U-3613

1
Y
s 40S stem
PROGRAM
November 7, 2005
Mr. William Wescott
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Wescott:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
ne,
?R,?os o M?q? ry
BRq?,
Cy
U-3613B, Widening of SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) from. NC
11/903 (Memorial Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey Road) in Greenville;
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020202); Northern Inner
Coastal Plain (NICP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation and buffer mitigation
for the unavoidable impacts associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in
the NCDOT's mitigation request letter dated October 26, 2005, the project will impact
277 feet of stream.
Also, this project will impact buffers located in CU 03020202 of the Neuse River
Basin. The total buffer impacts are 34,569 square feet in Zone 1 and 17,716 square feet
in Zone 2. The NCDOT estimated buffer impacts in the 7-year Impact Projection
Database submitted to EEP in May 2005. The buffer mitigation required for the
NCDOT's impact projections was incorporated into EEP's biennial budget that was
approved in June 2005 by the NCDOT. However, EEP intends to continue managing all
of the NCDOT's buffer mitigation requests and approvals through the In-Lieu Fee (ILF)
Program's Buffer Fund. Any buffer impact associated with projects located in the Neuse
and Tar-Pamlico River Basins, and portions of the Cape Fear and Catawba River Basins
are automatic acceptances by the EEP, per the agreement with the NCDWQ.
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
r
requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MOA Account (Fund 2984) into the ILF Buffer Mitigation Fund (Fund
2982).
EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation and
buffer mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA
year in which the permit modification for this project is issued, in accordance with
Section X of the Tri-Party MOA, signed on July 22, 2003. Compensatory stream
mitigation assets available include, but are not limited to, the Whitelace mitigation site.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
6, Sir---w jn-
11 riamm. Gilmore, P. E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
?'Ar. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: U-3613B

y?-
ystem *p
EmY
11 1 ,.rx l:.?
PROGRAM
November 7, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
U-3613B, Widening of SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) from NC 11/903
(Memorial Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey Road) in Greenville, Pitt County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation and buffer mitigation for the subject
project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated October 26, 2005 (received
November 1, 2005), the impacts are located in CU 03020202 of the Neuse River Basin in the
Northern Inner Coastal Plain (NICP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream:
277 feet
Zone 1 Buffer: 34,569 square feet
Zone 2 Buffer: 17,716 square feet
The NCDOT estimated buffer impacts in the 7-year Impact Projection Database
submitted to EEP in May 2005. The buffer mitigation required for the NCDOT's impact
projections was incorporated into EEP's biennial budget that was submitted to the
NCDOT for approval in June 2005. However, EEP intends to continue managing all of
the NCDOT's buffer mitigation requests and approvals through the In-Lieu Fee (ILF)
Program's Buffer Fund. Any buffer impact associated with projects located in the Neuse,
Tar-Pamlico, and portions of the Catawba and Cape Fear River Basins are automatic
acceptances by the EEP, per the agreement with the NCDWQ.
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and el? A - 7 ,•': i Y" .? n .°?i •r "'. •y, r1 g?., f .,fr..,? ?-'?%'f=
.v-b-L 0 ?A _
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-115-0476 / www.nceep.net
R . , I
requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MOA Account (Fund 2984) into the ILF Buffer Mitigation Fund (Fund
2982).
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory stream mitigation for the subject
project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
?Y-
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. William Wescott, USACE-Washington
?'Ar. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: U-3613B
aw.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR November 22, 2000
Mr. John Hennessy
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy:

5 2WO
r,r 3
iE isc ??a ?+ rn nom. ,
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Greenville, SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road),
From NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey Road), Pitt County, State
Project No. 8.222090 1, Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1708(l), TIP Project
No. U-3613
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. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
2
Your comments should be received by January 26, 2001. 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,

Td William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/plr
P
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
8 January 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: S. Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Susan Brady, Environmental Biologist `?S
Natural Resources Unit
SUBJEC'T': Natural Resources Technical Report for proposed widening of
Fire Tower Rd. (SR 1708) in Pitt County, Federal Aid Proieci
No. MASTP-1708(1); State Project No. 8.2220901. TIP No.
U-3613.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural' resources within the project area, and estimates of impacts likely
to occur to these resources as a result of project0nstruction. 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 disk format.
CC. David Schiller, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: U-3613
2
Your comments should be received by January 26, 2001. 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,
C,-? MIJA?j
Td William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Proj ect Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/plr
O

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
8 January 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: S. Eric Midkiff, F.E.
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Susan Brady, Environmental Biologist
Natural Resources Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for proposed widening of
Fire Tower Rd. (SR 1708) in Pitt County, Federal Aid Prole-,
No. MASTP-1708(1), State Project No. 8.2220901. TIP No.
U-3613.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project area, and estimates 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 disk format.
CC. David Schiller, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: U-3613

Proposed Widening of Fire Tower Rd. (SR 1708) in Pitt County
TIP No. U-3613
Federal Aid Project: MASTP-1708(1)
State Project No. 8.2220901
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-3613
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Transportation
Project Planning and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
Susan Brady, Environmental Biologist
8 January 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............. ....... , ---..................................... ..1
1.2 Purpose ............................................ .................................. ..1
1.3 Methodology ..................................................................... .. ..1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ...................................................... .. _
1.5 Definitions ........................................................................... ..2
2:0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................. ..
2
2.1 Soils .................................................................................. ..
2
2.2 Water Resources .................................................................... ..4
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ................................ ..4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................. ..4
2.2.3 Water Quality ............... ......................................... ..5
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................................... ..6
3.0 BIOTI C RESOURCES ...................................................................... ..6
3.1 Biotic Communities ................................................................ ..7
3.. 1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ................................................... ..7
3.1.2 Streambank .............................................................. .. .
3.1.3 Coastal Plain Perennial Stream ........................................ ..8
3.2 Wildlife ............................................................................... ..8
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna ............. ..................... .................8
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna ........................................................... 9
13 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..j .............................................. ..9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .............................................................. 10
4.1 Waters of the United States ......................................................... 11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................... 1 i
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........... ....................... 1 i
4. 13 Permits ......................................... ........................ 11
4.1.4 Mitigation ....................... ....... ............................ 1 2
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ...................................................... 12
4.1.4.2 Minimization ................................................... 12
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation .................................... 12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................................................... 13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................... 13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .............. 16
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................ 17
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location in Pitt County.
Figure 2. Topographic Map of Project Location.
List of Tables
Table 1. Streams Impacted by Proposed Project.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Pitt County
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern in Pitt County
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
preparation ofan Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. The project
is situated;in Pitt County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the widening of Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) from
Memorial Drive (NC 11/903) to Corey Rd (SR 1709) (Figure 2). The existing cross
section is a two-lane facility with 6.7 m (22.0 ft) of pavement and grassed shoulders.
Two alternatives have been set forth for the proposed cross section. One involves a five-
lane curb and gutter facility with 4.2 m (14.0 ft) outside lanes and 3.6 m (12.0 ft) inside
lanes, and the other involves a four-lane facility with a 4.8 m (16.0 ft) raised island, 4.2 m
(14.0 ft) outside lanes and 3.6 m (12.0 ft) inside lanes. The existing right-of-way is
approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft), and the proposed right-of-way for both alternates is 30.5
in (100.0 ft). Project length is approximately 4.7 km (2.9 mi).
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 tc
these resources. Recommendations are made for measures that 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 (Greenville Southwest, Greenville Southeast), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps (Greenville Southwest, Greenville
Southeast), Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service) soil maps (Pitt
County), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:2500). 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 (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Pitt County, 1995).
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 species and
species of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats (checked 30 Nov. 1998).
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biolo?o,ists Susan Brady and Chris Murray on 11 December 1998. Plant communities and
2
their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Susan G. Brady, Natural Systems Biologist, NCDOT.
Education: B.S. Environmental Studies, University of Maine at Machias.
M.S. Marine Biology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Experience: Research Technician, UNC-Wilmington, Jan. 1995- Dec. 1995
Contract Biologist, NC Wildlife Resources Commission/ Nongame and
Endangered Species Division, May 1998-Sept. 1998.
NC Department of Transportation/ Planning and Environmental Branch,
Oct. 1998-present.
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and
Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources occurring 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.
The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
topography in this section of Pitt County is characterized as nearly level to sloping. The
project area is nearly level, in the floodplain and uplands around Fork Swamp. Project
elevation is approximately 5.5-6.1 in (18.0-20.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl), with the
higher elevations generally to the west.
2.1 Soils
There are ten soil phases occurring within the project boundaries: Exum fine
sandy loam 0-1% slope, Goldsboro sandy loam 0-1% slope, Goldsboro sandy loam 1-6%
slope, Lynchburg fine sandy loam, Norfolk sandy loam 0-1% slope, Norfolk sandy loam
1-6% slope, Osier loamy sand (loamy substratum), Pantego loam, Portsmouth loam, and
Rains fine sandy loam.
G
:I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
@ BRANCH
GREENVILL
SR 1708 (FIRE70wER ROAD)
FROM NC 11/903 (MEMCRIAL DRIVE)
TO SR 1709 (CORY ROAD)
?ITT CCUNT`
-P- NO.
0 Ki?OrtE
2
1 rr RC
! 0 MILS 1 r'. V K_
?i ,• ••-! `', '/? \c ?!< ?''?t\N ' ti's..-?{ "". ?FG.h.• I I? \ €^'?.;.?? j } ,-Q
? ^ .? ? ,', ? U ?I 4?? C. ? \J? zy.wa>"t ? ?: ' f;"r: ``.?r:??..' -,'?,,. <?-' :?,??ro?•.
?. S ?' t? ;r??,,p,A?1» .,,,?r t?"Y. ` 7? >:. •;YCt' ? .1 ??f/ . ,• •`t y T- ?I O
?10 CL ? ` a t?. y v 1 . -i ti a,y E1"1 ?-`{Sl \ /?..J• ? O
C=
n?E
.1 elf
V _ Syr' F.' I l n` I W LU
?? i :vim '`iii ?.o!i'':?„-,• `, ~ ?! 7 I • ? ' , ?
isms, m , ,".•'-'mow^ ?m ' ?,.E:+? V V
."`•??'?':_ yy I <?<??•` ?. a? ....: ? - ' ? _ _ - of .yam' ••' ??i?p. ` ?=<'?- F • ::s?+: v v
?? ? '?:._?ty?,,;r. i?•? Imo- `? ?N 109 '.rim.- •:(.? ? F'?` i-yam ? "J?% .
','.?Ze?: '.i?yFu•!??.•-?i?'< ? ?? t'.'{YI+C _1 Zt 1 l??p??'•?M+. rae? i,? Y?e?? :. • 7IC°{.r-T?•..-..
47J. ?vr <??,'"'"` .?•'.s .•.t t C '?•, ' • ° -.t . Sri ? i' Kc .y?+: •r`!."
„,% ?rry;.ts?x,.'`?'g?.;??--. ?• s??+ry'?a,? _... .- . t????-•,Sx: ??'_"'????`>^:.='r= ??bA.`?ar•...??:?_ I-- •:`'S. e•_..Fo rk :-.

Q I
? I
CV i r.
c ':1
?I

.1: ? ':fir' M ` t• ,`. I •.f? w .•.. ?.. •?r-x?/7?` .?--?"`•`r..'??•.
•p ?; 4, l? Ft :0 ?'?t._-t / i :Rae vl
i .,;?? ?•''•- -?, ;,. , .may-- 1
..ice- .1--• ?_ c :1 ?r ?? `? r'.?Zj+Y_aa.?' I. aT"?.^.?. \ \ ` \ I l: t - :i. 7 ????y er'?1
,..... .;?. :i i:"? S!/- 'tea it•s%'% , ?i S ?:7 %,
.8. '?!. •?i•. ^I ri ?'c. (s. ? , -_'. /g .\`•_?- . xL. ??-a a.w U. ! ??f? V ,/ ?? ?•?. ;??: j i ? .I
- --•'?? ??• •r.l ? I +! ,rte` f`•r•?'?':'Zti ?`?" ?y`?.. ??<?? ? ? Fri V . ? ?, ...J, ?.?•Lf ' ?S ? ;
-; f+ _f •i J' col (:sue:`%_'.'':? ye.s? '•i^.c1? %/?^ `'+ y.:t
00
`• l .f f;,- "±•L ?? 't.<!_Y?•J ?,I • . ? F? I r!• ? ?.., ( S ?!r't ? f"
• \\ ??I • f •• .'i•F la F? ???<.ey? ? I ??'... j © ? ?.:tit?' .CXvi -`.r.
?`? ??• 'rye a ?.. L• ;s sr __ .: (: •tS-in?'=?:.
rig
t. _
II _ F•
i . P': -C f ? \ ?? • J ? - C• //?-`-.<..! ,l i:::-yt 'rt`t? \ I\
I ?• ? I I

Exum fine sandy loam 0-1 % slope is a moderately well drained soil found on
broad, smooth divides in uplands. Permeability is moderate, surface runoff is slow, and
the seasonal high water table is located at 0.8 m (2.5 ft) below the surface. This soil is
suitable for farmland and non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. The
chief limitation is wetness. Exum fine sandy loam is listed as non-hydric.
Goldsboro sandy loam 04% slope is a moderately well drained soil found on
broad, smooth divides in uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is slow, and the
seasonal high water table is located at 0.8 m (2.5 ft) below the surface. This soil is
suitable for farmland and non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. The
chief limitation is wetness. Goldsboro sandy loam 0-1% slope is listed as non-hydric but
may contain inclusions of hydric soils (Rains fine sandy loam).
Goldsboro sandy loam 1-6% slope is a moderately well drained soil found on side
slopes in uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is medium, and the seasonal high
water table is located at 0.8 in (2.5 ft) below the surface. This soil is suitable for farmland
and non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. The chief limitation is
erosion. Goldsboro sandy loam 1-6% slope is listed as non-hydric.
Lynchburg fine sandy loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil found on smootl.
flats and in slight depressions in uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is slow, and
the seasonal high water table is located at 0.5 m (1.5 ft) below the surface. This soil is
suitable for farmland and non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. The
chief limitation is wetness. Lynchburg fine sandy loam is listed as non-hydric but may
contain inclusions of hydric soils (Rains fine sandy loam).
Norfolk sandy loam 0-1% slope is a well drained soil found on broad, smooth
divides in uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is slow, and the seasonal high water
table is located greater than 1.5 in (5.0 ft) below the surface. This soil is suitable for
farmland and non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. There are no
major limitations to its use. Norfolk sandy loam 0-1% slope is listed as non-hydric.
Norfolk sandy loam 1-6% slope is a well drained soil found on side slopes in
uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is medium, and the seasonal high water table is
located greater than 1.5 in (5.0 ft) below the surface. This soil is suitable for farmland and
non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. The major limitation is erosion.
Norfolk sandy loam 1-6%. slope is listed as non-hydric.
Osier loamy sand (loamy substratum) is a poorly drained soil found on broad flats
and in slight depressions in the uplands and on stream terraces. Permeability is rapid,
runoff is slow, and the seasonal high water table is located at the surface. This soil is best
suited for forests, with crop cultivation possible if proper drainage is provided. The
major limitations are wetness, frequent flooding, high water table, and low natural
fertility. Osier loamy sand (loamy substratum) is listed as hydric.
4
Pantego loam, Portsmouth loam, and Rains fine sandy loam are very poorly
drained soils found on broad flats and in slight depressions in uplands and stream
terraces. Permeability is moderate, runoff is very slow or ponded, and the seasonal high
water table is located at the surface. These soils are best suited for forests, with crop
cultivation possible if proper drainage is provided. The major limitations are wetness,
frequent flooding or ponding, and high water table: Pantego loam, Portsmouth loam, and
Rains fine sandy loam are all listed as hydric.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a
sandy texture. The soils did not exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma
colors or oxidized rhizospheres. Therefore, hydric soil indicators, as defined in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, were not observed within
the project 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 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Fork Swamp and two unnamed tributaries to Fork Swamp will be the only surface
water resources directly impacted by the proposed widening project (Figure 2). Fork
Swamp is located in sub-basin 030409 of the Neuse River Basin. Fork Swamp is a
tributary to Swift Creek, and has its confluence with the creek approximately 15.3 km
(9.5 mi stream channel distance) downstream of the project,area. Swift Creek is a
tributary to the Neuse River, joining the river 49.2 km (30.6 mi stream distance)
downstream of Fork Swamp. Table 1 describes the physical characteristics of each
stream at the time of the site visit.
Table 1. Streams Impacted by Proposed Project.
Stream Width (m/ft) Depth (m/ft) Substrate Comments
Fork Swamp 3.0 (10.0) 0.6-0.9 (2.0-3.0) Sand Bridged, has sandbars, good
flow
UT #1 1.2 (4.0) 0.8 (2.5) Sand Culverted, little flow
UT #2 1.8 (6.0) 0.3(l.0) sand Culverted, some flow
2.2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best usage
classification. The classification of Fork Swamp [DEM index no. 27-97-4] isC Sw
NSW. The C classification denotes waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplemental
S
classifications of Sw (Swamp Waters) and NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water) denote
waters that have low velocities and waters that require limitations on nutrient inputs,
respectively. Unnamed tributaries carry the best usage classification of the stream to
which they arq a tributary.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the
17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ, formerly known as
the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), collects biological, chemical an.-'
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are
reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to
water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed
by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. Some macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality. There are no benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring sites on Fork Swamp; however; a site on Swift Creek at
NC 102 [7.1 km (4.4 mi stream distance) upstream from the confluence of Fork Swamp
and Swift Creek] was surveyed in July 1991 and received a taxa richness value of 8, a
Biotic Index value of 2.93 and a bioclassification of Fair. Fork Swamp is listed as a
partially supporting impaired water, due to sedimentation and turbidity (DEM, 1992).
Fish tissue analysis was done for Fork Swamp at SR 1700 in December 1986.
This site is 7.9 km (4.9 mi stream distance) downstream from the project location.
Samples were analyzed for pesticides and organics. All results were lower than FDA
criteria (DEM, 1992).
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards. No AMS stations are located near the 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. No NPDES dischargers are located within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project area.

6
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Utilizing the full proposed ROW widths, anticipated impacts to Fork Swamp and
the two unnamed tributaries will be 30.5 in (100.0 linear ft) each, fora total impact of
91.5 in (300.0 linear ft). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of
way, therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction. -
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds fr9m highway runoff, construction
and toxic spills. '
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters
and Sedimentation Control guidelines must be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval should also be strictly enforced.
It should be noted that a separate construction project (TIP No. B-3502) is
proposed for replacing the bridge over Fork Swamp. This project is scheduled for
completion before the start of the widening project, and involves replacing the existing
bridge with an extended culvert. Traffic will be maintained with an on-site detour to the
north of the road, over this culvert. If the widening project can be accommodated with
this culvert, then the effects on Fork Swamp from the widening project will be
reduced.
10 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 and follow
7
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. 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. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 Biotic Communities.
Three communities are identified in the project study area: maintained/disturbed,
streambank, and Coastal Plain Perennial Stream. Community boundaries within the
study area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them, and
terrestrial faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities
for shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed.
This is the most common community type found within the project boundaries.
Several forms of the maintained/disturbed community are present, including frequently
maintained road shoulder, frequently maintained yards, infrequently maintained
powerline easement, and agricultural fields.
Flora found in the frequently maintained road shoulder community includes
fescue (Festuca spp.), beadgrass (Pasnalum spp.), crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), English
plantain (Plantego lanceolata), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.),
henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), geranium (Geranium spp.) and field garlic (Allium
vineale).
Flora found in the frequently maintained yards (residential and commercial)
includes the species found in the road shoulder community, as well as various ornamental
plants such as azalea (Rhododendron spp.), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), oak
(Quercus spp.), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
Flora found in the infrequently maintained powerline easement includes Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus
spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis), smartweed
(Polygonum spp.), Japanese grass (Microstegium spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and
saplings of sweetaum (Liquidambar styracy?ua) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). y
8
Flora found Jn the agricultural fields consists mainly of planted crops, including
soybeans and cotton. At the time of the site visit, the fields were mostly bare, as the
crops had been harvested. There is weedy vegetation around the edges of the fields
(which are frequently ditched), including Japanese grass, giant cane, smartweed,
goldenrod, fescue, greenbrier, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, pokeweed, and
sweetgum saplings.
3.1.2 Streambank
The first unnamed tributary (UT #1) has weedy vegetation such as greenbrier,
Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), giant cane, black willow
(Salix nigra), and red maple (Ater rubrum) along its banks, but this vegetated buffer is
very narrow and often sparse.
Fork Swamp has steep banks and a wooded buffer, although within the project
boundaries the infrequently maintained powerline easement is the only community.
Beyond the powerline easement, there is a mixed hardwood forest consisting of
sweetgum, tulip poplar, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), American holly (Ilex
opaca), loblolly pine, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and greenbrier.
The second unnamed tributary (UT #2) has a narrow streambank community of
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar, sweet&um, red maple, black willow,
Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and grapes (Vitis spp.). Herbaceous vegetation
immediately adjacent to the stream includes Japanese grass and soft rush (Juncus
effusus).
3.1.3 Coastal Plain Perennial Stream
There are three stream crossings within the project area: Fork Swamp and two
unnamed tributaries. to it. All three are fairly small in the project area, and have been
impacted by development (agriculture practices, channelization, etc.). No submerged
aquatic vegetation was observed in any of the streams, and for the most part, the canopy
was open.
3.2 Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area
will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section addresses the fauna
likely to be found in the project study area.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the maintained/disturbed and streambank communities
includes raccoon* (Procyon lotor), opossum* (Didelphis virginiana), hispid cotton rat*
(Sigmodon hispidus), muskrat* (Ondatra zibethicus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
9
eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humilis), southern toad (Bufo terrestris), rat
snake (Elapheobsoleta) and Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis)
Avian species utilizing this area include junco* (Junco hyemalis), chipping
sparrow* (Spizella passerina), flicker* (Colaptes auratus), tufted titmouse (Parus
bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), European starling* (Sturnus
vulgaris) and turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura).
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish such as mosquitofish* (Gambusia ajinis), pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), redfin pickerel (Esox
americanus), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and amphibians such as the Southern cricket
frog (Acris gryllus) would utilize the shallow, fairly disturbed habitat present in the three
streams in the project study area. Invertebrates that would be present include: crayfish
(family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata,
and caddisfly larvae (Order Tricoptera),
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed widening 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 terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of way width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community type Impacts
Maintained/Disturbed 14.09 (34.83)
Streambank 0.14 (0.32)
Total 14.23 (35.15)
Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening Fire Tower Rd. will reduce habitat for
faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope
of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
10
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for
the species.
Wildlife mortality may increase as a result of the proposed improvements and the
increased volume of traffic. Many species can cross a two-lane road but have more
difficulty with a four- or five-lane crossing. During the site visit, a road-killed opossum
was observed near the bridge over Fork Swamp, indicating that wildlife mortality is
already occurring and will likely increase after the project is complete.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct.
impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may
result in long term or irreversible effects. Replacing the existing bridge over Fork
Swamp with a culvert may also have serious effects on the stream community. Culverted
streams are more susceptible to scouring near the culvert, and loss of habitat can
adversely affect benthic organisms.
Impacts often associated with in-stream constzuction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
II
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 Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) 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 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland. Based on these criteria, no jurisdictional
wetlands are present within project boundaries. .
Fork Swamp and its unnamed tributaries are jurisdictional surface waters
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the
biological, physical and water quality aspects of these streams are presented in previous
sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface water areas in the proposed road widening project
area are 30.5 in (100.0 ft) for each of the three stream crossings (Fork Swamp, UT #1, UT
#2), for a total surface water impact of 91.5 in (300.0 ft). Anticipated impacts to these
areas are determined by using the entire project ROW'width. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual surface water impacts
may be considerably less.
It should again be noted that a separate construction project (TIP No. B-3502) is
proposed for replacing the bridge over Fork Swamp. If the widening project can be
accommodated with the culvert from the bridge replacement, then the effects on
Fork Swamp from the widening project will be reduced.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." The project is likely to qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14.
12
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction orother land manipulations.
4.1.4 Mitigation
. The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands).
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states that in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to;offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable
in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. .
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other
practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
13
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory
mitigation, is not likely to be necessary for this project.
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 human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect 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. Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of 14
May 1998, the FWS lists the following federally protected species for Pitt County (Table.
3). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat requirements follows.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Pitt Chung-.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spinymussel, Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Trichechus manatus Manatee Endangered
Endangered-- a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened--a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spiny mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River drainage basins,
and requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The
stream substrate is usually composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water
needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as
an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This mussel is named for its
spines, which project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As
many as 12 spines can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in texture. The
nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).
14
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of a fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, silt free stream with a
substrate composed:=of uncompacted gravel and sand is not present within the project area.
Additionally, a visual and tactile search of the streambeds in the project area did not
discover any mussel fauna. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats has no record for the presence of the Tar River spinymussel within the
project vicinity.. Therefore, project construction will not affect the Tar River spinymussel.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white. head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are
the major food source for bald eagles. Other. sources include.coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting habitat in the form of large trees with a clear flight path to water is
not present within the project vicinity. Additionally, there are no water resources of
sufficient size to provide foraging opportunities for the bald eagle within the project area.
The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no
record. for the presence of the bald eagle within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect the bald eagle.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
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
15
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 200.0 ha (500.0 ac). 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 in (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30.0-50.0 ft)
high. They can be identified by a large encrustation 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
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for the RCW are
not present within the project vicinity. There are no old growth stands of southern pine in
vicinity of the project. Additionally, forested areas in the project vicinity consist of mixed
pine/hardwood forests, which are less than 50% pine and generally have a dense understor,
of hardwood saplings and shrubs. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of the RCW within the project
vicinity. Therefore, no impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project
construction.
Trichechus manatus (Manatee) Endangered
Animal Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67; 6/2/70
The manatee is a large, gray or brown, barrel shaped, aquatic mammal. The
hindlimbs of the manatee are absent, and the forelimbs have been modified into flippers.
The tail is flattened horizontally. The wrinkled body is nearly hairless except for stiff
"whiskers" on the muzzle. In clear water most of a manatees body is visible, however in
murky waters (like North Carolina) only a small part of the head and nose are visible.
Manatees are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt water bays,
and as far off shore as 3.7 miles. They are found in freshwater and marine habitats at
shallow depths of 1.5 m or higher. In the winter, between October and April, manatees
concentrate in areas with warm water. During other times of the year habitats appropriate
for the manatee are those with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and in
proximity to freshwater. It is believed that manatees require a source of freshwater to
drink. Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but
they may occasionally feed on fish.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
No habitat in the form of canals, rivers, estuaries. or salt-water bays is present
within the project area. The only water resources present are small streams, which will not
support manatee populations. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species

16
and unique habitats has no record for the presence of the manatee within the project
vicinity. Therefore,' no impact to the manatee will result from project construction.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are seven Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Pitt County. Federal
Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly candidate species, or
species under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to
support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 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 4 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Table 4. Federal
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat
Ammodramus henslowd Henslow's sparrow SR No
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T No
Procambarus medialis Tar River crayfish SR Yes
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane W1 No
Tolfreldia glabra Carolina asphodel C No
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"C"--A Candidate species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North
Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and
sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). The species is generally more common elsewhere
in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W 1 "--A Watch Category I species is defined as a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively
well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
(NHP, 1997)
A mussel survey was conducted during the site visit, specifically searching for the
federally endangered Tar River spinymussel. No mussel fauna was observed during this
survey. Surveys for the other state-listed species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
ecies of Concern in Pitt County
I 7
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of Federal
Species of Concern in or near the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J. L., 1997. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program..
Cowardin, L. M., et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. D.C.,
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manua:,"
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 Survev of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall; 1997. "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 Vir inia. Chapel 11?11, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC, Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins." Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1992. "Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document: Neuse
River Basin." Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan."
Raleigh.
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.
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.

18

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County. Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. "Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina." Asheville.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Vir inia
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
January 7,1998
'JAM n t9?
MEMORANDUM TO: File "AL
J ? / `c?R,y11?N
FROM: S. Eric Midkiff, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Greenville, SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road), from SR 1128
(Davenport Farm Road) to SR 1709 (Corey Road), Pitt
County, State Project No. 8.2220901, Federal Aid
Project No. MASTP-1708(1), TIP Project No. U-3613
A scoping meeting was held for the subject project on December 9,1997 in
the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room. The following
people attended:
Eric Midkiff Planning and Environmental Branch
Wilson Stroud Planning and Environmental Branch
Jacqueline Graham Planning and Environmental Branch
Lubin Prevatt Planning and Environmental Branch
Chris Murray Planning and Environmental Branch
Phil Dickerson Pitt County
James Rhodes Pitt County
Tom Tysinger City of Greenville
Jim Jatko City of Greenville
Neil Lassiter Division 2
E. B. Latham Division 2
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Tamra Shaw Statewide Planning Branch
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Buddy Murr Traffic Engineering
Stephen Lowry Traffic Engineering
Kifah Kamil Traffic Engineering
Gary Parker Traffic Engineering
Drew Thomas Traffic Engineering
Betty Yancey Right of Way Branch
Rob Allen Photogrammetry Unit
Lanette Cook Program Development
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Tom Tarleton Location and Surveys
Allen Thompson Structure Design Unit
1
The meeting opened with a general description of the project. The
proposed improvements consist of widening Fire Tower Road (SR 1708) from
Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) to Corey Road (SR 1709). A portion of the proposed
project, from Davenport Farm Road to NC 11-903, will be constructed on new location.
The project length is 6.6 kilometers (4.1 miles). The project is shown in Figure 1. The
purpose of the project is to upgrade existing Fire Tower Road to provide an
acceptable level of traffic service through the design year 2020, and to provide
connectivity and improve traffic flow in southern Greenville.
Typical Cross Section
Two typical sections will be studied: 1) a 5-lane, 68-foot, face to face curb
and gutter section and 2) a 4-lane curb and gutter section with a 16-foot raised
island separating opposing travel lanes. The inside lanes for both sections will be
12 feet wide and the outside lanes will be 14 feet wide to accommodate bicycle
traffic.
The five-lane curb and gutter section is recommended in the Greenville
Thoroughfare Plan, NCDOT's 1997 Feasibility Study, and the NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program. The four-lane, divided section is
preferred by the City of Greenville. Fire Tower Road, east of the project, is a 5-
lane curb and gutter facility. However, Greenville is considering converting
some parts of that 5-lane roadway to divided sections and is stressing the 4-lane,
divided concept for all new city streets. The City also has a conceptual plan for
Fire Tower Road with median break locations denoted based on planned
development in the area.
Greenville representatives stated that the sections of Fire Tower Road
under Greenville jurisdiction have been protected from future development (50
feet to each side of the centerline) in anticipation of the proposed widening.
Both typical sections to be studied for the proposed project can be
accommodated within 100 feet of right of way.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The studied portion of Fire Tower Road is included in the current Bicycle
and Pedestrian Program of the Transportation Improvement Program as an
incidental project. The TIP recommends wide outside lanes and sidewalks along
Fire Tower Road from NC 11-903 to Corey Road, and along the proposed Fire
Tower Road extension from Davenport Farm Road to NC 11-903. Therefore, the
need for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations will be considered during
planning studies for U-3613.
2
Fourteen-foot outside lanes are included in the typical sections to be
studied for project U-3613. The City of Greenville is supportive of this
recommendation. City representatives also suggested providing 11-foot lanes
instead of 12-foot lanes in order to accommodate 4 feet of pavement in the
outside lanes for bicycle travel. The City indicated that Fire Tower Road east of
the project has differential striping to provide 13-foot outside lanes for bicycle
travel.
The City of Greenville is interested in incorporating sidewalks into the
proposed improvements and requested NCDOT's participation in the funding of
sidewalks. It was noted that portions of the project are under Greenville
jurisdiction while other portions are under Town of Winterville jurisdiction.
Greenville representatives agreed to work with the Town of Winterville and to
note highest priority areas for sidewalk funding. City representatives were
given a copy of NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy Guidelines. The Guidelines state
that NCDOT will contribute to the construction of sidewalks along
transport--tic:: projects on a cost sharing basis providing the intent of the criteria
explained in the guidelines are met. The City of Greenville must provide
information to the Department to justify the need for sidewalks along the project.
NCDOT will coordinate with the City concerning pedestrian accommodations.
The City must submit their request by the close of the comment period following
the public hearing, but we would appreciate receiving it as soon as possible.
Structures
Bridge # 169, which carries Fire Tower Road over Fork Swamp, will be
replaced as part of Project U-3613. That bridge has a sufficiency rating of 22.9,
but will be capable of providing service until the construction of the proposed
improvements to Fire Tower Road (fiscal year 2002). Hydraulics commented
that replacing the bridge with a culvert is a possibility. The cost for replacing
Bridge # 169 is not included in the current construction cost estimate. Currently,
the bridge is scheduled to be replaced under TIP Project B-3502; however, the TIP
will be revised and the bridge will be replaced as part of TIP Project U-3613.
Bridge # 183 carries Davenport Farm Road over Swift Creek. The bridge
has a sufficiency rating of 80.4 with 30 years of estimated remaining life. Two of
the alternatives for extending Fire Tower Road shown at the scoping meeting tie
into Davenport Farm Road east of Swift Creek and would use the existing bridge.
(see Figure 2). The third alternative ties into Davenport Farm Road west of the
creek and would require construction of a new bridge or culvert.
3
Railroad Crossing
Fire Tower Road crosses the CSX Railroad between NC 11-903 and SR
1700 (Old Tar Road). Two trains per day utilize the crossing. A grade separation
at the crossing will not be studied as part of the proposed improvements due to
the extensive property damage that would result from its construction. The
construction of new gates and signals is included in the proposed improvements.
It was noted that the cost for providing the new railroad signal will likely be in
excess of $100,000. The current cost estimate allows only $10,000 for railroad
signals.
Si als
The need for traffic signals along the project will be assessed during
planning studies. Currently, traffic signals exist at NC 11-903, SR 1700, and SR
1709. Greenville officials stated that a new traffic signal will likely be needed at
Winding Branches Drive and at Evans Drive or Hilltop Drive. It is anticipated
that a new signal will be needed at Evans or Hilltop due to a proposed road that
will connect the Glendale and Bedford subdivisions to Fire Tower Road in that
area. The City has projected traffic volumes for the proposed new intersection.
Plan Sheets
Roadway Designs current schedule shows that plan sheets for the
widening section of the project, from Corey Road to NC 11-903, will be requested
in February, 1998 and provided in December, 1998. Photogrammetry indicated
that the schedule was acceptable. Photogrammetry stated that some type of
mapping will be provided in order to prepare preliminary designs for the new
location portion of the project, if requested. It is not likely that adequate
mapping exists for preliminary design work at this time. In order to verify the
western project terminal (see "Need for Fire Tower Road Extension" section on
pages 6 and 7) the request date for mapping may be delayed. The project area
must be flown no later than spring of 1998 so that mapping can be prepared by
December, 1998.
Traffic Projections
NC 11-903 divides the project between Fire Tower Road and the proposed.
Fire Tower Road Extension. NC 11-903 is also the dividing line between
contrasting traffic projections. Much lower traffic volumes are projected for the
new location extension than are projected for existing Fire Tower Road. Also,
traffic projections depend on whether an intersection will be constructed at the
4
junction of Davenport Farm Road and the proposed Greenville Southwest
Bypass under TIP Project R-2250.
With the Southwest Bypass/ Davenport Farm Road interchange, Fire
Tower Road will carry 24,000 vpd in the year 2000 and 32,000 vpd in the year
2020, while the new location extension will carry 4,000 vpd and 8,500 vpd in
those two years. Without the interchange, Fire Tower Road will carry 20,000 vpd
in the year 2000 and 30,000 vpd in the year 2020, while the extension will carry
1,500 vpd and 3,000 vpd in those two years.
Fire Tower Road Extension Alternatives
Extending Fire Tower Road from NC 11-903 to Davenport Farm Road on
new location is currently included as part of Project U-3613. Three alternatives
for the extension were presented at the meeting. Those alternatives are shown in
Figure 2 and are discussed below:
Feasibility Study Alignment:
This alignment was based on the 1997 Feasibility Study. This
northernmost alignment utilizes land set aside by Pitt Community
College for the proposed extension of Fire Tower Road from NC 11-903 to
SR 1131 (Reedy Branch Road). The alignment continues west, crosses
Swift Creek at a new location, and ties into Davenport Farm Road at the
Woodridge Subdivision. This alternative would have the best horizontal
alignment of the three alternatives. It is the longest of the three
alternatives and would likely cause relocatees. This alternative also
crosses Swift Creek at an undisturbed new location and would require the
construction of a new bridge or culvert over Swift Creek.
Please note in the scoping meeting it was incorrectly reported
that the Feasibility Study alignment was also the Greenville
Thoroughfare Plan alignment. The Greenville Thoroughfare Plan
alignment for the Fire Tower Road extension is actually Alternative
Alignment 1 described below. Scoping participants agreed that the
Feasibility Study alignment was the least desirable of the three
alternatives due to its impact on existing development and Swift Creek
and due to its greater length. However, Pitt Community College was
supportive of this alignment and will be consulted before the alignment is
dropped from consideration.
5
Alternative Alignment 1:
This alignment most closely follows the alignment presented in the
Greenville Thoroughfare Plan (although this was not reported in the
scoping meeting). This alternative is located south of the Feasibility
Study alignment and does not utilize land set aside by the College for the
proposed extension. It would likely impact a portion of the future site of
Sams Club in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 11-903 and
Dr. Fulford Road (SR 1152). The alignment crosses Reedy Branch Road
just north of the Freewill Baptist Church. The alignment then intersects
Davenport Farm Road east of Swift Creek. This alternative is shorter than
the Feasibility Study alignment and could be constructed with 1 relocatee
at the most. The alignment would not require a new crossing of Swift
Creek. Scoping participants were in favor of dropping this alternative
from further consideration because it had no advantages over the shorter
Alternative Alignment 2 described below. However, since after the
meeting it was discovered that this alignment is shown in the Greenville
Thoroughfare Plan, it will be retained, at least for public comment.
Alternative Alignment 2:
This alignment is the southernmost and shortest of the three
alternatives presented. It intersects Davenport Farm Road east of Reedy
Branch Road and, like Alternative Alignment 1, would not require a new
crossing of Swift Creek. This alternative would likely be constructed with
no relocatees, and was preferred by scoping participants. It was noted
that this alignment would not use land set aside by Pitt Community
College for the proposed extension and would likely impact a portion of
the future site of Sams Club at the corner of NC 11-903 and Dr. Fulford
Road.
Need For Fire Tower Road Extension
Scoping participants discussed the need for studying the new location
extension of Fire Tower Road at this time. Currently, the project is broken into
three parts: A) From Davenport Farm Road (SR 1128) to NC 11-903, B) From NC
11-903 to Old Tar Road (SR 1700), and C) From Old Tar Road to Corey Road (SR
1709). The new location portion, Part A, is scheduled "Post Year" (after fiscal
year 2004) in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program. Section B is
scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year 2003 and construction in
fiscal year 2004. Section C is scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year
2004 and construction after fiscal year 2004. Due to the post year status and the
low projected traffic volumes on the new location portion of the project (Section
6
A), scoping participants discussed the possibility of dropping the extension from
current project studies and addressing it at a later time. Some participants
thought the limits of the widening portion of the project, Fire Tower Road from
NC 11-903 to Corey Road, may be more logical project terminals at this time.
Greenville officials explained that the Greenville MPO has prioritized the
project in two sections. The highest priority has been placed on Fire Tower
Road, from Reedy Branch Road (SR 1131) to Corey Road. Improvements in this
area would consist mainly of widening Fire Tower Road. However, between NC
11-903 and Reedy Branch Road, a short new location extension of Fire Tower
Road would be required. The MPO also supports a further extension of Fire
Tower Road from Reedy Branch Road to Davenport Farm Road; however, that
improvement is not as high a priority for the Greenville MPO as the previously
described section.
The extension of Fire Tower Road to Reedy Branch Road is also desired by
Pitt Community College. The College has approached NCDOT about
abandoning the portion of Reedy Branch Road in the vicinity of the College once
the Fire Tower Road extension from Reedy Branch Road to NC 11-903 is
complete.
City of Greenville officials agreed to discuss the possibility of placing the
highest priority on the widening of Fire Tower Road from Corey Road to NC 11-
903 at its January, 1998 MPO meeting. Under that scenario, the proposed .
extension from NC 11-903 to Davenport Farm Road, including the short section
between NC 11-903 and Reedy Branch Road, would be a lower priority. City
officials also agreed to discuss the need and schedule for the extension, as well as
extension alternatives, with Pitt Community College. City officials believed,
however, that the short extension of Fire Tower Road from NC 11-903 to Reedy
Branch Road will remain a priority for the MPO and the College.
Environmental Input
The State Historic Preservation Office commented that an historic
architectural survey was completed in 1990, and that a new survey by NCDOT
will probably not be required. Potential historic resources in the area include the
Reedy Branch Freewill Baptist Church, located at the corner of Davenport Farm
Road and Reedy Branch Road, and the Alfred Moore House, located on the north
side of Fire Tower Road just east of Old Tar Road (SR 1700). The Alfred Moore
House is on the State Study List for inclusion in the National Register. Debbie
Bevin suggested that, if the Moore house is impacted by the project,
consideration be given to moving it as mitigation. She also indicated a local
7
historic group may be interested in obtaining the house. SHPO also commented
that an archaeological survey will probably be necessary.
Chris Murray indicated based on wetland mapping, it appears that
wetlands occur in the project area at Swift Creek, at a small culvert crossing
between NC 11-903 and the CSX Railroad, and at Fork Swamp. Surveys for the
endangered Tar spinymussel will be necessary. The Division of Water Quality
commented before the meeting that the project area is located within the Neuse
River Basin, and that new water quality regulations governing the basin will be
in effect.
Project Schedule
Citizens Informational Workshop - Spring, 1998
Environmental Assessment - August, 1999
Public Hearing - Fall, 1999
Finding of No Significant Impact - April, 2000
Right of Way and Construction Schedules
Section A (From Davenport Farm Road to NC 11-903):
Right of way: Post-Year (after 2004)
Construction: Post-Year (after 2004)
Section B (From NC 11-903 to Old Tar Road):
Right of way: Year 2003
Construction: Year 2004
Section C (From Old Tar Road to Corey Road):
Right of way: Year 2004
Construction: Post-Year (after 2004)
The above right of way and construction dates are designated in the
current TIP. However, NCDOT is conducting planning and design studies in
order to meet the production schedule of right of way acquisition in January,
2001 and construction in July, 2002 for the entire project. The production
schedule is subject to the availability of funding.
8
SEM
cc: Scoping Participants
H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Jay Bennett, P. E. (R-2250)
Ed Lewis (R-2250)
Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
David Foster, P. E.
David Robinson, Ph.D., P. E.
9
i s
1? s l31 30 9
Stokes
22 ? ? .. ??• ? ? r i ?Falklantl 11 ?
ci 1
.Y '\ 1 2 Fountain Bruce { 3 3 Ouse 30
Toddy 121 43 3 `1 ?3 9Pactolus.
??. '? 264 9
4 e. C, ffl,
Lam?" -Be rt>
4-r,. Oson a Ns
!3 J 7 1 Grimasland 33
i
re4ar 1 T T
t nterville Choc,
ou ree Black J.
O ?Ayden 11 Sh erdyr
1203 -/ e 1 x
u a
1
1135 Calico
ry ? i
Grifton
I C3)
1127
' I
I tub
FROG LEVEL ----_-`_?j END
PITT PROJECT
COMMUNITY
iBE L 0
1134 _ COLLEGE t-
a
BEGIN 1700 i 17
128 F -- ;'
1127
PROJECT 1708
1709
1127 1128 BRIDGE #169 1725
1128 ---- _.._ _
1126 1130
•_
1716
1127
1129 WO THI NGT CR
SWIFT CREEK 11 ;-.-?>
' 903 i_- i N i 1711
1 L ' -
1125
1125 i r--- r? 1711
1127 ( 1
1712
1131 / 1725
© 1120 } 1713
114 1713 1 5 -
903 ------ '
i
\ •J O
TON
i
1117
1117 .1
120 1149
n
1119 11
111 ?\ TI ??''`
L
f 1120 -
1119
LEGEND
??????`? NEW LOCATION
WIDENING EXISTING ROADWAY

1717

GI?II II I i;l.'11 'It'nl ?II??( }?`II?•?r tl' ? r,'' + 1 ` 11 `'%'?_? ,•.l '•-' I ¦j' +'I qtr 1--,; ncl ??I,A, J
,
(1.OJ O
wll'P1 ?[+ l L?! I I 11'' I ??' ?? \ i (Ti
ill I II II' 41 j l t t_ ?/ N U ( } ?, •?'
Lim
I li {
y\
?
-
W F
i N
W
_
-?

4 i O CI
r
1r D
0
Ca.l % ?P CL
GOi? O
arF-?M_
U) IL
LL
> to N cD
Q N M
Oa?? 0 a`r2E c0
?Qzz
0)
' C)
co
V Z Z
-? t o
o o
co
?.r0iv m•?, o.on-
-
???? j
•
J ? a aaa
x .
°1
_
m. CC WQ m~ u

P ? m

2
re, r n
Q
)fj
I?x ¦I. ' ? 1 I, ?11j? t I I h r , , .:.I <_,I? ¦ I It r l?fl t I 1 + •.
- 1,1'. • I / t r 7 ! I rl ,, r i'. ,., '7 r?l ,., ?.,; fl'. I' Ih•ry ? ' ''1 +,?. ,. 1?_I
I??? ? : ? ? '-hl ? e a+ ,II( iuryl. -t, II ? I ICi ..• ? N ?.71 .i1• `:' ? ')1 11 ,1- I,jl, 'I klrh'F. jl , •r- 1
_ I I /? ,Jar i .U i' ? _)? I'I I f 1 I ,I!t I ? +., l.`il ? i ? ?` ,.. 1 , i , ? ??„`?I ?il,lli `?•,,i111 F.f1, .a.''` I •., ,, t
'¦ ¦ r. 1. , 1 .I. 1' ! !
I I /:.III , i'l, ' I.I',, • , ?),.ti':I )IU' •),?; tJt,
I / 'I I,rf, ?/?1
I
¦ 'f k. I I r t. r
.I'
,. ?,1•I I I /\ I? , ...!' , ; rl, Q ?I,I-i it j'41t-.Ity , ? ? I
41
r ..
1
't
¦
. t
r
0 :
_ 206 ON /n
I
I . is
I r
.
I ? i•
J
II. :I i, _c'/ •L._ a (n ., r.¦ I jl'.I ,t (n.6.il I_, 't I'? ,". ; ', "t ^rr+..
............
' _ I \?? ? II ? i I _ • \` r--t J 1.,1 I ,.. It•?' ,,:?, t`r^1' ?T?r7Y. • li it ' ??(
;!If ,, \. III ? 1 lV,h
Nif
loa
.? '.I .111 i':1 t, r t 1f I? ..'• '1 ? • / :.
I 61-
i i ?, - ? tt411 i?. , ,! { 1 FI r ? ,f f11 ? t! i
• '? -'.I , 1.1I ,1?'' G I ' id. -I.III??rllgi'tl, i+?',1,- l'7? 'I'r pt l.f 1:7' 1111,. ! I?
,e I 'I ,f, f. r r '.-0i'+Illr fy. yl;l 111 i?? II?fF? 1t?J?'n.;' }r it y7 ,, I i
:i li' .j ?.?', 5 ' + n- f tii r;(, . ,,,, • 't ,4 •(11 f 'r. ? ? 11>. ?, '11 r' ?1 i r' I
- /? ?( I.'I' a„I ?I ° ?? I'.t.?z 'I,.'r; .t' 'I?, Illihl.!It r "' 1 I,t ¦ - I?•,. ,p?I I -??:1 _?
1 ( ?I! 'I i;f ? ? y ?a I :9. !- -`'., ?A.( '' '` •• I??: '. .II '.!1 „?1' /
1 ;` a I
J!MS ,
I `
N ( }
I IG{{ sl'' ? ,ila ' -/ l .' "? +1'1•• ?., I',,; pi. '( -tU ill t ? -; I, II ! r' '•r
I' •• . I ? ?? II ?'/ I•I? ', `,, \C` I t? '? ?'? - lf'' J 1i.1?,.1 /' ..T,
r ?rr(• ),• 1- \ so, • .+? t Illl •il'J it ,l .t. 1, •
, I \
?t
:
I ;!i1 r , ( ? rr l II , L f I . rl ;, L?! _
''I `If r I - • ? I If; r /, t ,•li i , 1 t. {? 7 r .. ? ? I , 'r I ? !I",' ? .? ' i4 ? i i,
`II ' l ? a IIi + {- l , Il ! .C!i:+ ? 'i 1 4I III
` t t, I I ,i 1 ;t (iAl (I' 7If
F d? ?'! Il !. O
I ,
r I ?i t
?. 1 r
Ir
t• :i L
3. • I , I L. , IV
I. .7 L. 1. ;I•„
1 r?` `y E N ?
r
r
•?,r i
r t•• •I ?
I I .l r• •
kr ,'
li :: i. !? II•Il,i', I r, o ? ?,.;i I' '?: \ c .,... ..?
?°• y I
I
N I
E E
t?1111 , {,? 'J Iil kl '{ • , I-., ' , '1 • jl r e Yq 'c I ,...Ir ?
0
0) 0)
LIP r , ,ilitl Jil'li'ir 'I+IIf' ti P /', • ! lid,`I?yll I, 'I:i! I 7 ._ ._
' I I 7 ? , '.', CH. (fl , rI 1 J' r I - .b.l
,', I _, Ilr,r'' tf.. l' ,y „ II, , .I ?% r. I t-, '?r ¦ I'. ' ter'{f?' to rl, +'.: I
' I?? III q) 1 I?I 1' 1.'i1? I 1H I ? , 'A,11: f1 r' 1 ? ? ? III ,
1 ' "i I' i I 1 fllJpl I?if' ?(,I ' ?,:II a1 Li J(„ r ? y I?f1' ?, > >
i t<, i i , O \Q, c?a
, V
I;t1i I?In e l =„2?1 I 'j';1 Ia ,/ lilll 1 I I'l ( I 1 '. ; `?? I '`
I I, P I• , , r (ll I.
I II? J I' .i7?Il l l r15'' I ?! I 1i! {''AIr9):n , f ! ??' r, I ' ? t ??I;
!' I I ? ? q; ? f 3ili? II ,.? j ! { ..L., I `I:'I 4yl;,j! IJ I I \ '1 r ;j ! ? r3 Ir' ?';1? \
'I-,(12; 7 I I ? ' rj I y l; 111 11:,1 Ill .. I { 1 (L .?' ('',., ,
i 1?t tl,t ? Id I I l ?'' at ql l?l, l? ,J:r I I ,'I 1 I ,T- ' .-t L lJ 1 I. 1; ? \
'-I t* I th ? r,l l .,16. I, y '! j I r l UI -i i .) 1 2! i . I Q r d ' I {: ;, S}-
!
1,1 I' ? r,l I1j I !? :
11 5. IIII I 1111 ,.;11 jl ll'1lll 1 '?ct III i!I I aI I i( , ,?. 114(!
I: I 1111 i -1IJ I''I ., I j'.t , t m
•
j? r?,t,? r-l.? sr I1 r' ! t ?./ t ?sl I?IsI ,Y I!'
Ili 11 I ? i? ,.' ? \. ,. ? ,, 1 •,,,,
I ' I , J? I I " • llb ,, I 'L
l14fi I,I it ? I r'. . 1' t , ,? 1 ': I Iry ¦. I ? i f /
1,1 t u
.,. i Ir r I, ,, ' !!' ,1, .' 11 1 y' :ilk` ??
_ N f h i,

W Q Q
'
V
W
?
1
-
. 1
-
1
1
. 1
- ? 1
- 1 -
- ? 1
-
I
-

-
- 1 ?

ftz?
Q
Do

0 *#
1
• 0 0
D •
e
0

„a 5fA7pv
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPOmnoN
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
ell
%Z
4r;? r .?,f
DWQ - DENR
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road), From
SR 1128 (Davenport Farm Road) to SR 1709 (Corey Road), Pitt
County, State Project No. 8.2220901, Federal Aid Project
No. MASTP-1708(1), TIP Project No. U-3613
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 IDecember, 9, 1997 at 2:00 P. N? in the Planning and Environmental
Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting
or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Eric Midkiff, P.E., Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 242.
EM/plr
Attachment
5
?r
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # U-3613
PROJECT # 8.2220901
F.A. PROJECT # MASTP-1708(1)
DIVISION: 2 COUNTY: Pitt
ROUTE: SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road)
Date: November 10, 1997
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
? Programming
® Planning
? Design
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Minor Urban Arterial
LENGTH: 6.6 kilometers (4.1 miles)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Upgrade existing SR 1708 to provide an acceptable level of
traffic service through the design year 2020. Also, provide connectivity and improve
traffic flow in southern Greenville
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: Part of the project involves widening an existing two-lane
facility and part involves constructing a new facility on new location. From SR 1128
(Davenport Farm Road) to NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive), construct a five-lane curb and
gutter facility on 100 feet of right of way on new location. Along the new location
section, a new structure will be required to cross Swift Creek. The length of the new
location section is 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles). From NC 11-903 to east of SR 1709 (Corey
Road), widen the existing 2-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter facility on 100 feet
of right of way. A new bridge will be required to replace existing Bridge # 169 over Fork
Swamp. The widening portion of the project is 4.7 kilometers (2.8 miles) in length.
In addition to the above improvements, the construction of a two lane facility on
multi-lane right of way will be considered for the new location portion of the project.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA August, 1999
FONSI April, 2000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full ? Partial ? None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 2
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: 2-lane, 22-foot pavement and grass shoulders
Proposed: 5-lane, 20.7 meter (68 foot) wide curb and gutter section
with 3 meter (10 foot) berms
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1997): 3000 to 16,000 vpd
Design Year (2020): 6,100 to 24,500 vpd
% TTST 1% DUAL 1% DHV Unknown
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ® 3R ?
DESIGN SPEED: 80 km/h (50 mph)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... * $ 10,500,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation,
utilities and acquisition) ...... ............ $ 5,400,000
Total Cost ................................... $ 15,900,000
* The construction of a two-lane facility on multi-lane right of way for the
new location portion of the project would reduce the construction cost of
the project by $ 1,700,000.
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 10,500,000
Right of Way .................................. $ 5,400,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 15,900,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
® Pavement:
®Surface ......................................... $ 2,048,510
?Base ........................................... $
?Q.M.S. Asphalt Plant Mix ................................ $
?Asphalt Cement .......................................... $
?Non-Strip Additive ....................................... $
®Pavement Removal ............................... $ 2,900
? Shoulders:
? Paved .......................................... $
? Earthen ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 892,200
? Fine Grading .................................................... $
? Subsurface Items ....................................... $
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 537,200
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 905,000
? Sub-Drainage ......................................... $
® Structures Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation x .......... $
® New Bridge 78' x 60' .......... $ 304,200
? Widen Bridge x .......... $
41 ? Remove Bridge .......... $
? New Culvert: Size Length .......... $
? Culvert Extension ................................. $
? Retaining Walls $
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
? Other Misc. Structures .(Detour Structrure & Approaches).. $
® Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................. $ 440,800
? Concrete Driveways ............................................... $
? Concrete Sidewalk ..................................... $
® Guardrail ............................................ $ 27,600
® Guardrail Anchors ............................................... $ 12,0000
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L.? .......................... $
® Erosion Control ....................................... $- 90,600
? Landscaping .......................................... $
? Lighting .............................................. $
® Traffic Control ........................................ $ 165,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
? Signing:
? New ............. .................. _.. .. $
? Upgraded ....................................... $
® Traffic Signals:
? New .......................................... $
® Revised ........................................ $ 55,000
® RR Signals:
® New ........................................... $ 10,000
? Revised ......................................... $
? With or Without Arms .............................. $
? If 3R:
? Drainage Safety Enhancement ........................ $
? Roadside Safety Enhancement ........................ $
? Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... $
® Pavement Markings:
? Paint .......................................... $
® Thermo ......................................... $ 84,000
? Markers ......................................... $
? Delineators ........................................... $
®Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc ...................... $ 2,161,790
Contract Cost Subtotal ................................ $ 9,079,000
Engineering & Contingencies ................................. $ 1,421,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs ....... ; ........................ $
Force Account ............................................ $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ..................... $ 10,500,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 60'
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN RVIPROVEMENTS?
Yes El No
® New Right of Way Needed: Width: 100 feet .......... $ 5,400,000
? Easements: Type Width .......... $
? Utilities: .............................................. $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: .................................. $ 5,400,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $- 15,900,000
Prepared By: SEM Date: 11-10-97
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
/ (Bethel It I ti
' r J I \?V ? .1 g 711]1 gU l 30 9 ` 1-
".:,r? Stakes 1 i?i
?Falklan 11
ZIOUntaln Bruce 3 ouse 3 - 11 ,1 \l Toddy 111 43 3 fl ?3 9 Pactolus
1 S 4'?
f 14reegll =
•1?,...a. "L a ?-Bel rt>ur', 7I
• mpson
5 0 ??1
° 9 r 7 ?3 GrlmesIand 33
26°A 1 T T
a nterville chocc r
--- - - - ou ree - - Black 1:
1 `
0 ?Ayden it Sh erdll
1203 - 1 e I x
I g
1135 7 " Calico
Gri Eton
1127
1
' I
I
I
I i I 1
FROG LEVEL --- END `
l
PITT PROJECT 17
COMMUNITY '
c' 1t,',,BE L OR
1134 COLLEGE j =a
i , •_..- 1` 1700 \ ? 1 ? Ir 1725 ,
128 BEGIN - --- ;' r'
1127 PROJECT -- ! ,/ 1ioa
1 _
1709
1127 1128
; BRIDGE #169 1725
i1 1128
i
1126 c 1130 1, o
-1
49 1736
1127 1129 l / --? - ' WO THI NGT CR
11 r
SWIFT CREEK -' --- --' --
903
1711
1125 1 -
1125 r--- r 1711 `sue i
112_7 7 I °0q i
1712 ,
' 1131 / ? ?••? 1725
C -_ 1120 } 11 ?\I 1713 1 5
1713
-
903 174 LEGEND
r
`
',i
TON ; /Illy NEW LOCATION
• WIDENING EXISTING ROADWAY
1117 i
1117 •I ??-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
120 1149 ?q0 OF TRANSPORTATION
11 v?j DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
O PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
1119 BRANCH
1717 GREENVILLE
> SR 8 (FIRETOWER RD.)
111 N
FROM SR 1128 (DAVENPORT RD.)
TO SR 1709 (COREY RD.)
1120 PITT COUNTY
1119 --- T.I.P. NO. U-3613
! \ _/ 0 KILOMETERS 2
- 14 0 MILES 1 FIGURE 1
C_ NsZA-)
Foy lc Sew-10
?j e-os-e-, YCZ
4e-avy AI?Jl
w?
ate- ??- ??,sJ
c-, SL,,j mso
N
,Ii ,, K J,( J
9,??Ne a ?di? ?C
x?pv.
V ? ? R1?33,?`??k
NT of T United
States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 9, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
pick
This responds to your letter of September 23,. 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed improvements to SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) southeast of the City of Greenville,
Pitt County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3613). This report provides scoping information and is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state
resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes improvements to SR 1708
(Fire Tower Road), from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey Road). The proposed
improvements consist of widening the subject section of Fire Tower Road to a multilane, curb and
gutter facility. The project length is 9.5 kilometers (5.9 miles). Two typical alternatives are under
consideration: (1) a 5-lane facility with a center turn lane, and (2) a 4-lane facility divided by a
raised island. Symmetrical and asymmetrical widening will be investigated. It is anticipated that
the proposed improvements will be accommodate within 30 meters (100 feet) of right-of-way. No
control of access is proposed.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and
to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Greenville SE and Greenville SW 7.5
Minute Quadrangles indicate that there are wetland resources within the proposed project
corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area,
they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using
an acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of
the projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U. S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the Corps;
2
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects,
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recornmend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed, endangered, threatened, and candidate species
that are known to occur in Pitt County. Habitat requirements for these species should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the
action area of the project, field surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat which
includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project area
and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action, (indirect effects are those that
are caused by the proposed action and are later in tirne, but are still reasonably certain
to occur),
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of larger action and depend on
the larger action for there justification) and interdependent actions (those that have no
independent utility apart from the action under consideration), and,
e. The cumulative impacts of fiiture state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of fiiture Section 7 consultation,
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or associated
habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct mortality,
injury, harassment, the loss of habitat are all ways in which listed species may be adversely
affected,
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria may
include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality, and/or
habitat quantity, and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern include those species for which the Service does not have enough
scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the
present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could become
candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating that they
are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection of the
ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore, it
would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
4
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
FJohh. Hefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachments
cc:
COE, Washington, NC (Michael Bell)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (Cyndi Bell)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Eric Midkitl)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:10/8/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\u-361 3.tip
N. r

r
Greenville
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road)
From NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to
SR 1709 (Corey Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.2220901
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1708(1)
TIP Project No. U-3613
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
V
q11-
11-14,00 `
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Date Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator, FHWA

Greenville
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road)
From NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to
SR 1709 (Corey Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.2220901
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1708(1)
TIP Project No. U-3613
Environmental Assessment
November 2000
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Y

I- 1.3-- 00
:ie Obediente
ect Development Engineer
_/3-
Eric Midkiff,-P.E. V v
Project Development Unit Head
ubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
o,
:° ''? rat.
r!v n
19791 i .:
? ? e
E?
?c
S` ty ...eve IL\`?
FRI C 1,A?? •••`'•
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator-FHWA
U.S. Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, N. C. 27601-1442
Telephone [phone]
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Telephone [phone]

Roadway Design Unit
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) is listed in the 2002-2008 TIP in the Independent Bicycle
Projects section as needing bicycle accommodations. NCDOT has included 14-foot (4.2
m) wide outside lanes within the typical design along the entire length of the project to
accommodate bicycle traffic.
Protect Development and Environmental Analvsis Branch
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore the Neuse Buffer Rules will be
strictly enforced. This issue will be further addressed in the final environmental
document.
3.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Greenville
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road)
From NC 13-903 (Memorial Drive) to
SR 1709 (Corey Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.2220901.
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1708(1)
TIP Project No. U-3613
U-3613
Environmental Assessment
November 2000
Page 1 of 1
4. Descriution of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR
1708 (Fire Tower Road) to a multi-lane facility from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to SR
1709 (Corey Road) in Pitt County (see Figure 1). Estimated project length is 2.65 miles
(4.26 kilometers). The proposed improvements to SR 1708 are described in more detail in
Section II of this report.
The project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2002-
2008 Transportation Improvement Proms (TIP), and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2002 and construction to begin in fiscal year 2003. The
2002-2008 TIP includes a total funding for this project of $20,700,000 which includes
$5,400,000 for right of way acquisition, $14,900,000 for construction, and $400,000 spent
in prior years.
The total cost of the improvements recommended in this document is $ 14,357,500
which includes $ 9,800,000 for construction and $ 4,557,500 for right of way acquisition.
5. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed improvements to Fire Tower Road will provide additional travel
lanes which will alleviate current and future capacity deficiencies along the facility. In
addition, safety will be enhanced along the project as a result of the widened pavement and
additional through and turn lanes. The ability of emergency vehicles to respond quickly
will be improved. Road user costs savings will be realized as a result of more efficient
travel.
It is anticipated that one non-profit organization and one business will be relocated
as a result of the proposed project. It is predicted that noise impacts will not approach or
exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria in the design year 2020. Traffic noise
abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. No
significant impacts to plant and animal life are expected. Impacts to wetlands will be
minimal. This project lies in the Neuse River Basin, therefore, the Neuse Buffer Rules will
be strictly enforced; this issue will be further addressed in the final environmental
document. No federally protected threatened or endangered species will be impacted. No
sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places will be involved. No prime farmland
impacts are expected. The proposed improvements will not cause significant negative
impacts to air quality.
6. Alternatives Considered
A. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The primary mode of transportation in and around Greenville is the automobile.
The City of Greenville does not provide bus, vanpooling, or carpooling services in
the vicinity of the project. Trip origins and destinations are widespread in this area
and public transportation alternatives would not provide the improved access
between southwestern and southeastern Pitt County. Alternatives to the automobile
would not substantially or economically serve to alleviate congestion and improve
safety along SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road). Therefore, providing an alternate mode
of transportation other than the automobile would not serve to meet the purpose and
need of the project.
B. No Build Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse environmental
impacts that are anticipated to result from the project, it would not provide a safer
and more efficient east-west collector facility between Greenville and Winterville
as envisioned by the mutually adopted Greenville Thoroughfare Plan. With the
projected increases in traffic demand, the service provided by the existing roadways
in the area would deteriorate even more if the proposed project were not
constructed. Increased delays would lead to higher operating costs and increased
travel times. Motorist safety and convenience would also be sacrificed, leading to a
greater likelihood of accidents at intersections and driveways due to congestion.
There would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity of the area or
improvements in traffic safety. For these reasons, this alternative is not
recommended, however, it does serve as a basis for comparison of other
alternatives.
C. Recommended Alternative
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to improve SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) from NC 11-903 (Memorial
Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey Road) in Pitt County. The existing facility is to be
widened to a 5-lane undivided, 72 foot (21.9 m) face of curb to face of curb, curb
and gutter section with a 10 foot (3.0m) berm from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to
Baywood Drive (western entrance). From Baywood Drive to approximately 700
feet (213.4m) west of SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) Fire Tower Road would be widened
to a four-lane, 72 foot (21.9 m) face to face, curb and gutter divided section with a
16 foot (4.9 m) raised grassed median. From SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) to Winding
Branch Drive, Fire Tower Road would be widened to a 5-lane undivided, 72 foot
(21.9 m) face to face, curb and gutter section with a 10 foot (3.0m) berm. From
Winding Branch Drive to SR 1709 (Corey Road), Fire Tower Road would be
widened to a four-lane, 72 foot (21.9 m) face to face, curb and gutter divided
section with a 16 foot (4.9 m) raised grassed median. The project ties into the
existing 5-lane curb and gutter section just east of Corey Road. All typical sections
will include 14 foot (4.2m) outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel. The
proposed improvements will require a minimum of approximately 100 feet (30.5m)
of right of way along Fire Tower Road. Temporary construction easements will
also be required throughout most of the project. No control of access is proposed.
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about existing Fire
Tower Road throughout most of the project; however, north-side widening is
proposed from NC 11 -903 (Memorial Drive) to the western entrance of Baywood
Drive. This 2.65 mile (4.26 kilometer) long project has an estimated cost of $
14,357,500 including $ 4,557,500 for right of way acquisition and $ 9,800,00 for
construction. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1, and the recommended
improvements are discussed in detail in Section II.
North-side, west-side, and symmetrical widening were studied. The
recommended widening scheme discussed above minimizes impacts to existing
development. The recommended asymmetrical widening between Memorial Drive
and Baywood Drive will be accomplished along the north side of Fire Tower Road.
The asymmetrical widening will minimize impacts to commercial development
along the south side of Fire Tower Road; however, the proposed improvements in
this area will result in the relocation of one house that belongs to the Peace
Presbyterian Church and a fruit stand.
A four-lane, divided facility is recommended, instead of a five-lane,
undivided facility, throughout the majority of the project in order to provide
optimal traffic flow and improved safety. The median-divided facility reduces the
number of conflict areas by limiting left turns onto and from the facility, thus
reducing collision potential and encouraging steady traffic flow. A five-lane
undivided facility is less efficient, allowing unrestricted traffic movements,
increased collision potential, and reduced capacity. However, a five-lane,
undivided facility is proposed from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to Baywood
Drive (western entrance) and from SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) to Winding Branch
Drive in order to provide adequate access to the dense development along Fire
Tower Road in these areas. A divided facility through these areas would severely
inhibit access to a number of residences and public facilities; therefore, a five-lane,
undivided facility is recommended.
7. Buffers
Projects located within the Neuse River Basin are subject to the recently developed
Neuse Buffer Rules, administered by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). These rules
address loss of stream channel buffers for stream verified streams appearing on the USGS
Topographic Quad and/or the NRCS Soil Survey. NCDOT will coordinate with DWQ
concerning the Neuse Buffer Rules.
8. Permits
Impacts to wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the COE
for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Due to wetland
and surface water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit will likely be necessary for
this project.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the
DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
9. Coordination
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Greenville
Town of Winterville
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
PAGE
..........................
A. General Description of Project ..........................................................
B. Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................. I
C. Characteristics of Existing Conditions ........................................................................1
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied ....................................................................... l
2. Route Classification ................................................................................................ 1
3. Existing Cross-Section ............................................................................................ 1
4. Existing Right of Way ............................................................................................ 2
5. Access Control ........................................................................................................ 2
6. Speed Limits ........................................................................................................... 2
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures ............................................................................ 2
8. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature .......................................................................... 2
9. Intersecting Roads ................................................................................................... 2
10. Project Terminals .................................................................................................... 3
11. Degree of Roadside Interference ............................................................................ 3
12. School Bus Data ...................................................................................................... 3
13. Parking .................................................................................................................... 3
14. Utilities .................................................................................................................... 3
15. Airports ...................................................................................................................3
16. Geodetic Markers .......................................................................................:............4
17. Railroads .................................................................................................................4
18. Bicycle Accommodations .......................................................................................4
19. Sidewalks ............................................................................................................... .4
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ......................................................................4
1. Capacity Analysis ...........................................................................
2. Mainline Analysis ...................................................................................................4
3. Intersection Analysis ...............................................................................................5
E. Thoroughfare Plan .......................................................................................................5
F. Accident Data and Analysis ........................................................................................6
G. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area .....................................6
H. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community ...........................................................7
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project ....................................................................................................... ..8
B. Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................... .. 8
C. Typical Section .......................................................................................................... ..8
D. Widening Symmetry .................................................................................................. ..8
E. Median Openings ...................................................................................................... ..8
F. Proposed Right of Way and Access Control ............................................................. ..9
G.
. ...................................
Design Speed ..........................................................................
..
H. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ............................................................. ..9
I. Bridges and Drainage Structures ............................................................................... 10
J. Sidewalks ................................................................................................................... 10
K. Bicycle Accomodations ............................................................................................. 10
L. Railroad Involvement ................................................................................................ 11
M. Greenways ................................................................................................................. 11
N. Special Permits Required .......................................................................................... 11
0. Noise Barriers ................................................................................. 11
P. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................ 12
Q. Changes in the State Highway System ....................................................12
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Alternate Modes of Transportation ...........................................................................13
B. No Build Alternative .................................................................................................13
C. Recommended Alternative ........................................................................................13
E. Design Alternatives ...................................................................................................14
1. Alignment Alternatives .........................................................................................14
2. Typical Section Alternatives .................................................................................14
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL, EFFECTS

A. Social Effects ............................................................................................................. 15
1. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 15
2. Neighborhood Characteristics ............................................................................... 17
3. Relocations ............................................................................................................ 19
4. Social Impacts ....................................................................................................... 19
5. Title VI and environmental Justice ....................................................................... 19
6. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 20
B. Economic Effects ......................................................................................................22
1. Income Measures and Persons Living Below the Poverty Level .........................22
2. Business Activity/Employment Centers ...............................................................22
3. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................23
C. Environmental Effects ...............................................................................................23
1. Methodology .........................................................................................................23
2. Physical Resources ................................................................................................24
3. Water Resources ...................................................................................................26
4. Biotic Resources ...................................................................................................29
5. Biotic Communities ..............................................................................................30
6. Wildlife .................................................................................................................32
7. Jurisdictional Topics .............................................................................................34
8. Rare and Protected Species ...................................................................................37
9. Flood Hazard Evaluation ......................................................................................41
10. Water Quality ........................................................................................................42
11. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ..........................................42
12. Air Quality Analysis .............................................................................................49
13. Hazardous Materials and UST Involvement .........................................................52
14. Geodetic Survey Markers .....................................................................................52
15. Construction Impacts ............................................................................................52
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies ................................54
B. Citizens Informational Workshop .............................................................................54
C. Public Hearing ...........................................................................................................55
TABLES
Page
Table 1 - Mainline Capacity Analysis .........................................................5
Table 2 - Levels of Service For Major Intersections ................................... 5
Table 3 - Design Alternatives ...................................................................... 6
Table 4 - Population By Race and Hispanic Origins ................................... 17
Table 5 - Population By Age (Pitt County) ................................................. 18
Table 6 - Persons Living Below Poverty Level (Pitt County) ..................... 22
Table 7 - Streams Impacted by Proposed Project ........................................ 27
Table 8 - Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................................ 33
Table 9 - Federally Protected Species for Pitt County ................................. 37
Table 10 - Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County ............................... 41
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic Showing Project
Figure 3 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 4A - 4-Lane Typical Section
Figure 4B - 5-Lane Typical Section
Figure 5A - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5B - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5C - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5D - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 6A - Intersection Treatment
Figure 6B - Intersection Treatment
Figure 6C - Intersection Treatment
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Relocatee Reports, Traffic Noise and Air Quality Analysis Tables
And Figures
Appendix B - Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C - Citizens Informational Workshop News Release
and Informational Handout
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR
1708 (Fire Tower Road) to a multi-lane facility from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to SR
1709 (Corey Road) in Pitt County (see Figure 1). Estimated project length is 2.65 miles
(4.26 kilometers). NCDOT includes this project in the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), and is scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year
2002 and construction to begin in fiscal year 2003.
B. Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project is to alleviate congestion and improve safety along Fire
Tower Road. Currently, between 20,000 and 24,000 vehicles per day are traveling along
Fire Tower Road in the project vicinity. This is expected to increase to between 30,000
and 32,000 vehicles per day by design year (2020). This project will also relieve
congestion resulting from growth along this corridor.
The proposed project is one element of a system-wide thoroughfare plan that
provides circumferential travel between suburban growth areas and is consistent with local
land use plans. Fire Tower Road will eventually be extended west of Memorial Drive to
an interchange with the proposed Southwest Loop/NC 11 Bypass. The City also has plans
to improve Fire Tower Road to the east of the proposed project which would complete a
major east-west thoroughfare from 14`h Street all the way to the Southwest Loop which
would inturn serve both Winterville and Greenville.
C. Characteristics of Existing Conditions
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the proposed project, from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to
SR 1709 (Corey Road), is 2.65 miles (4.26 km).
2. Route Classification
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) is designated as a major thoroughfare in the
Greenville Thoroughfare Plan and as a minor urban arterial in the North Carolina
Statewide Functional Classification System.
3. Existing Cross-Section
The project section of SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) is currently a three-lane,
two-way roadway with a pavement width of 36 feet (10.8m). East of SR 1709
(Corey Road), SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) is a five-lane curb and gutter facility 64
feet (19.5m) wide from face-to-face of curbs with 8-foot (2.4-m) berms.
4. Existing Right of Way
limits.
The right of way is approximately 60 feet (18 meters) within the project
5. Access Control
There is no control of access along SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road).
6. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit within the project limits is 45 mph (72.4km/hr).
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures
Bridge No. 169 carries Fire Tower Road over Fork Swamp and is located
east of SR 1700 (Old Tar Road). This bridge is 31 feet (9.5m) long with a clear
deck width of 25.7 feet (7.8m). Built in 1962, this bridge currently has a
sufficiency rating of 17.8 of a possible 100.0. This bridge is scheduled to be
replaced under TIP project B-3502 in FY 2001.
Fire Tower Road also crosses two major streams within the project limits:
western tributary to Fork Swamp and eastern tributary to Fork Swamp. The
existing structure at the western tributary is a 96" corrugated steel pipe and at the
eastern tributary there exists dual 60" corrugated steel pipes.
8. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The horizontal curvature of SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) consists mainly of
long tangent sections that traverse predominantly level terrain. The existing
horizontal curves that do exist along the project adhere with the current roadway
design standards and will remain intact after completion of the proposed
improvements. Because of the project's geographical location, the vertical
curvature varies little throughout the project.
9. Intersecting Roads
All intersections along SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) are at grade. There are
three signalized intersections along the project, located at SR 1708/NC 11-903
(Memorial Drive), SR 1708/SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) and SR 1708/SR 1709 (Corey
Road).
10. Project Terminals
The western project terminal is located at the intersection of SR 1708 (Fire
Tower Road) and NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive). This intersection is signalized.
Fire Tower Road consists of a three-lane, two-way roadway with a pavement width
of 36 feet (10.8m) in the vicinity of the western project terminal.
The eastern project terminal is located just east of the intersection of SR
1708 (Fire Tower Road) and SR 1709 (Corey Road). This intersection is
signalized. Fire Tower Road consists of a five-lane curb and gutter facility 64 feet
(19.5m) wide from face-to-face of curbs with 8-foot (2.4-m) berms in the vicinity
of the eastern terminal.
11. Degree of Roadside Interference
The degree of roadside interference is high along SR 1708 (Fire Tower
Road) due to businesses and homes along both sides. Pitt Community College is
located adjacent to this project west of NC-903. From NC 11-903 to SR 1700 (Old
Tar Road / Evans Drive), development primarily consists of commercial office
space, interspersed with single family residential property. East of SR 1700, the
development is mostly residential with access to a mobile home park, several
apartment buildings and two subdivisions. The North Carolina Forest Service
currently maintains a county headquarters west of SR 1709 (Corey Road). There is
a fire tower located here 40 feet (12.2m) from the existing edge of pavement.
12. School Bus Data
The Pitt County School Bus Transportation Director reported that there are
approximately 20 school buses a day that use Fire Tower Road.
13. Parkin
On street parking is not allowed within the project limits.
14. Utilities
Utilities within the project limits, which may be affected by the widening,
include overhead power lines, water, sewer, gas, telephone, fiber optic, and
cablevision. The utility conflicts will be potentially high.
s
15. Airport
The Pitt Greenville Airport is located on NC 903 (Memorial Drive)
approximately 10 miles from the western terminus of the project. The proposed
project is not expected to impact the Pitt Greenville Airport.
16. Geodetic Markers
This project will have no impact on any existing geodetic survey markers.
17. Railroads
Fire Tower Road crosses the CSX Railroad at grade between NC 11-903
and SR 1700 (Old Tar Road). Two trains per day utilize the crossing. The current
exposure index is 34,800. This crossing is controlled by signals and gates.
18. Bicycle Accommodations
Currently, Fire Tower Road is not a signed bicycle route. The 2002 - 2008
Transportation Improvement Program includes the proposed project as an
incidental bicycle and sidewalk project. In addition, the Greenville Urban Area
Bicycle Task Force is active in the development and adoption of a Greenville
Urban Area Bikeway System, of which Fire Tower Road is considered a critical
piece.
19. Sidewalks
There are currently no sidewalks located on the project. Field investigation
suggests pedestrian traffic along the project, evident by worn paths along the
shoulder of the road in various sections of Fire Tower Road.
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Anal
1. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how these conditions
are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition
generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six
levels are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are
available. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing
the best operation conditions and LOS F representing the worst.
2. Mainline Anal
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road). It is
anticipated that the construction of the proposed Southwest Loop/NC 11 Bypass
with an interchange at Davenport Farm Road along with the proposed western
extension of Fire Tower Road will increase traffic. Therefore, the capacity
analyses for the base and design years were ascertained with consideration to this
worst case scenario. Currently, between 20,000 and 24,000 vehicles per day are
traveling along Fire Tower Road in the project vicinity. This is expected to
increase to between 30,000 and 32,000 vehicles per day by design year 2020. See
Figures 5A through 5D for traffic projections. The level of service (LOS) on Fire
Tower Road in the current year is "E". If improvements are not made to the
existing road, the LOS in the year 2020 will be an "F" along Fire Tower Road. In
comparison, the recommended improvements to Fire Tower Road are expected to
result in a "C" LOS in the design year 2020. See Table 1 below.
Table 1. Mainline
NC 11-903
(Memorial Drive) to E F C
SR 1700 (Old Tar
SR 1700 (Old Tar F C
Road) to SR 1709 E
3. Intersection Analysis
Capacity analyses were also performed for the major intersections along the
project. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 2. Each of these
intersections are presently signalized.
Table 2. Levels of Service for Major Intersections
Intersection (E-W / N-S) 2000 Without 2020 Without 2020 With
Improvements Improvements Improvements
NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) D F F*
/ SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road)
SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) / SR D F F*
1708 (Fire Tower Road)
SR 1709 (Corey Road) / SR C F B
1708 (Fire Tower Road)
* - In order to achieve a LOS 0 at these intersections, substantiai improvements are needed.
These improvements are considered beyond the scope of this project.
E. Thoroughfare Plan
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) is shown as a major thoroughfare on the Greenville
Thoroughfare Plan, which was mutually adopted by the City of Greenville on May 10,
1990 and by the North Carolina Department of Transportation on June 1, 1990. A copy of
the thoroughfare plan is included as Figure 3.
F. Accident Data and Analysis
An accident study for Fire Tower Road was conducted for the time period from
January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1998. A summary of the accident rates (in accidents per
100 million vehicle miles) along with the statewide rates for urban two-lane undivided
secondary roads is shown in Table 3.
Tahle T Aerident Ratm (Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles)
RATES ALONG SR 1708 AVERAGE STATEWIDE
(Fire Tower Road) from NC RATES FOR URBAN
11-903 (Memorial Drive) to 2-LANE SECONDARY
ACCIDENT TYPE SR 1709 (Corey Road) ROUTES
1996-1998
All Accidents 381.41 262.91
Fatal 2.38 0.66
Non-Fatal 190.70 105.70
Nighttime 81.05 51.86
Wet Conditions 54.83 53.85
One hundred sixty accidents occurred along SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) during the
study period. All the accident rates were above the state average for this type of facility
during the study period. The overall accident rate during this period was 381.41 accidents
per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM) compared to the statewide average of 262.91
acc/100MVM for urban two-lane secondary routes during this period; resulting in Fire
Tower Road having a 45% higher overall accident rate than the statewide average for a
two-lane urban secondary route.
Out of the 160 accidents occurring in the studied years, there was one fatal accident
and 80 non-fatal injury accidents along SR 1708 within the project limits. Of the 160
accidents along the studied facility, the majority (52.5 percent) were rear-end collisions,
13.1 percent resulted from angle collisions and 10.7 percent resulted from left turning
traffic collisions. This is indicative of a two-lane facility operating above its operational
design limits. The addition of a continuous middle turn lane (5-lane section) or left turn
pocket lanes (4-lane divided section) will serve to remove left-turning traffic from the
mainstream flow, thereby reducing conflicting movements, and ultimately improving
safety along Fire Tower Road.
G. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area
Several roadway improvement projects, included in the 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program, are located in the vicinity of the proposed project
(see Figure 3). A brief description of these projects, along with their current schedule, is
listed below:
6
TIP Proiect U-3613A (Fire Tower Road Extension
This project proposes to construct a multilane highway on new location between
NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) and SR 1128 (Davenport Farm Road), a distance of
1.4 miles. Right of way acquisition and construction for this project are scheduled
for post year (after Fiscal Year 2006).
TIP Proiect B-3502 (Bridge #169 Replacement)
This project proposes to replace bridge #169 which carries SR 1708 (Fire Tower
Road) over Fork Swamp. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 2000 and construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2001.
TIP Proiect R-2250 (Greenville Southwest Bypass)
TIP Project R-2250 proposes to construct a four-lane divided facility on new
location from NC 11 to the Greenville bypass. Currently, right of way acquisition
is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2006, with construction scheduled for post
year.
H. Benefits to the State. Region, and Community
The proposed improvements will alleviate the current and the future capacity
deficiencies along the studied portion of Fire Tower Road. In addition, safety will be
enhanced along the project as a result of the widened pavement. The ability of emergency
vehicles to respond quickly will be improved. Road user costs savings will be realized as a
result of more efficient travel. The proposed construction will tie into a multilane section
to the east completing a major east-west corridor, which will alleviate traffic congestion
resulting from increased development in this area. Also, this project along with a proposed
western extension will connect Fire Tower Road with the proposed Southwest Loop/NC 11
Bypass.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) will be widened from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to
SR 1709 (Corey Road), a distance of approximately 2.65 miles (4.26 km).
B. Cost Estimates
The total cost of the improvements recommended in this document is $ 14,357,500
which includes $ 9,800,000 for construction and $ 4,557,500 for right of way acquisition.
C. Typical Section Description
From NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to Baywood Drive (western entrance), existing
Fire Tower Road would be widened to a 5-lane undivided, 72 foot (21.9 m) face to face,
curb and gutter section with a 10 foot (3.0m) berm. From Baywood Drive to
approximately 700 feet west of SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) Fire Tower Road would be
widened to a four-lane, 72 foot (21.9 m) face to face, curb and gutter divided section with a
16 foot (4.9 m) raised grassed median. From SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) to Winding Branch
Drive, Fire Tower Road would be widened to a 5-lane undivided, 72 foot (21.9 m) face to
face, curb and gutter section with a 10 foot (3.0m) berm. From Winding Branch Drive to
SR 1709 (Corey Road), Fire Tower road would be widened to a four-lane, 72 foot (21.9 m)
face to face, curb and gutter divided section with a 16 foot (4.9 m) raised grassed median.
The project ties into the existing 5-lane curb and gutter section just east of Corey Road.
All typical sections will include 14 foot (4.2m) outside lanes to accommodate bicycle
travel. (See Figures 4A and 4B).
D. Widening Symme=
The proposed widening will be accomplished by widening symmetrically about
existing Fire Tower Road throughout most of the project; however, north-side widening is
proposed from NC 11-903 to the western entrance of Baywood Drive. North-side
widening is proposed in this area in order to minimize impacts to development along the
south side of Fire Tower Road and to avoid impacts to the fairly new electrical
transmission and distribution lines along the south side of SR 1708.
E. Median Openings
Median openings will be provided at the currently signalized intersections within
the median-divided sections of the project. Left turn lanes will be constructed at these
locations. Other possible median openings will be studied during the final design.
F. Proposed Right of Way and Access Control
The proposed improvements will require a minimum of approximately 100 feet
(30.5m) of right of way along Fire Tower Road. Temporary construction easements will
also be required throughout most of the project. No control of access is proposed.
G. Design Speed
The proposed design speed of the project is 50 mph (80.5 km/hr).
H. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
It is anticipated that all roads intersecting the subject portion of Fire Tower Road
will remain at-grade and that the existing three signalized intersections will remain
signalized following the completion of the project.
Proposed improvements at the signalized intersection of NC 11-903 include
changing the existing westbound approach from having an exclusive left and a shared
through right turn lane to having exclusive dual left turn lanes and dual exclusive right turn
lanes and a single through lane. Currently the eastbound approach contains a through lane
and a shared through right turn lane. It would be upgraded to include two through lanes,
an exclusive left, and an exclusive right turn lane. (See Figure 6A.)
Proposed improvements at the signalized intersection of SR 1700 (Old Tar Road)
include changing the existing eastbound and westbound approaches from having a left turn
lane and a shared through right turn lane to having two through lanes, an exclusive right
turn lane and an exclusive left turn lane. The existing north and south approaches will be
changed from having a shared through right turn lane and an exclusive left turn lane to
having a through lane, an exclusive left turn lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. (See
Figure 6B.)
Proposed improvements at the signalized intersection of SR 1709 (Corey Road)
include changing the existing eastbound approach from having a shared through right turn
lane and an exclusive left turn lane to having dual through lanes, an exclusive right turn
lane, and an exclusive left turn lane. The westbound approach would change from having
a through lane, an exclusive right turn lane, and an exclusive left turn lane to having a
through lane, a shared through right turn lane and an exclusive left turn lane. (See Figure
6C.)
All other intersections with SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) along the project are stop
sign controlled and will remain so under the current project.
9
I. Bridges and Drainage Structures
NCDOT has recommended that the 96 inch (2400mm) pipe at the western tributary
to Fork Swamp be replaced with dual 7 foot by 7 foot (2.1 m by 2.1 m) reinforced concrete
box culverts. It has also recommended that the two 60 inch (I500mm) pipes at the eastern
tributary to Fork Swamp be replaced with dual 8 foot by 6 foot (2.4m by 1.8m) reinforced
concrete box culverts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 169 at its existing location under TIP Project B-
3502. This project is scheduled to begin construction in FY 2001, which is before the
construction of the proposed widening project is scheduled to begin. NCDOT
recommends replacing the bridge with a reinforced concrete box culvert. The culvert will
be a triple barrel culvert, with each barrel measuring 8 feet by 7 feet (2.4m by 2.1 m). The
approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2m) travelway, 4 foot (1.2m) paved
shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet (2.4m). The new roadway will be at
approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. The completed project will
provide a design speed of approximately 50 mph (80.5km/hr). Traffic will be maintained
on an on-site detour located north of the existing bridge during construction. The detour
will consist of an extension of the proposed reinforced concrete box culvert. This
extension will remain to accommodate the widening of Fire Tower Road.
J. Sidewalks
SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) is listed in the Incidental Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs
section of the 2002-2008 TIP as needing pedestrian accommodations. In addition, the City
of Greenville has requested that sidewalks be included on both sides of the road as part of
this project.
NCDOT has estimated that the total cost of constructing sidewalks along both sides
of Fire Tower Road would be approximately $630,800. The population of Greenville
would allow NCDOT to participate in a 60% cost-sharing of the construction cost of
sidewalks, up to 5% of the total construction cost of the project. The City of Greenville
has submitted a formal request addressing the seven criteria outlined in the NCDOT
Pedestrian Policy Guidelines for the inclusion of pedestrian accommodations under the
subject project. NCDOT has reviewed this formal request and determined that sidewalks
are warranted and will participate in sharing the cost of constructing sidewalks, up to 5%
of the total construction cost of the project. Since the sidewalk on the south side of the
project between NC 11-903 and SR 1700 is within the town of Winterville's town limits
the City of Greenville has agreed to coordinate with them regarding their level of
participation.
K. Bicycle Accommodations
Currently, Fire Tower Road is not a signed bicycle route. The 2002 - 2008
Transportation Improvement Program includes the proposed project as an incidental
10
bicycle and sidewalk project. In addition, the Greenville Urban Area Bicycle Task Force is
active in the development and adoption of a Greenville Urban Area Bikeway System, of
which Fire Tower Road is considered a critical piece.
14-foot (4.2m) outside lanes have been incorporated throughout the project length
to facilitate bicycle traffic (see Figures 4A and 4B).
L. Railroad Involvement
Fire Tower Road crosses the CSX Railroad at grade between NC 11-903 and SR
1700 (Old Tar Road). This crossing has a future exposure index of 60,000 based on 2
trains/day. Coordination with CSX railroad will be required in modifying the signals and
gates in relation to a wider crossing during plan development. Grade Separation alternates
were ruled out due to the enormous impacts with existing business developments in the
northeast and southwest quadrants. A relocation of a minority cemetery and access into an
electrical substation would be affected in the northwest quadrant.
M. Greenways
The project will not impact any designated greenways.
N. Special Permits Required
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." The project is likely to qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations.
0. Noise Barriers
The project, as proposed, will require no control of access. Access openings in a
noise barrier severely reduces the noise reduction provided by the barrier. In addition,
businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular highway
normally require accessibility and high visibility. Based on these factors, noise barriers are
not recommended for this project.
P. Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no anticipated design exceptions needed for the recommended
improvements. If a design exception were needed, appropriate coordination with the
Federal Highway Administration would take place.
Q. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are anticipated as a result of the proposed
improvements.
12
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The primary mode of transportation in and around Greenville is the automobile.
The City of Greenville does not provide bus, vanpooling, or carpooling services in the
vicinity of the project. Trip origins and destinations are widespread in this area and public
transportation alternatives would not provide the improved access between southwestern
and southeastern Pitt County. Alternatives to the automobile would not significantly or
economically serve to alleviate congestion and improve safety along SR 1708 (Fire Tower
Road). Therefore, providing an alternate mode of transportation other than the automobile
would not serve to meet the purpose and need of the project.
B. No Build Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse environmental impacts
that are anticipated to result from the project, it would not provide a safer and more
efficient east-west collector facility between Greenville and Winterville as envisioned by
the mutually adopted Greenville Thoroughfare Plan. With the projected increases in traffic
demand, the service provided by the existing roadways in the area would deteriorate even
more if the proposed project were not constructed. Increased delays would lead to higher
operating costs and increased travel times. Motorist safety and convenience would also be
sacrificed, leading to a greater likelihood of accidents at intersections and driveways due to
congestion. There would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity of the area or
improvements in traffic safety. For these reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
C. Recommended Alternative
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes
to improve SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to SR 1709
(Corey Road) in Pitt County. The existing facility is to be widened to a 5-lane undivided,
72 foot (21.9 m) face to face, curb and gutter section with a 10 foot (3.0m) berm from NC
11-903 (Memorial Drive) to Baywood Drive (western entrance). From Baywood Drive to
approximately 700 feet west of SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) Fire Tower Road would be
widened to a four-lane, 72 foot (21.9 m) face to face, curb and gutter divided section with a
16 foot (4.9 m) raised grassed median. From SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) to Winding Branch
Drive, Fire Tower Road would be widened to a 5-lane undivided, 72 foot (21.9 m) face to
face, curb and gutter section with a 10 foot (3.0m) berm. From Winding Branch Drive to
SR 1709 (Corey Road), Fire Tower road would be widened to a four-lane, 72 foot (21.9 m)
face to face, curb and gutter divided section with a 16 foot (4.9 m) raised grassed median.
The project ties into the existing 5-lane curb and gutter section just east of Corey Road.
All typical sections will include 14 foot (4.2 m)outside lanes to accommodate bicycle
travel. The proposed improvements will require a minimum of approximately 100 feet
(30.5m) of right of way. Temporary construction easements will also be required
throughout most of the project. No control of access is proposed. The proposed widening
13
will be accomplished symmetrically about existing Fire Tower Road throughout most of
the project; however, north-side widening is proposed from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive)
to the western entrance of Baywood Drive. This 2.65 mile (4.26 kilometer) long project
has an estimated cost of $ 14,357,500, including $ 4,557,500for right of way acquisition
and $ 9,800,000 for construction. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1, and the
recommended improvements are discussed in detail in Section IL
D. Design Alternatives
1. Alignment Alternatives
North-side, west-side, and symmetrical widening were studied. The
recommended widening scheme discussed above minimizes impacts to existing
development. The recommended asymmetrical widening between Memorial Drive
and Baywood Drive will be accomplished along the north side of Fire Tower Road.
The asymmetrical widening will minimize impacts to commercial development
along the south side of Fire Tower Road; however, the proposed improvements in
this area will result in the relocation of one non-profit organization and one
business.
2. Typical Section Alternatives
Four-lane, divided and five-lane alternatives were studied. A four-lane,
divided facility is recommended, instead of a five-lane, undivided facility,
throughout the majority of the project in order to provide optimal traffic flow and
improved safety. The median-divided facility reduces the number of conflict areas
by limiting left turns onto the facility, thus reducing collision potential and
encouraging steady traffic flow. A five-lane undivided facility is less efficient,
allowing unrestricted traffic movements, increased collision potential, and reduced
capacity. However, a five-lane, undivided facility is proposed from NC 11-903
(Memorial Drive) to Baywood Drive (western entrance) and from SR 1700 (Old
Tar Road) to Winding Branch Drive in order to provide adequate access to the
dense development along Fire Tower Road in these areas. A divided facility
through these areas would severely inhibit access to a number of residences and
public facilities; therefore, a five-lane, undivided facility is recommended.
14
IV. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Adopted Plans
The City of Greenville adopted a land use element in 1997 to augment
its 1992 "Horizons" comprehensive plan. Land use classifications within
the project area are:
• COMMERCIAL - southeast quadrant of Fire Tower Road/Old Tar
Road intersections
• OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL/MULTI-FAMILY - north of Fire Tower Road,
from NC 11-903 to east of Old Tar Road; south of Fire Tower Road,
east of Commercial area and from east of White Bridge Drive
continuing east outside the project area.
• HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - north of Fire Tower Road, from the
White Bridge Drive area continuing east outside the project area;
south of Fire Tower Road, east of the Commercial and Office areas
along Old Tar to east of White Bridge Drive.
• MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - north of Fire Tower Road, east of
the Office area along Old Tar Road east to the White Bridge Drive
area.
Winterville land use classifications appear to be identical to its zoning
designations. Winterville's jurisdiction is the southwest quadrant of the
Fire Tower Road/Old Tar Road intersection. Land use classifications
within the project area are:
• COMMERCIAL- from NC 11-903 east to CSX rail line, and the area
adjacent to the Fire Tower Road/Old Tar Road intersection.
• RESIDENTIAL - from the CSX rail line to the Wintergreen
Commercial Park area.
b. Existing Land Use / Zoning
From the western project terminus to the CSX rail line, most existing
land uses are larger heavy commercial uses, such as US Cellular and
Braxton Farm Market, although a church and children's organization are
also present. Most development is south of the road, with the remaining
undeveloped areas predominately agricultural in use.
From the CSX line east to Old Tar Road (SR 1700) most of the frontage
areas are commercial, office and institutional. A residential subdivision
15
abuts Fire Tower Road along Baywood Drive and other subdivisions have
been developed behind the commercial corridor.
From Old Tar Road to the eastern project terminus a few commercial
uses have been developed in the southeastern quadrant. Most of the area
south of Fire Tower Road consists of residential development. Much of this
is single family detached housing but the area also includes two sizeable
mobile home subdivisions as well as some apartment and townhouse
developments. Most of the area to the north remains undeveloped
agricultural uses but there are also new single family subdivisions, duplex
developments and apartments.
Winterville zoning districts are contiguous with land use classifications.
Commercial areas are zoned General Business while residential areas are
zoned Single Family Residential.
Until some large scale rezonings are made, Greenville zoning districts
do not reflect land use classifications as much as they reflect underlying
existing uses. Thus, commercial spot zoning exists for a convenience store
in an otherwise residential area adjacent to Lancaster. Most non-residential
areas are zoned Office & Institutional, with some Commercial zoning in the
southeast quadrant of Fire Tower Road/Old Tar Road. Most residential
uses south of Fire Tower Road are zoned R6, R9, RI 5 or RGMH. North of
Fire Tower Road most undeveloped areas - and some subdivisions - are
zoned RA20. A corridor from Albion Drive to the north is zoned R6 and
R9.
c. Future Changes
Winterville is promoting the development of restaurant and retail uses
around the Trade Mart and Sam's area.
Several of Greenville's more recent subdivisions are zoned for medium
and high density development. Rezoning consistent with the land use plan
would change RA20 to R6 or R9 zoning. All agricultural lands within this
area are proposed for residential development.
d. Proiect Consistency with Local Plans
Local planners indicate that the project is consistent with the plans.
e. Farmland Impacts
Much of the area north of Fire Tower Road is agricultural. The land use
plan designates areas currently in agricultural uses for either medium or
16
high density residential development. The area is zoned RA20 or
Residential-Agricultural, with residential lots of 20,000 square feet. RA20
zoning is transitional zoning rather than one protective of agricultural uses.
Both the underlying residential land use classification and the recent
rezonings to R6 and R9 indicate that the area is both planned and zoned for
urban development. Further, the conversion of land to highway right-of-
way along the existing corridor will be linear and minimal, thereby avoiding
an undue burden on any particular farming operation. Farmland mitigation
or avoidance appears not to be necessary.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
a. Geographic Location
Pitt County is located in the eastern portion of the state. It is surrounded
on the east by Beaufort County; by Craven and Lenoir Counties on the
south; by Greene County on the west; and by Edgecombe County on the
north.
b. Race, Ethnicity, and Age
According to the 1990 Census, the population of Pitt County was
107,924. The Office of State Planning (OSP) estimates that the 1997
population was 124,395. Between 1990 and 1997 Pitt County grew by
approximately 14.7%.
Table 4. Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Pitt County)
Project Area County North Caro lina
Number % Number % Number %
Total Population -1990 18,716 100 107,924 100 6,628,637 100
Hispanic 76 575 69,020
White 14,253 76.2 70,885 65.7 5,011,248 75.6
Hispanic 26 278 33,967
Black 4,070 21.7 35,978 333 1,455,340 21.9
Hispanic 9 59 5,962
American Indian 34 OZ 124 0.1 82,606 13
Hispanic 0 0 1,083
Asian/Pacific Islander 318 1.7 697 0.7 50,395 0.8
Hispanic 0 7 1,154
Other 41 OZ 240 0.2 29,048 0.4
According to the 1990 census data 65.7% of Fitt County residents
are white and 34.3% are non-white. The median age for Pitt County was
29.4 years, in comparison with the state average of 33.2 years.
17
Table 5. Population by Age (Pitt County)
Project Area County North Carolina
Median Age 29.5-30.7 29.4 33.2 , .
% Under 20 26.9% 29.4% 24.3%
o Over 63 6A% 9.7% 12.1% .
c. Public Facilities. Schools and Institutions
The Boys and Girls Club of Pitt County abuts the south side of Fire
Tower Road between NC 11-903 and the CSX rail line. The Club's parking
lot has two bi-directional curb cuts on Fire Tower Road. Harmony Child
Care is on the north side of Fire Tower Road just west of Old Tar Road.
This facility has a single curb cut. The Peds Medical Park includes a sick
child day care facility. This facility is accessed via Old Tar Road.
Peace Presbyterian is located within the northeast quadrant of the NC
11-903/Fire Tower Road intersection. The church parking lot has two curb
cuts on Fire Tower Road but no direct access to NC 11-903. Temple
Freewill Baptist is north of Fire Tower Road to the east of the CSX line.
This church also has an "activity center" and its two driveways are designed
for two-way traffic. Covenant United Methodist is located in the southwest
quadrant of the Fire Tower Road/Corey Road (NC 1709) intersection. All
curb cuts for this facility are on Corey Road and White Bridge Drive.
No public service providers are located within the corridor study area.
No element of the proposed project appears likely to have any negative
effect on emergency services. The Greenville Utilities Commission
Winterville substation is located adjacent to the CSX rail line and its
driveway connects with Fire Tower Road.
d. Business Activity / Employment Institutions
The project roadway appears to be in transition from heavy commercial
uses, such as Southern States, Carolina Builders and Cal-Maine Foods, to
more office, retail and medical uses. A Sam's Club is located just west of
the project's western terminus point. Other business activities along the
project roadway are Trade Mart, Wintergreen Commercial Park, Ward &
Smith PA, South Hall Professional Center, Treetop Office Center, PEDS
Medical Center, a BB&T bank, and several convenience, retail and personal
service establishments.
A convenience store is located east of Evans Drive in what is otherwise
a residential area. A small commercial strip is located to the east of the
project area along Fire Tower Road.
18
The largest employment center appears to be the Pitt Technical
Community Colldge (PTCC) just outside of the study corridor in the
northwest quadrant of the NC 11-903 / Fire Tower Road intersection.
PTCC is certainly the largest traffic generator in the project area. The
commercial strip along Fire Tower Road from PTCC to just east of Old Tar
Road (SR 1700) provides numerous employment opportunities for the area.
3. Relocations
Additional right of way will be needed to construct the project. Temporary
construction easements will also be required. A relocation report for the
recommended alternative was prepared. Under this alternative, one non-profit
organization and one business relocatee would result. This relocation report is
included in Appendix A of this report.
For all relocations, it is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of State and Federally
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the
following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation Assistance
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement.
4. Social Impacts
a. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
Fire Tower Road is a major roadway along which development has
occurred. It is not a neighborhood type street and its widening will not
create a barrier effect. Widening this corridor should have no negative
impacts on community stability.
b. Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employ
As noted just above, the recommended alternative may cause the
relocation of one non-profit organization and one business. These potential
relocations should not have a serious impact on the county's tax base or
upon business and employment patterns in the area.
5. Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there
be no discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
19
Populations," provides that "each federal agency make achieving environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects] of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply fully to
American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental justice refers to the
equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the
development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations
and policies. This project has been developed in compliance with Executive Order
12898.
In general, the project area has fewer non-white residents, fewer elderly
residents and fewer residents below the poverty level than the county average. For
the most part, the project area has much higher income measures compared with the
county average. The exception to this are the large mobile home subdivisions
southeast of the project area. Single-wide mobile homes on rental lots, coupled
with census and employment data, are often an indicator of low to moderate
income communities.
It is quite likely that some residents of these mobile home subdivisions will
meet the definitions of low to moderate income households. However, no
relocation, stability, cohesion or similar adverse effects are anticipated to impact
these subdivisions. Effects are neither high and adverse nor are they
disproportionate.
6. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's (ACHP) Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-
funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or
i Adverse effects means significant cumulative human health or environmental effects, including social and economic
effects, which may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water
pollution and soil contamination; vibration; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of
man-made or natural resources, of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality, or of the availability of
public and private facilities and services; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or
nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion; isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income
individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant
delay in the receipt of, benefits of DOT programs, policies, or activities.
Disproportionately high adverse effect on minority and low-income populations means an adverse effect that: (1) is
predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or (2) will be suffered by the minority
population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect
that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population (adapted from the Final DOT
Order on environmental justice .
20
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the ACHP will be
given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential effect (APE) of the
subject project was surveyed by the Historic Architectural Resources
section of the NCDOT. A Phase II survey of the APE identified eight
properties over fifty years of age including one late nineteenth-century
dwelling, six early twentieth-century dwellings, and one early twentieth-
century fire tower. Of these eight properties, none were determined to be
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No eligible
properties under fifty years of age were identified within the APE.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with the
determination of ineligibility for all eight properties (see Appendix B). This
completes compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966.
b. Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the ACHP's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800 regarding any
archaeological resources within the APE.
An archaeological survey was conducted within the APE of this project
by the Archaeological Section of the NCDOT. Based on the topographic
setting, the project has a low probability of containing prehistoric and early
historic archaeological sites. All date to the late 19'' or early 20`h century
and represent domestic dwellings. None of these archeological sites are
considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places. The SHPO has concurred with the determination of each of these
sites (see Appendix B). This completes compliance with Section 106 for
archaeological resources.
c. Section 4M Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area,
historic site, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local
significance may be used for a federal aid project only if-
0 There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land,
and
21
• Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm of 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The project will not use property from any resource protected by
Section 4(f).
d. Section 6(f) Resources
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 state
that "no property acquired or developed with assistance under this section
shall, without the approval of the Secretary [of the Department of the
Interior], be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses."
There are no properties within the proposed project corridor which have
been acquired or developed with assistance of Section 6(f) funds.
B. Economic Effects
1. Income Measures and Persons Livinp, Below the Povelly Level
The 1990 median household income for Pitt County was $23,324 while the
median household income for the state was $26,647. Within the project area the
median income ranged from $24,375 to $37,304. The percentage of citizens living
below the poverty level was 12.5% for the state, 22.1 % for the county and 12.3%
within the project area.
Table 6. Persons Living Below Poverty Level (Pitt County)
Project Area County North Carolina
Median Household
Income $30,647 $23,324 $26,647
Per Capita Income $16,227 $12,073 $13,093
Unemployment Rate NA .3.8% 32%
Persons below poverty
level - total 2,301 22,651 829,858
Persons below 50% of
poverty level - total 1,053 10,911 , 332,966
2. Business ActivityBmployment Centers
The project roadway appears to be in transition from heavy commercial
uses, such as Southern States, Carolina Builders and Cal-Maine Foods, to more
office, retail and medical uses. A Sam's Club is located just west of the project's
western terminus point. Other business activities along the project roadway are
Trade Mart, Wintergreen Commercial Park, Ward & Smith PA, South Hall
22
Professional Center, Treetop Office Center, PEDS Medical Center, a BB&T bank,
and several convenience, retail and personal service establishments.
A convenience store is located east of Evans Drive in what is otherwise a
residential area. A small commercial strip is located to the east of the project area
along Fire Tower Road.
The largest employment center appears to be the Pitt Technical Community
College just outside of the study corridor in the northwest quadrant of the NC 1I-
903/Firetower Road intersection. PTCC is certainly the largest traffic generator in
the project area. The commercial strip along Fire Tower Road from PTCC to just
east of Old Tar Road (SR 1700) provides numerous employment opportunities for
the area.
3. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
Many of the ultimate consequences of road improvement projects are
dependent upon a variety of issues and decisions which are not part of the actual
road construction process, but have much to do with a myriad of decisions made by
the local government at a later point in time. Many of these issues and decisions
relate to such items as local land development regulations, planning and zoning,
development demand, availability of utility infrastructure (water and sewer), local
economic development efforts, as well as other factors which are part of a local
economy. In addition, improvements to a particular road's level of service, better
accommodation of merging and exiting traffic movements, and reductions in travel
times can have impacts to surrounding land use which lie beyond the immediate
project area.
C. Environmental Effects
1. 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 (Greenville Southwest,
Greenville Southeast), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetland Inventory Maps (Greenville Southwest, Greenville Southeast),
Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service) soil maps (Pitt
County), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:2500). Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, 1993) and from the NC Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base
Map of Pitt County, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species
23
of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats (checked 30 Nov. 1998).
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT biologists Susan Brady and Chris Murray on 11 December 1998.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations
were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
a. Oualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Susan G. Brady, Natural Systems Biologist, NCDOT.
Education: B.S. Environmental Studies, University of Maine at
Machias.
M.S. Marine Biology, University of North Carolina
at Wilmington.
Experience: Research Technician, UNC-Wilmington, Jan. 1995-
Dec. 1995
Contract Biologist, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission/ Nongame and Endangered Species
Division, May 1998-Sept. 1998.
NC Department of Transportation/ Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
Oct. 1998-present.
- Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows:
Project Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction
limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mi (0.8 km) on
all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to
an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the
project occupying the central position.
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources occurring 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.
The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain physiographic
province. The topography in this section of Pitt County is characterized as
24
nearly level to sloping. The project area is nearly level, in the floodplain
and uplands around Fork Swamp. Project elevation is approximately 18.0-
20.0 ft (5.5-6.1 m) above mean sea level (msl), with the higher elevations
generally to the west.
a. Soils
There are ten soil phases occurring within the project boundaries:
Exum fine sandy loam 0-1% slope, Goldsboro sandy loam 0-1% slope,
Goldsboro sandy loam 1-6% slope, Lynchburg fine sandy loam, Norfolk
sandy loam 0-1 % slope, Norfolk sandy loam 1-6% slope, Osier loamy
sand (loamy substratum), Pantego loam, Portsmouth loam, and Rains
fine sandy loam.
Exum fine sandy loam 0-1% slope is a moderately well drained soil
found on broad, smooth divides in uplands. Permeability is moderate,
surface runoff is slow, and the seasonal high water table is located at
2.5 ft (0.8 m) below the surface. This soil is suitable for farmland and
non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. The chief
limitation is wetness. Exum fine sandy loam is listed as non-hydric.
Goldsboro sandy loam 04% slope is a moderately well drained soil
found on broad, smooth divides in uplands. Permeability is moderate,
runoff is slow, and the seasonal high water table is located at 2.5 ft (0.8
m) below the surface. This soil is suitable for farmland and non-farm
uses such as housing developments or forestry. The chief limitation is
wetness. Goldsboro sandy loam 0-1% slope is listed as non-hydric but
may contain inclusions of hydric soils (Rains fine sandy loam).
Goldsboro sandy loam 1-6% slope is a moderately well drained soil
found on side slopes in uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is
medium, and the seasonal high water table is located at 2.5 ft (0.8 m)
below the surface. This soil is suitable for farmland and non-farm uses
such as housing developments or forestry. The chief limitation is
erosion. Goldsboro sandy loam 1-6% slope is listed as non-hydric.
Lynchburg fine sandy loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil found
on smooth flats and in slight depressions in uplands. Permeability is
moderate, runoff is slow, and the seasonal high water table is located at
1.5 ft (0.5 m) below the surface. This soil is suitable for farmland and
non-farm uses such as housing developments or forestry. The chief
limitation is wetness. Lynchburg fine sandy loam is listed as non-hydric
but may contain inclusions of hydric soils (Rains fine sandy loam).
25
Norfolk sandy loam 0-1% slope is a well drained soil found on
broad, smooth divides in uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is
slow, and the seasonal high water table is located greater than 5.0 ft (1.5
m) below the surface. This soil is suitable for farmland and non-farm
uses such as housing developments or forestry. There are no major
limitations to its use. Norfolk sandy loam 0-1 % slope is listed as non-
hydric.
Norfolk sandy loam 1-6% slope is a well drained soil found on side
slopes in uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is medium, and the
seasonal high water table is located greater than 5.0 ft (1.5 m) below the
surface. This soil is suitable for farmland and non-farm uses such as
housing developments or forestry. The major limitation is erosion.
Norfolk sandy loam 1-6% slope is listed as non-hydric.
Osier loamy sand (loamy substratum) is a poorly drained soil found
on broad flats and in slight depressions in the uplands and on stream
terraces. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the seasonal high
water table is located at the surface. This soil is best suited for forests,
with crop cultivation possible if proper drainage is provided. The major
limitations are wetness, frequent flooding, high water table, and low
natural fertility. Osier loamy sand (loamy substratum) is listed as
hydric.
Pantego loam, Portsmouth loam, and Rains fine sandy loam are very
poorly drained soils found on broad flats and in slight depressions in
uplands and stream terraces. Permeability is moderate, runoff is very
slow or ponded, and the seasonal high water table is located at the
surface. These soils are best suited for forests, with crop cultivation
possible if proper drainage is provided. The major limitations are
wetness, frequent flooding or ponding, and high water table. Pantego
loam, Portsmouth loam, and Rains fine sandy loam are all listed as
hydric.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils
with a sandy texture. The soils did not exhibit hydric conditions, such
as low chroma colors or oxidized rhizospheres. Therefore, hydric soil
indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual", 1987, were not observed within the project study area.
3. 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
26
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.
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Two unnamed tributaries to Fork Swamp will be the only surface
water resources directly impacted by the proposed widening project
(Figure 2). The project also crosses Fork Swamp. Bridge No. 169
currently carries Fire Tower Road over Fork Swamp. The bridge is
scheduled to be replaced with a culvert under TIP Project B-3502 before
the construction of U-3613. The new culvert will be long enough to
accommodate the proposed widening of Fire Tower Road. Therefore,
the impacts to Fork Swamp will be described in the environmental
documentation for B-3502. Additionally, any permits for impacting
Fork Swamp will be applied for under B-3502. The characteristics of
Fork Swamp are described here; however, the proposed widening
project will have no impact to that stream.
Fork Swamp is located in sub-basin 030409 of the Neuse River
Basin. Fork Swamp is a tributary to Swift Creek, and has its confluence
with the creek approximately 9.5 mi (15.3 km stream channel distance)
downstream of the project area. Swift Creek is a tributary to the Neuse
River, joining the river 30.6 mi (49.2 km stream distance) downstream
of Fork Swamp. Table 7 describes the physical characteristics of each
stream at the time of the site visit.
Table 7. Streams Impacted by Proposed Project.
Stream Width (ft/m) Depth (ft/m) Substrate Comments
UT #1 4.0 (1.2) 2.5 (0.8) Sand Culverted, little flow
UT #2 6.0 (1.8) 1.0 (0.3) Sand Culverted, some flow
b. Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best
usage classification. The classification of Fork Swamp [DEM index no.
27-974] is C Sw NSW. The C classification denotes waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classifications of Sw
(Swamp Waters) and NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water) denote waters
that have low velocities and waters that require limitations on nutrient
inputs, respectively. Unnamed tributaries carry the best usage
classification of the stream to which they are a tributary.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped
27
watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
c. Water Ouality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this
goal the DWQ, formerly known as the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM), collects biological, chemical and physical data
that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are
reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the
basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed by the DWQ) assessed
water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. Some macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. There are no benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring sites on
Fork Swamp; however, a site on Swift Creek at NC 102 [4.4 mi (7.1 km
stream distance) upstream from the confluence of Fork Swamp and
Swift Creek] was surveyed in July 1991 and received a taxa richness
value of 8, a Biotic Index value of 2.93, and a bioclassification of Fair.
Fork Swamp is listed as a partially supporting impaired water, due to
sedimentation and turbidity (DEM, 1992).
Fish tissue analysis was done for Fork Swamp at SR 1700 in
December 1986. This site is 4.9 mi (7.9 km stream distance)
downstream from the project location. Samples were analyzed for
pesticides and organics. All results were lower than FDA criteria
(DEM, 1992).
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream,
lake and estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located
for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data. The type
of water quality data or parameters that are collected is determined by
the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification and corresponding
water quality standards. No AMS stations are located near the 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.
No NPDES dischargers are located within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project
area.
28
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Utilizing preliminary design plans, anticipated impacts to the two
unnamed tributaries will be 80.0 linear ft (24.4 m) each, for a total
impact of 160.0 linear ft (48.8 m).
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface
waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation
removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff
from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Precautions would be taken to minimize impacts to water resources
in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines
would be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval would also be strictly enforced.
4. 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 and follow
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
29
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. Plant taxonomy
generally follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof,
et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al.
(1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in
estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
5. Biotic Communities
Three communities are identified in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed, streambank, and Coastal Plain Perennial Stream.
Community boundaries within the study area are well defined without a
significant transition zone between them, and terrestrial faunal species
likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter
and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
a. Maintained/Disturbed
This is the most common community type found within the project
boundaries. Several forms of the maintained/disturbed community are
present, including frequently maintained road shoulder, frequently
maintained yards, infrequently maintained powerline easement, and
agricultural fields.
Flora found in the frequently maintained road shoulder community
includes fescue (Festuca spp.), beadgrass (Paspalum spp.), crabgrass
(Digitaria spp.), English plantain (Plantego lanceolata), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.), henbit (Lamium
amplexicaule), geranium (Geranium spp.) and field garlic (Allium
vineale).
Flora found in the frequently maintained yards (residential and
commercial) includes the species found in the road shoulder
community, as well as various ornamental plants such as azalea
(Rhododendron spp.), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), oak
(Quercus spp.), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
Flora found in the infrequently maintained powerline easement
includes Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
30
Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communty), smartweed (Polygonum
spp.), Japanese grass (Microstegium spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), common ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia), and saplings of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
Flora found in the agricultural fields consists mainly of planted
crops, including soybeans and cotton. At the time of the site visit, the
fields were mostly bare, as the crops had been harvested. There is
weedy vegetation around the edges of the fields (which are frequently
ditched), including Japanese grass, giant cane, smartweed, goldenrod,
fescue, greenbrier, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, pokeweed,
and sweetgum saplings.
b. Streambank
The first unnamed tributary (UT #1) has weedy vegetation such as
greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans),
giant cane, black willow (Salix nigra), and red maple (Acer rubrum)
along its banks, but this vegetated buffer is very narrow and often
sparse.
Fork Swamp has steep banks and a wooded buffer, although within
the project boundaries the infrequently maintained powerline easement
is the only community. Beyond the powerline easement, there is a
mixed hardwood forest consisting of sweetgum, tulip poplar, swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), American holly (Ilex opaca), loblolly
pine, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and greenbrier.
The second unnamed tributary (UT #2) has a narrow streambank
community of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar,
sweetgum, red maple, black willow, Chinese privet, Japanese
honeysuckle, and grapes (Vitis spp.). Herbaceous vegetation
immediately adjacent to the stream includes Japanese grass and soft
rush (Juncus effusus).
c. Coastal Plain. Perennial Stream
There are three stream crossings within the project area: Fork
Swamp and two unnamed tributaries to it. All three are fairly small in
the project area, and have been impacted by development (agriculture
practices, channelization, etc.). No submerged aquatic vegetation was
observed in any of the streams, and for the most part, the canopy was
open.
31
6. Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in
an area will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section
addresses the fauna likely to be found in the project study area.
a. Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the maintained/disturbed and streambank
communities includes raccoon* (Procyon lotor), opossum* (Didelphis
virginiana), hispid cotton rat* (Sigmodon hispidus), muskrat* (Ondatra
zibethicus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humilis), southern toad (Bufo terrestrias), rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta) and Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis)
Avian species utilizing this area include junco* (Junco hyemalis),
chipping sparrow* (Spizella passerina), flicker* (Colaptes auratus),
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis), European starling* (Sturnus vulgaris) and turkey
vulture* (Cathartes aura).
b. Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various
invertebrate and vertebrate species. Fish such as mosquitofish*
(Gambusia afnis), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), and
sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and amphibians such as the Southern cricket
frog (Acris gryllus) would utilize the shallow, fairly disturbed habitat
present in the three streams in the project study area. Invertebrates that
would be present include: crayfish (family Cambaridae), nymphal stages
of dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata), and caddisfly larvae
(Order Tricoptera).
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed widening 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 terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present within the study area. Project
32
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 8 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of
way width. Usually, project construction does not require the entire
right of way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 8. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Maintained/Disturbed 14.09 (34.83)
Streambank 0.14 (0.32)
Total 14.23 (35.15)
- Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening Fire
Tower Road will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing
faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is
anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace
some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife
by the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the
species.
Wildlife mortality may increase as a result of the proposed
improvements and the increased volume of traffic. Many species can
cross a two-lane road but have more difficulty with a four- or five-lane
crossing. During the site visit, a road-killed opossum was observed near
the bridge over Fork Swamp, indicating that wildlife mortality is already
occurring and will likely increase after the project is complete.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their
environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation
and erosion from construction-related work will affect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream
construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce
33
siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and
amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive
amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or
repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material
at the construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank
enhances the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation
stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion
and sedimentation cant' soils, toxic compounds and other materials into
aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and
downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation.
Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and
to elevations of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
7. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and
protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
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 (CFR) 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).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three
parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area
to be considered a wetland. Based on these criteria, no jurisdictional
wetlands are present within project boundaries.
34
Fork Swamp and its unnamed tributaries are jurisdictional
surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects
of these streams are presented in previous sections of this report.
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface water areas in the proposed road
widening project area are 80.0 ft (24.4 m) for two of the three stream
crossings (UT #1, UT #2), for a total surface water impact of 160.0 ft
(48.8 m). As stated before, the impacts to Fork Swamp will be
described in the environmental documentation for Project B-3502. That
project, which is scheduled to be completed before the proposed
widening project, proposes to replace bridge #169 over Fork swamp
with a culvert. Anticipated impacts to streams are determined by using
preliminary design plans
d. Buffers
Projects located within the Neuse River Basin are subject to the
recently developed Neuse Buffer Rules, administered by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). These rules address the loss of stream channel
buffers for field verified streams appearing on the USGS Topographic
Quad and/or the NRCS Soil Survey. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation will coordinate with the DWQ concerning the Neuse
Buffer Rules.
e. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." The
project is likely to qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification is required prior to the issuance of
the Section 404. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulations.
f. Miti ag tion
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept
of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy
35
is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity
of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
1. Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United
States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states that in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
2. Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the
United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes
and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to
minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation
control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire
life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream"
activity; and litter/debris control.
3. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may
not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
36
adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the
United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory mitigation is
not likely to be necessary for this project.
8. 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
human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject to
review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of June 16, 2000, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service lists the following federally protected species
for Pitt County (Table 9). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat requirements follows.
Table 9. Federally Protected Species for Pitt County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spinymussel Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee Endangered
Endangered- a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened--a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spiny mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River
drainage basins, and requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated,
circumneutral pH water. The stream substrate is usually composed of
uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively
37
silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as an
intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This mussel is
named for its spines, which project perpendicularly from the surface and
curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12 spines can be found on the shell
which is generally smooth in texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and
bluish-white (posterior).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of a fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, silt free
stream with a substrate composed of uncompacted gravel and sand is not
present within the project area. Additionally, a visual and tactile search of
the streambeds in the project area did not discover any mussel fauna. The
NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats has no record for the presence of the Tar River spinymussel
within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect
the Tar River spinymussel.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and
short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in
color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half
mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an
area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human
disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include
coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting habitat in the form of large trees with a clear flight
path to water is not present within the project vicinity. Additionally,
there are no water resources of sufficient size to provide foraging
opportunities for the bald eagle within the project area. The NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no
record for the presence of the bald eagle within the project vicinity.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the bald eagle.
38
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
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 200.0 ha (500.0 ac). 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 (12.0-100.0 ft) above the
ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30.0-50.0 ft) high. They can be
identified by a large encrustation 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
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for
the RCW are not present within the project vicinity. There are no old
growth stands of southern pine in vicinity of the project. Additionally,
forested areas in the project vicinity consist of mixed pine/hardwood
forests, which are less than 50% pine and generally have a dense
understory of hardwood saplings and shrubs. The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record for
the presence of the RCW within the project vicinity. Therefore, no
impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project
construction.
Trichechus manatus (Manatee) Endangered
Animal Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67; 6/2/70
39
The manatee is a large, gray or brown, barrel shaped, aquatic
mammal. The hindlimbs of the manatee are absent, and the forelimbs
have been modified into flippers. The tail is flattened horizontally. The
wrinkled body is nearly hairless except for stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle.
In clear water most of a manatees body is visible, however in murky
waters (like North Carolina) only a small part of the head and nose are
visible.
Manatees are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt
water bays, and as far off shore as 3.7 miles. They are found in freshwater
and marine habitats at shallow depths of 1.5 m or higher. In the winter,
between October and April, manatees concentrate in areas with warm
water. During other times of the year habitats appropriate for the manatee
are those with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and in
proximity to freshwater. It is believed that manatees require a source of
freshwater to drink. Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any
aquatic vegetation present, but they may occasionally feed on fish.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
No habitat in the form of canals, rivers, estuaries, or salt-water bays
is present within the project area. The only water resources present are
small streams, which will not support manatee populations. The NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
has no record for the presence of the manatee within the project vicinity.
Therefore, no impact to the manatee will result from project construction.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are seven Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Pitt
County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection
under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species
that may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 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.
40
Table 10 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 10. Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow SR No
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC * No
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE No
Procambarus medialis Tar River crayfish W3* Yes
Oxypolis temata Savanna cowbane W l No
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C No
"T"'-A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease.
The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a
different part of the country or the world.
"SR"-A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known
and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"W3"--A Watch Category 3 species is a species which is poorly known in North Carolina, but is not
necessarily considered to be declining.
"/P_"-denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
A mussel survey was conducted during the site visit, specifically
searching for the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel. No
mussel fauna was observed during this survey. Surveys for the other
state-listed species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
any of these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no
records of Federal Species of Concern in or near the project study area.
9. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Pitt County is a participant in the National Flood Regular Insurance
Program; however, the project does not cross any designated flood hazard
areas and will not impact any 100-year floodplain limits.
41
10. Water Quality
The project is not in a water supply watershed, nor in a high quality
water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through
the appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard
erosion and sedimentation control measures. Fork Swamp and two unnamed
tributaries to Fork Swamp will be the only surface water resources directly
impacted by the proposed widening project. Existing drainage patterns will
be maintained and improved to the extent practicable. Groundwater
resources will be assessed in final hydraulic designs to ensure that measures
are taken, if necessary, to prevent contamination.
11. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part
772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts
are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
a. 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.
Its sound pressure usually describes the magnitude of noise. 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 more 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 Table N1 in Appendix A.
Review of Table NI indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they
42
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 when 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 that occur 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 hom 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.
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 that 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.
b. 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
43
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2 in Appendix A.
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.
c. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified
land uses. 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 levels in the
project area as measured at 15 meters from the nearest roadway ranged
from 64.4 to 64.8 dBA. The ambient measurement locations and
measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and Table
N3 in Appendix 2, respectively. A background noise level of 45 dBA
was used in areas where traffic noise was not the predominant source.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate the existing
noise levels for comparison with the noise levels actually measured.
The calculated existing noise levels were approximately 1 dBA higher
than the measured noise levels for the locations where the noise
measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable
tool in the prediction of noise levels. The differences in the dBA level
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.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables that 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. 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,
44
etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type,
barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it should be noted that only the preliminary roadway
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes to widen SR 1708 to a multi-lane facility. Two cross-sections
were considered that would provide the needed improvements to the
existing 2-lane roadway. A 5-lane, curb and gutter facility with 4.2
meter outside lanes and 3.6 meter inside lanes was Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 was a 4-lane, curb and gutter facility with 4.9 meter raised
island and 4.2 meter outside lanes and 3.6 meter inside lanes. The
proposed improvements consist of constructing a combination of these
two alternatives. 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 year 2025. 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 Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4 in Appendix A. Information contained in these tables
include all receptors located in the vicinity of the project, their ambient
and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for
each.
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
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
that fall in either category.
45
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development which building permits are
issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the
Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the
location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs,
FONSIs, RODs, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later.
For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs
are utilized along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table
N5 in Appendix 2. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected
to experience traffic noise impacts either by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.
Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there are 34 impacted residential
receptors and 3 impacted commercial receptors for both Alternatives 1
and 2, due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum
extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours for Alternative 1 is
21.4 and 39.9 meters, and for Alternative 2 is 21.6 and 40.1 meters,
respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control
over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within
local 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 in Appendix A indicates the exterior traffic noise level
increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section. There is
one receptor that is predicted to be impacted by a substantial increase in
exterior noise levels. The predicted noise level increases for Alternative
1 range from +3 to +10 dBA and for Alternative 2 range from +3 to +10
dBA for this project. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely
possible to 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.
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement
measures must be given to all impacted receptors.
46
g. 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.
h. Traffic Svstem Management Measures
Traffic management measures that 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.
i. 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.
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 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (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).
47
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.
j. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative was also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
17 residential receptors would experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FWHANAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels of +4 dBA
and +5 dBA. This small increase to present noise levels would be
barely noticeable to the people working and living in the area.
k. 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.
1. 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. 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.
48
12. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions due to
industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
The impact created by highway construction ranges from intensifying
existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality.
Highway traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a
new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), 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 at a receptor near a
highway, 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 (NCDEHNR) 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 component was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to
determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
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. 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. However, regarding area-wide
emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
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,
49
not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources in an
urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight,
the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical
oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that
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
seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of
sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions
are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect
that traffic on the proposed 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 that 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
approximately 0.53 gram per liter. By 1989, this composite average had
dropped to 0.003 gram per liter. 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 near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the year of 2005, and the Design Year of 2025
using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", the
50
MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model for idle emissions
and for free flow conditions.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section,
Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that
an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and
rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located along
the limits of the right-of-way at 82 feet (25m) from the centerline of the
roadway. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the
evaluation build years of 2005 and 2025 are 3.0 and 3.2 ppm, respectively.
The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the no-build alternative
for the years of 2005 and 2025 are 5.0 and 9.6 ppm, respectively.
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 is less than 9 ppm for the
build alternative, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level would not
exceed the standard. See Tables Al through A4 in Appendix A for input
data and output.
The project is located in Pitt County, which has been determined to be
in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR
part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an
attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects
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 done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance. Also 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.
51
13. Hazardous Materials and UST Involvement
A field reconnaissance survey did not identify any facilities with the
possibility for underground storage tanks within the proposed corridor
alignments. Also, Geographical Information System (GIS) was consulted
for this project. The research shows no regulated or unregulated landfills
within the project limits.
14. Geodetic Survey Markers
The project will have no effect on geodetic survey markers.
15. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the
following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
implemented during the construction phase:
a. 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 provision by the Engineer. Disposal
of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not
be permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval
will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution. In addition, disposal will
not be done in wetland areas.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
c. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
d. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished
e. Telephone, water, sewer, and electric utilities exist along the
project. The Department of Transportation will hold a
preconstruction conference between the Department, the Contractor,
representatives of the involved utility companies, and pertinent local
officials. Methods to coordinate utility adjustments will be
discussed at this conference. The contractor will prepare a work
schedule that minimizes possible damage to these utilities and
interruption of service.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be
removed from the project and burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
52
Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality. Care will be
taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are
such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed
under constant surveillance.
g. An erosion control schedule will be developed by the contractor
before starting work. The schedule will show the time relationship
between phases of the work that must be coordinated to reduce
erosion and describe construction practices and temporary erosion
control measures that will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with this schedule, the contractor will be required to
follow those provisions of the plans and specifications pertaining to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as
berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, and others will be used as needed.
h. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for the 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 the material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is listed on 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.
i. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
j. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be briefly
disrupted during construction. Efforts will be made to ensure the
transportation needs of the public will be met during and after
construction.
k. Measures will be taken to ensure that sediment and erosion control
devices will not be placed in wetland areas, except for devices
such as silt fences and rock check dams in drainage areas which
limit sediment getting into the wetland.
53
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Comments were received from the following Federal, State and local agencies.
These comments have been taken into consideration in the planning of this project and the
preparation of this document.
U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Greenville
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
B. Citizens Informational Worksho
The Division of Highways held an informal Citizens Informational Workshop for
the project on September 29, 1998. This workshop was held at the Pitt Community
College from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Representatives of the NCDOT's Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, the Roadway Design Unit, Division 2
Staff and Right of Way Branch were available to explain the project, answer questions, and
receive comments. Approximately 65 citizens attended the meeting. Appendix C contains
a copy of the news release advertising the workshop.
During the workshop, the Division of Highways displayed an aerial photograph of
the project area, vicinity maps, and a thoroughfare plan map showing the proposed project.
In addition, the Division of Highways supplied each participant with an information packet
containing general project information, a vicinity map, and a comment sheet. A copy of
this packet is included in the Appendix C. Each participant had the opportunity to review
the aerial photograph and maps and ask questions or give comments.
Two typical sections were presented to the public at the workshop; a five-lane curb
and gutter roadway and a four-lane divided roadway with raised grassed median.
Comments received from those in attendance at the Citizens Informational
Workshop mostly pertained to potential impacts to individual properties along Fire Tower
Road. However there was considerable support for the project. Most of the comments
received supported the following improvements:
54
- a five-lane typical in the areas zoned commercial and a 4-lane typical section in
areas zoned residential.
- incorporating bike lanes into the typical section
- signalization only at major intersections
In addition, most of the comments expressed a desire for the project to be completed
expeditiously.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following circulation of this report to provide more
detailed information on the project to local citizens and to receive additional comments on
the project.
55
FIGURES

r!

t i?wlbw rr?A 'yti 7 ?.
W.o.

r
?w. M(
ri

t , q
frih??
G
? END
PROJECT
aQ:

-o' ,

BEGIN
'
_ 4°o a
ROJECT •lo,
Q Frog Lsv = s
, „o, s
s.

-??enport F
arm Road

a - La ?
O
N NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GREENVILLE
SR 1708 (FIRETOWER ROAD)
FROM NC 11/903 (MEMORIAL DRIVE)
TO SR 1709 (COREY ROAD)
PITT COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. U-3613

0
10 -11 FIGURE 1

wu !
I ? J \
LEGEND
##### 2010 Projected Voltnnes On Adopted T.P. ?. /
U-3613
U ?' \\
-3613A I Fire Tower Road Extension)
B-3502 (Bridge 9169 Replacement)
f y
oone©c R-2250 (?=reenville Southwest Bypass)
l- \ \ H? ? 1 VC
1 ?
r t
.?JJ gee}e.eeeee?? 10,50
*penman
B! s' I k'
000 ;;rl (? y? _,.? l Ll_ !n l-- _ ?_
'
C\j
Ob ?\ \ ../ O =eat- ?If SIR A V / I I
,;J OHO •I 1 ll',T/? )O l`?.e,?.. ?. ,. 1 rs? ? BIV J .+ ..- -1 _. 1 I
It, WIK
I ? •?®?U 11 _ - ? ?.t ? % ?J ?/ ?j,? ?, y/_ % - / 8 of °?niiDW'K'an ? L ? ?? ??r . ? ` ( / / I
00 '? !? / .f rr / h o? So0 3,300 - ----- jS `
o°?
1200 000 "SF 21,500 ?i ?r`'? \ I 600 r
0 lo
jn 12, { _ 11
-
m? `rF /" AI ?r o? I 9,000/ 1t n 'i•• I us 2617,500,--
r o ®m 2S0 13 600 I I I
' 11,000
o p q se r( 500 I I 1 ZA --07
Iop /,' ?..¢ 0 6
b I L®©wr a®o / -' Y 30,000 , 10,000'
us 264 NEs, 26,0 w fAl11Nl 'p? ® + ^r Sop rya /-?_ _
°O 1 r - ° rrr 4...
16,5001 - 31,000' 133000 ° 21,000 ,
,f, eg ?7,r ° 19,500, 4 rf r °
S,1,H1OH ?°?;,j-- ` ?_ '`,)`f, *af? ??°?,, 11?QOy ?`', oG9 1 ?- N
°o a
. o 72
,sp
I+ r r _y r
C - - _ -.,I 1 -- _ .'_' 'O'?° ?? It?il y N },x_950•` ;!y (Or/./ Q '- ' -- ? ?? 2+, 00 of i ?` - / .?:
' ?o ? ?'E TlI o _.. SIN ?r ti$ 1 o I ;NSA ? is/?v ? '`? O -0 ?e 1'I •' nunGtGl m Of
?I Y ff e Gjti f r
1 - ????'' I I I i , ? _ ?Oa / '? ? _20,000:27,500 D vD •'A)O" (a ,•- u`??? •?. ,. ?'? _ ... L'' \ :I
_25,000 r i = o
U AID ° - - ° i - ?/lr I w _ 7n ' l J o S ' I j:r col /!j l I ° l
°oJa _ °°0 - '? .>f r .? c?, • a®° mRm n _ `? I - . ,;? JS ?? - _s?.(Pyy//_ 60001
:© I ?6, I 3 r o \ CD BAIT ° d5% ?/ ° ? On I ° t ,-?.
1 ® 3 ?. L I 1 ? ! o I is I•- ?' I / p r ,= _I ?G? ??'
Awn - 0 M 11 _ i o 0
I - _L I _ ° ? s,L+O o - -' j = `0'a'Q. / ? 1' _J ? 7 I cP ^? , { o ? ,? d-? ' 1 ? 1 G, ".1 F ., ' °' S7. _
J _ I If1r? _ r /I, 7 ?I'g'??' 1' / r? I? 3 /j in F
16
\ I o00 2 ,/ `? FIT oa
;GnFfu IFBI P N i S??' ?( I I I_ - m'? i °Y£e°` Bono
?- r ? ? p?; _., • l- ? ?F' obi I:_4 I?-. ? 'I ??TII' 'I_'I' 1• ? / ®°° °p° ?rOO° ? . , "?-_\ii1/\\I ' " / `^?'
I _ ` I I ?° ? - .??" 1 l R .VIII / `sy p I ?'S?rll•f-- ,n- . { 1. _ ®a+PO°o_ ? y? - - s' 'T - ;'
1 II ink /so 1110!-?I\ll -_ p 3S0 LI:
o 7,000 I 0 I 20 C ` I !? !
t.r - I o = ,
400 a
4,500
,? OVBLLE LEGEND FIGURE 3
9 ?EE?tl??ll
/(tea AWIfn RY CIIY OF GRFCIIVIILC EXISTING PROPOSED
ftIBLI?IFETI11G5 %IIILICIIEARIIIfrS MAJOR TROROIIDRFARE9
I IIAY G, 1990 II,, 5.6-89. 85-87 7-24-B9
(y) 110110,111 APPR0VIR nY 11111111111 nCLP' 0-7 fl7 90-10087 7_If.A7 EIIEEWAVS B®®eA®¦B1e
(\ An0 RE sf ARCH BRAllfll IIAYj?,B.20?? 1011019iP717-07 ?. 10-g0 OTIIF.R R l?rgp m®1lmBA60
lhl AIINOR TIIOROIIGNFAIIF.P ---®---
THOROUGHFARE PLAN AOnrll" RY 1100111 11001 IIIA OFPARI11C111 OF
I I AIISPOn1A, 1011 JIIIIE I, 199[1 IFITER(`,IIAIIOE
MAY 10, 11190 GRADE SEPARATION
Q
a?
L
W
T?
V
Z A
? W
W
O
O
COO
A
W
a
>(3,
o ? o
?bA Q"

o r4
? E
O O C
N
? N
P
EW)
M ON N
r,
?T
N N
N
N
oIo
... ? N
'C3
O
cd a.,
U bA
U
o
o?
y V O
U
E.
i
U
U
U
w
c?
O
O
O >
o
N y
3 E
J
U
O
F
F-
0
Z
m
a?
L
N ?
IO O o
ICI
F
U
W
W
W
F
F
A
U
w
Z
w
I?
r
A
W
o c oO
? O.
IF
O
M

? M
t-

U
.Ny M
? N
n I
O ^
? fV C
N
CA
at
O
U
N
? O
c? U
O
? y
? O U
'y U C
U
c?
a?
v
A
U
•U+
"C
O
O
U
O
y
C
.N
O
i..
U
"O
3
J
Q
U
F-
F
Z

/-1
C)
tn
N
N
a
H
Cd
Q?
3
0
0
a
0
w
a?
an
«3
a?
0
N
c?
U
i-?
O
U
cd
0
O
O
N
0
0
N_
N
0
0
N
C4 C
12000
0

0
r
0
0
0
0
0
N
O O
0 0
JL
?I
0
0
0
o?
L 28200
o U
z
0?
?I
r=l
M m
0
0
O
00 C? OO
e0 N O
O.
C ?
?s
O
Q
h
d
by
O
10
C ? O
M O ?
U
L6
0
0
0
0
tn
ON
N
a
O
w
e ?

O
O FZ-

O ¢ O U3

= O O
z F- N
U U -? z
D ? LU a ¢z

C7
=
z
o
p = OFp?„
°o O D `.z0
w
U
O
F-
O
z
?\
0
N
Fil
a
H
CA
Cd
a
M?
W
i?
Q?
3
0
"'C3
O
O
?I
a
0
w
a?
Cd
v
a?
C
Cd
U
0
U
c?
H
0
0
0
N
O
O
N

N
O

M

N

0

0

N
0
10
O O
o
J
L

° o I o
0 o
M M
0
0
0
0
N
o 0
?
J L
o ? o

S o

U
z o?
„
?
o
°
o

00
0

> o
E
- ?

iJ.
R
O O>
O
O 9:4
M ?+
N O V]
U
0
0
O
O
0
M
M
M
N
7
by
w

w

O O
o
?

a

>

=
V
o
??

O
U

o w
O
O
U

0
aE
a
E-

0

? o
rii
C7
zz?
w
a
U
0
O
H
O
z

?N
,o
t J
N
N
GC3
3
0
N
O
O
a
U4
0
w
a?
oA
c
c?
U
s.,
N
C
O
3
Ln
GCS
U
O
fs.?
U
Cd
0
N
O
b N
0
d
p o
i3 =
Z
O
0
N
0
0
O
MM
0
°°
R
r
a CA
a?
p
F N
b
Cc
0
U
O
0
0
N
U
kn
a?
L

C7
0
a
0 0
m o
""' Q LL7
O °. o
p
¢ O U
= O O D o
V U U
ep. ¢ z
? D ? O p Q
de
? o
v c 2 c Fv
o p p z?
O
0
M
w
U
O
F-
O
z
/-\
O
tn
N
N

a

H

P1

W

3 °
o
N
? H
b ?
V1

rn

O
$.1
a
a?

o
r
r

WJ

U

? p

° o
CD

rn
c?
U

c.
s
?
O o ?
N
O
p
0
0
M
O
O
M
1
N
0
0
0
N
M
J ( M
M I ?
O
O
0
0
M
o ?o
J L
0 0
0
0
0
h
00
Fire Tower Road
SR 1708
.a
O
O °
000 A
U N
O
C
M
N
0
0
G
to
7
Op
w
0

W

O CIO

a

> ?
=
V
w ¢
O
U O
O
U
c AC
?
F-
a

c
v
°
y O 2 0
W
a
F
z
0
H
U
W
W
H
Q
W
O
a
O
a
z
0
w
UP)
x
w
H
H
w
+-• ail ._ ??
Q
10
4* Irsop.

b
3
H
w
00
0
(anuQ IRTIOMW) £06-1 I DM
bA
o
41ttl*
I ". L*O.

(OAUG It'uouzOW) E06-11 DN
a?
3
0
F-?
a?
w
00
0

04
C*n
z
0
H
U
W
W
H
Q
W
O
a
O
a
a
z
0
H
U
W
W
H
L7
H
W
--.V- (i) - -
w
z
0
H
U
W
W
H
A
W
O
a
O
a
z
0
H
U
W
W
H
C7
H
X
w
'-- (z) -. ?r
C4
rA
.-?
b
.r
J
0
bA

as
APPENDIX A
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
a E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
PROJECT: 2220901 COUNTY PITT Alternate N/A of Alternate
I.D. NO.: _ F.A. PROJECT _
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: WIDENING OF SR 1708 FROM NC 11-903 TO SR 1709

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 1 0 0-20M $0-150 0-20M so-150 19
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 2040M 17 150-260 3
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 65 250.400 38
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 103 400-600 27
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 loo up 405 600 up 3n
displacement? TOTAL 602 98
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project? All residential displacees are counted as families.
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 2. ALTHOUGH THE CHURCH ITSELF IS NOT AFFECTED,
indicate size, type, estimated number of THE 1SFO LOCATED ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY WILL
employees, minorities, etc. HAVE TO BE RELOCATED.
5 Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 3.THERE IS AN AMPLE SUPPLY OF SIMILAR TYPE
. BUSINESSES NOT AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.
6. Source for available housing (list). BRAXTON FARM MARKET- SMALL- 1-3 EMPLOYEES
4
7.
X Will additional housing programs be needed? .
6. THE MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE, NEWSPAPERS,
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? REALTORS, ETC.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. B. AS MANDATED RY STeTE LAW.
families? 11. GREENVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY
10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY.
AN ELABORATE TYPE
X 11. Is public housing available? 14. BECAUSE THE BUSINESS IS
OF FRUIT STAND WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND A SIMILAR
12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing REPLACEMENT SITUATION.
housing available during relocation period?
13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12

ALBERT JOYNER
Z'z
I
-
M.L. LONG ? t- 06-09-00 -
Relocation Ao6 71 nt Date A roved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d
vnyma? a i a.,Vvy. ...y,....
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-1
TABLE Al
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3613:SR 1708 PITT COUNTY
• SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
RUN: U-3616 SR 1708 PITT CO. YR 05
20 = 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
« X1 Yl X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/M1) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *------- ------------------------ -------------
1. Far Lane Link 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 1610. 360. AG 1365. 11.7 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 10.8 805.0 10.8 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1365. 11.7 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
-------
COORDINATES (M) «
«
RECEPTOR X Y 2
------------------------- -------------------------------------
* -9.9 .0 1.8
1. R/W, 15.Om From CL
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)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.0
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 1S 3.00 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-2
TABLE A2
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION.2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3613:SR 1708 PITT COUNTY RUN: U-3616 SR 1708 PITT CO. YR 25
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
LINK DESCRIPTION * *
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) WHO (M) (M) (VEH)
*
. --------_----
........................*•----10.8 ----805.0 _----10.8 ----805.0 *----1610.---360. AG 1785. 10.6 --_ .0 13.2
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link * 10.8 805.0 10.8 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1785. 10.6 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
• X Y 2
RECEPTOR
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 15.0m From CL * -9.9 .0 1.8 *
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 maximm.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.2
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.20 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-3
TABLE A3
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3613:SR 1708 PITT COUNTY
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
RUN: U-3616 SR 1708 PITT CO. YR 05 no build
20 = 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
-------------- * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
* X1 Y1 X2
----------- -------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------ --- ---
1. For Lane Link * 3.2 -805.0 3.2 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1365. 23.4 .0 9-2
2. Near Lane Link * 3.2 805.0 3.2 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1365. 23.4 .0 9.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
COORDINATES (M)
* X Y 2
RECEPTOR
------------------------- *-------------------------------------'
1. R/W, 9.15m From CL * -7.6 .0 1.8 r
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)
(DEGR)- REC1
MAX * 5.0
DEGR. ' 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.00 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-4
TABLE A4
CAL3GHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U•3613:SR 1708 PITT COUNTY RUN: U-3616 SR 1708 PITT CO. YR 25 no build
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES ,
---------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 N/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AM6 = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------ -----------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.2 -805.0 3.2
2. Near Lane Link * 3.2 805.0 3.2
*
Y2
----------
805.0
•805.0
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W VIC QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------------------------
1610. 360. AG 1785. 44.1 .0 9.2
1610. 180. AG 1785. 44.1 .0 9.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
..................
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2
------------------------- *------- -------------------------------------
1. R/W, 9.15m From CL * -7.6 .0 1.8 «
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)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 9.6
DEGR. * 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 9.60 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-5
TABLE N1
BEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m 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 Wain, elevated train, farm tractor
power lawn mower, newspaper press
LOUD
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory
90 --
D Diesel truck 65 km/h at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 km/h at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD

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

50 -
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40 ----
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSONS THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 ----
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
0
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "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.)
A-6
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category (h) Descrl uon of Activi Cate o
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
F OURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
e Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
) Levels to Future Noise Levels
0 >= 15
x 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
A-7
Lu N Q oo v
O cyst ? "t
z

M
`O z
O
F >+ H
0. H
4t
A4

0

v c

w a,

z w =
-
a :
?
a ? c
z ? = U
S.
4.. H
b
z m
w
?? ?
o 3
y =
3

?
U 3 "
F~ , v E

00 0
O c
a y
3 3
V1 F F'

LL ?
0 0

F ?. N

ti
0
a?
c
ca
N
i
R
v
c
w
°
s
e
0
H
e
H
3
N_
c
E
R
L
F
LU
F
O
z
A-8
ou
R
a
M_
110
M
i
a
z?U
W C.L
CIS
Q 0 N
?zx
V '~
E"' 13.1
00
O
m
CIO,
. <
O C, .aD .o 'IT ° C, 00 C co v, Oo o, C, '00 C, 00 co 00 00 00 '00 0 C,
o, o,
LJ W .
00 00
> C
+ t t t + t + + + + + + + + + + + '.+ ?+ t t t + t + + +
UJ z
r it #
?_ :C, •N 'V IN 100 iN 100 .•-• .O :00 S, •C 'O 0o '00 '00 ?r 'N •00 O O of- 'C, 'N N

W '
O 11 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 •1 1 1
Q I ! ?

F !
U_
W :? 1 ? 1 ?' 1 !. 1 1 ? 1 1 ? 1 - 1 1 I I 1 1 ?. 1 1 I ? 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ? 1 1

ice .a a jw ice !s 1-2 icd liz ,? -a ? Ice 1J -a ix ? .J ice ice '•a x ;c o
L
>' IF o .o io to lo jo !o ;o 'o 'o io o .o !o o '.o io :o 'o o :o i0 'o IQ !o
V1 I%C 106 "O C
+ vi v1
? ..
= C
3 N I
'N T
C C i0 'O IN jr- IVj i ilri 'IN ..G 'G E1
M 'M M iN 'M IN `N IN '?''1 ?N -N IN
M
'N C
jQ '
I
In 'M IN Ir IN M IN !M N IN 4q V1

uj
o C
o
O - - - - = - - = = - - - _

r ' i ! 'C •O
U3 -3

>
10
o c+? i V 10 N ,C, O V O %o O V, Id` C, iM O IN N N C, M
I? Iln No No mn Iln .h ,%o •?o ?o ?o •?o :In o ,?o b
1 C
O
uj -on
R

I-
i
? •
F' Q t - i
'
!• Ie !. 13 IC 1=
-
' O N
I
I I 1 •
O O C/1
I
. y
Lid !? I
LL i I ' y A
a
a
o U
U
Z v v !m W ;U ;U ;U IU ,U .m im Iw :U v U v !U IU ,U Im v -co to m m m:m .m C
rn
H N

o: :W
O .= = ? _ d u
v:yiC ' IVJ 'N IV) ?N ?fn IC !C ?C
'a? iy 'y !41 .6? •?N a? a? a? E E
? 10 E
`
rn
Z 'Q 6>
?a?
C ^C '? iC !C :C 'C 'C "LS "fl !? ;C .C 'C 'C .C .C :C !'fl 'C '? •O ?'C "O '•O o
_
'
N •
'N
?
?
•
`
• y
.
Q
! y
h
N fA
N
U) .
fA
N H
m I IA
NN N . N...y N wy y ..y cn :., •
V
o ;? It o>> o :> > :u 7 u 4) u u u a >3
s o 'o .=
'
' ¢ ¢ O
.
o c
<
O .
o u .
a
Im m 'm :U !m m m 'm im OL `m :OG o ale
a
C On AD ?r X00 10, IO ?? •fy ten !Q 'In I,D :r '00 :O, :N •N N ?N 'N ?N •N ?N
..-• N c?1 ;
U ;
;
!
m 'Q i
O Q

A-9
N
0D
R
G
? O
z?
w
?z
1?1
w
H
M
.r.-I
M
??I
C
V
a
co
a
0
w
00
O
n_
L?
cn

V1
y
,
Vs .00 woo .00 O, 00 C, C, 00 Q` co '.C, .00 '00 T G, c., .O, :o, 00 00 0, -00 'C` a` o C,
LU U
o
? z
100 :p !tom AD , c7l \O ;C7, 10 C i?o IN v1 '? 'N N N t1 '00 O O ,? !? -. 100
- d- 1?0 ?o r- r \-o NO
N
s
,.? q
o '\o it
:gyp :[? ,gyp .gyp .gyp .gyp !?D i?o 'lam ??o ?C :cam
? Ht :w ' iit •w 'it wt '•w rM 1* ?iF * :* '?• !*
•?,: 'w !M•
?
I
N
!
w
I
*
IN
LIS

CA)

ul

O 1 ? ?
a

c :lw Ij a: :;w Ia: is ij i-? 1-a la: ;a; la la' ia: ce iw I.j i.? ;.j ;a: ice 'a la icx ;-j Cie !.?
>' iF
,
.o o to !o ;o o !o !o to Io Io to 0 0 .o 0 0 `o o ;o o :o to o o to Io
i
Q !!/? vi O
U
N hn
?• :vi Ivi 1% 'N -- !O 10 ;C vi :•- ;r4 O jvi r0 .C l0 10 loo w' An An !ri .C
:M Ih ri
N IM ten 'N :N rQ IN
v Q 'N IN
1
.
-T N
;N 'en 'C •M '? 'M Ien N !m 1
CL)

Q O iLil - ?- I. Ic I. kc c 1 'c r_ _ - - - - 'c c
- I
a:
?
•- •-
c
,
- - i

Z `
a o

z
> Z 10 !D ;? ? :? ? n 'n AD ? -
h o ? h
? !? i?
i
I
I
y
o A
SO
v
,
h
W11
o 10 An
Iso

z s
0
o+ I '

< :00

(A < E me

Li] a: Li

I m ;m !m ;m !m m :m jU m ;m :m ,m m m m ;m :m im ;m ;U :m ;m aU ;m
;m im :m
v
? :
w 3 I
a a
F
U ` I
O
ICA LL .
iy :O .d r0 .O N N O d 'O O = c
'
V
:0 C'C II 0 '0 4 '
'v 5'
c
c
'
a
Ci It '
v u 'u d 'E
'
u d '
z ,
,
a
a
v
.
4)
,? .? . D "fl 'C 'C C 'C C ^p "O m M :2
-y R y: 7 R
?

Q y y y y y
y y y y y ?y ?y N y H. y y y in y y
R
0 ' 0 0 ' 0 4) W V V V V V u ;Z a
a
: ;w a:.a::w 'm rQ 'a u 'Q
e
:
.] . a
'Q :w :w :a: xe ;C' !a: Ia 'a: ia::m ae xe. w w ,a: c
o.
Li] : .00 :O, :O ?• tN •r1 !C An AD •r ,00 Q .en O -- N -V 'Q V1 'IO r X00 O? -.O •-- 'N M
M '!t ,IT IT '7 -C 'Q 'C Q '? An II/') At) 1?A
'
'
I
'
r1 'r1 ;? .
r1
r1
M
U 'N N M IM Ien en

03
a
y ?
R p?0
3 ?
R ?
o c
t
O ?
0
o
C
? O
? s
y
V
N
y >
r ?
r
C y
? •0
>r
00
c ?
O is
U
C N
O n
V N
N
R
a
d w
o U
C
y M
H N
o c
v E
H
CL R
y y
N N

A-10
d
04

c w
V)
.o+ a o :o oo .0, oo :c :oo .0, o' oo a 00 00 00 00 00 co o T
00 00
C /)
U + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

101 C14 V N :00 'N 100 ;0 joo v i0l 'qlT .0 :00 '00 r- N .00 +0 Q C) r- (71 N C14

CAI
Nt +r * w a N w w +w rF * :a ,w :er

w

M w
1

? V i

'
I '
!
I
'
..] !me .3 CG ice iw ? Ice IOG
] ,e !e
a
j w
.3 I
-
'
: o S2
,
,..
;-
-
3 .
a i..2 IOG ice
._] i.,] ice ?
Ice -a
o !o
?o .
? Q
N t
.o •o io !o ;o !o !o 'o ?o .o !o ;o Io to .o !o .o 'o o :o o :o o to
v; Ivi v; ISO i06 IC !O
6
O
i . ;;
L C
? . M I
i%
I
A C IO iC IN '? !h 'C Ivi N i%0 !C iv: tV 4 r
N
M !n :en :N ;e^ •N :N 'N M .N e''t
r1 AA IN :en
r1 !h
IN
! D
O 0 3 iQ ;
1
•
.
M N
c1 !N !t` !N M N O
O ;J c i ! i L
U i
W ?.- C of
W W a'
co
Q
' g
+
I ?
C
It s s
CL.
00 ff
Z .' i 1 1 H
V .
s.. . i
o o
U i =

LLJ

>
I ,y ip Ikp ' i° ?? 10+ :c;% ?M :O N `N 'N V, M ?r1
vy nG '%a An 'N h %0 %0 No Ac nG v1 ?C 2 S
:%
D
11
?
°
} V]
w
° Q I
n
.0 I
14n i%D
D 1.0 i- %Q :? !
%
'
i
z 0 •'? I !? '
00
• I !
C u
0 iC

~ < ;00
!

? z 3 is - k 1s I IC is !s c c it .-,. - •s --
U O is -
js
:
I c N
, Q !
,i i !
N V
X 0 j 1
O D
w a c: a?'? a
^ i Cd
y
Ll.
Ice
z °
U !U iU :U .U IU u !m iU :m Im :m :m mm m !m
'U !m TO W
!
! U
H e,.,

O
p ,
U
U iU
:U :m .w U -64) N
F
w- 3 i ! to a
I I
U d
,y y o a
.
C
N N
y
y
'_ _ C
C y C C
/1
/1 iN 'f
H C 'tyil ! N .N iy 'y C iC H iN if
z :
O y y t !? id :d :C
.C yC y0 ?. .
y y y ' y ?y ld R G U3

o.
ce :z -y y "3 y y fn 7Vl
m a a m a ¢
m m
m ?.
D`
w :
<
'
m U im ;m :m im 'm ;ce 'w U .m .m j a
.
a
w .
.._ ,N !M ,T Al) IO It` ;00 101, 10 IN !e+? ,et iv1 I?0 ;tom ;00 !O? :N 'N N 'N ?N :N :N N y y
a?

.Q
W.
Q Q

A-11
N
O
00
O
G
M
? a
O?
O
? U
2 W ? a
C
w w a a
O '
Z O
U
O
H w
00
O
Lz1
ON .00 00 00 ,c c ON c 0o c 00 .01 :00 O1 .c °• .c :c c 00 00 c a, c, c a`
> Oe
U + + + + + '+ . .+ + + ... + + + + + ... + + t + + + + +
? z
?L M
-? .00 .D` it- `D` i0% :O ;T :i N •1/1 Tr N -N N .[- 100 'O O %C, `h '00 C CT
AD 'r- iSio lic lo :?o iio ib t- sic %0 :t- io iic r- i- t- NO AD r- r- %C, %0 io 'i.0
iw iw j+ .s I? i* ?•r 1* ?* ,* :* ' ?* i* it ,* ;w w 1* ;w .+r ;ir w it
LL]
c icc ;.? a ce ice .? .? ;w I1w !w Iw a 1a ice -a I-j ...? iw ice ;a ice .3 ,x i-a
> ;F. U io io io lo io io :o jo ;o o io :0 ;o lo o ?O :o ;o '0 l0 0 0 .o to !o
3 iQ h Ih !"6 It 'N 10 ,O 11ry - jCV 'C IVl IC IO 'C IC oo vi iv), wi ir'1 O :N h h C
!M IN IM 1V MC 1M 'M IN IM 'N IR IT 'N IN N :M M IN N !,-it ',-T iN :M Y1 :M
m
_ Ic c le !s
it I=
a. Iua i? 1=
CL ;Z `o I I I !
I I !
Y j
in !00 'N ICS V O
I? Ao h 100 O !00 10 Io IN !O ikn IM Itol t00 IM IN1 iM AO Iin IN f'N it-
p > ? ih 1? An Ih Igo !? ;?o j%D 1%0 No iv-, „o I? jv? ;%0 1? ISO w? Iv, nc '%o in ?lin ;%o "n `o
o0
< O I I I 1
z 3 U I= I j_ I_ it Ic i= I: j: jz I= I. it is ;t: it I= !- _ _ -
O h'( l i I i I? 1 1 1 ? I, i
O c
ZO {v Im Ico Im Ica ICO im IW Im ICO !m ,U ;CG ICO lcm lm :m Im m NCO Im 4CC ;M U 'CO :CC Lu m
< `Q E3°- . I I
!U
O i vi in
It Ian lay w I w I w i u ! a? y y i a? + a? ; a? lay n? lay ! a> . a? a? ' a? e? c V . e
:c is s = c c '= is :c lai Ic is Oc c :c 'c c c c c .? : con
11= 'cc d it d 1 1cw d '? d 'N '? tL d 61 'N 5 'N S d y 5 U E 5 E
!z ?_ p °C C "fl ?O 'O MC ?C U G O b ?C ' C C ' C "C O C yC ,C ' r
-?
y °y ? fA i N H N N y N M y N y? y y y fA y y y y
a u .w u •u :y .u iy .v o v .w :a? 'w u •u u u a a s c
J N !< Iw iaL ;w :x .a 'w ice 1w :c co ;!a: la ;w w. ce 'ce .Oe :W ce .w c 'm
a .
Li,1 100 'O, 10 l••• 'N IM '? Wn ISO 11? 100 a, IO ? 'N -m 'Q town '? -r- 1p0 T 'O 'N ?M
A
? ?C !t 'C to ?v1 own
U ! IN iN -M ;M :en 'M 1M 'M 1M :M 1M 1o0 -:M !C ? 'Q '!f "S ?
W I M
OC • 0
vi o0
5 OD
3 ?
s
O ?
O
O
rn ?
C G
s
s
= J
G
c -
u ._
'o
}
c c
c U
.in c
= N
O ?
v r
v r
? a
u ce
4.
° U
c
y M
in N
T ?-
cv ?
o a
O H
O C
a?
? a

A-12
L? C
d o
U_
? a
d -n
w
? U 3
0
CC1 W ?
00
W 0
d on
VJ ???i
O cn
zd?
3 a
x?
m O m o 0
F E..
CL Z N
r
g p? p o 0
LL o a
a
U CL
U W
U
LT.
c/) U

? O N
Xam m ? et
?' `?
m
F

A. c
a a: o 0
a
?ce w ? O
z
b ?
oa

ao1
p
7 a
=
N N
- U
N
r
p

W
Uj

E

ce ..1

x Go

I
o
s o
?.

U
o
z

vUi co
p m ; E.
O
? ? LL
Gs. V
O
!
(? O
H
? r r
3
U Cd a
_ v C v
V1 m w
A-13
ccz
0
10
'C
d N
? O
O
? L
a
?o
h ?
RS d
? U
4- ?
r
L E
s?
o?
w
e`"o v
u to
? y
d ?
O
C C
eo O
y w
'C a
E Cl
O ?
?O r
?o
e=v cc
O a
? C0
E ?
V1 N
- r
- N
F N N
U m F =
U
< a5 U]
r Q W -
N
F LU
=oz
z
M_
Q M
a
1?1
Q
O
zz?
w ,... a
d > o
o
O i
z64
U_
w 00
w °
H ?
M W)
w ^ O
Cie
U
Z
a c o
? N
w
a m
O
z
o
O N
ce
F
o
Cd x
OR
a
u] q o
0 0
v
N
N
O
I
? o
i
i O
'I N
i
O
O

^ i

? ? •
0
c C

U i `
V)

0 O

o+

C ? ? C v

to w Q m
N
z
a
m
a
F
0
E
0
0
H
"z
V LLt
C Q
F
e
N
lC V
>, s
c o
o s
c c
Q Q
'- N
A-14
APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 ?- .
tN REPLY REFER TO January 5, 1999
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I ,
>i- f
This is in response to your letter dated September 23, 1998, requesting our
comments on "Greenville, SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road), From NC 11-903 (Memorial
Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey Road), Pitt County, State Project No. 8.2220901, Federal Aid
Project No. MASTP-1708(1), TIP Project No. U-3613" (Regulatory Division Action I.D.
No. 199910040).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. There are no
Corps projects that would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
-?? C. Alex Morrison, Jr. P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
B-1
January 5, 1999
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Greenville, SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road), From NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive) to SR 1709
(Corey Road), Pitt County, State Project No. 8.2220901, Federal Aid Project No.
MASTP-1708(1), TIP Project No. U-3613 (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No.
199910040)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section. at
(910)_ 251-4728
The proposed road improvement project is located on the boundary between the
jurisdictional limits of the City of Greenville and Pitt County, both of which are
participants in the National Flood Insurance Program. Based on a review of Panels
250 and 265 of the September 1990 Pitt County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and
Panel 10 of the April 1986 City of Greenville FIRM, the roadway does not appear to be
located in an identified flood hazard area. From the Pitt County FIRM's, the road
crossing is shown just above the approximate study limit of Fork Swamp. However,
based on a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topo maps of the
area ("Greenville, Wand "Greenville SE"), it appears that Fork Swamp, and perhaps
an unnamed tributary that is also crossed, have sufficient drainage areas to produce
flooding. We refer you to the community and county for compliance with their flood
plain ordinances. In this regard, we believe that Mr. Brad Kerr with the City of
Greenville Engineering Department, telephone [phone], has knowledge of
hydraulic modeling which has been developed for this reach of Fork Swamp.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC Mr. Mike Bell Protect Manager.
Washington Field Office Regulatory Division at (252) 9754616, Extension 26
Review of the subiect project indicates that the proposed work may include
impacts to Fork Swamp and an unnamed tributary. All work restricted to existing high
ground areas will not require prior Federal permit authorization. However, Department
of the Army permit authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material within
the crossing of the aforementioned waters and wetlands. Speck permit requirements
will depend on design of the project, extent of.fill work within streams and wetland
areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When the
extent and location of development within any waters and wetlands are known, your
agency should contact Mr. Bell for a determination of the Federal permit requirements.
B-2
w JLpT Ord
",p^ I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
V
''?e ???f I NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
j'+*ss * I Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N
St. Petersburg, Florida 3370
J-1 REC
L
October 6, 1998 'r
2a G
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
2X998
P
Please reference your September 23, 1998, request for input into the development of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements of Fire Tower Road (SR 1708, TIP
Project No. U-3613) in Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina. The purpose of the project is to
widen 2.9 miles of Fire Tower Road to a multilane, curb and gutter facility. We have reviewed the
information provided and offer the following comments for your consideration.
Fire Tower Road crosses two tributaries of Fork Swamp which flow into Swift Creek and the Neuse
River. Wooded wetlands associated with these streams provide water quality maintenance functions
that are important for the continued production of anadromous and estuarine dependent fishery
resources. Wetland losses in the headwaters in the Neuse River basin has been identified as one of
the causes of declining water quality in the Neuse River.' Therefore, we recommend that the EA
prepared for this project address the following issues, information needs, and concerns.
1. The EA should describe the acreage and types of wetlands found in the project area and
project related impacts to these wetlands.
2. The EA should describe the functions and values of project area wetlands.
3. The EA should address how the proposed highway design will avoid and minimize wetland
losses.
4. The EA should describe any secondary development resulting from the proposed highway
improvements that may adversely impact wetlands and degrade water quality in the Neuse
River Basin.
'North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program. 1998. Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian
Restoration Plan for the Neuse River. NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
a4 ??
® Printed on Recycled Paper ?`" aB-3

The EA should describe alternatives to the proposed widening project and determine which
alterative will have the least environmental impact.
6. The EA should address the need to mitigate for unavoidable wetland losses. Potential
wetland mitigation sites should be identified as early in the project planning process as
possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments early in the project planning process. If
we can be of further assistance please advise.
Sincerely,
An eas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
NCDENR, Morehead City, NC
COE, Wilmington, NC
F/SER4
B-4
PS?EN7 OF the United States Department of the Interior
Off' 'yR`
H c FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
s Raleigh Field Office
_ Post Office Box 33726
,RCM 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 9, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
P?C?'l\
? G
2
y`O,c
This responds to your letter of September 23, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating; the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed improvements to SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road) southeast of the City of Greenville,
Pitt County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3613). This report provides scoping information and is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state
resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes improvements to SR 1708
(Fire Tower Road), from NC 1 1-903 (Memorial Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey Road). The proposed
improvements consist of widening the subject section of Fire Tower Road to a multilane, curb and
=utter facility. The project length is 9.5 kilometers (5.9 miles). Two typical alternatives are under
consideration: (l) a 5-lane facility with a center turn lane, and (2) a 4-lane facility divided by a
raised island. Symmetrical and asymmetrical widening will be investigated. It is anticipated that
the proposed improvements will be accommodate within 30 meters (100 feet) of right-of-way. No
control of access is proposed.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and
to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
B-5
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fra`;mentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Greenville SE and Greenville SW 7.5
Minute Quadrangles indicate that there are wetland resources within the proposed project
corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area,
they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using
an acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of
the projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected,
sw
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWi). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the Corps;
B-6
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value:
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States, and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting; unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed, endangered, threatened, and candidate species
that are known to occur in Pitt County. Habitat requirements for these species should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the
action area of the project, field surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts,
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections:
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat which
includes consideration of.
The environmental baseline which is an analysis of tile effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leadin`; to the current status of the species and its habitat,
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project area
and cumulative impacts area,
B-7
The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action, (indirect effects are those that
are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain
to occur);
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of larger action and depend on
the larger action for there justification) and interdependent actions (those that have no
independent utility apart from the action under consideration); and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7 consultation;
4. A description of the -manner in which the action may affect any listed species or associated
habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct mortality,
injury, harassment, the loss of habitat are all ways in which listed species may be adversely
affected,
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria may
include post-project population size, long;-term population viability, habitat quality, and/or
habitat quantity, and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened tinder the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA; federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern include those species for which the Service does not have enough
scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the
present time. These species receive no statutory protection tinder the ESA, but could become
candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating that they
are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species tinder the full protection of the
ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore, it
would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
B-8
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination
contact
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
John M. Hefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachments
cc:
COE, Washington, NC (Michael Bell)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (Cyndi Bell)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Eric Midkiff)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC: (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:10/8/98:919/856-4520 extension 3613.tip
B-9
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In PITT County
Data represented on these maps are not based on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
35'45'
35'30'
,.,u.. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program
D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
B-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 PALES
0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
expires 1131/99
77030' 77015' %
Mapping Symbols or
Threatened and Endangered Species
Birds
Bald Eagle
t Peregrine Falcon
A, Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Roseate Tern
p Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
Waccamaw Silverside
Plants
?. American Chaffseed
Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Sumac Piping Plover
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
4;-,Seabeach Amaranth
may,, Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
Smooth Coneflower
L-
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
__00 Eastern Cougar
Red Wolf

Seaturdes are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.
B-11
G..-w
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
November 2, 1998
Mr. Eric Midkiff
NC Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Buiding
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Midkiff:
Re: SCH File # 99-E-0000-0205; Scoping Proposed improvements to SR 1798(Fire Tower Road) in
Pitt County. Improvements consist of widening to a multi-lane, curb and gutter facility.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region Q
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An E MW Oppommity / Affirmative Action Employer
B-12
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
NCDER 00T
N
L? ,??? ? ;,^_ .mss
JAMES a. HUNTJR. ?'•? -
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
wwTNENtcDEwrr:.":• State Clearinghouse
SECRETARY ,.
FROM: Melba McGee w
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 99-0205 Scoping Greenville SR 1708 from NC 11-903
Corey Road, Pitt County
DATE: October 29, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideration. The N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission was unable to respond during the
response due date. Should comments be received they will be
forwarded to you for your file.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 27611-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.US/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
B-13

z
State of North Carolina
Department of En w ironment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
Il\TERGOVE1tiNMENTALftEVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS Project xomba:%? OS Due Due: D =a G Y..
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s)-and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Mcc indicated on the reverse of the form.
C-- rt-.,.e Revinnal Office.
AU applications, Information and Stuaclines mauve to &ncsc piacu ants t--=.. _ • _••-_- -_ _• - -.---- -- . . _ _.. _ .
Normal Process Time

-- (slatincry time limit)
PERMITS
- ..--SPECL4LAPPLJCAMON PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater umstnad Application 90 days before begin construction or award of otmstruction
plication tsebnial eonferatce usual.
Post a
ection
it
i
O 30 days
Leilitim sewer system eraamom & sewer ryssans p
.
e
nsp
contrsc
n-s (90 days)
not discharging Wo state surface waters
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity."Oa-cite inspection. Prsappiirslion 90-120 days
permit to operate 'and construct wastewater facilities conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
treatment fadlity-granted after NPDES. Reply time. 30 days after receipt of
(N/A)
discharging into state surface waum plans or issue of NPDES permit whichever is later.
O Waser Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually moeaasy 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit - -Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days .
installation of a welL (15 days)
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy roust be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
- On-site inspection. pre-application eonferasce usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill teen N.C. Department of Adminiuration and Federal Dredge
(90 days)
and frill Permit
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)

Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must, belts compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations ofsuuetures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Comas Asbestos Control N/A
(90 days)
Group 919-733-0820.
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
O The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
d
li s
20 da
Qua
ty
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be dismtbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (lan y
See.) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the fun acre and 52000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 autst be addressed with rasped to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit Ono to inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varis
i
d
s
30 da
greater
ne
with type mime and number of- aes of affected land. Any we m y
than one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forst Resources if pem h exceeds 4 days I day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
l Oo-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if sneerer than
five eras of ground clearing activities are Wvolvad lmpedions should be I day
(N/A)
s
counties in c oassa/ N.C. with organic soi n quesssd at least tm days before actual burn is planned" -
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit ff permit mMired. application 60 days before begin construction. Apph.W
must hire N.C. qualified engiow to: prepare pleas, inspect construction.
ratify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard r's-scifiryroa A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a pace tape or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
B-14
Continued on reverse
Normal Process Time
(Statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS

7 of well
Permit to drill expioratary 1 or gas File surety bond of 53.000 with ENR running to State ofNC eooditional that
any well opened by drill operator shall. upon abandonmenk be plugged
according to ENR rubs and regulations. 10 days
(NIA)

D Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at last 10 days prior to issue of permit-
Application by letter. No standard application form. 10 days
(N/A)

O State Lakes Comtruetion Permit Application fee based on stntmtrc site is charged. Must include descriptions &
drawings of structure do proof of ownership of riparian property. 15-20 days
(NA)

401 water Quality Certification A
N! 60 days
(130 days)

7 CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $230.00 Sx mina accompany application 35 days
(150 days)

7
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 530.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(23 days)
?? ply DOW-
Several geodetic monumems arc located in or new the project C Geodetic area. Ifany monuments 87. to Raleigh. moved 2 11
N.C.
Abandonment of any yetis. if required must be in accordance with Tide 13A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
7 Notification of the proper regional ollice is of"aphan underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any ehtavauon opemUCNL
requested •
O Compliance with i3A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stotmwater Rules) is required 45 nay:
day
r (NIA)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite eomrxnt authority)

- - REGIONAL OFFICES
- Qu-6- saga rding these permitasbould be adds an to the Rego" Office marked below-
O Asheville Regional Office O Fayettev a Regional Offue - --=' -
39 woodf n place Suite 714 Waebovia Building
A*cvi" NC 28801 Fayetteville NC 28301
. ' - -
C704)251.6209 :• - --- :. _. _ -- • (919)48&1541
- (3 Mooresville Regional•OHice -- -- O RAW& Regiaral.OlTce' - - - - - - - -
Drive.. Suite 101
919 North Main Street. P.O. Box 930 - 3800 Barnet
Mooresville. NC 28113 - - Raleigh. NC 27609 - - w
- -C704)663-1699 (919).371?t700_.._. .--_ . ..•_ . -.
- O Washington Regional 06ee O wihnir4 ton Regnoaai Offu oe
943 Washington Square Mall _ :.127 Cardinal Drive Extensica
Washington. NC 27889--- - - - - - Wilmington NC 2E403 -
919) 946-6481 [phone]-- _ -
_ _ -- p _wimton wan Regio al Office
- - -...- - - 585 Wwglnown St
- - - - - - -- -- - - - - Wuoton Sateen NC 27107
[phone]
B-15 -- - - - --
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
October 26, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathy Ford
Work Unit Superviso
FROM: Floyd Williams
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Washington Regional Office
RE: Project Review
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project No. 8.2220901
Greenville, SR 1708 (Fire Tower Road), from NC 11-903 (Memorial Drive)
to SR 1709, Corey Road, Pitt County
This project must be consistent with the N.C. Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
of 1973. Temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and/or
devices must be utilized throughout the project to prevent sediment from entering natural
watercourses and adjacent properties.
Periodic inspections will be made by Land Quality Section personnel to ensure
compliance.
B-16
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GROUNDWATER SECTION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathy Ford, Administrative Office Assistant
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Will Hardison, Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
DATE: October 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Fire Tower Road
Project No. 990205
Pitt County
The Groundwater Section has reviewed the above proposal and has
determined that this project should not have any adverse impact
upon groundwater supply. However, the following comments are
pertinent to our review:
1) As a result of this project, any chemical or petroleum spills
that occur of significant quantity must be reported to the
Division of Water Quality in the Washington Regional Office
(252-946-6481).
2) Any soils excavated during construction that show evidence of
chemical or petroleum contamination, such as stained soil,
odors, or free product must be reported immediately to the
local Fire Marshall to determine whether explosion or
inhalation hazards exist. Also, notify the Groundwater
Section of the Washington Regional Office at [phone].
Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please
don't hesitate to ask.
6-17
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 5, 1998
To: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
From: Ed Buchner, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
Subject: Comments on EA Scoping #99-0205; Pitt County.
Greenville, SR 1708, From NC 11-903 (Memorial Dr.) to SR 1709
(Corey Rd.), State Project # 8.2220901.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in the
EVEIS document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet stream hdt channelized/relocated stream banks be
banks were vegetated, it it is requested that the
revegetated.
C. Identify the number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ 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) that will be used
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, Nort h Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
B-18
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland 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 preservation.
J. The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts that may be caused by
construction, development or any significant change made to the environment. For
example, a project may cause or increase stormwater runoff or induce further development
of an area. The EA/EIS should give particular attention to secondary and cumulative
impacts.
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
(with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
efb:\# , Scoping
B-19
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NUMBER: 99-E-0000-0205 F02
DATE RECEIVED: 09/29/1998 10Z
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/26/1998
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/29/1998

Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley p
Clearinghouse Coordinator
- Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives-History Bldg. ^ < L25?/J?
rr/` ?.
??•? ? ?'?: :?.J
Raleigh NC ,
?
?
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CCT
jcti r 998

• DEHNR - COASTAL MGT .. ;n?, n ly98

u
Dept. of Agriculture

f Crime Cont./ Public tc` y
?????,9
^'?=^ `"'
Safet r
"
Dept. o
Dept. of Cultural Resources `l??
k
l R
es
Dept. of Environment & Natura
Dept. of Transportation
Mid-East Commission
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: NC Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: i to Polic A
ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposed improvements to SR 1798(Fire Tower Road) in 6i County. Improvements
consist of widening to a multi-lane, curb and gutter ty.
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE : / O1/1 7e/
OCT 0 1 1998
B-20
OCT 1 4 1998
3 ? ' y
I-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty. Ray McCain, Secretary
October 28, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: - William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation ,
FROM: David Brook /L-)
Deputy State istoric Preservation
Officer
SUBJECT: Fire Tower Road (SR 1708), from NC 11-
903 (Memorial Drive) to SR 1709 (Corey
Road), Pitt County, U-3613, State Project
8.2220901, Federal Aid Project MASTP-
1708(1), 99-E-4220-0205
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Alfred Moore House (PT 38), north side of SR 1708, 0.53 mile west of
junction with SR 1709, Cannon's Crossroads vicinity. This property is
included on the state study list.
Fire Tower, south side of SR 1708.
We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation evaluate these properties for National Register eligibility and
report the findings to us. We are aware of no other structures of historic or
architectural importance within the project are and recommend no additional survey
for the project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3
B-21
William D. Gilmore
October 28, 1998, Page 2
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities. Particular care should be taken to investigate stream crossings and all
areas where new alignment are planned.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: ate Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Greenville Historic Preservation Commission
B-22.
.swr
F >
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 29, 1998
Mr. Eric Midkiff
NC Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Buiding
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Midkiff:
Subject: Scoping - Proposed improvements to SR 1798(Fire Tower Road) in Pitt County.
Improvements consist of widening to a multi-lane, curb and gutter facility.
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 99-E-0000-0205. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 10/29/1998. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Fumey
Administrative Assistant
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
B-23
P.O. Box 7207
FUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
April 26, 1999
CITY OF GREENVILLE
N O R T H C A R O L! N A
27835-7207
Mr..Edwin A. Peters
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Sidewalks for the Widening of Fire Tower Road (ID NO. U-3613)
Dear Mr. Peters:
In response to the February 8, 1999, letter from William D. Gilmore, enclosed is a copy of the
"Purpose and Needs Statement" for adding sidewalks along the project. The Statement addresses the
seven criteria noted on pages 4 and 5 of NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy.
Please consider this a formal request for sidewalks along both sides of the road. We have met with
Winterville officials and will continue to do so and inform you of their proposed level of
participation.
if you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at [phone] or Jim Jatko, City Engineer,
at [phone]. We believe we can have a highly successful project.
Sincerely,
1? AA
T. N. Tysinger, Jr., P
Director of Public Works
Enclosure
PC: Eric Midkiff, NCDOT
William D. Gilmore, NCDOT
James H. Jatko, PE, City Engineer
Ronald D. Svejkovsky, Transportation Planner
LMDMIN\LUAN 0RRESPO\F1M1DE.1.Er

B-24
PURPOSE AND NEEDS STATEMENT
SIDEWALKS ALONG FIRE TOWER ROAD PROJECT
ID NO U-3613
1. Local Pedestrian Policy - The City of Greenville's Horizons• Greenville's Community
Plan (1992) states that:
Sidewalks should be required as part of commercial and residential development --
at least along streets with high traffic flow.... Sidewalks should be included as part
of the thoroughfare development process. (page 34)
In 1998, the City adopted a sidewalk requirement for new subdivisions. New
subdivision streets along this corridor will have sidewalks connecting to Fire Tower
Road.
The Greenville Urban Area MPO, in the MPO's Priorities List, has also specifically
requested sidewalk facilities be included in the Fire Tower Road Project for many
years.
2. Local Government Commitment - The City, in its 1998-2003 Capital Improvement
Program, already committed funds for sidewalks along thoroughfares, including the
local share for projects with sidewalks along thoroughfares such as the Fire Tower
Road Project (see attached).
3. Community and Integration - Adding sidewalks to this project provides integration
between Fire Tower Road and the pedestrian facilities currently being built in
subdivisions along the corridor. This project provides the critical link to these
pedestrian systems being built. The alternative to adding sidewalks to this project
would be neighborhood sidewalks being Road to the r desired dest destinations. facilities
for pedestrians to walk down Fire Tower
4. Location - This project is located in a fast-growing section of the Greenville Urban
Area, adding urban type residential (1 acre or less) and commercial units at a rapid
pace. This was identified as a growth area in the 1990 Greenville Thoroughfare Plan.
The Greenville and Winterville Planning Departments project a continued fast growth
rate in this corridor.
5. Generators - This project serves as a primary access from the following to each other:
- Residential centers (existing and proposed), including South Hall, Treetops, Evans
Mobile Home Park, Windsor, and Sheffield
- four churches
- day care centers
- neighborhood shopping and services (a small bank, medical clinic, cleaners, etc.)
- Two service stations/convenience stores
- Pitt Community College
- Boys and Girls Club
- Employers (US Cellular, etc.)
B-25

CITY OF GREENVILLE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PROJECTED NO: T-8 ?
TITLE: SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
PRIORITY NO: ' -
HMENT: PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
P.
This project item provides funds for the installation of sidewalks along thoroughfares and in communities and locations P
that currently have no sidewalks or limited sidewalks. ON year.
example,
For an
allocation The funding will allow installation of between 16,000 to 18,000 feet of sidewalks aid from Greenville plinth rd and Fire p
would allow installation of continuous sidewalk on both sides of Arlington P
Tower Road. ?r
Presently, most thoroughfares lack proper sidewalks to connect the various land uses. In addition, nume ul srec n al
will bto improve this situation by developing a meanin died
e evaluated and prioritized based on a technical merit scoring P.
areas are without sidewalks. in Greenville. are intended
effort to construct sidewalks m fm
system and will be completed as funds permit. Q
The primary justification for this project request is to improve pedestrian safety and the community character and
appeal. p
P.
No alternatives were considered.
This proposal will increase annual maintenance cost by approximately $0.05 per foot of new sidewalk constructed.
?
There is no companion to this project.
P
r
r
r
C
c
COMPLETION DATE: On oin C
APPROVAL DATE:
FUNDS APPROVED TO DATE: 90,000 FUNDS EXPENDED TO
DATE: r
TOTAL PROJECT COST: 1,152,000
p
C
EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE e
1998-1999 19919-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 SUBSEQUENT YRS 0
e
ILK
200.000 206,000 212,000 219,000 225.00
B-26
Almost all of these generators use Fire Tower Road as their primary access, and are
within walking distance of each other. A 1996 socioeconomic survey performed by the
Greenville Urban Area MPO reported nearly 3,000 dwelling units and 1,500 employees
in the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZs) within walking distance of Fire Tower Road.
The Greenville and Winterville Planning Departments estimate these figures will
increase to more than 7,500 dwelling units and more than 3,000 employees over the
next few years.
6. Safety - Sidewalks along both sides of Fire Tower Road will separate pedestrians from
traffic that travels at 45 mph or more. Currently, pedestrians cannot walk along this
narrow two-lane (no sidewalks) ditch section road without placing themselves at great
risk. Fire Tower Road itself currently is a major barrier to pedestrian use and a source
of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Sidewalks along both sides will address these safety
needs of the area. Based upon the variety of types of residential development (current
and projected), we believe users of the sidewalks will be a mix of people, by age and
income. This mix includes children, the elderly, disabled and low-income people.
7. Existing or Projected Traffic - Based upon our experience in corridors like Fire Tower
Road with similar facilities installed, we expect there to be a substantial usage of the
sidewalks. For example, we already see a high volume of pedestrian traffic after the
installation of sidewalks on both sides of the road as part of the City's Hooker Road
Widening Project. As noted before, currently it is very hazardous to walk along Fire
Tower Road, so estimates of current pedestrian traffic are not available or useful. We
estimate that if only one percent of the trips taken by residents in the Fire Tower Road
corridor are made via the new sidewalks, almost 300 pedestrians per day would use
these sidewalks at present, and more than 700 pedestrians per day would use these
sidewalks in a few years.
LVIDMINIPROJECTSWIPO\REPORTS\FIRESIDE.WPD
B-27
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REQUESTS BY SERVICE AREAS
PROJECT TITLE ">$IDGE!< PLANNING YEARS

:: t•998.99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 TOTAL
1? RT tit > ? : ? ?
GF) .'•D?>Y
Transportation Plan (G 75,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 165,000
,
Hooker Road Widening (B, PB)
`•?•?'??'? 2,260,000

000
600
Moye Blvd - Hooker Road Connector (B) 450,000 ,
160
000
tfiH fl1tR;
Adv Public Transit Technology- Phase I (G, GF) ,

Bike/Bus Connections (G) G 66,700
000
600
2
Computerized Traffic Signal System (B, UN)Tt14: ,
,
000
750
West Third Street Reconstruction (B) ._ OD
#(Q
PB
CR
000
206
000
212
219,000
225,000 ,
1,062,000
) f'
,
Sidewalk Construction Program (
Local Transportation Improvements (PB, UN) , ,
67,500 75,800 203,300

%%%:`7DG
Railroad Crossing Signals/Improvements (PB)
15,000 500
7, 10,700 7,500 . 78,400
Oxford Rd Bridge Replacement-Bridge# 420 (PB) 466,000 521,000
000
125
•.???
Dirt Street Improvements (PB)
:r 90,000 ,
000
192
.
4t t
School Zone Pedestrian Improvements (PB) -,•,,?;r;?y:
108,000
,
000
90
Traffic Calming (GF) =i4 '``°i}?#)?0: 60,000 ,
000
60
?s!4Gi i,4•:;?•'
Changeable Message Board (PB)
;v as„•.:.,,,>;t... 60,000 ,
1
000
950
homas Langston Road Extension (B) ,
,
000
875
Brownlea Drive Extension, Phase II (GF, CR) 125,000 350,000
000 400,000
000
450
000
500 ,
00
0
200
2
Street Resurfacing (PB) 400,000 450, , , ,
,
0
00
900
Tar River Bank Stabilization (G, UN) 900,000 ,

SUBTOTAL '=`{8`S3 till` 2 955 000 1.112.000 j 1 104 700 833 300 14 858 400
B-28
P.C.Box 7207
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
May 10, 1999
CITY O= C-3 REt- N V I L L E
N O R T H C A R O L I NA
27835-7207
Mr. Edwin A. Peters
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Preferred Typical Sections of Fire Tower Road Widening Project (ID NO. U-3613)
Dear Mr. Peters:
In response to the February 8, 1999, letter from William D. Gilmore, enclosed is a copy of the map
indicating our preferred typical sections which are the same as those we discussed with you at the
December 1997 scoping meeting. This recommendation complements the existing and projected land
uses and transportation needs along Fire Tower Road. As mentioned in Mr. Gilmore's letter, the City
is promoting the use of median divided multi-lane roadways along our major/minor thoroughfares as
evidenced by the now under construction Hooker Road widening (a minor thoroughfare in our
community). The City is considering revisions to our current Thoroughfare Policy which call for
median divided sections on new thoroughfares.
In addition, the Greenville Urban Area Bicycle Task Force is active in the development and adoption
of a Greenville Urban Area Bikeway System, of which Fire Tower Road is considered a critical piece.
We are pleased to see that the outside lanes are proposed to be 14 feet wide to accommodate bicycles.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at [phone] or Jim Jatko, City Engineer,
at [phone]. We believe we can have a highly successful project.
Sincerely,
T. N. Tysinger, Jr., PE
Director of Public Wor
Enclosure
PC: Eric Midkiff, NCDOT
William D. Gilmore, NCDOT
James H. Jatko, PE, City Engineer
Ronald D. Svejkovsky, Transportation Planner
L:XADMIN\LUANN CORRESPO\FUtEfSEC.LEr
B-29

0
g

A

cl,
B-30
Qr?i

0
0
z
0
Z
r
in
r
N
C
0
1
/
C
C
L'
B-31
v
0
k
i
0
N
O
g
O
Z
r n F-
N
O
O
:J
B-32
.,. SrNt o
i
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
ti State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 11, 1999

Nicholas L. Graf
r
Division Administrator v'
, F^
Federal Highway Administration ,
'`
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
27601-1442
Raleigh, N.C. AND r
.
Re: Widening of Fire Tower Road (SR 1708), TIP No. U-3613, Federal-aid Project MASTP-
1708(1), State No. 8.2220901, Greenville, Pitt County, ER 00-7515
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1999, transmitting the survey report by Carrie Albee concerning
the above project.
For purpose of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Houses (Properties #2, 4-6, 8-10)
Alfred Moore House (Pt 38)
Fire Tower
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment.
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.

Sincerely,
i
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: W.Gilmore
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807
B-33

a.., sr.? o
^i
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 29, 1999
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 improvements to SR
1708 from SR 1128 to SR 1709, Pitt County, U-3613,
Federal Aid Project MASTP-1708(1), State Project
8.222100 1, ER 99-8386
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow, Director
c n ^?

o ff' ALYVSU
Thank you for your letter of March 2, 1999, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Megan O'Connell and Nick Bon-Harper concerning the above project.
We agree that sites 31 PT530, 31 PT531, 31 PT532, 31 PT533, 31 PT534, 31 PT535, and
31PT536 are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places because
they do not contain information which may be important to our understanding of history or
prehistory.
We note that the western extension portion of this project has not been surveyed as
requested. While we feel that no further work will be necessary on the widening portion of
the project, i.e. that portion containing the previously mentioned sites, we cannot complete
our review of the entire project until we have reviewed the recommended survey for the
extension area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely, `
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
V
cc: W. D. Gilmore
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B-34
u
APPENDIX C
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE WIDENING OF SR 1708 (FIRE TOWER ROAD) FROM
NC 11-903 (MEMORIAL DRIVE) TO SR 1709 (COREY ROAD)
U-3613 Pitt County
Project 8.2406401
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above Citizens
Informational Workshop on September 29, 1998 between the hours of 4:30 PM and
`???30PNI-at Pitt Community College in the Leslie Building, Room 143, Highway 11
-,?
?' -• South.
1,.
ot?ct it is proposed to widen Fire Tower Road to a multi-lane, curb and
? Under this pf
gult6r facility ftm NC 11-903 to Corey Road south of Greenville.
1 •,ti• ., lnfo*aato,tt• he workshop will be general in nature and interested individuals may
attend at heir convenience during the above stated hours. Anyone desiring additional
informdti6ri may contact Mr. Eric Midkiff at P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611, or at
(9T9) f33-7844, ext. 242.
In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, NCDOT will provide
the attend the
auxiliary aids and services for disabled sM•dwho kiff wish to
receive special services, please contact
number, or fax [phone] prior to the date of the workshop.

4
C-1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
y

? 4?

9
0
OF TR

7

Z
Q"
Greenville
Fire Tower Road (SR 1708)
From Memorial Drive (NC 11-903) to Corey Road (SR 1709)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.2220901
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1708(1)
TIP Project No. U-3613
September 29, 1998

T
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
C-2
,_?QRTf _
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
Greenville
Fire Tower Road (SR 1708)
From Memorial Drive (NC 11-903) to Corey Road (SR 1709)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.2220901
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1708(1)
TIP Project No. U-3613
Purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop
The purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. If you have comments or suggestions about the proposed
improvements described in this handout, please let a representative of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) know. We have provided a comment sheet on which
you can write your questions or concerns so that we can document and fully consider your ideas,
comments, and suggestions.
The NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a proposed project want to be informed
of the possible effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However, exact information
is not available at this stage of the planning process. Additional design work is necessary before
the actual right-of-way limits can be established. More detailed information will be available at a
later date.
You may leave your written comments with NCDOT representatives at the Citizens
Informational Workshop or you may mail them. If additional information is needed or you
would like to submit comments after the Citizens Informational Workshop, please address your
requests and comments to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
A discussion of public involvement opportunities in NCDOT's project planning process
is attached for your information. Persons who sign the workshop attendance sheet or submit
comments during or after the workshop will be added to the project's mailing list and will be
notified of future workshops or hearings.
C-3
Description and Puraose of the Project
The NCDOT's 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to
widen Fire Tower Road to a multilane facility from Memorial Drive to Corey Road in
Greenville. The project is scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year 2002 and,
construction in fiscal year 2003. See Figure 1 for the project's location.
At the current level of traffic growth in the project area, Fire Tower Road will not be able
to adequately accommodate projected traffic volumes in the next 20 years. In fact, some
portions of Fire Tower Road are already operating at an unacceptable level of traffic service
during peak hour conditions. In order to accommodate the projected traffic volumes along this
facility, NCDOT proposes constructing additional travel lanes along Fire Tower Road.
Proposed Improvements
NCDOT proposes to widen Fire Tower Road to a multilane, curb and gutter facility. Two
typical cross sections will be studied: 1) 5-lane facility with center turn lane and 2) 4-lane facility
divided by a raised island. Symmetrical and asymmetrical widening will be investigated. See
Figures 2 and 3 for the possible typical sections. It is anticipated that the proposed
improvements will be accommodated within 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way. No control of
access is proposed. Either typical cross sections would accommodate the construction of
sidewalks along Fire Tower Road. If sidewalks are requested by local governments and are
warranted, the sidewalks will be constructed as part of the proposed improvements.
Project Schedule and Cost
Currently, planning and environmental studies for the proposed project are being
conducted. The Citizens Informational Workshop is a part of this process. A pubic hearing is
anticipated for the project in the Fall of 1999. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for
November, 2002 and construction is scheduled for October, 2003. The current cost estimates are
as follows:
Right of way: $ 4,100,000
Construction: $ 6,700,000
Total: $ 10,800,000
Current Status
Currently, planning, environmental, and engineering studies for the proposed
improvements are in progress. An Environmental Assessment, which will address the impacts
that the proposed project may have on the natural and human environment, will be prepared to
document these planning studies and our conclusions and recommendations. The Environmental
Assessment is scheduled to be completed in August, 1999.
C-4
After completion of the Environmental Assessment. a public hearing will be held at
which the recommended alternative will be presented to the public. At that time. individuals
living close to the project will see how the proposed improvements would affect their properties
and again have the opportunity to comment and make suggestions. NCDOT will take into
account comments and suggestions received at the public hearing while making final decisions
on the project. A public hearing for the project is anticipated to be held in the Fall of 1999.
In the coming months NCDOT environmental specialists and survey crews will be
studying the project area. During this period, these NCDOT personnel may be on citizens'
properties in order to complete their studies. The purpose of these studies is to gather
background information that will be used in making recommendations on the proposed project.
No decisions on the final design of this project have been made.
For More Information
For additional information concerning this project, please contact Mr. Eric Midkiff, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, at [phone] (Ext. 242).
email: [e-mail]
C-5

(v NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GREENVILLE
SR 1708 (FIRETOWER ROAD)
FROM NC 11/903 (MEMORIAL DRIVE)
TO SR 1709 (COREY ROAD)
PITT COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. U-3613
p RMOME TENS
= F [CURE t
mr? p MIlE1
C-6

z
0
U
I I I
U I
Q
U
W
W
-J
0
n
C3J -

J
i
J
J
n
2
rr,
LLJ
O
U
x
CC)
U
o?
w
0
0
W
z
a
J
Q
N
w
C
O
CD
L.
z
O
U
O
J
J
Q
w
(!)
W
J
Cl)
Lf)
Lf)
O
n

it

C-7
i
r
10
t
0
F--I
U
w
Q
U
s i
n
w
co
0
n
L4J -
C-8
w

m
U
0
w
0
z
w
z
a
w
Ln
r*,-)
J
C?
L!
z
0
G
U
0
J
NI-I
a
w
0

w
m
0-
V)
0
w

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
PROJECT PLANNING
Planning and environmental studies for highway projects are conducted in order to
comply with either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the North Carolina State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The type of document published following the planning
study depends on the magnitude of the project and its expected environmental impact. These
documents may be one of the following types:
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EA Environmental Assessment
CE Categorical Exclusion
These documents discuss the purpose and need for the proposed improvements, evaluate
alternatives, and analyze the project's impact on both the human and natural environment. Areas
of concern which these documents address include:
- Efficiency and safety of travel
- Neighborhoods and communities
- Relocation of homes and businesses
- Economy of project area
- Historic properties and sites
- Wetlands
- Endangered species
- Wildlife and plant communities
- Water quality
- Floodplains
- Farmland and land use plans of project area
- Hazardous materials involvement
- Traffic noise and air quality
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
As stated above, project planning and environmental studies are conducted in order to
comply with NEPA or SEPA. NEPA requires that "agencies make diligent efforts to involve the
public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures."
Public Involvement is an integral part of NCDOT's project planning process. The
concerns of citizens and interest groups are always considered during project planning studies.
Additional alternatives are often studied for projects, or recommended alternatives changed,
based on comments received from the public.
C-9
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NCDOT provides a number of opportunities for citizen and interest group participation
during project planning. Some of these opportunities are listed below:
SCOPING LETTER Published in N. C. Environmental Bulletin. This letter notifies
agencies and groups on the State Clearinghouse mailing list that a
project study has been initiated and solicits comments from them.
CITIZENS Informal meeting with the public. NCDOT staff conduct these
INFORMATIONAL workshops to speak one-on-one with citizens about projects.
WORKSHOP Comment sheets are provided for citizens to write down their
questions, comments, and concerns. The number of workshops
scheduled for a project depends on the scope and anticipated
impact of the project.
NEWSLETTERS On some projects, newsletters are sent to area residents and interest
groups. Newsletters describe the project, discuss the project's
status, and outline the alternatives being studied.
DOCUMENT Copies of environmental documents are submitted to the State
DISTRIBUTION Clearinghouse for distribution and a notice is published in the N.C.
Environmental Bulletin. Upon request, NCDOT will provide
copies of the document to the public. Copies are available for
public viewing at NCDOT Raleigh and Division offices; the State
Clearinghouse office; local government offices, including the local
council of government office; and local public libraries.
SMALL GROUP Presentations are given at the request of neighborhood associations
MEETINGS or other interest groups.
PUBLIC HEARING One or more formal public hearings for the public record are held.
Format typically involves a short presentation followed by an
opportunity for citizens to comment.
CITIZENS LETTERS Citizens are encouraged to write NCDOT and provide information
and express their concerns regarding proposed improvements.
Correspondence from citizens and interest groups is considered
* during the course of the planning study and are included in the
project file.
C-10
Engineer: Eric Nlidkiff
COMMENT SHEET
Greenville
Fire Tower Road (SR 1708)
From Memorial Drive (NC 11-903) to Corey Road (SR 1709)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.2220901
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1708(1)
TIP Project No. U-3613
Please take the time to give us your comments and concerns regarding this project. Please
continue any responses on the back of this sheet.
NAME:
(PLEASE PRINT)
ADDRESS:
(PLEASE PRINT)
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/ OR QUESTIONS REGARDING T.I.P. PROJECT U-3613:
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager of the Planning and
Environmental Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation, P. O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
f

s
I
C-11