u2715

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howesy Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Ida 1111111M
I D FE E "F1
July 30, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric GalamL-
Subject: FONSI for NC 111 Widening in Goldsboro
Wayne County
State Project DOT No. 8.1331101, TIP # U-2715
EHNR # 975-00147
The subject document has been reviewed by this office., The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.06 hectares of waters including wetland.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Washington COE
Michelle Suverkrubbe
nc111.fon

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone]
FACED
JUL 3 01996
FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
``- Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date:
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
-7 /31 Nc
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water .? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ayettev
e ? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ? Groundwater 'V Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others nv'iro'nmental'Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
• In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
DConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
P&104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

NC 111, Goldsboro
From SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne County
Federal Aid Number STP-111(1)
State Project No. 8.1331101
T.I.P Project No. U-2715
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT R PACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of INSghways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C)
For finther information contact:

and Environmental Branch NCDOT
3/, , ? -e
Date Nc r.-Graf, P. E.
TMDivi ion Administrator, FHWA

NC 111, Goldsboro
From SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne County
Federal Aid Number STP-111(1)
State Project No. 8.1331101
T.I.P Project No. U-2715
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT RvIPACT
May, 1996
Marc L. Hamel
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
CA
f `4.
? SEAL ?
e
? • ? 4v
t 6944 s
k CO
IN 4 ^
\. 0
......... M1.1.
?doBf?QIP60447 •?i,4'.
S-)
Planning and
P.
Branch
1k
'AV
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
I. TYPE OF ACTION ................................................................................ 1
II. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS .......................................................... 1
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................... 1
IV. COORDINATIONT AND COMMENTS .................................................. 1
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ............................... 1
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ............... 2
C. Public Hearing ............................................................................. 5
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................ 5
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EMPACT ....................... 5
APPENDIX
A. Figure 1
B. Comments Received From Review Agencies on the
Environmental Assessment
NC 111, Goldsboro
From SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne County
Federal Aid Number STP-111(1)
State Project No. 8.1331101
T.I.P Project No. U-2715
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
2. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction
regarding the relocation of survey markers along the project. Five geodetic survey
markers will be impacted by the proposed project.
NC 111, Goldsboro
From SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne County
Federal Aid Number STP-111(1)
State Project No. 8.1331101
T.I.P Project No. U-2715
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
"ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES"
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DENO Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be required prior to the issue of an
individual permit.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) is likely to be applicable for all impacts
to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT RvIPACT
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
in consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment (EA) which
has been evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the
environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and
content of the Environmental Assessment.
11. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS
The proposed widening of NC 111 is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1996 and construction is
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1997. The current TIP includes a total funding of
$2,338,000 for the project, consisting of $138,000 for right-of-way and $2,200,000 for
construction. This 2.65-mile project has a current estimated cost of $3,400,000, including
$800,000 for utilities and $2,600,000 for construction.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 111 in Goldsboro from Old 111 Highway (SR 1710) to US 70 (see Appendix A,
Figure 1). The proposed cross section provides two, 12-foot travel lanes in each direction,
a 12-foot center lane for left turns, and 10-foot total usable shoulders, with 4-foot paved.
The project is approximately 2.65 miles long, and the proposed design will be in
conformance with the existing roadway alignment, or a minimum of 50 mph. All
intersections within the project limits are to be at-grade and stop sign controlled, with the
exception of the NC 111/US 70 intersection, which is signalized.
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment for this project was approved by the NCDOT and
by the FHWA on March 28, 1995. Copies of the approved Environmental Assessment
were circulated to he following federal, state and local agencies for review and comments.
An asterisk (*) denotes those agencies who responded with written comments. Copies of
the correspondence received are included in the Appendix of this document.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. IV
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* Wildlife Resources Commission
* Divisi n of Environmental Health
* Divisi n of Land Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Di on of Parks and Recreation
* Divisi n of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
* Division of Solid Waste Management
* Mayor of Gol, sboro
The Enviro ental Assessment was also made available to the public.
B. Comments eceived on the Environmental Assessment
Written co ents on the Environmental Assessment were received from several
agencies. The foll wing are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses, where
appropriate:
1. U. S. Department of the Arm corps of En ' eers
a.) C mment: "The study area for the proposed project is located in the city
of 1@dsboro and Wayne County, both of which participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel 20 of the June 1982
Gold boro Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the roadway does not appear
to cross an identified flood hazard area (100-year flood plain). This is verified
by a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topo map.
Based on Panels 75 and 100 of the September 1983 Wayne County FIRMs,
the r ad likewise does not cross an identified 100-year flood plain. However,
refe ' g to the USGS topo map, the road crosses Green Branch, a tributary
to th Neuse River, which appears to have sufficient drainage area to produce
floo ' g. We recommend coordination with the county for compliance with
their oodplain ordinance."
Res nse: The hydraulic aspects of the project will be designed so that flood
eleva on levels will not be increased. During the design stage Wayne County
and FjEMA will be contacted for their concurrence with these
b.) Comment: "We also concur that no mitigation will be required in the
str nthat impact less than one acre of wetlands and/or waters of
the ates. If the proposed project would im act more than one acre
of waters of the United States, we believe bridging the wetlands could be cost
effective after consideration is given to the cost of borrow material
(including purchase of borrow site, cost of excavation and delivery, etc.), and
the cost of mitigation to offset the impacts of the approach fills."
Response: As addressed on page 22 of the Environmental Assessment,
only 0.06 hectare (0.15 acre) will be impacted.
c.) Comment: "Impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands,
should be identified for proposed borrow and waste areas."
Response: No additional impacts to wetlands and/or surface waters are
anticipated as a result of placement of borrow or waste areas for project
construction. This information is based on preliminary design. The Corps of
Engineers will be contacted by NCDOT if any additional wetlands and/or
surface waters impacts resulting from placement of borrow or waste areas are
identified.
2. N.C. DEHNR Intergovernmental Review-Project Comments
a.) Comment: "Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be in
compliance with 15A NCAC 2.D0520"
Response: NCDOT will comply with all applicable open burning related laws.
b.) Comment: "Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos
material must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0525 which requires
notification and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control
Group."
Response: If structures containing asbestos are affected by the project, the
Asbestos Control Group will be notified.
c.) Comment: "The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be
properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be
disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at
least 30 days before beginning activity."
Response: NCDOT will comply with this requirement for erosion and
sedimentation control.
3. N.C. DEHNR, Division of Land Resources
a.) Comment: "This project will impact 5 geodetic markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction..."
Response: This project has been coordinated with the N. C. Geodetic Survey,
and its office will be contacted prior to construction of the project.
b.) Comment: "The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission."
Res bnse: The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are
cove ed in article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution."
The IBC-Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and
Sed' entation Control Program which has been approved by the N. C.
SEentation Control Commission. This program consists of the rigorous
req ements to minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures.
An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor and approved
by N i DOT before construction is started. In conjunction with the erosion
control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow provisions of the
plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and siltation.
c.) C R mment: "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
cons ction and entering adjacent properties, wetlands and natural
NCDOT will comply with this requirement for erosion and
on control.
d.) Comment: "Borrow and waste areas, along with other associated land-
di"ing activities, must be addressed according to the Memorandum of
Agreement between DOT and the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
Rest: NCDOT will comply with all requirements addressed in the
memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT and the N.C. Sedimentation
Control Commission.
4.
lent: "The subject project may impact 0.06 hectare of waters including
ids. DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless
quality concerns are satisfied."
NCDOT will consult with N.C. DEHNR, Division of
Ztal Management to address any concerns before the permitting
5.
vent: "If existing water lines are to be relocated during the construction,
for the water relocation must be submitted to the DEHNR, Public Water
Anse: NCDOT will give the DEHNR the opportunity to review the
line relocation construction plans.
6. N.C. DEHNR Division of Solid Waste Management
Comment: "The Department of Transportation should make every feasible
effort to minimize the generation of waste, to recycle materials for which
viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and materials in the
development of this project where suitable."
Response: NCDOT will follow the guidelines set forth in the Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures for waste removal. The Department
will also recycle materials and use recycled products where suitable in
accordance with applicable construction procedures.
C. Public Hearin¢
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a public hearing was held
on January 29, 1996 at the Eastern Wayne High School. Approximately 50 citizens and/or
representatives from the City of Goldsboro and Wayne County attended the public hearing.
All comments and questions were satisfactorily addressed at the hearing. A transcript of the
hearing is on file with the N.C. Division of Highways.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
No revisions to the scope or design of the project have occurred since publication of
the Environmental Assessment. The current total estimated cost of the project is
$3,400,000.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT RAPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments from federal, state, and local agencies, it is
the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the project will not
have a significant impact upon the quality of the human or natural environment. The project
is not controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts on natural,
ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. No significant impact on air or water
quality or on ambient noise levels is expected. The project is consistent with local plans and
will not divide or disrupt a community. The project will have no effect on any historic
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No known
Section 4 (f) properties will be impacted by the project. The proposed improvements will
have no effect on federally-listed threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it is
determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. An
Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
I AJyt10• `?*-. :i f nip U? 11
Wk-
BUS. •. '•"'•'•"•''::`•.::: :•:•'• '1'i?
70 , 3.S
T O ``• f 1. P .F Pv , •:.? y ^ `' 11111. ? ? ?.6
1702 ?.
fQ? EPJ.` ??Q` Miller
I J Prison/
1
3 c? 810
4A
?Q 11111 i 171
111 ?' Newsome
f.. ,. "''::.. :ii 81 ? 1712 / F
.GOLDSBORO***:: ,??? - (,\,? qsT ?\ ?f
`: POP. 31,871 ?. 1758 O t} /?Y
1713 o- Ct `
END -/,f
` ????, ??i.•: • Seymour-Jrhnson PROJECT ti
•:; _?
Air Force Base
\ 1 \ .\4 1723??''/
1962
7 _
Elroy,,
1961 e Casey 1
2
172 V?-
???.??? \':: :: - ELROY / 2 Chp.
` (UNINC.) , 11725,
POP. 4,073 Z?,IS , O
19 18 11726
MATCH /'•? __ p \\ 728
1915 m 1813
1929 196?*
1917 t ?011010 2028 i 1811;'/ ?.,:•` ::
1710 , i
•? % 1932 1726 `) F„'•'• ••
t 1911
,,.? 960 ri. % _-r•. ., ..;:
BEGIN
T. I. P. PROJECT 9 :':; :•• - -
R - 2422 1PROJECT
Emmaus 1727 WALNU
Ch. 951 - POP.
Bro - 1.7
gden St. John,, i
Chp. - ?73o > t ` Ch. 17
6 1730
N
727 1932 F"
y=; 1824
2051 Dal
\
12 2050 912 •1J 1 5 r.
N
1120
1 120 ? 1915
1983 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
1933 h TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
4 9J, 1. BRANCH
NC 111, Goldsboro
1916 i.w From SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne County
Federal Aid Number STP-111(1)
c_\ZZ? ?'9 State Project No. 8.1331101
191 a T.LP Project No. U-2715
o mile 1 FIG.1
i \_,?' 1933 % 1915 I.. ,....1 ,?•

f NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM2U,8 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
• `? 116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003 -?
05-18-95 \v'?" l
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIE.W.COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM: ? v
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS- CHRYS BAGGETT
WHIT WEBB DIRECTOR
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH. N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG-!INTER-OFF

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENV- ASSESS- - PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 111 FROM US 70 TO
SR 1710 (TIP #U-2715)
SAI NO 95E42200747 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV- ASSESS-
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PL=ASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-

MAY 2 5 1995;
C.C- REGION P t31GvOF
??Nt(3f-fyyAYS ?
Ell I
A
B-1
r State of North Clarolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
i 70t)
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C) E H N I?
Jonathan B.. Hcxwes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee I)
RE: 95-0747 EA NC 111 Widening in Goldsboro
DATE: May?12, 1995
i
The Deparitment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank vo for the opportunity to review:
attachments
RECEIVED
MAY 15 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O.1I
An Equal C
B-2
27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
rtunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ I r m post-consumer pcper

05/09/95
.r
16:34 $919 733 9959 NC DER WQ ENVSCI l a002
State of North Carollna
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan 8.4-towes; Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 9, 1995
MEMORANDUM-
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
- Monica Swihartl'?
From: Eric GalambZ?
Subject: EA for NO 111 Widening in Goldsboro
Wayne County
State Project DOT No. 8.1331101, TIP # U-2715
EHNR # 95-0747, DEM # 10934
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which Impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.06 hectares of waters including wetland.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Washington COE
nc111.ea
P.O. Box 29535. Rdelgh, North CaroQna 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equd oppcrtunity Aftirmatbm Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-comumer paper
B-3
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE
t ,
FEL :919-528-9839 May 12 ' 95 16:62 No. oub F . ub
? r2
_ F r1oxth_Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. S.-disbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188.919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director

C): ?re1j?:a 1MC(Jee
C)fficc (.1fi,egislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Ft: c;M: David Cox, Highway Project Coordfnalor.
lia itat Conservation Prograan ?C--~? `' X17 J
Di A : IM a, 12, 199 ,
Nc,1,h Carolina Department of Transportation (NC L)OT) Environmental
51
s:c,.metit (EA) for NC 111 improvements, from US 70 to SR 1710, Wayne
Co. inty.:North Carolina, TIP No. U-2715, SCH Project No. 95-0747.
'staff with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
•J?y?P'% Md the Stt?je t LA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of
this review -,vas to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are
Provi&6 in accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S C'•???^f2)(c)1 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (43 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
The Prnnr??er? project involves widening existing NC 111 from US 70 to SR 1710 ton
f:, °e lane Z-ho tlder scminv The project length is approximately 2.65 miles. Wetland impacts
i11 'css then 1 acre. Wetland impacts will likely be covered under nationwide "404" permits.
M:C "MRC -urreciates that NCDOT has significantly reduced impacts to wildlife and
fi••herv resourccs v the rjeoision to improve existing facilities for this project. We feel that the
!^ra;°ct ns propos u-i will have minimal impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
At thi! lime. we will concur with the EA for this project and anticipate our concurranee
%vith th,? Finding f No Significant Impact (FONSI). However, NCDOT should continue efforts
T.I. minim:-c wetland impacts and use Best Management Practices to protect off-site resources.
hank yoti `t.r the npportunity to comment on this CA. If we can be of any further
ssg10"rce please kcal! me at (9 19) 528-9886.
N;•ayrie JO,nP., piortct 3 Fisheries Biologist
Di_trict 3 Wildlife Biologist
tiantl? 1i1s??n, NG/hS Program Manager
M-, nrd ..^.11, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
B-4

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment'
Health.and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Goyernor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
May 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Melba McGee
DEHNR Record Coordinato p anning and assessment
Michael A. Kelly
Deputy Director
Wayne County - U.S. Dept. of Transportation and
N.C. Dept. of Transportation - Division of Highways
The Solid Waste Management Division has reviewed and commented
on the above-referenced project. Please find enclosed separate
comments from the Hazardous Waste Section,. Solid Waste Section and
Superfund Section.
Should you have additional questions, please feel free to
contact our office.
MK: tf
Enclosures
CC: Jimmy Carter
Phil Prete
Jack Butler
B-5

P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North C
Department of
Health and Nai
Division of Solid W
James B. Hunt,4r.,
Jonathan B. HOWE
William L. Meyer, E
rolina.
Ivironment,
al Resources
e Management
(_-?gvernor
>, Secretary
!rector
May 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Michael
Kelly, Deputy Director
of Solid Waste Management
FROM: Philip I Prete, Head
Field Operations Branch
Subject: Wayne' unty - U.S. Dept. of Transportation and
N.C. Dpot. of Transportation - Division of Highways
The Solid Was trrounding Section has reviewed the attached project proposal and has seen no
adverse impact on the community and likewise knows of no situations in the
community which wo> ld affect the project.
The Deptartr
generation of waste,
products and materi?
directed to the Solid
6481.
PJP/lcf
cc: Billy Morris
nt of Transportation should make every feasible effort to minimize the
recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled
in the development of this project where suitable. Questions should be
taste Section, Billy Morris, Waste Management Specialist, at (919) 946-
B-6
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action EMployer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Gctvernor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director App 27, 1995
TO: Mike Kelly, Depu Director
FROM: Jimmy Carter, C of
Hazardous Was Se on
SUBJECT: Project Proposal No. 95-0747
Project review; Roadway expansion in Wayne County
The Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed Project Proposal No. 95-0747. We have
determined that this project would have no adverse impact as there are no hazardous waste
facilities in the vicinity. The activity as described is roadway improvement. Existing land use as
described on page 6 (VI.B.) indicates some commercial properties and agriculture along the
section of roadway to be improved.
B-7
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Attirmative Actiorl Employer 50% recycled/ 10`X, post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt,,Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. How s, Secretary
William L. Meyer,,Dkector
May 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Kelly, Deputy Director
Divisi?l on of Solid Waste Management
FROM: Jack Butier, P.E., Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Sunetlfund Section '
SUBJECT: W;
of
The Superfw
Our office was asl
hazardous waste si
Waste Sites invent
(NC7570024474).
We can fore
vice versa. If you 1
attachment
JB/dk/4
County-US Department of Transportation and NC Department
svortation-Division of Highways
Section was provided the attached information concerning the subject project.
1 to comment on the potential for impact on CERCLA or other inactive
I. According to our files the only site on CERCLIS or Inactive Hazardous
es within a 1-mile search radius is the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base site
no apparent effects from this project on this or any other CERCLIS sites or
any questions or need further information please let me know.
It
B-8
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action.Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper
.•DEI'c\RT?'.l?NT OU L.NN`IIZONMF..N'F, HEALTH, Project Number
AND NA-I'URz1L RESOURCES S-_
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
~ Inter-Agency Project Review Response w -
• Type of Project G 111 /Dv
Project Name t .
-' The applicant should be advised that plans f Environmental Health priortathe award
improvements must be approved by the Division o g)•
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300'et. se
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
n state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this roj _c' is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure
..shellfis'-Ti sanitation adjacent
waters P to the harvest of shellfish. For information reb dg
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this proje t.ma produce 2. mo quito eedinanprobl ld
. For information concerning appropriate mosquito .
contact the Public Health Pest Management. Section at [phone]. liti The applicant should be advised that prior to ma ,removal be necesosaryein o der to preventathe
structures, an extensive rodent control program may
migration . of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information.
s Management. Setion at (919)
Peso c
contact the local health department or the Public Health
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the d local
eral h dNCACent a and et .shq )
requirements for sepcic.tank installations (as require 5A 18A .00
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,.contact th(
On-Site Wastewater Section a_t• [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitar
U facilities required for this project.
plans for the water lir
to relocated the D vision durin the construction,
f Environmental Health, Public Water Supp
relocation water lines will
rlocation must be submitted
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-24
/ G
?•/C ? 't? /? _ Date
? Seci::on/Branch
Reviewer
B-9
DEHM 3198 (Revised 8/93)
Division of Environmenmal Health
t r-
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Washineton Regional Office
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
-lb 4
After review of this project it has t
order for this project to compiywil
Questions regarding these permits
All applications. Information and g
Regional Office.
PERMITS
Permit to construct 3 operate wastewa
facilities. sewer system extensions. &,
systems not discharging into state sur
NPDES - permit to discharge into sur/
permit to operate and construct waste
discharging into state surface waters
rjI Water Use Permit
Ell Well Construction Permit
?I Dredge and Fill Permit

n determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
North Carolina Law.
Could be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. !
felines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Proces
Time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS Istatutory timi _
limitl
r treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
wet construction contracts On-site inspection. Post application
:e waters. technical conference usual 190 dayst
sidle water andror Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
water facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment (acifitygranted after NPDES Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
. I Pre application technical conference usually necessary
Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On-site inspection. Pre•appllcallon conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement °Or'
Ell facilities andror Emission Sources s der 15A NCAC 21H.06 NtA i40 oays.
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCACI 2D.0520.
I
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 6^ oa; S
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
r Complex Source Permit required under) 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
he Sedimentation Pollution Control A t of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedrmentatro
control plan will be required it one or ore acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lana Duality Sect i at least 33 20 days
days before becinntno activity A fee of S30 for the first acre and 52000 for each additional acre or Dart must accombanv the c:ate 13C davs
0 1 The Sec.mentaiton Pollution Control Ai t of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the refetrenced Local Ordinance. ( 130 daysi
On-site insoection usual. Surety bona filed with EHNR. Bond amount
C Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of allecud rand Any area 30 Days
60 da
s
mined greater than one acre must be perm.ted The avorooriate bond y
)
1
must be received before the permit can be issued
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources of permit ... 1 ray

I exceeds A days (N:A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "it more 1 day
?
counties it; coastal N.C. with organic sods
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Insoectrons
(NIA)
should be requested at least len days before actual burn is planned."
- 90.120 oays
? Oil Relining Facilities .
NIA I
IN:A) .
It permit required. application 60 days before begin Construction.
Applicant must hire N C qualified engineer lo: prepare plans. 30 days
O:m Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR acorov
ed plans May also require permit under mosquito Control program And 160 daysl
a 40t permit from Corps of Engineers -An inspection of site is neees•
sary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $20000 must ac•
company the application An additional processing lee based on a
Defc nlage Or the total proles cost -,If be recuired ueon comolehon
n A t% Continaet on re.e•x

PERMITS SF
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
eoac:i. .
-abanec
Geophysical Exploration Permit _ Apptrc.-
Aciplic'
Slate Lakes Construction Permit Applicz
desc::
of rip.:
401 Water Quality Certification
-
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development - SYSO.OG

CAMA Permit for MINOR development I 550.00
? Several geodetic monuments are !orated in or near the protect area. It
N C Gecae!i_ Survey.
ED Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accoroancz with Tit
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if ••o.phan- unde
(?I
I Compliance wan 15A NCAC 21-1.1000 (Coastal Stormwiater. Rulesl is rec_
• Otner comments iatiaen adovidnal
psga;.as.aece_sacy.J.,.,,.nq'cenain •.
REGION:
Ouestions regarding tnese permits Should be addressed
Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place' . •:'
Asheville, NC 28501
(704).251-b208,
? Mooresville Regional office
919 North Main Street. P.C. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
[phone]
Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue-
Washinalon, NC 27889 8-11
946.6481.. '
? Winston•Safem F.,
8025 Nonh.Poir.;
Suite 100
.PPLICATION PROCEDURES'or REQUIREMENT
?d of 55.000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
t any well opened by drift operator snail, upon
x plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Normal Process
Time
S (statutory an,
limit.'
10 02-ii
..
.d with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 oiys

:etter. No standard application form. _
fN?AI. •_
i
3ased on structure size is charged Must incluee
i _
15.20 d:r*
?raw
ng3 of structured proof of ownersnip

erty. (N.A.

NIA _ r
be day
130 rays!

;1 accompany application 55 Car
-(150 0345•
}

accompany application 22 days. _ ?!
F(25 days: i
'umenis need to be moved or eest'ared. piease. notily t
37. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
subchapter 2C.0100
storage tanks (LISTS) are disco,t-e.- during any excavation operation
' 45 davs _
fh.?
zmment autnority):

=ICES
Regional'Offite marked below.
? Fayetteville regional Office
Suite 7.A W:i:hoi is Build:ng
Fayeltevale. NC 20301
(9101486.1541 ".
Raiei"n Rta oral Office
3800 8artett jr6e. Suite 101
Raleigh. NC 27609
(919) 7334314
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Carh.nai Drive Extunsion
Wilmington. NC 28405
(9191.375.3?00 .
Office
f,
rr ,
^DIVISION.OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
April 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO : Nancy I Smith
Regional Manager
Washington Regional Offic
FROM: Floydiwilliams
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Washiington Regional Offi
RE: Project #95-07404
N.C.1111, Goldsboro, from SR 1710 to U.S. 70
Wayne County
State Project 8.1331101
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 ofAgreement between DOT and the N.C. Sedimentation
Control Commission. Periodic inspections will be made by
personnel.of the Land Quality Section to ensure compliance.
B-12
State of North Carolina
• - Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt., Jr., Governor
Jonathan 13-Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
TO: Melba McGee, NC Office of Policy Development
FROM:,:?I?Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
-SUBJECT: Review of SCH #1?r- 075/7 DATE: 5/j195-
Please Forward Agency Comments
Reviewer Comments Attached
Review Comments:
_ This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Agency comments received by SCH are needed to develope the State's consistency position.
A CAMA Permit _is or _.may be required for this project. Applicant should contact
in , phone # , for information.
A Consistency Determination is or _may be required for this project. Applicant should
contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis in Raleigh, phone [phone], for information.
Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate. A Consistency
Determination should be included in the final document.
_ A _ CAMA Permit or _ consistency response _ has already been issued, or
_ is currently being reviewed under separate circulation.
Permit/Consistency No. Date issued
Proposal involves < 20 Acres or a structure < 60,000 Sq. Feet and no AEC's or Land Use Plan
Problems.
L,-"' Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on Coastal Resources.
Proposal is exempt from CAMA by statue _ Other (see attached)
Consistency Position:
The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all state
authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to implementation of the project.
A Consistency position will be developed based on our review on or before -
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Not Applicable _ Other (see attached)
B-13
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 21611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An rnt inl Onm rftun' v AffirmHiv- Action Fmnlover 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pcoer
State of North'Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural R
Division of Land Resources
. .. APR 21 1995
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT RIMISW COMMBNTS Charies H. Gard
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary BY Direc or
Project Number: `rrS??Y 7 Countyr
Project Name:
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior'to construction at P. 6. Box' 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer6 Date
i
.No comment
This projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control p an 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 beprepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
11

P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7667 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Alfirmadve Action Employer
B-14
t
r
?- REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 1, 1995
s
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
50
.MY M¦
This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1995, requesting our
comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Goldsboro, NC 111, From
SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne County, State Project No. 8.1331101, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-111(1), T.I.P. Project No. U-2715" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199502586).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects.
The proposed roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood
control or navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to-comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
ly,
it iam R. awson E.
C ef, Engineeri g and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Printed on ® Recycled Papa
B-15

June 1, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Goldsboro,tNC 111, From SR 1710 to
US 70, Wayne County,••State Project No. 8.1331101;.Federal Aid Project No.
STP-111(1), T.I.P. Project No. U-2715" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No.
179502585)
1. FLOOD PLAINS:, POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
J
\, Services Section, at (910)_251-4728

-The study area for the proposed project is located in the city of
Goldsboro and Wayne County, both of which participate in the National Flood
insurance Program. From a review of Panel 20 of the June 1982 Goldsboro Flood
Insurance-Rate Map (FIRM), the roadway does not appear to cross an identified
flood hazard area (100-year flood plain)-: This is verified by a review of the
pertinent United States Geological Survey topo map. Based on Panels 75 and
100 of the September 1983 Wayne County FIRMs, the road likewise does not cross
an identified 100-year flood plain. However, referring to the USGS topo map,
the road crosses Green Branch, a tributary to the Neuse River, which appears
to have sufficient drainage area to produce flooding. We recommend
coordination with the county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Mike Bell, Washington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
F
a. Based upon review of'the comparison of alternatives contained in the
Environmental Assessment for the subject project, it appears that the
preferred alternative (Alternative 1) is the least environmentally damaging
alternative. We concur that Nationwide Permits will be required from the ,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed stream crossings at Walnut and
Fellows Creek.
b. We also concur that no mitigation will.be required in the stream
- crossings that.impact less than one acre of wetlands and/or waters of the
United States..: If_the proposed project would impact more than one acre of `.
waters of the United States, we believe bridging the wetlands could be cost..=
..effective after consideration is given to the cost of'borrow material
(including purchase of borrow site;'costof excavation and delivery, etc.);
and the cost:of mitigation to offset the'.impracts of the approach fills:-
C. Impacts to waters of the United States, Jincluding wetlands,. should be
?ip identified for-proposed borrow and waste-areas.
d: Questions related to Department of the Army permits for this project
should be referred to Mr. Bell.
B-16
x
July 21, 1994
bdmolkAmum
TO: Melba McGee, O??f?fjice of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0989; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
NC 111 from SR 1710 to US 70, Goldsboro, TIP No. U-2715
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.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/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.
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.

Melba McGee
July 21, 1994
Page 2
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.
10667er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

??.. STATp°
awn
MAR 1 51994
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheet for NC 11, from SR 1960 to
US 70 in Wayne County, State Project No. 8.133701, TIP
No. U-2715
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference oom (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or ail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistanc in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about he meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bob Booker, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
RJB/plr
Attachment J
n,?A

t,?s s 6?'t
LJ.
r

Z-? -d-
--z. ? - 63
/ G?

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
f U 2 pis

Date Z-22 Qr- (
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP # V -2-1715-
Project # S.
F.A. Project
Division `-1
County wN?r
Route NG / I ( . . . . . Functional Classification
Length
Purpose of Project: Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
/Sic//? Cvicr.? z a ' 42 71- lea 6Y' ?z/? ? ?-•
uS 'JO 7S ,('/Z <9 6v > J'r6irr, ?yr urn v
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or (X)
How and when will this be paid?
Page 1

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility:
Type of Access Control: Full
Type of Roadway:

Partial ? None
Interchanges _ ,c ; Grade Separations N19- ; Stream Crossings l
Typical Section of Roadway: ??l8
Traffic: Current jo loo Design Year 1000 % Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Design Speed: 5?r' MPH '
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ Z <5V do
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ?scTs7?H? (?oc,J A4?-q?,atz
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x? . $
Total Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $.._ ly
?d- ?1 Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement; which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ? COMMENTS COST -
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement )
surface , ,
,
,SD? 3 S J
Milling & Recycling .lRespl?F???E? _ $
Turnouts . , . , . , . . . . , . . , $

Shoulders: Paved. , . , , . . , ,
-- - _
Earth . , , . . , . . . . , . $ - --
Earthwork . . . . , , , , . . . .
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization.
3Z, -
Drainage (List any special items) . , , . , 3a? v_oo.?
-
Sub-Drainage . , . . , . . . . ti '-- --
Structures: Width x Length
_-
Bridge Rehabilitation x
New Bridge x -
-----
_ Widen Bridge x _
_ Remove Bridge x - - ---- --
New Culverts: Size Length ---- ------- -----
Fill Ht,
Culvert Extension
-_
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. fi ----- -- -
Skew ------? ------- --
Noise Walls
Any Other Disc. Structures. --- --
Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . .
--
Concrete Sidewalk . . , . , .
-- Guardrail . , . . . , . , , . . ,
-- ---
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L.
- --- --
Erosion Control $
?
Landscape . , . . . . . , . A ?-
-- Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic control . . . . , . , . . , . . . $ o
Signing: New. . . . . . . . . . . . , , 4

Upgrading . . . . , . . , , . ,
$ _
Traffic Signals: New , . . . , , . .-. $ --
Revised , . . . . , . $ _
RR Signals : New , , , , . . . . , , . . $
Revised . . , . . , , . , $
With or Without Arms. . , $
_
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo ? ,30 ?oo.?'
Markers
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . . _ . $
Other clearing, grubbing, mobil iza:ti on,misc. . $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ Z Z a OGo.?
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ - --
Subtotal: $ Z?oop•?
Right of Way:
Will contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type width Est. Cost $
Utilities:
Right of Way Subtotal:
Total Estimated Cost : $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: _ Ennemyr-fflTn Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway -- -
Structure -- ---
Design Services --- --
Geotechnical
Hydraulics --
Loc. & Surveys - -
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr. p?G 3
Planning & Research
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project_ Management
-- - - County Manager -
City/Municipality
others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program and
Policy Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
Secondary Roads off.
--
Construction Branch
Landscape
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance _
Chief Engineer _
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
? Y } ......w+aYYr
?
?
5 I
+ N 6
v 1
Eureka
/53
Fremont
?
Arc«. 1
F Pinkneylt
Pikeville ,:.."'?pYOf 6 1

\ r 581
lrinceton 3
Patetown
3
aulston
v ;6
+
S
'r a r
o
? Rosewo
,1 ?
d of s6o
ro 1
`
5
? ? rr la3a

s
? ?ro gh
7
M .a 6 1 ?.
?Of•
i A AFB
- - ----- / 13 e IUA z? w
117 3 C
k
r
l
r Grantham

D
they 11 Se
46 Grove Z V
1Jfh of rho N- S 1
obbersville Z t sr. PI.
3
` - 1Mount - . 55 5
1
777-
:<`':;:":``' ;' 111 'q ND 11 i 1713
Newsome

?::GOLDSBOR
O ` 1712 i
Fgsr ?.

^,..:•.•` POP. 31,871 1758
171 W-
{ti;:;' - - S

1713 e 1003 L:
c4,e0li

Seymour-Johnson
=
1722 ,,,-4

r
Air Force Base
O ??-
1962 \4 1723
= ? ' r
F
h ?
Elroy e
_
1961
1721
6 Casey
'
?
1724
Chp. 171 9
ELROY 72 19
i
;`•` (UNINC.) 111 '
POP. 4,073
??= IS ?'0 _

. Z
J co

0
I
?y 26 1
1855
???•? MATCH ? I p
-S 1728

Y Z

1915 Q

18 3
m r-. ,
j:
lee 1 960 ?
1:1
Y
1917 2028 1815
- -
__1932 -1710

6
Pj c
1 '? G
191 172
:.
'? 4•??'?; •.Y
,
/
1960 ; . • ....
17 19'
\ " ?Yl
1727 WALNUT CREEK
u'
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
®
NC Ill
SR 1960 60 TO
O US 70
WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY AND/OR
MAKE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
•GOLDSBORO, WAYNE COUNTY
U - 2715
0 mile 1 FIG.1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary [D E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 9, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn 414)
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb 1
Subject: EA for NC 111 Widening in Goldsboro
Wayne County
State Project DOT No. 8.1331101, TIP # U-2715
EHNR # 95-0747, DEM # 10934
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.06 hectares of waters including wetland.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Washington COE
nc111.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources ?p
2 ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form >''tiJC, M 10
13
Project Number: County: Date: F Date Response Due (firm deadline):
V`z I. q_6 51 t o jqE
?) T?, V"'Ne - ? (,? m \?
ivy G,a(dtiG?o,r? ,1'it??u,-agcy
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: I N?WLC/ ?? •/1?1" • 1.? 1
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/0 Areas ? Soil and Water arine Fisheries

? Fayetteville Air oastal Management Water Planning
Water Water Resources *Environmental Health
? Mooresville N
?Groundwater ildlife Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh and Quality Engineer El Forest Resources El Radiation Protection

Washington YRecreational Consultant

? Coastal management Consultant and Resources ? David Foster

Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
d Wilmington ? Others nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
10 No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104
C>
v,
c
cfl
CA
r
W
07

r U C

J,
tJ;
f
/
C
y
I Gl
e
r
CJ7
W
W
O
U1
O
z
d
tTl
,a
n
H
O
O
r
s
A i r
t
J
w??o
r r=?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Hart, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Matt K. Smith, Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed widening of NC 111 from US 70 to
SR 1710, Wayne County, TIP # U-2715; State
Project # 8.1331101. Federal Aid Project #
STP-111(1).
ATTENTION: Bob Booker, Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information'on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or-need this report copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-2715
?? i

Proposed Widening of NC 111 to a
Five Lane Facility from
US 70 to SR 1710
Wayne County
TIP No. U-2715
State Project No. 8.1331101
Federal Aid Project No. STP-111(1)
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2715

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Matt K. Smith, BIOLOGIST
July 28, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....... ................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Methodology ...................................1
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Soils ..........................................2
2.2 Water Resources ................................3
2.2.1 Stream Characteristics ................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .............3
2.2.3 Water Quality .........................4
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources..4
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................5
3.1.1 Man Dominated Community ...............5
3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................6
3.2.1 Stream Communities ....................6
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Resources .......... 7
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues ...............................7
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................7
4.1.1 Study Area Wetlands
and/or Surface Waters ..............8
4.1.2 Permits ................................8
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .... 9
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .....................9
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .............9
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ...............11
5.0 References ..........................................12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of an Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for
the proposed project. The project is located in Goldsboro,
the county seat of Wayne County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the widening of the
existing 2 lane section of NC 111 to a five lane facility
from SR 1760 to US 70. The proposed right-of-way for this
project is 46 m (150 ft). No additional right-of-way will be
needed.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Southeast Goldsboro), National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) Map, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:3000) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of
Wayne County. Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis publication of the
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Wayne County.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Matt Smith on July 13, 1994.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques: active searching
and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
, - -.......wraour
-. .. - _ l S -6? v Eurek 6 r :.
P 3 Ft t
' , Pi Yr ?.? • 14.
i Pikevil a 6t I
f r ?
Princeton Patetown
70 ' 1 awstori
Msawood , t .3 5 0 shore %1
-- ----- --- ?i --' A era
13 a 117 F YV
Grantham 117 - 1 Cr
Dudley
r[op Grove 1 a+ir. a M. H.: S

" 1713 w
';;:•: 8 111 Newsome `
1
GOLDSBORO `= ?q 1712
Fs
r
G
POP. 31,871 1758
i;.:i??". • ? = 0 .c9 171
:,:: Gc

1713 S
1003
CY
Seymour-Johnson

Air Force Base

=
17
22
1723
1962

1961 h
- Eiray,
-••6
1721
C
h
? asey

ELROY 1724 • 1719
Chp•
y. (UNINC.)
POP
4
073 172
1 1 1 .,sue. g
?
,
. W
Z \

1726 70
'q

? 1855
•Q \ MATCH
\ _ +p
4 _
va i 1728
!j 1915 ti
? ?? O
18 3 ao
r1
` ) :
1960 ? {:
•i
1917 2028 ? _ 1815
1932 1710 j .?. ry
6 F::: :•`•T. •:a
- - .
Pj
1711 172
`? .Y :yia
c:,?:,•::
1960
-
B
v?:t? j•
r
1719
y 1727 WALNUT CREEK

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING ANI? ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
® NC ill
SR 1960 TO
O US 70
WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY AND/OR
MAKE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
•GOLDSBORO, WAYNE COUNTY
U - 2715
- 0 mile 1 FIG.1

S>
2
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,'tracks and
burrows-). Cursory studies for aquatic organisms were
conducted using visual observations; tactile searches for
benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then
released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987).
2.0 Phvsical"Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Wayne County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The topography of this County is characterized by
low, rolling hills and sandy soils. Elevations in the study
area range from 6 m (20 ft) to 10 m (34 ft) above mean sea
level.
2.1 Soils
Soils found in the study area are well drained to poorly
drained and occur on nearly level slopes. Some map units are
hydric soils and others may contain inclusions of hydric
soils. An inventory of specific soil types which occur in
the project area can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Wayne County Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Specific
Symbol Mapping Unit
Bb Bibb sandy loam
Dr* Dragston loamy sand
Go Goldsboro loamy sand
Js Johnston loam
Ke* Kenansville loamy sand
La Lakeland sand
Ly* Lynchburg sandy loam
NoA Norfolk loamy sand
Po Pantego loam
Ra* Rains sandy loam
Percent Hydric
Slope Classification
0-2 A
0-2 B
0-2 -
0-2 A
0-6 -
0-6 -
0-2 -
0-2 -
<2 A
0-2 A
3
Table 1•. Continued
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
To* Torhunta loam 0-2 A
We Weston loamy sand 0-2 A
Note: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
"B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or
which have wet spots.
"*" denotes dominant soil map unit in the study area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Stream Characteristics
The proposed project is located in the Neuse River Basin
and crosses three intermittent streams: Walnut Creek, an
unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek, and Fellows Branch.
These streams originate near the study area and flow into the
Neuse River. The existing hydraulic structure at each of
these crossings is a single pipe culvert. The construction
of the proposed project will necessitate the replacement or
extension of these culverts.
Walnut Creek and its tributary cross the proposed
alignment south of SR 1962 and north of SR 1961. These
streams have steep banks due to past channelization and a
mucky substrate. The stream bottom is composed of many
shallow pools and little flow was observed in the stream.
Fellows Branch is a channelized stream with steep riprap
reinforced banks that crosses the study area north of SR
1727. This stream floods only temporarily and has substrate
composed of fine sand and silt. Depressions where pools
could form were observed in the stream bed.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Unnamed
streams carry the same best usage classification as streams
4
to which they are tributaries. Table 2 lists best usage
classifications for all water resources likely to be impacted
by the proposed project.
Table 2. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Walnut Creek Class C NSW
Fellows Branch Class C NSW
Note: Class C waters are defined as suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) refers to waters which
require limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by DEM and 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 are reflections of water
quality. Specific BMAN information is not available for the
specific project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists no
sources of discharge into streams crossing the study area
within one mile of the proposed project.
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Construction-related impacts include reduced water
quality, increased sedimentation, toxic runoff, alterations
of the water level due to interruptions or additions to water
flow, and the destruction of natural substrate due to stream
channel relocation. Reduced water quality could include
changes in turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
nutrient limitation. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sediment
Control Guidelines should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
i
5
D
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed. A complete listing of fauna known to occur in
the study area can be found in Appendix A.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The Man Dominated Community is the terrestrial
community identified in the project study area. Community
boundaries are frequently ill-defined; contiguous communities
generally merge without any transition zone between them.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the
entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
3.1.1 Man Dominated Community
Man dominated communities are found along roadside
shoulders and powerline right-of-ways in the study area. The
composition of this community is highly variable in the study
area and controlled by human intervention. Common species
found in this community include: fescue (Festuca sp.),
plantain (Plantago spp.), violet (Viola sp.), catbriar
(Smilax sp.), common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis),
dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), black eyed susan
(Rudbeekia hirta), horse nettle (Solanum carolinense),
sensitive partridgepea (Cassia nictitans), trumpet vine
(Campsis radicans), milkweed (Asclepias sp.), winged sumac
(Rhus copallina), and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). This
community also contains sapling size trees of several species
found in adjacent woodlands. Common species are: longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (P. taeda), red maple
(Acer rubrum), Virginia bay (Magnolia virginiana), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), and oaks (Quercus spp.).
This community offers a wide range of habitats that
allow certain animal species to flourish. Those species
which flourish are often species which are highly adaptable
or those which do not have specific habitat requirements,
6
such as, American toad (Bufo americana), five-lined skink
(Eumec&s fasciatus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), blue
grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), white-tailed deer (odocoileus virginianus), and
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Intermittent streams that cross the proposed project
provide a habitat necessary for many aquatic and semiaquatic
species to complete their life cycles. Factors such as water
quality, length of inundation, and substrate composition
control the number and diversity of species that can utilize
the habitats provided. The terrestrial communities adjacent
to the stream channel also greatly influence aquatic
community composition.
3.2.1 Stream Communities
Intermittent streams often experience interruption of
flow during dry spells. Periods of flow interruption are
generally seasonal, with the summer months being drier than
the winter. During dry spells streams retain water in
shallow pools along their course. It is these pools which
are influenced in size and depth by climatological events
that provide habitat for a great diversity of aquatic and
semiaquatic species. A higher diversity of species can be
found in streams which have a dense canopy of trees and
shrubs.
Despite the dry conditions present during the warmer
months of the year many species are adapted to living in this
environment. These species complete their life cycle quickly
or encyst in order to be better able to withstand the periods
of desiccation. Species likely to occur in the habitats
provided by small intermittent streams include benthic
invertebrates such as rotifers (Rotifera), flatworms
(Platyhelminthes), roundworms (Nematodes), as well as insect
larvae, crayfish, and snails. Many higher animals such as
amphibians and reptiles also rely on these intermittent
streams for reproduction and as a source of food and water.
Some common vertebrates likely to utilize habitats provided
by intermittent streams include: three-lined salamander
(Eurycea guttlineata), two-lined salamander (E. bislineata),
pickerel frog (Rana palustris), oak toad (Bufo quercicus),
and banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata). A variety of the
mammals found in the terrestrial communities in the study
area may forage in intermittent streams.
A few species of shiners (Notropis spp.) and sunfish
(Centrachidae), as well as eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis) may be found inhabiting the larger pools in these
streams during periods of stream flow.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Calculated impacts to the Man Dominated Community, 12.5
ha (30.9 ac), reflect the relative abundance of the community
in the study area. Project construction will result in
clearing and degradation of portions of this community.
Estimated impacts are derived using the entire right of way
width of 46 m (150 ft). Usually, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
The construction of the proposed project will result in
the loss of the man dominated community in some areas and
temporary impacts to this community in others.
Potential impacts to the aquatic environment are those
that act to decrease water quality and include increased
sedimentation, nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff from
construction related erosion.
Organisms that utilize habitats provided by these
streams can be affected by changes in water quality. Toxic
runoff resulting from fuel leakage from construction
machinery and tire rubber debris from increased traffic flow.
Nutrient runoff occurs from the use of chemical fertilizers
in roadside landscaping and can cause algal blooms which can
lower dissolved oxygen in the sediments and water column.
These factors act to decrease successful reproduction in
individual species and decrease the species diversity of the
community. Higher vertebrates which utilize these streams to
forage are affected through biomagnification of pollutants
and the loss of potential prey species. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control Guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project to minimize
impacts to aquatic and semiaquatic organisms.
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
8
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Study Area Wetlands and/or Surface Waters
Walnut Creek, an unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek, and
Fellows Branch are surface waters found in the study area.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Determination Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987). Criteria to delineate wetland sites
includes evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and hydrology.
A single wetland site was identified in the study area.
This site is located at the southern end of the project and
has been ditched and channelized. This site is composed of
several interconnected ditches that are approximately 1.5 m
(5 ft) wide. This wetland site occupies an area of 0.06 ha
(0.15 ac). The vegetation in this community is dominated by
diodia (Diodia virginiana), needle rush (Juncos sp.), giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and black willow (Salix nigra).
This site was evaluated using the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) Wetland Rating System. Using
this system, sites receive a wetland score from 0 to 100
points (100 being highest) based on individual wetland values
that are grouped into water quality, landscape, habitat, and
human values. Each of these groups is weighted to achieve
the final wetland rating. Groups are weighted separately to
reflect the DEM's emphasis on water quality. The wetland
site in the study area is given a score of 21 points using
this wetland rating system (see NCDEHNR-DEM, 1993).
4.1.2 Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and
isolated jurisdictional wetlands provided the following
conditions are met:
(1) the discharge does not cause the loss of more than
4 hectares (10 acres) of Waters of the United States;

9
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the
discharge would cause the loss of Waters of the United
States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in accordance
with the "Notification" general conditions (for
discharges in special aquatic sites, including
jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also
include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
(3) the discharge, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401
permit from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of Q,,
Section 404 Permit.
This ect will require a 401 Water Qu enera1
Certification r 0111 n of Envi ental Management
(DEM) prior to the issuance of t ionwide permit.
Section 401 of the Clean W ct requ'
rsk- s that the state
issue or deny water ification for any fe ally permitted
or licensed act' y that may result in a discharg o the
Waters of t United States.
4.1.3 Mitigation
Actions authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
10
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of July 8, 1994, the FWS lists the
federally Endangered red-cockaded woodpecker for Wayne
County. A designation of Endangered (E) denotes a species
that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. A brief description of
this species characteristics and habitat requirements
follows.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks
on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black
cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and
are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW
lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
L
t
The construction of the
any pine stands that provide
habitat for the red-cockaded
federally protected species
of the proposed project.
11
proposed project will not impact
suitable foraging or nesting
woodpecker. No effects to this
will result from the construction
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are four federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Wayne County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
Table 3 lists federal candidate species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the
availability of suitable habitat for each species in the
study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes since the status of these species may be upgraded in
the future.
Table 3. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Wayne County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC STATUS HABITAT
Plecotus Rafinesque's
rafinesquii* . big-eared bat SC No
Elliptio judithae Neuse slabshell E No
Fusconia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T No
Litsea aestivalis pondspice -- No
NOTE: "--" Species not afforded state protection but listed
as Federal Candidate.
"*t' No specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.

12
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.

13
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
?,a 4'ATpv
?a wml?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 7, 1995 RECEIVED
Mr. Eric Gal amb APR 1 81995
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
512 North Salisbury Street ODA king
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Goldsboro, NC 111, From
SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne County, State Project No. 8.1331101,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-111(1), T.I.P. Project No. U-2715
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Resources Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It
is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No
Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by May 10, 1995. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
ranklin, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
-0 i
1
Goldsboro, NC 111
From SR 1710 to US 70
Wayne County
State Project No. 8.1331101
Federal Aid Project No, STP-111(1)
T.I.P. Project No. U-2715
t

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:

M •?
Datb Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
ze-, Ls- I&V ,,- Jetl?-9??
Date fi?Nic as L. r, P. E.
I ' Divi ion Administrator, FHWA

Goldsboro, NC 111
From SR 1710 to US 70
Wayne County
State Project No. 8.1331101
Federal Aid Project No. STP-111(1)
T.I.P. Project No. U-2715
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
March, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
Robert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
,\H CAROB
r r ,• ESS! 9
s a r?7F kO..%
•9 ;. d
aIAL ?
Richard Davis, P. E., Assistan Ma agar 5944 r
Planning and Environmental Branch 0;rM
tiq •.......••a?% %
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. System Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . 2
A. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Existing Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
F. Existing Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . 2
G. Intersections and Type of Control . . . . . . . . . . 2
H. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
J. Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT . . . 3
A. Project Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Project Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
E. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control 4
H. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
J. Bicycles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
K. Railroad Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
L. Bridge Work Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
M. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
N. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Alternate 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Reduced Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
D. No-Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10 - v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
VI. LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Status of Local Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. Future Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
E. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT
OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Social and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . 9
D. Highway Traffic Noise/ConstructionNoise Analysis . . 11
E. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Rare and Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Federally-Protected Species. . . . . . . . . . . 23
F. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
G. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
APPENDIX

Environmental Commitments
All standard procedures an measures, including Best Management
Practices will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
NCDOT will apply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for a
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to widen NC 111 in
Wayne County from US 70 to SR 1710 in Wayne County (See Figure 1).
The 2.65 mile long project will widen the existing two lane roadway
to a five lane shoulder section with 4-foot paved shoulders. The
proposed cross section will consist of a 12-foot center left turn
lane and two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction. The total
estimated cost is $3,170,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the area by improving the safety and
traffic handling capacity of this major thoroughfare. No significant
impacts to plant or animal life are expected and no recreational
facilities or historic sites will be involved. A small amount of
wetlands (less than 1.0 acre) will be impacted by the project. No
families or businesses will be displaced by the proposed
improvements.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the
widening of an existing facility, no alternative corridor alignments
were considered; however, in addition to the recommended five lane
cross section, a reduced facility alternative and public
transportation alternative were considered, but eliminated. The "Do
Nothing" Alternative was also considered, but rejected because of the
need to increase the traffic carrying capacity along this section of
NC 111. The five lane cross section is recommended because it
provides adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated future traffic
volumes and provides increased safety benefits due.to the separation
of traffic movement with a center turn lane.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were
consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received during the preparation of
this assessment:
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
City of Goldsboro
5. Permits Required - Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers will be required for this project under the. provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Walnut Creek, an unnamed
tributary to Walnut Creek and Fellows Branch are surface waters found
in the study area. No major stream crossings are involved on the
project.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Goldsboro, NC 111
From SR 1710 to US 70
Wayne County
State Project No. 8.1331101
Federal Aid Project No. STP-111(1)
T.I.P. Project No. U-2715
• I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen NC 111 in Goldsboro from US 70 to SR 1710 (See
Appendix, Figure 1). The proposed improvement will widen the existing
roadway to a five lane, 64-foot, shoulder section with 4-foot paved
shoulders. The total project length is 2.65 miles. The current estimated
cost of this improvement is $3,170,000.
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 1996, and construction scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year 1997.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 111 is designated as an urban major thoroughfare in the 1994
mutually adopted Goldsboro Thoroughfare Plan. This facility is also
classified as an Urban Minor Arterial on the Functional Classification
System.
Since, the proposed improvement of NC 111 is in concurrence with this
thoroughfare plan, the construction of this project will be a step toward
the implementation of this plan.
B. System Linkage
The proposed widening of NC 111 will serve as a vital link in the
major transportation for the City of Goldsboro. NC 111 will function as
an north-south cross town facility in the eastern portion of Goldsboro.
It will reduce travel time, increase capacity and safety, and provide
access to NC 42 and anticipated development along this corridor.
C. Economic Development
Much of the future development is anticipated to occur in northeast
Goldsboro. Increased development in an area creates an increased
transportation demand. The proposed project will aid in the economic
development of the area by improving the accessibility to southeast
Goldsboro. The improved access to the area, savings in operating costs,
reduced accident potential, reduced travel time, and the general
improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local
community, as well as the State.
2
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated 1994 and projected 2020 traffic volumes are shown in
the Appendix. Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1994 range from a
low of 6100 vehicles per day (vpd) to a high of 14,100 vpd. Projected
average daily traffic (ADT) estimates for the year 2020 range from a low
of 11,000 vpd to a high of 26,400 vpd. These estimates include 5% dual
tired vehicles, and 1% truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Presently, NC 111 is operating at a level of service C. As traffic
volumes continue to increase the traffic service will deteriate. By the
year 2020 NC 11 will operate at Level of Service F if no improvements are
made. Level of Service C marks the beginning of the range of flow in
which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by
interactions with others in the traffic stream. Level of Service F
describes forced or breakdown flow.
The proposed project should operate at a level of service of C when
constructed, and based on traffic projections should continue to operate
at level of service of C or better through the design year (2020).
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section on NC 111 consists of a 24-foot roadway
with 10-foot unpaved shoulders.
B. Existing Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along the project is 150 feet. The
right-of-way is symmetrical about the existing centerline.
C. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 45 mph.
D. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
E. Structures
There are no structures on the project.
F. Existing Alignment
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment is good.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
All intersections within the project limits are at grade and stop
sign controlled, with the exception of the NC 111/NC 70 intersection.
This intersection is signalized.
3
H. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along the project.
I. Utilities
Existing utilities within the corridor of the proposed project
includes a 12" water line, 4" gas line, overhead power lines and a 10" ABS
sanitary sewer line.
J. Terminals
The north end of the project begins at US 70 with a signalized,
channelized intersection. At the south end of the project, the 64-foot
shoulder section will taper to the existing 24-foot shoulder section at
SR 1710.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
A. Project Length
The proposed project is approximately 2.65 miles long.
B. Project Termini
The proposed project begins at US 70 and terminates at SR 1710. An
upgraded signal system at the intersection of US 70 and NC 111 is
proposed. At the intersection of TIP Project R-2422 and NC 111 a
signalized intersection is recommended.
C. Cross Section Description
A five lane, 64-foot, shoulder facility is recommended for NC 111.
This cross section will provide two through lanes (24 feet) in each
direction, a twelve-foot continuous center left turn lane, and 4-foot
paved shoulders.
D. Design Speed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing roadway
development or a minimum of 50 mph. Design speed is a correlation of the
physical features of a highway which influence vehicle operation and
reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired along a highway.
Design speed is not to be interpreted as a recommended posted speed limit.
E. Right-of-Way
A 150-foot symmetrical right-of-way width exists along the subject
section of NC 111. This right-of-way width will be adequate to contain
the proposed cross section.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
4
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections on the proposed project are at grade and stop sign
controlled. The signalized intersection at US 70 will have to be upgraded
(see Appendix, Figure 3). Project R-2422 proposes a new facility that
will tee into NC 111, approximately 1400-feet north of SR 1710. This new
roadway will consist of a 36-foot cross section (one through lane, one
center left turn lane and a right turn lane). It is recommended that this
intersection be signalized.
H. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project.
I. Parking
Parking will not be provided for or permitted along the project.
J. Bicycles
Special accommodations for bicycles are not recommended for the
proposed project.
K. Railroad Involvement
No railroad crosses or parallels the proposed project.
L. Bridge Work Required
No bridges or drainage structures are involved with the proposed
project.
M. Special Permits Required
Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be
needed for this project.
N. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along the project is 45 mph. The speed
limit is expected to remain the same after completion of the project.
0.' Cost Estimate
Construction* $391509000
Utilities $ 20,000
Total $39170,000
* Includes 10% for engineering and contingencies.
5
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternate 1 (Recommended)
This alternate widens NC 111 to a five lane, 64-foot, shoulder
section. The proposed widening is symmetrical throughout the project and
provides for two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a 12-foot center
lane for left turns, and a 10-foot total usable shoulders width with
4-foot paved.
B. Reduced Facility
This four lane alternative is somewhat less expensive than the
recommended five lane cross section; however, it is not considered to be a
viable alternative. Left turning traffic generated by the anticipated
development will clog the center lanes of a four lane roadway reducing the
effective capacity to two lanes. For this reason, this alternate is
therefore rejected.
C. Public Transportation
The City of Goldsboro does not have a public transportation system at
the present time. The privately owned automobile is the major form of
transportation for the residents. The development of a public
transportation system is not considered to be a prudent alternative to the
construction of a facility that will provide a direct North/South route to
the east side of Goldsboro and that will help complete a partial bypass
around the city. .
D. No-Build Alternative
If the "No-Build" alternative were chosen, it would avoid the adverse
effects arising from the project. However, it would have a definite
negative impact on transportation in the proposed corridor. Not
constructing the proposed project will hamper commercial and residential
growth in the area.
As traffic increases, safety for both motorists and pedestrians will
decrease. Without the proposed facility, it will require a longer travel
time and increased road-user costs for cross town travel. Since the
advantages of the project outweigh the disadvantages of not constructing
it, the No-Build alternative was rejected.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Status of Land Planning
The proposed improvement is located within the jurisdictions of the
City of Goldsboro and Wayne County. The City adopted its Comprehensive
Plan in 1989. The Plan is designed to serve as a guide for the physical
growth of the community, including the placement of public facilities.
The City also enforces a zoning ordinance and land use plan. Wayne County
has not developed a comprehensive plan, although it has adopted a zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations.
B. Existing Land Use
From US 70 to SR 1961, land fronting the roadway supports a variety
of commercial uses dispersed among agricultural fields. The commercial
uses include a grocery store, used car dealers, convenience stores, and
mobile home sales. Land behind the commercial strip is generally also
used for agriculture.
From SR 1961 to SR 1960, the land fronting the roadway is used almost
exclusively for farming except at the intersection of NC 111 and SR 1960,
where gas stations and convenience stores are located. South of SR 1960,
residential development has occurred, particularly on the west side of the
roadway. Some residences front NC 111.
C. Existing Zoning
The City of Goldsboro's zoning jurisdiction currently extends only to
the intersection of NC 111 and SR 1726. Virtually all the land fronting
the roadway from that intersection north to US 70 is zoned for business
and commercial uses.
The portion of the project south of SR 1726 is within Wayne County's
zoning jurisdiction. Although the County has adopted a zoning ordinance,
only selected portions of the county has been delineated with zoning
districts. The remainder of the project area in the County has not been
zoned.
D. Future Land Use
As previously discussed, the project area is located within the City
of Goldsboro's Comprehensive Plan study area. According to the Plan,
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base will serve as the "edge" for urban growth
in the southeast portion of the study area. Instead, urban growth will be
encouraged to the north and northeast sections of Goldsboro.
A series of land use policies for sections of the study area are
included within the comprehensive plan. The Elroy Study Area addresses
the NC 111 project area. According to the Plan, urban growth will be
discouraged southeast of the Air Force Base. Agricultural uses will be
encouraged. Commercial uses will not be encouraged to expand beyond the
areas where it already exists.
7
The Plan's land use map indicates that commercial development will be
supported along NC 111 from US 70 to SR 1961. South of SR 1961, land. in
the project area will be used for agriculture and rural residential uses.
Rural residential will also occur in the vicinity of the intersection of
SR 1727 and NC 111.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. These soils are designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
Land which has been developed or is committed to urban development by the
local governing body is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The
proposed improvement will occur within existing highway right-of-way.
Therefore, no further consideration of impacts to farmland is required.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Social and Economic
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Wayne County is in the Eastern Section of the State and is
bounded by Greene, Lenoir, Duplin, Sampson, Johnston, and Wilson
counties. The 1992 Census Report indicated that Wayne County has a
population of 104,666. The population density (persons per square
mile) is 189.41. In terms of racial composition, there is a white
population of 69,172 compared to nonwhite population of 35,494.
The city of Goldsboro is the county seat. The 1990 Census
Report indicates that Goldsboro has a population of 40,709.
The proposed project commences in the general vicinity of
SR 1710 and SR 1960. The neighborhood is characterized by
Commercial, Residential, and Institutional Development. The
development is out of the path of the proposed action; but, will
realize a positive social impact by the proposed improvement.
2. Economic Factors
The State Employment Security Commission indicates that during
the month of June 1994 Wayne County had a total Civilian Labor Force
of 45,850. Out of this total, 43,630 persons were gainfully
employed. This left an unemployment total of 2,220 or 4.8 percent.
3. Public Facilities
At the beginning of the proposed project there are two religious
institutions. One of these institutions is a Baptist Church. The
other one is a house of Faith. They are both on the west side of the
existing NC 111 highway facility, and will not be adversely impacted
by the proposed action.
8
4. Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact
The proposed widening will not require any additional right of
way. Therefore relocation will not be necessary.
5. Social Impacts
The proposed widening of existing NC 111 from SR 1960 to US 70
in Wayne County will not disrupt neighborhood cohesion. It will not
relocate families and businesses; and, it will not interfere with
facilities and services.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance
This proejct is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. It is also
subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
A Phase II (Abridged) survey was conducted to determine the Area
of Potential Effect (APE), and to identify and evaluate all
significant resources within the APE according to the National
Register of Historic Places criteria. Wayne County survey files were
consulted in the SHPO office in Raleigh, as was the National Register
and State Study List. Background research of the architecture and
history, existing roads, and residential development of the project
area determined the boundary of the APE. An intensive survey was
then conducted by car and foot on March 30 and June 3, 1994 which
covered 100% of the APE to identify those properties that appeared
potentially eligible for the National Register.
Eight properties, all residences dating from the late nineteenth
century through the middle twentieth century, were surveyed within
the APE (See SHPO cocurrence letter, appendix). There were no
properties eligible for the National Register.
3. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey of the proposed project area was
conducted. One archaeological site, 31WY417**, comprised of two
early-20th century tenant dwellings and associated archaeological
remains, was found alongside the existing right of way. Though what
remains of the site is relatively well-preserved, site 31 WY417**
lacks potential to yield important archaeological or historical
information and is not considered to be archaeologically significant.
The proposed road widening will not disturb any remaining portion of
the site.
9
It is concluded that the proposed NC 111 road widening project
will not disturb significant archaeological sites. No additional
archaeological investigation of the project corridor is recommended
as a consequence of the proposed road construction project (See SHPO
concurrence letter, appendix).
C. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and
any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO & and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a
point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once
the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together
to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and
to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
it
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried -
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
10
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of
sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions
are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide from 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 be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. 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.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any alternative. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year
of 1997 and the design year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
11
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #29
at a distance of 90' from the proposed centerline of the median. The
"build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest
sensitive receptor for the years of 1997 and 2017 are shown in the
following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive

Receptor 1997 2017 1997 2017
R-29 4.2 4.0 5.8 9.2
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the "build" option is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level will not exceed the
standard. See Appendix, Tables Al, A2, A3, and A4 for input data and
output.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for
Wayne County has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create
any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated
by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of NC 111 in Wayne County on noise levels in the immediate
project area. This investigation includes an inventory of existing noise
sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels
in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts
can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of
12
highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are
¢ predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
• many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually
a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as
dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's.
Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Appendix,
Table Nl.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas
are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about
their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to
note that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises
bother some more than others and some individuals become upset if an
unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an
individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For
example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to
be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when
background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be more
objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
13
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation
would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities
requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises
while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the
same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals
and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into
their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of
noises including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and
highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Appendix, Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound
level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time
period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words,
the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of
a steady noise level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The existing Leq noise level along NC 111 as measured at 50 feet from the
roadway ranged from 68.3 to 70.2 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and
measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and Table
N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing
noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The y
calculated existing noise levels were within 2.5 and 3.3 dBA of the
measured noise levels for the two locations where noise measurements were
obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of
vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's."evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING fUTURE NOISE LEVELS
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continual changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
14
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen
the existing two and three lane highway to a five lane shoulder facility
from the interchange at US 70 to SR 1960. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade.
Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions.
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the
proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the'peak hour
of the design year 2017. A land use is considered to be impacted when
exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement
criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200,
400, 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane
(adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors
were determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the
posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of this
procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this
grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Appendix, Table N4. Information included in these tables
consist of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project,
their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5.
These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic
noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, three
businesses and twelve residential receptors were determined to be impacted
by highway traffic noise. Other information included in Appendix, Table
N5 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control
over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
15
jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and
land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 (Appendix) indicates the exterior traffic noise level
increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +6 to +9 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA -
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness
of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category. There are fifteen impacted receptors in
the project area.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and
other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway
alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For
this project, traffic management measures are not considered appropriate
for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and
level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often -
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the
project at grade.
16
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at
access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient
reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from
the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from
the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access
opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5,
section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement
would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
seven residences would experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of +4 to +6
dBA. As previous noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily
noticed.
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 passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly 'from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. 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.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772,
and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports
will be submitted for this project.
17
E. Ecological Analysis
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are
discussed below. Soils and availability of water directly influence
composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Wayne County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The
topography of this County is characterized by low, rolling hills and sandy
soils. Elevations in the study area range from 6 m (20 ft) to 10 m (34
ft) above mean sea level.
1. Soils
Soils found in the study area vary from well drained to poorly
drained and occur on nearly level slopes. Some map units are hydric
soils and others may contain inclusions of hydric soils. An
inventory of specific soil types which occur in the project area can
be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Wayne County Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Bb Bibb sandy loam 0-2 A
Dr* Dragston loamy sand 0-2 B
Go Goldsboro loamy sand 0-2 -
Js Johnston loam 0-2 A
Ke* Kenansville loamy sand 0-6 -
La Lakeland sand 0-6 -
Ly* Lynchburg sandy loam 0-2 -
NoA Norfolk loamy sand 0-2 -
Po Pantego loam <2 A
Ra* Ra ins sandy loam 0-2 A
To* Torhunta loam 0-2 A
We Weston loamy sand 0-2 A
Note: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major
component.
"B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or which have
wet spots.
"*" denotes dominant soil map unit in the study area.
2. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are
also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
18
Wayne County participates in the National Flood Insurance
regular program; however, there is no significant floodplain
involvement associated with this project.
Stream Characteristics
The proposed project is located in the Neuse River Basin and
crosses three intermittent streams: Walnut Creek, an unnamed
tributary to Walnut Creek, and Fellows Branch. These streams
originate near the study area and flow into the Neuse River. The
existing hydraulic structure at each of these crossings is a single
pipe culvert. The construction of the proposed project will
necessitate the replacement or extension of these culverts.
Walnut Creek and its tributary cross the proposed alignment
south of SR 1962 and north of SR 1961. These streams have steep
banks due to past channelization and a mucky substrate. The stream
bottom is composed of many shallow pools and little flow was observed
in the stream.
Fellows Branch is a channelized stream with steep riprap
reinforced banks that crosses the study area north of SR 1727. This
stream floods only temporarily and has substrate composed of fine
sand and silt. Depressions where pools could form were observed in
the stream bed.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Unnamed streams carry
the same best usage classification as streams to which they are
tributaries. Table 2 lists best usage classifications for all water
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
Table 2. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE
Walnut Creek
Fellows Branch
CLASSIFICATION
Class C NSW
Class C NSW
Note: Class C waters are defined as suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture.
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) refers to waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1
mile) of project study area.
19
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed
by DEM and 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 are
reflections of water quality. Specific BMAN information is not
available for the specific project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a
permit. The NPDES lists no sources of discharge into streams
crossing the study area within one mile of the proposed project.
Construction-related impacts include reduced water quality,
increased sedimentation, toxic runoff, alterations of the water level
due to interruptions or additions to water flow, and the destruction
of natural substrate due to stream channel relocation. Reduced water
quality could include changes in turbidity, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and nutrient limitation. In order to minimize impacts to
water resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sediment Control Guidelines
should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study
area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora within
these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and
discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent
references to the same organism will include the common name only.
The Man Dominated Community is the terrestrial community
identified in the project study area. Community boundaries are
frequently ill-defined; contiguous communities generally merge
without any transition zone between them. Many faunal species are
highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed.
20
Man dominated communities are found along roadside shoulders and
powerline right-of-ways in the study area. The composition of this
g community is highly variable in the study area and controlled by
human intervention. Common species found in this community include:
fescue Festuca sp.), plantain Planta o spp.), violet Viola sp.),
catbrier Smilax sp.), common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis ,
dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), black eyed Susan Rudbeckia
hirta horse nettle Solanum carolinense), sensitive partri gepea
Cassia nictitans), trumpet vine (Cam psis radicans , milkweed
(Asclepias sp.), winged sumac Rhus copallina), and blueberry
Vaccinium sp.). This community also contains sapling size trees of
several species found in adjacent woodlands. Common species are:
longleaf pine Pinus palustris), loblolly pine LP. taeda , red maple
Acer rubrum , Virginia bay (Magnolia virginiana), sassafras
Sassafras albidum , and oaks uercus spp.).
This community offers a wide range of habitats that allow
certain animal species to flourish. Those species which flourish are
often species which are highly adaptable or those which do not have
specific habitat requirements, such as, American toad Bufo
americana), five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus), black racer
Coluber constrictor), blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea , northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Intermittent streams that cross the proposed project provide a
habitat necessary for many aquatic and semiaquatic species to
complete their life cycles. Factors such as water quality, length of
inundation, and substrate composition control the number and
diversity of species that can utilize the habitats provided. The
terrestrial communities adjacent to the stream channel also greatly
influence aquatic community composition.
Intermittent streams often experience interruption of flow
during dry spells. Periods of flow interruption are generally
seasonal, with the summer months being drier than the winter. During
dry spells streams retain water in shallow pools along their course.
It is these pools which are influenced in size and depth-by
climatological events that provide habitat for a great diversity of
aquatic and semiaquatic species. A higher diversity of species can
be found in streams which have a dense canopy of trees and 'shrubs.
Despite the dry conditions present during the warmer months of
the year many species are adapted to living in this environment.
These species complete their life cycle quickly or encyst in order to
be better able to withstand the periods of desiccation. Species
likely to occur in the habitats provided by small intermittent
streams include benthic invertebrates such as rotifers (Rotifera ,
flatworms (Platyhelminthes), roundworms (Nematoda), as well as insect
larvae, crayfish, and snails. Many higher animals such as amphibians
and reptiles also rely on these intermittent streams for reproduction
and as a source of food and water. Some common vertebrates likely to
utilize habitats provided by intermittent streams include:
21
three-lined salamander Eur cea guttlineata), two-lined salamander
bislineata), pickerel frog Rana alustris , oak toad Bufo
quercicus), and banded water snake Nerodia fasciata . A variety of
the mammals found in the terrestria communities in the study area
may forage in intermittent streams.
A few species of shiners Notro is spp.) and sunfish
(Centrachidae), as well as eastern mosquitofish Gambusia affinis
• may be found inhabiting the larger pools in these streams during
periods of stream flow.
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities
in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the
natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Calculated impacts to the Man Dominated Community, 12.5 ha (30.9
ac), reflect the relative abundance of the community in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation
of portions of this community. Estimated impacts are derived using
the entire right of way width of 46 m (150 ft). Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
The construction of the proposed project will result in the loss
of the man dominated community in some areas and temporary impacts to
this community in others.
Potential impacts to the aquatic environment are those that act
to decrease water quality and include increased sedimentation,
nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff from construction related erosion.
Organisms that utilize habitats provided by these streams can be
affected by changes in water quality. Toxic runoff resulting from
fuel leakage from construction machinery and tire rubber debris from
increased traffic flow. Nutrient runoff occurs from the use of
chemical fertilizers in roadside landscaping and can cause algal
blooms which can lower dissolved oxygen in the sediments and water
column. These factors act to decrease successful reproduction in
individual species and decrease the species diversity of the
community. Higher vertebrates which utilize these streams to forage
are affected through biomagnification of pollutants and the loss of
potential prey species. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines
should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project to minimize impacts to aquatic and semiaquatic organisms.
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to Waters of the United States.
22
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code
of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Walnut Creek, an unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek, and Fellows
Branch are surface waters found in the study area.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Determination Manual" (Environment laboratory, 1987). Criteria to
delineate wetland sites includes evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology.
A single wetland site was identified in the study area. This
site is located at the southern end of the project and has been
ditched and channelized. This site is composed of several
interconnected ditches that are approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) wide.
This wetland site occupies an area of 0.06 ha (0.15 ac). The
vegetation in this community is dominated by diodia Diodia
virginiana), needle rush Juncus sp.), giant cane (Arundinaria
i antea , and black willow Salix ni ra .
This site was evaluated using the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) Wetland Rating System. Using this system, sites
receive a wetland score from 0 to 100 points (100 being highest)
based on individual wetland values that are grouped into water
quality, landscape, habitat, and human values. Each of these groups
is weighted to achieve the final wetland rating. Groups are weighted
separately to reflect the DEM's emphasis on water quality. The
wetland site in the study area is given a score of 21 points using
this wetland rating system (see NCDEHNR-DEM, 1993).
5. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting
from the proposed project. This permit authorizes discharges of
dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated jurisdictional
wetlands provided the following conditions are met:
(1) the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 4 hectares
(10 acres) of Waters of the United States;
23
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge
would cause the loss of Waters of the United States greater than
0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in accordance with the "Notification"
general conditions (for discharges in special aquatic sites,
including jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also
include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
(3) the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary
and permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DEM is a prerequisite to
issuance of a CAMA or Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit. Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
may result in a discharge to the Waters of the United States.
6. Mitigation
Actions authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum
Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of the Army.
7. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna ar
process of decline either due to
coexist with man. Federal law
Endangered Species Act of 1973,
likely to adversely affect
federally-protected, be subject
(FWS). Other species may rece
separate state laws.
d flora have been in, or are in, the
natural forces or their inability to
(under the provisions of the
s amended) requires that any action,
a species classified as
to review by the Fish and Wildlife
ive additional protection under
8. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of November 17, 1994,
the FWS lists the federally Endangered red-cockaded woodpecker for
Wayne County. A designation of Endangered (E) denotes a species that
is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. A brief description of this species characteristics
and habitat requirements follows.
24
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven,
Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett,
Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow,
Orange, Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond,
Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of
the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with
horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are
white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine Pinus alustris , for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200
hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m
(12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June;
the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
The construction of the proposed project will not impact any
pine stands that provide suitable foraging or nesting habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. No effects to this federally protected
species will result from the construction of the proposed project.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are four federal candidate (C2) species listed for Wayne
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are
defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no
sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms
25
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern-(SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program.list of Rare
Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal candidate species, the species state
status (if afforded state protection) and the availability of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species
list is provided for information purposes since the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Wayne County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Plecotus
rafinesquii*
Elliptio judithae
Fusconia masoni
Litsea aestivalis
COMMON NAME
Rafinesque's
big-eared bat
Neuse slabshell
Atlantic pigtoe
pondspice
NC STATUS HABITAT
SC No
E No
T No
-- No
NOTE: "--" Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal
Candidate.
No specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site
visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the data
base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique
habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
F. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced with
the construction of this project. Measures will be taken to mitigate
these effects to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in stric
of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roac
contractor shall be required to observe and
ordinances, regulations, orders and decreases
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed
disposal site which is in violation of state ri
adherence to the Division
s and Structures". The
comply with all laws,
regarding the disposal of
into any existing land
les and regulations.
26
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of
.way is permitted by the Engineer.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Divisions of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines
and interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of this
project. For this reason an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work which must be coordinated to reduce
erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion
control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction
with the erosion control schedule the contractor will be required to
follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use
of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures".
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the. contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source
will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. A
copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to
performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes..
G. Hazardous Waste
Based on records maintained at the Solid Waste Management Branch no
potential hazardous waste sites are known to be in the project area. Land
uses observed reveal it is primarily agricultural and a low risk for
hazardous waste. There was no evidence of any underground storage tanks
regulated under 40 CFR 280 along the project corridor.

APPENDIX
9

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
® 14C Ill
SR 1960 0 TO
O US 70
WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY AND/OR
MAKE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
-GOLDSBORO, WAYNE COUNTY
U - 2715
mile _ z,,.. FIG. 1
I'
s BUS
1 17 A
rtANrjC
o J BUS.
70 . '35

f
? J
k
?:• ? ,.?'• ?.? U '"t1?\;?,a??1mn1;,In.rt1,t?? „1`i`????1`i;??
1
Prison,?.'• SAP Miller \? ll 111 `111 ?1, \
r..t :r: a :: L • ? 41 1713
f" 111 Newson
.
1712 E'4ST
:GOLDSBORO?' qG - ,(
POP. 31,871 1758 O •?/y?/ ??
1713 BEGIN c,? "
Seymour- ahnson = 9? b PROJECT
Air Force Base
® ey` 1723
1962 1?4 i ?.? )C
Elroy,
:r' 1961 h? Y -, •6 ?, 17' t
Casey
1724 z Chp.
=?C?. ; _? \ :• ELROY 172 e .
•DN?% (UNINC.) 111`,1_'' ?\ ?O
POP. 4,073 u, •
1726 Z:?
l 6 '4S \' ifl ?°
r i 1918
\ /? G MATCH.,
? __ t p 1728
W-1 41
O
191.5 183. m c?.
1928 ' 196 ? • 1 ? • t` ?:','?.
=.? G
1917 ? 2028 1815
1710
1932 w c 1726
1911 ? ' ? -_ ? =•<;:
960 ?: ::•:.; ;
1 T.1. P. PROJECT :9 a END
Emmaus R - 2422 PROJECT 1
? Z .,. 1727 WALT
Ch. 7N Pc
8rogden 1.7 ttt
$t. John,
Chp. 1730
-
1730
6 _
N_
927 1932' o n /
2051 Dal 1824 r \\
1 120 2050=; ?-
Z
1120 1915 NEUS?_ -
-_--
1983 `i• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 01
1933 h ;p GiZ? TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 111
1916 i.? SR 1710 TO US 70
WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY AND / OR
MAKE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1.9 GOLDS ORO,WAYNE000NTY
ti 1914 U-2715
O 0 mile 1
19_3 1915 l.. ".1... 9, `? _ - - • _ FIG.
FIGURE 3 : NC Ill & US 70 Intersection
Design Year 2020
a?

NC III IVIDENING
US 70 TO NEW CONNECTOR (11 1422)
WAYNE COUNTY
U - 1715

l

9
S5

76
186
Io _ In 39/ 11
16 7
97 179 US 70
o`
to -11 T>60
141
1
J
Q !39
??rr t
A
,?
q
140
y
sf?I;lunAN 14 21
119
FOREST ItD.
3
(SR 1961) 65-4.. V! -1J
(!
O)
, !0
12 DI7'CII BANIC RD.
112 ?' (SR 1716)
T fJ. 6s
114
COLONIAL RD. 3
f 112
;.iT. 1972; 65-( 12 1 } r

rolJSSr r?Orts
RD.

('Y", 19s9)

32
!
/p
0

19 DOLLARD TOWN RD.
65< (1-) 11 37 (-6
? )• 60 (SR 1727)
10
2 (-
1
)
1y601 65A li
NNG
A
t
$ l$ 76 f - 4 SR 1775
? It.. (? ?) > 65 JUNK 9 1994
75 ? 3 SR 1764
` It Q)t6s
SR 2018 3 22++
J r
74
I
1'
65.4 -11 1? { ESTIMATED 1994 APT IN HUNDREDS
LEGEND
SR 1982 3 173
65< 0000 = vpd
0
DrlV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUALE (SL,
74 D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW M
AM/PAl AM OR PM PEAK
- - - >• DIRECTION OF D
R - 2422 29 ? 153 (5l) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST NO
? IO
60 <. ?
8 1 `
( NC 111 DIIP(5 )) D
61
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES: DIIV G' D Jr, NOT
SHOYIW ARE THE SAME FOR
TILL OPPOSING LE-G.
FIGURE 4 A
NC Ill IVIDENING
US 70 TO NMV CONNECTOR (R 2421)
NAYNE, COUNTY
U - 1715
t
3
55
102 ? ti? •

391
° sr
l d8/? 13
(.lpl
'. .rr 190
90
_
160
219 US 70
I6
9 AO
-•? >
261 '?A
?o 260 g

2 O
4
ti.v 262
5
SIIERIDAN 24 36 {
116
FOltBST RD.
6
(SR 1961) 65 -4 PM 10
(1,0)
.
10 25 DITCH BANIC RD
2I1 I
4 P. (SR 1726)
1p_...
. >bS
?
215
COLONLIL RD. 6 ??
(SR 1972) AS< P.
!f
2 1
?1
rl,pi
?oRCSr rw0
LLS RD .
.
(Sit 1959) SO 6 34 DOUARD TOIIN RD.
Af<( It 60 '4'l 10 ° ... PT > (SR 1727) .
(J
11
gU• ?„ so
NG ))n 4pl ?.? A Ill" .
JUNK 9 1991
)<)
Sr (SR I53I 6 8 SR 1775
. (2 10 - (10) > 6$

151 6 SR 1764
r 10- 0) > 65
• SR 2018 6 4

rM
1
0
65-(
10

2 1149
.
LSTTALITLD 2020 ADT IN HUNDREDS
(
,
)
LEGEND
SR 1982 6 4
1147
6s< (t. 16 2 0000 = vpd

o, DIIV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (90)
149 D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (15)
AALPAI = AM OR PAi FLAK

99 69' > DIRECTION OF D
R - 2411
1" b0<
9 , ?80 (5,1) DUAL TRUCKS, MT (.o)
(s.l1 JO
fm
NC 1tt f)111'('I'1) > D
Be
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4 B
NOTES. DIIV & D IF NOT
SIIO)ITI AF?r TIIL SAAIP, FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG.
LLJ
Cf)
II?? yj? 9 ?? ?.? pp
,_ 41 §
MATCH LINE A
sr
A
k,4
q

F
i
xe F'
rx ^
:

6

e i }s ?
x {
I-A
a
im kJ
4

d 3

I li

A
li

ow

?sP' jr ?x?ye ]

TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 1
? v
JOB: U-2715: NC 111 Wayne County RUN: NC 111 1997, BUILD 55 MPH
DATE: 08/09/1994 TIME: 09:28:06.92
SITE t METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VE':
I
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1555. 15.9 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1555. 15.9 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
}
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R29, 90' RT. CL RES -23.8 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2715: NC 111 Wayne County RUN: NC 111 1997, BUILD 55 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(D£GR) REC1
MAX 4.2
DEGR. 6
r

TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2715: NC 111 Wayne County RUN: NC 111 1997 NO BUILD 25 MPH
_ r
DATE: 08/09/1994 TIME: 09:29:30.02
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
F
PAGE 3
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEU_
X1 Y1 X2 Y2. (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH'
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 604.7 1609. 360. AG 1555. 27.1 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1555. 27.1 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (t
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R29, 90' RT. CL RES -25.6 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2715: NC 111 Wayne County RUN: NC 111 1997 NO BUILD 25 MPH
MODEL RESULT'S
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) RECI
MAX 5.8
DEGR. 7

TABLE Nl
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
i
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)

TABLE 93
$ AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Le4)
NC 111 from US 70 to SR 1960, Wayne County,
State Project f 8.1331101, TIP # U-2715
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
1. NC 111, 0.2 mile north of SR 1961
2. NC 111, 0.25 mile north of SR 1972

Grassy
Grassy
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from
the center of the nearest lane of traffic.

NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA)
70
68
?i of
TABLE N4 2/2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES

NC 111 From US 70 to SR 1960, Wayne County,
State Project 0 8.1331101, TIP Y U-2715 i
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
NC 111 from US 70 to SR 1726 (cont'd)
33 Residence B 260 R 58 " 260 R - - 64 + 6
34 Residence B 340 R 55 340 R - - 61 + 6
35 Residence B " 390 R 53 " 390 R - - 60 + 7
36 Residence B 440 R 52 " 440 R - - 59 + 7
37 Residence B " 470 R 51 " 470 R - - 58 + 7
38 Residence B 530 R 49 " 530 R - - 56 + 7
39 Residence B " 560 R 49 '• 560 R - - 55 + 6
40 Residence B 590 R X48 590 R - - 55 + 7
41 Residence B 630 R 47 630 R - - 54 + 7
NC 111 from SR 1726 to SR 1960
42 Business C NC 111 150 L 60 NC 111 150 L - - 69 + 9
43 Residence B " 110 R 63 " 110 R - - * 72 + 9
44 Residence B " 170 R 59 " 170 R - - ' 68 + 9
45 Residence B " 420 L 50 " 420 L - - 58 + 8
46 Residence B " 250 L 56 250 L - - 64 + 8
47 Residence B 440 R 50 " 440 R - - 58 + 8
48 Business C " 100 L 64 100 L - - ' 72 + 8

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contributioA•
A11 noise :evels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). ' - Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
r?s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 5, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report for
widening of NC 11 from SR 1710 to US 70, Wayne and
Wilson Counties, U-2715, 8.1331 101, STP-1 1 1(1), ER
95-7440
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1994, transmitting the historic structures survey
report by Scott Owen for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
concerning the above project.
1.
t
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places because they have no special historical or architectural significance:
Abandoned Residences (#1, 2, and 6)
Roebuck Grant House (2#8)
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior
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
919,1733-4763.
Si erely,
"Ak
Dav- Brook
d_1?4
Deputy*State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church n
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Htmt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. S=ttary
August 12, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological survey report for widening of NC
111 from SR 1710 to US 70, Goldsboro, Wayne
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-111(1), State
8.133701, TIP U-2715, ER 94-8523, ER 95-7146
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr.. Director
Thank you for your letter of July 21, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Kenneth W. Robinson, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is not eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31 WY417•.
This historic period archaeological site lacks the potential to yield significant
information.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior. It is our opinion that no additional archaeological investigation is
warranted in connection with this project as currently proposed.
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.
F
n
i
t
o
-Z? 62

J J
Cz
109 Fist Joan Street • Raleigh, North Carollaa 276M 2807
l:
K
I