U-2817_complete file

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 22, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of SR 1700 (Evans Street) from US
264/NC 43 to SR 1711 in Pitt County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2817). These comments provide
scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (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 ). `
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent practical.
Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed or region
should be avoided. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be lon! enough to allow for sufficient
wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridgging is not feasible, culvert structures that
maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife
passage should be employed:
Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid anv fill that will result in damming or
constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be
placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible.
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of the
hvdrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters within the
affected area:
4. Bridge designs shouid include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough 10
alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants:
Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temp orar\. on-site bridges. Fo-
proiects requiring an or.-site detour in wetlands or open water. such detours should be aiipec
along the side of the existing suructure which has the ieast and or leas; auam\ of iish and tviidni_
nabita-. .4,: the completion of constructior_. tine detou-. area: shouic n:• entire! removed anc th-
imnactec areas ne piamed wits, annronriate vegetatior_. includin« nree= is ne essay :

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 22, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of SR 1700 (Evans Street) from US
264/NC 43 to SR 1711 in Pitt County, North Carolina a 4, y,2±). These comments provide
scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (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).
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent practical.
Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed or region
should be avoided. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing possings and/or occur
on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient
wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that
maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife
passage should be employed;
Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming or
constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be
placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of the
hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters within the
affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to
.alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges. For
projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be aligned
along the side of the existinL, structure which has the least and/or ieast quality of fish and wildlife
habitat. At the completion of construction. the detour area should be entireiy removed and the
impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation. inciudira trees if necessar?•:
6. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning process. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by other means
should be explored at the outset;
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and
migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water
work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning and
sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15
- June 30;
8. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be implemented; and
9. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their designated
non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological assessment/evaluation may be prepared to
fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-
by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their
life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at hM2://nc-es.fws.gov/es/egLi=fr.html .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known
occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not be substituted
for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The NCNHP database only
indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does not necessarily mean that such
species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. If suitable habitat
occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species, surveys should be conducted to determine
presence of absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your
surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including.
consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect
the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse,
direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for this project, at the public
notice stage. 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:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project'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;
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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. 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
impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including fragmentation and
direct loss of habitat;
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 US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
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 our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-
4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
ohn Hammond
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
(3
warFR
y
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
May 6, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee ,o
Through: John Hennessy G
From: Nicole Thomson
Subject: Comments on the Proposed widening of SR 1700 (Evans Street) from US 264/NC 43 to SR 1711,
Pitt County, WBS Element No. 34868.1.1, TIP U-2817, DENR Project Number 05-0306.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) The document does not give any specified amount of antici?,ated impacts to wetlands and streams. Until
the DWQ has a map that clearly displays all the wetlands, streams, and other surface waters located in the
project, with the proposed project superimposed onto those resources, we cannot agree that appropriate
avoidance and minimization has occurred for this project. As such, issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification for this project could be delayed until the information is provided to the DWQ for review, and
we are convinced that all appropriate avoidance and minimization has occurred for this project.
B) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)1.
C) In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) },
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) }, the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
D) As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, NC DOT is respectfully reminded to
include specifics for both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to
present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification. We understand that NC DOT will request compensatory mitigation through the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation.
E) Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should include an
itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
o??thCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit atalmilk
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httr)://h2o.enr.state. nc.uslncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
I
F) NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation
and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact
calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to
be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
G) An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The
type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of
secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
H) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
I) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands..
J) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
K) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to'? pecifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
streams or surface waters.
L) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams
may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory
protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are
lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and
written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on
appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical,
the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
cc: Mr. Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
CACorrespondence\2005 EA, EIS, FONSI\R-4467\Environtmental Study May 05
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office.of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Projoct Number: Qwnty. Date Received: Date Respow4 Due (fum deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional OfIiec Area In-House Review
? Asheville Air ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville VWater ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville Groundwater ? Water Resources
)<GVildlife
_
,
-

? Raleigh
Yztnd Quality Engineer `
?
.
? Environmental Health
Washington ? Recreational Consultant D Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Witmington ? Land Resources, ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem arks &. Recreation ? Other
)KW a t e r QuaIit???`,,.r
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
?`tanager Sign-OfflRegion: Datc: In-House Re%rira_r/Agency-
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
o Other (specify or attach comments)
RETURN TO:
"V
L

4
,,.".,a .,.1 11
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
?ya„aSTAIEv?
tia
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 28, 2005
e44
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Environmental Direi
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment, Proposed Widening of SR 1700
(Evans Street) from US 264/NC 43 to SR 1711, Pitt County,
TIP No. U-2817, WBS No. 34868. 1.1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is initiating an environmental study
of the referenced project, located between Greenville and Winterville in Pitt County, as shown in
Figure 1. The NCDOT has retained Mulkey Engineers and Consultants to prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening of the 3.8 mile roadway, pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.). The project is
programmed in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program for planning and
environmental study only.
The project area is rapidly changing from predominantly rural to a suburban, residential area.
Alternatives to be considered during the development of the environmental assessment include
the "do-nothing" alternate and a "build" alternate involving widening the two-lane roadway to
multiple lanes. Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will be incorporated into the project. No
access control is proposed along the project corridor, although a median will be considered as
part of the "build" alternate design. Right-of-way requirements for the roadway improvements
are anticipated to be approximately 110 feet. Additional right-of-way may be required at
intersection locations.
Other projects in the area include TIP Project No. U-3613, the widening of SR 1708 (Fire Tower
Road) from two to five lanes; and TIP Project No. R-2250, the Greenville Southwest Bypass, a
new location facility located west of the TIP Project No. U-2817 project.
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The existing roadway appears to cross
three streams, described in Table 1.
0
1
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBsITE: www.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
2
Table 1. Surface Waters
Stream Classification Index Number 303(d) Listing
Fork Swam C; Sw; NSW 27-97-4 No
UT to Fork Swam Not Listed Not Listed No
UT South Not Listed Not Listed No
Files at the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) were reviewed to determine
whether any properties within the project area are currently listed or determined eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NR). No properties on or eligible for the NR
were found within the project corridor. Table 2 lists properties identified in the HPO files as
historically important.
Table 2. Historic Resources
Property Site Number National Register or Stud List
Frizzelle.House PT 356 No
Tucker Farm PT 357 No
House no other name) PT 349 No
Fred A. Worthington House and Farm PT 353 No
Spier Worthington House PT 354 Stud List 1/12/89
Draper-Cannon House PT 350 No
Table 3 below identifies the federally-protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service as of February 25, 2003 for Pitt County. The attached map illustrates the approximate
location of the only record of a listed species, according to the Natural Heritage Program files.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus Threatened (proposed for delistin )
Eastern Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC
"Nuese" madtom Noturus furiosus
population I FSC
Pinewoods shiner L thrurus matutinus FSC
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Southern ho ose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Atlantic i oe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Green Floater Lasmi ona subviridis FSC
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis FSC*
Tars in ussek Elli do steinstansana Endangered
Yellow lam mussel Lam sills cariosa FSC
Carolina asphodel To celdia labra FSC
*Historic record
3
The purpose of this letter is to coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies and other
interested organizations to solicit comments on the proposed action. To ensure the full ranges of
issues concerning the proposed action are addressed, comments and suggestions are invited from
all interested parties. A formal project scoping meeting will not be held for this project. Please
advise us in writing of any project-area conditions or issues of special concern so that they may
integrated into the environmental study and given due consideration in the development of the
project design. If possible, we request your comments within thirty days of receipt of this letter.
If further information regarding the proposed action of the environmental analysis process is
required, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., Assistant Branch Manager, Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT, at [phone], extension 323 or through
email at meskdot.state.nc.us.
GJT/lwm
Attachment
' LI. C r-s?L y ? ? i
BEGIN PROJECT
J I r• • ,^ _. ? ? ? f '?. / ! 1'.. ,1., I -. -111:_ I _
Ln 11.1, • - • - ._al...... ..... _
,rsav
Uni
Belved re
- l• ` ?- r: 11 ti ? : I __
_:._..
l \
1 17
?
..rfj3 i Z. Ir MeS _ c 1.1.
.. -e haven
7.' S
1U5
1 - -l I
s'
Tech .I j. •' A-drmv
f I . Cannon C S[Lt)d
Inst
cll
R,edV Branch '°.r: •=?•I!7•..
v 1r - _
p
P C1,
II
Rob wn l ch
All
C'
VAA
. • >v' - _.. ' .. III:..-.. • .• -
int rville -
Legend
Protected/ Rare Species
Q Historic Sites
-? END PROJECT
.:. DOT Roads
Streams & Rivers
L•I . t? j - Unnamed Tributaries
-'
Wetlands
y
I Superfund Areas
LAND SUITABILITY
U-2817
Figure No.
SR 1700 from NC 43/US 264A to SR 1711 in Winterville
Pitt County, North Carolina
Prepared For: 1:24,000
Feet 1
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
s; USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Greenville SE & SW
IP ne:?
Contour Interval 2 Feet
WO, 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
,ENO 4L,9Tc ?%QQ ? .? .
?4rQ??lp?!/?. .S
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 28, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Nikki Thomson
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands `
FROM: regory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Environmental Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment, Proposed Widening of SR 1700
(Evans Street) from US 264/NC 43 to SR 1711, Pitt County,
TIP No. U-2817, WBS No. 34868. 1.1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is initiating an environmental study
of the referenced project, located between Greenville and Winterville in Pitt County, as shown in
Figure 1. The NCDOT has retained Mulkey Engineers and Consultants to prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening of the 3.8 mile roadway, pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.). The project is
programmed in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program for planning and
environmental study only.
The project area is rapidly changing from predominantly rural to a suburban, residential area.
Alternatives to be considered during the development of the environmental assessment include
the "do-nothing" alternate and a "build" alternate involving widening the two-lane roadway to
multiple lanes. Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will be incorporated into the project. No
access control is proposed along the project corridor, although a median will be considered as
part of the "build" alternate design. Right-of-way requirements for the roadway improvements
are anticipated to be approximately 110 feet. Additional right-of-way may be required at
intersection locations.
Other projects in the area include TIP Project No. U-3613, the widening of SR 1708 (Fire Tower
Road) from two to five lanes; and TIP Project No. R-2250, the Greenville Southwest Bypass, a
new location facility located west of the TIP Project No. U-2817 project.
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The existing roadway appears to cross
three streams, described in Table 1.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW. NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
2,
Table 1. Surface Waters
Stream Classification Index Number 303(d) Listing
Fork Swam C; Sw; NSW 27-97-4 No
UT to Fork Swam Not Listed Not Listed No
UT South Not Listed Not Listed No
Files at the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) were reviewed to determine
whether any properties within the project area are currently listed or determined eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NR). No properties on or eligible for the NR
were found within the project corridor. Table 2 lists properties identified in the HPO files as
historically important.
Table 2. Historic Resources
Property Site Number National Register or Stud List
Frizzelle House PT 356 No
Tucker Farm PT 357 No
House (no other name) PT 349 No
Fred A. Worthington House and Farm PT 353 No
Spier Worthington House PT 354 Stud List 1/12/89
Draper-Cannon House PT 350 No
Table 3 below identifies the federally-protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service as of February 25, 2003 for Pitt County. The attached map illustrates the approximate
location of the only record of a listed species, according to the Natural Heritage Program files.
Table 3. Federally-Protected S ecies
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus Threatened (proposed for delistin
Eastern Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC
"Nuese" madtom Noturus furiosus
population I FSC
Pinewoods shiner L thrurus matutinus FSC
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Southern ho ose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Atlantic i oe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Green Floater Lasmi ona subviridis FSC
Tar River cra Ash Procambarus medialis FSC*
Tars in ussek Elli do steinstansana Endangered
Yellow lam mussel Lam silis cariosa FSC
Carolina asphodel To ieldia labra FSC
*Historic record
3
The purpose of this letter is to coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies and other
interested organizations to solicit comments on the proposed action. To ensure the full ranges of
issues concerning the proposed action are addressed, comments and suggestions are invited from
all interested parties. A formal project scoping meeting will not be held for this project. Please
advise us in writing of any project-area conditions or issues of special concern so that they may
integrated into the environmental study and given due consideration in the development of the
project design. If possible, we request your comments within thirty days of receipt of this letter.
If further information regarding the proposed action of the environmental analysis process is
required, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., Assistant Branch Manager, Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT, at [phone], extension 323 or through
email at [e-mail].
GJT/lwm
Attachment
1 ?
BEGIN PROJECT
•? bn lisp ? •? -' ? .ill.. _.. _.. - \
•? • f - r ?? • Ch 1
Lynn l --" - ? -
'l30 ` Belved Te
o
a,tr' r
:..:::. Pines
1 .. _6 haven 1
T
SU 5
Pitt A,. '
7crh '.' Academy
•r'
Cil fl ll0 fl.? 15 Tod
I?mplr, = a
` IG. =al c.. ...
. R.•cdy H1aMU p ,r ,1r
F
s-
,r -
L
-•? - Nob son -ch -- ? '+` ??
Ll.
r
`V int rville -
• t: ,• Legend
1 _ Protected/ Rare Species
END PROJECT _ o Historic Sites
DOT Roads
Streams & Rivers
Unnamed Tributaries
r- - - E 7.i,; Wetlands
-- \ Superfund Areas
I
.I
LAND SUITABILITY
U-2817 Fi ure No.
.._. J SR 1700 from NC 43/US 264A to SR 1711 in Winterville g
Pitt County, North Carolina
Prepared For: 1:24.000
Feet
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Greenville SE & SW
?' Contour Interval 2 Feet