transportation personnel along the proposed corridors gathering information. Also, the project schedule is as follows. Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the preliminary planning document, is scheduled for the fall of 1995. The DEIS will present project costs, a comparison of the environmental impacts, and traffic service for all three corridors and comments received from the Citizens Informational Workshops. The Corridor Public Hearing is scheduled for late 1995. At the Corridor Public Hearing, all three corridors will be presented for comments and questions. However, a recommended alternative will not be presented at that time. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the final planning document, will address comments received at the Corridor Public Hearing and present a recommended alternative. The FEIS is scheduled for completion near the end of 1996. The Record of Decision (ROD), the final approval for the recommended alternative, is scheduled for completion during the summer of 1997. The Design Public Hearing is scheduled for the fall of 1997. At the Design Public Hearing, the recommended corridor for the proposed Greenville Southwest Bypass will be presented, and approximate right-of-way limits will be shown. If you are on the mailing list, you will be contacted by letter once the above public hearings are scheduled. If you want to look at the three corridors under study, they can be viewed at the Pitt County Planning Office located in the Development Services Building at 1717 West Fifth Street in Greenville or at the Winterville Town Hall. If you have any questions regarding the project, you may call the Project Planning Engineer, Ed Lewis, at (919) 733-3141 or write to: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch NC Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Corridor Study PO Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 CORRIDOR/ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ' PLAN PHASE 1 DATA COLLECTION 1ST CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP INVENTORY OF PLANNING ISSUES DOCUMENT COMMUNITY CONCERNS TRANSPORTATION NEEDS EVALUATION PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION INITIAL FIELD STUDIES CORRIDOR REFINEMENT 2ND CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP CORRIDORS SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY PHASE 5 REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE DEIS REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PHASE 6 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECORD OF DECISION ??OF NORTH C 9 r4 y?P * y, D 2 P ?O Q` F OF: TRANseo Public participation is an important part of the planning process for this project. Several strategies will be implemented to inform the public about the project and to solicit citizen input for planning and development, including newsletters, phone- in and mail contact, citizen workshops and local newspaper advertisements. As noted elsewhere in this newsletter, a mailing list has been developed which includes the names of local citizens who have expressed interest in the Greenville Southwest Bypass. This list will be updated throughout the project study and used to distribute subsequent newsletters and notifications of upcoming meetings and hearings. If you would like to be placed on the list, please fill out the enclosed form and send it to: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager ' Planning and Environmental Branch NCDOT PO Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to participate in the public meetings held for the R-2250 project to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. To receive special services contact: Mr. Len Hendricks NCDOT, Citizens Participation Unit PO Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone (919) 250-4092 Please give adequate notice prior to the date of the workshop. PHASE 4 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CORRIDOR PUBLIC HEARING '? ;: :7 w'• '•o•.p ? 7Vj 1-I :u r7 N 1-I U 41 O r1 O 11 N o 1:: a Z x •r1 o Pitt-Greenville ?? i• "'`• r 5 rn P4 Airport ck <t N N A r• rr Q pq U, 'Roclc Spring R• >v;,. 43 ,!;' ' . ?. 1.0 + :,v 113 24 • r?r?! CAROL! 1 a m r ,•. O I c'' 1211 4 9 h 9 FA ?P ' 1 ?'?' "'• 6 l.a I ? ? c US 2 v . ??`;??%? ,., '?:?,, ?,,i c? ?, X03 ? • . v 121.2 ?Rpl i:;. 1r 'a 1.1 ?, ? `?:• ? ? ? ??? 264 :•? acts. ?, ..• ""' "? :? 1214 ? .4 Court ~ • ?/ i s ?a `?' ::1 2.1 Z tEa? \ 13 al 1.; p o :.1 1209 .12.42 ? • 14On ?•" . r:• 4 3 Z ..12.09 r:F ;P. 1.4 2¢4 a• ?- 1208 Bell Arthur -'' t 112?? It' 1.0 1264 Frog Level y r 1206 I' 1206 a 1 1 W 2 1708 49 `? a p 1130 1207_ 1134 114b:- 1?2 x1149 /-' • B 1130 / 1217 1 124 i 7 120 1.1 .4 .r a . li• :: i .N 24 ° 127 1 1 1126 1129 !?. 2.4 5 4 .i_I_34 1 1.126 . _ . ?r iti 2106 131 5 171 Bollards 1121 ! Crossroad _I Is( g tt, 5 ` ,n N h\ E• 1..71 i PQ ^ a kw ?? l l ?• .1714 l / 'BPS \ ..2 i 903 - - I 1718 13 20. Q 11 1125 0 1714 r-1 N M 1124 Renston 1118 •3 .3 14 }-1 }-t 1.3 1.5 K © - _ ._ T 1 131 O O O 1.LL4. , .. •'--I •r-I •r-•I ?'I I 1 17 . fl •, 171 1123 1120 .. Z ?_4 ?4 ?A W O O O 1149 U U U U P: Please include me on your mailing list for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (R-2250) (Please Print) Name: Address: City/State: Telephone Number: ( ) Neighborhood Organization/Affiliation: Comments: Zip Code: cut and share with a neighbor . _ .................................................................................................. •............................... Please include me on your mailing list for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (R-2250) (Please Print) Name: Address: City/State: Zip Code: Telephone Number: ( ) Neighborhood Organization/Affiliation: Comments: Iz EE •M1?ti'• y ^„ '1' h u 10 I Ul '?• . "nl 1? try h?i c. Y Cam' .?h` \•`.:5.; CV ?a -r..;,?;,1??: '• °-?\Ij? •PS?j? ?'1 ? •5 Iii ^j e' ^?\?`' \.1 ^I o? ^ Q ot C,) .:. dV nl el w S c t ? .. :? m ^I -" vly? B. PPS ?• r:, W p n Y T n L' S' d ?O 1? 2,0 d 9. 9' I'd • . P i r _?.?;• .r ••i ^I_. •? I ?4• ^o vd V // \ 9Nf1 f ! ° 117 1{...... y h o •'Aa9 Q1.'.; . 07 h' rl K ?e ..? Y F? Ga ? 7i ,nn A. r?a c ^ ? • d in l ?P 10 0 LLJ CD V., U ' ?•.' co / CL mu rdo :i "i cl u h 8'1 h I ? r Q. N V - t' •Y.;tip ? ? 9 .% v ter. y rv ` r 7 1 p m Ci P, " , 77 O C ^, of m :? Q 0 C ^i' ? ? of t' 'OOl 1 nl N? 1 O Q _ CD U L W " ° eI a __j f Y N Q " i ' m ?] I 01 w < U -? ? •`.. ? b nI 42 u o 3fu n'j 0 g V. o O •t IW / e! N E r of 0 7 r.•:: •.. L? North Carolina Department of Transportation NEWSLETTER JUNE 1999 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT R-2250 GREENVILLE SOUTHWEST BYPASS CORRIDOR STUDY This newsletter is to update you on the proposes Greenville Southwest Bypass, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project R-2250. Not much has changed on this project since the December 1995 newsletter, due to changing funding priorities. The three corridors presented at the March 1994 1 Citizens Informational Workshop held at Pitt Community College are still being studied. At this time, there is no preferred corridor. ' Environmental and design studies to assess the environmental impacts of each corridor are in progress. n L The project schedule has been revised. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is scheduled for completion in March 2000. The DEIS will include project costs, a comparison of the environmental impacts, and traffic service for all three corridors. A Corridor Public Hearing, tentatively scheduled for July 2000, will be held after completion of the DEIS to obtain input from the public on the three study corridors. A recommended alternative will not be presented at the hearing. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS] will include a recommended alternative and is scheduled for completion in July 2001. A Design Public Hearing will be scheduled after completion of the FEIS to present the recommended corridor to the public. The approximate right-of-way limits will also be presented. Citizens will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the recommended alternative at this hearing. The Record of Decision (ROD), the final planning document, is scheduled for publication in January 2002. The ROD is a public notice which appears in the Federal Register and records the steps taken to determine that the recommended alternative is the least damaging to the environment. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in October 2004, and construction is scheduled to begin in October 2006, for the northern portion of the project, from SR 1128 (Davenport Farm Road) to US 264. If you are on the mailing list, you will be contacted by letter once the public hearings are scheduled. A map of the three study corridors is included. If you would like more information on the three corridors under study, contact the Project Development Engineer, Richard Brewer, P. E., at (919) 733-7844 ext. 242, or write: W. D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NC Department of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 ' GREENVILLE SOUTHWEST BYPASS STUDY 1 (IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 11 & US 264 BUSINESS) .M :. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT R-2250 1 STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1221401 1 North Carolina Department of Transportation NEWSLETTER Septe#lb?r 2001 Issue No. 4 1 This ' newsletter is the fourth an a series of newsletters published . by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform the public about `' of N0 `R TM Cq the Greenville Southwest 1 ' ?o Bypass Study. Since the last newsletter in June 1999, the NCDOT has z incorporated new agency 1 rn coordination procedures into the study and OF TRAN5Q0 contracted the private engineering firm H.W. Lochner, Inc. to complete the environmental studies. 1 Lochner will prepare the alternate evaluation, develop the preliminary design "for the build alternates, and prepare the environmental documents. The purpose of this newsletter is to give an,overview of the project 1 studies, , to update the project schedule, and to anaounc? an upcoming informational workshop. 1. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP NCDOT is requesting your presence at a Citizens Informational Workshop to review the preliminary alternates under consideration and to assist with the identification of the alternates to be carried forward for detailed evaluation. The Workshop is scheduled in the Gymnasium at Boyd Lee Park on October 25, 2001 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Boyd Lee Park is located at 5184 Corey Road. Representatives from the NCDOT, the Federal Highway Administration 01WA), the city of Greenville, the Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, and H. W. Lochner, Inc. will be available to answer questions and provide information on the project and new agency coordination procedures. A map showing the preliminary alternates under consideration for the project will on display at the Workshop. 1 .; SEVEN PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED Loea state, and federal agencies reviewed the five alternates (1, 1A, 1B, 2, and 3) that were shown at the September 1996 Public Meeting. These five alternates are shown on the map included in this newsletter. Each alternate represents 1 a corridor approximately 1000 feet in width. During the agency review of the five alternates, the FHWA and the federal and state environmental resource and regulatory agencies requested two additional alternates be evaluated, an Upgrade Existing Route Alternative and a 1 Western Alternate. The Upgrade Existing Route Alternative includes improving existing Stantonsburg Road (US 264 Business) from US 264 Bypass to NC 11 (Memorial Drive) and improving NC 11 from Stantonsburg Road to NC 102. The Western-Alternate is on new location and located west of Alternate 1. 1 In addition to evaluating the two new alternates, variations of Alternates 1, 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 from their original corridor locations are also being reviewed. These corridor variations are being developed to avoid new developments 1 that are proposed or were constructed in the project area since the five alternates were originally identified. The original alternates,, with the new corridor revisions, and the two new alternates will be shown at the upcoming October 25' Citizens Informational Workshop. 1 E43 n N R tB i 1 I 0 1 ? EF 1l r I? s Ebb o B r I I NEW COORDINATION PROCEDURES INCORPORATED INTO BYPASS STUDY Procedures for the participation of Federal, state, and local agencies at key decision-making points in the development of transportation projects were developed after the environmental impact studies for the Greenville Southwest Bypass project began. These procedures, which allow appropriate agencies to "have a say" earlier in the transportation development and environmental study process, are being incorporated into the Bypass study. The NCDOT, the FHWA, and the agencies will review, evaluate, and reach "concurrence" on all major project decisions, which may result in a significant affect on the human and natural environments. These procedures involve providing more refined information to the agencies, and the public, earlier in the project development processes. This may mean more time is required to complete the study process, but it also means less time is required later, during the environmental permit application process, prior to construction. The agencies involved in the decision making process for this project are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (Division of Water Quality, Marine Fisheries, and Wildlife Resources), N.C. State Historic Preservation Office, and the Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Four "concurrence" points are identified by the procedures. • Concurrence Point 1: The Purpose of and Need for the Project. Concurrence on the purpose and need for the project was achieved in February 2001. • Concurrence Point 2: The identification of the alternates that will be carried forward for detailed studies. • Concurrence Point 3: The selection of the "least environmentally damaging and practicable alternative" (LEDPA) or preferred alternate for the project. • Concurrence Point 4: The avoidance and minimization techniques, which will be incorporated in the design of the LEDPA. WEB SITE www. dot. state. nc. us/projects/greenville/ A Web Site has been developed for the project. It will be updated periodically to provide current, up-to- date information about the progress of the project and any upcoming workshops and hearings. PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule incorporates the agency coordination procedures and shows the time line for completing the project. 0 Obtain Concurrence Point 1---- February 2001 Hold Public Meeting ------------ October 2001 Obtain Concurrence Point 2---- February 2002 Complete Draft Environmental Document------- Winter 2003 Hold Public Hearing------------- Spring 2003 Obtain Concurrence Point 3 --- Summer 2003 Obtain Concurrence Point 4 --- Winter 2004 Complete Final Environmental Document------- Fall 2004 Purchase Right of Way --------- Fall 2006 Construction --------------------- After 2008 The alternates for detailed study will be identified in February 2002. The factors involved in this identification include the public's comments from the upcoming October 25' Citizens Informational Workshop and a preliminary review of the potential impacts to the human and natural environments. A newsletter will be mailed to inform everyone of the alternates selected. Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC, 11 and US 264 Business) Newsletter P.O. Box 30923 Raleigh, NC 27622 Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Bus.) ac ?- O °$ eay UR FOR MORE INFORMATION Call: 1-800-554-7849 AdLobal A toll free number for the public to discuss issues and concerns about the Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Business) is available during normal business hours. i CHCa eYZ h4S I ---- Or Write: NC Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Business) P.O. Box 30923 Raleigh, NC 27622 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP October 25, 2001 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM GREENVILLE SOUTHWEST BYPASS STUDY (NC I1- US 264 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENTS) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT R-2250 ' STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1221401 North Carolina Department of Transportation 1 NEWSLETTER 'Aril 2002 ' This newsletter is the fifth in a series of newsletters published by ' the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform the public about the OF TRIP, Greenville Southwest Bypass ' Study. A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on October 25, 2001 to present the preliminary alternates to the public for comment. This newsletter is ' to inform the public which alternates were selected for detailed study. Issue No. 5 WEB SITE Please visit the NCDOT project web site for current project information. Project maps, copies of this newsletter, and comment sheets are available on the www. ncdot. org/projects/greenville/ FIVE AL TERNA TES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY ' Five alternates were selected for detailed study by local, state, and federal agencies. These alternates included the Upgrade Existing Alternative and Corridors 1, IA, 113, and 4. These alternates are shown on the map ' included in this newsletter. The Upgrade Existing Alternate was retained to minimize impacts to wetlands and stream crossings. This alternate consists of the addition of two lanes in each direction on Memorial Drive from NC 102 to- ' Stantonsburg Road and one lane in each direction on Stantonsburg Road from Memorial Drive to US 264 Bypass. ' Corridor 1 was retained because of its proximity to Frog Level Road and its fewer relocations and impacts to wetlands. Corridors IA and 1B follow the same basic corridor as Corridor 1 in the vicinity of the Charles McLawhorn Property. These corridors were developed to avoid impacting this historic property. Corridor 4 was retained because of its western location, which enables it to avoid the Charles McLawhorn Property and the new developments proposed and under construction in the project area. ' A copy of the corridor map that was displayed at the October 25, 2001 Citizens Informational Workshop is available at the NCDOT Division Office, 105 Pactolus Hwy (NC 33) Greenville, NC 27835. The Division ' Office phone number is (252) 830-3490. web site. THIS PAGE IS A MAP SHOWING THE CORRIDORS MERGER TEAM MEETS TO SELECT ALTERNATIVES ' The Project Merger Team met on February 20, 2002 to select detail study alternatives from among the ten 'preliminary corridors (1, IA, 113, 2, 3, 3A, 313, 4, 4A, and Upgrade Existing) that were shown at the October 25, 2001 Citizens Informational Workshop. This selection coincides with Concurrence Point 2 of the ' Section 404/NEPA Merger Process. The Merger Team consists of the Federal Highway Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish ' and Wildlife Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural ' Resources (Division of Water Quality and Wildlife Resources Commission), North Carolina Division of Cultural Resources, and the Greenville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Merger Team evaluated the alternatives based on their potential to impact both the human and natural ' environments and on comments received during the Citizens Informational Workshop and Local Officials meeting. Examples of the environmental impacts evaluated included relocations, commercial developments, and impacts to wetlands, streams, and historic properties. PROJECT SCHED ULE The following schedule incorporates the agency coordination procedures and shows the time line for completing the project. Obtain Concurrence Point 1 -------- February 2001 Hold Public Meeting ----------------- October 2001 ' Obtain Concurrence Point 2 -------- February 2002 Complete Draft Environmental Document----------- Winter 2003 ' Hold Public Hearing ----------------- Spring 2003 Obtain Concurrence Point 3 -------- Summer 2003 ' Obtain Concurrence Point 4 -------- Winter 2004 Complete Final Environmental Document ----------- Fall 2004 ' Purchase Right of Way -------------- Fall 2006 1 Construction -------------------------- After 2008 FIVE ALTERNATES ELIMINATED Five of the ten preliminary corridors (2, 3, 3A, 3B, and 4A) were eliminated from further consideration by the Merger Team. Corridor 2 was eliminated because it would impact wetlands associated with Swift Creek. Corridor 3 was eliminated because it would impact a newly constructed high school, a planned elementary school, and an historic property. Corridors 3A and 3B were eliminated because they both would impact wetlands and bottomland hardwoods along Swift Creek. Corridor 4A was eliminated because it would impact commercial developments in Ayden. DETAILED STUDIES FOR PROJECT ALTERNATES The Upgrade Existing Alternative and Corridors 1, IA, 113, and 4 will undergo detailed studies to determine which one is the "Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative" (Concurrence Point 3 of the Section 404/NEPA Merger Process). The detailed studies include the evaluation of each alternative's potential effect on cultural resources, the human environment, and the natural environment. Evaluation of the human environment includes assessment of population and growth characteristics, labor force/employment, income ranges, housing characteristics, visual characteristics, farmland, air quality, noise, land use planning, community facilities and services, and transportation facilities. Cultural resources evaluation determines the impacts on historic or prehistoric archaeological sites or historic architectural resources. Evaluation of the natural environment includes assessment of biotic resources, physical resources (soils, water, agricultural districts), water quality, wetlands, and rare and protected species. During the next year, environmental professionals will conduct field studies on each of the alternatives selected for detailed study. Property owners are requested to allow these individuals access to the land contained in the various corridors. Field studies will be conducted for wetlands, streams, natural communities, protected species, noise, archaeology, historic resources, and hazardous materials. Your cooperation with these studies will aid in completing the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the study corridors. Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Business) P.O. Box 30923 Raleigh, NC 27622 Complete Draft Environmental Document Detailed human and natural environmental studies will be conducted during the next six to eight months. These studies will be essential in the evaluation of alternatives and the selection of a preferred alternative. The findings from the detailed study will be included in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which will be available for citizens and local officials prior to the public hearing. The public earing will provide citizens the opportunity to comment on study findings and voice ;ir support for a preferred alternative. FOR MORE INFORMA TION Call: 1-800-554-7849 Or Write: - NC Department of Transportation Greenville Southwest Bypass Study (Improvements to NC 11 and US 264 Business) P.O. Box 30923 Raleigh, NC 27622 u r' Is the sixth illshed by the i department Yon (NCDOT) public about Southwest Since the last ,additional have been study and the Selected for (udy have newsletter notion on the tie project, iottunlties for rent, and ,contact with pg. 2 pg.- 3 pg. 3 pg. 3 pg. 4 NCDOT to Host Citizens Informational Workshop On April 12, 2005, NCDOT will host a Citizens Informational Workshop at South Central High School (570 W. Forlines Road) in Winterville. The purpose of this informal workshop is to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the roadway alternatives selected for detailed study for the Greenville Southwest Bypass. This workshop is a "drop-in" format with no formal presentations. Please feel free to visit during the hours of 4p.m, to 7p.m. to view the corridor maps showing the locations of the detailed study corridors and to learn more about anticipated project impacts. NCDOT staff and study team members will r?- April 12, 2005.4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. South Central High School Cafeteria be present to hear your ideas and concerns and answer any questions. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to participate in the workshop. Anyone requiring special services should contact Colista Freeman at 919-733- 3141 or by email at csfreeman@dot.state.nc.us as early as possible so that arrangements can be made. Three Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study On February 17, 2005, local, state, and federal agencies met to review and discuss the alternatives under consideration for the Greenville Southwest Bypass. As a result of this meeting, Alternatives 1, 1A, 1B, 4, 5, 1-EXT, 1A-EXT, and the Upgrade Existing Alternative were removed from detailed study. The three alternatives selected for detailed study are Alternatives 1B-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT. Some History.... In February 2001, five alternatives were selected for detailed study. The alternatives included the Upgrade Existing Alternative, Corridors 1, 1A, 113, and 4. In December 2003, the Renston Rural Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The Renston Historic District is shown on the map on Page 2 of this newsletter. An alternative was developed to minimize impacts to the district. This alternative was named Alternative 5. During the development of alternatives, design year traffic volumes were studied at the NC 102/NC 11 intersection in the Town of Ayden. Traffic studies showed the existing intersection would be over capacity and would not operate at an acceptable level of service for the design year. An interchange at NC 102/NC 11 was considered; however, the Town of Ayden voiced concerns over impacts the interchange would cause. An alternative alignment that extends the Bypass south of the NC 102/NC 11 intersection was developed. This alignment is known as the Southern Extension. The Southern Extension (-EXT) connects to the alternatives already under study and the new avoidance alternative creating Alternatives 1-EXT, 1A-EXT, 16-EXT, 4-EXT, and 5-EXT. A 0% N E1Avo LETTER x ¦ 1 . a1 ii, Wi ?s . • t • 1 YY ¦ Y' s w u 'f ?? 1 t 4 ? f Cw ! 1 ?4 I r ,?? i ?t r yy?, ? sY _ •$ 3 1i r ?_ qtr !? ?J l 1 ?.r't- • g. - o L What Happens Next? What Happens Next? During the next year, environmental professionals will conduct field studies on each of the alternatives selected for detailed study. A map showing the location of the alternatives is shown on the previous page. What will be studied? Study team members will evaluate the following characteristics of your community: population and growth, visual characteristics, farmland, air quality, noise, land use planning, community facilities and services, and will further study the network of transporta- tion facilities. In addition, cultural resource evaluations will be conducted to determine if there will be impacts to historic archaeological sites or historic architectural resources. The final evaluation is an assessment of the natural environment. Studies include an assessment of biotic resources, physical resources (soils, water, and agricultural districts), water quality, wetlands, and rare and protected species. Property owners are asked to please allow these individuals access to the land contained in the study corridors. Field studies will be conducted for wetlands, streams, natural communities, protected species, noise, archaeology, historic resources, and hazardous materials. Your cooperation with these studies will aid in completing the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the study corridors. Project Website mental Please visit the NCDOT project website for current project informa- tion. There you will find information on the environmental study process, a project schedule, and a Frequently Asked Questions section. The project website contains project maps, copies of this newsletter and previous newsletters, up-to-date information about the progress of the project and upcoming workshops and hearings. On the website you can sign up for the project mailing list or send us your comments by email. For More Information: On the Web: www.ncdot.org/projects/greenville By Telephone: 1-800-554-7849 By E-mail: greenville@hwlochner.com for Study Citizens Informational Workshop A Citizens Informational Workshop will be held on April 12, 2005 in the South Central High School Cafeteria. Workshop Where: South Central High School Address: 570 W. Forlines Road Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Time: 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Can't make it to the workshop? Call us with comments or questions: TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1-800-554-7849 (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. weekdays) 11 1 ` t 264 ? ." ` Greenville i ?? , b4 ??gatorr ?4 ? rR ? a ALT 264 IN 'Y . F? a t 13 y cot South central r x,._. Qocostn Rd High Sch00, 9Q3 aurle Ellis Rd ter " Green ilt ALL . r, zse 0 .. r s ? !nterviile - r - d y ?,aa M den p 11 y',6? NOAilf ?/ Greenville Southwest Bypass Study Newsletter P.O. Box 30923 aFFw?Raleigh, NC 27622