19950793 Ver 1_Complete File_19950731

I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 26, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM:
Richard Brewer
SUBJECT: Notes from Scoping Meeting for U-2922, SR
116 (Forest Hills Rd.) from SR 1166 to US
264, Nilson Co., State Project No. 3.2341201.
The following were in attendance at the July 22, 3:00 pm
meeting in the Planning and Environmental Conference Room:
David B. Foster
Ray Moore
Robin Stancil
Derrick Lewis
Phil Williamson
Don Sellers
Brian Williford
Annette Moutick
Eric Galamb
Danny Rogers
John Alford
Burke Evans
Tom Tarleton
Jay Woolard
James H. Hoskins
Richard Davis
Clarence Coleman
Richard Brewer
DEHNR
Structure Design Unit
Department of Cultural Resources
Traffic Engineering Branch
Photogrammetry Unit
Right-of-Way Branch
Hydraulics Unit
it 11
DEM
Program Development Branch
Roadway Design Unit
if
Locat i:;n &, Survevs Unit
Traffic Control Unit
Division 4 Construction Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch
of it
V1 it
Major issues presented and discussed in the scoping
meeting are listed below:
1. Ms. Robin Stancil reported that there are no known
archaeology sites in the project area. Further, she
said there were no historic properties listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places within the Area of Potential Effect.
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
2 8 1'93
WETLANDS GI?Gui` w
WATER OUALITY SECTiGN

4 1
2. Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM recommended that hazardous
spill catch basins be used at the two creek
crossings on this project, since the area is in a
Critical Water Supply Area. It was also recommended
that erosion control for high quality waters be
used.
3. Wetlands run through the wooded areas on both sides
of the creek crossings. Mr. Dave Foster was asked
about the impact on these wetlands if a swath about
100 feet wide was cut through them. He said it
would be a minor taking (less than 1 acre) and that
it could likely be handled by a Nationwide Permit
from the Corps of Engineers.
4. Underground utilities that run the entire length of
the project are sanitary sewer, water and telephone.
Natural gas runs from US 264 to SR 1163 (Downing
St.) but does not serve areas south.
5. Project Plannin will ask FHWA for authorization to
downsize the documentation from an EA and FONSI to a
Categorical Exclusion (CE). Meeting participants
were asked if they knew of any issues that would
make downsizing impractical, and the answer was no.
6. The sanitary sewer system on both sides of SR 1165
south of US 264 means that the number of relocatees
(11 residential and 2 businesses) estimated in the
Feasibility Study is high. The meeting concluded
that there ?nav be no residence or business that will
need relocation. Originally, it was thought that
taking part of the front yards through the
residential area between US 264 and NC 42 would
disable the septic system, thus forcing relocation
of all residents impacted.
7. Areas where asymmetrical widening would be
beneficial were pointed out. An old tombstone (with
more gravesites in the same area, according to Don
Sellers) is on the left (west) of SR 1165 about 300
feet north of SR 1166. Also it would be desirable
to avoid the row of businesses and parking on the
right side of SR 1165 just south of SR 1163.
Roadway Design said this is feasible and reasonable.
8. Some curb and gutter built for a 59' ultimate cross-
section is in place is some areas. Mr. James
Hoskins said there would be no problem to remove
this and install new curbing for our 64' section.
9. Document to be complete by 8/94. Part B of project,
from SR 1163 to US 264, has a schedule of R/W - Sept
94; let - Oct 95. Part A, from SR 1166 to SR 1163,
A
has a schedule of R/W - Oct 94; let - Oct 96.
10. The Division Traffic Engineer sent word that he
recommended dual left-turn lanes, one through lane
and one ri°ht-turn lane for the northbound approach
at US 264.

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP .7 p?
((
TO:
P,ar, ?h REF. NO. OR
ROOM, BLDG.
DEiY!-,001A12
FROM: R NO. OR ROOM, ¦1D0.
IZ
B??& ?
. ?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

093
a
WETLANDS GROUP
Sl,Nrl: or- Nc»Ti i CnR011 Nn WATER QUALITY SECTION
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMS B I IUNI, IR. I)IVISION OF IIIGI IWAYS SAM I IUNI
GO WRNO R FC RIIARY
P.O. .O. RC)X 25201, li/', LEIGI I, N.C. 2761/5201
June 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1165 (Forest Hills
Road) from SR 1166 to US 264, Wilson County, U-2922,
State Project 8.2341201
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets including
a planning cost estimate for the subject project (see attached map for
project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to establish the scope of work that should be performed,
thereby enabling us to better implement a project that will best suit the
highway transportation needs of the area.
A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled for July 22, 1993 at
3:00 P. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room
470 in the Highway Building). You may provide us with your comments at
this meeting or by mail prior to the meeting 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 Richard Brewer, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-9770.
RLB/plr `
Attachment J 2?
"?
"

Cl??? ?pDl?n-.

RFCEIVFD FILE
JUN 2 1-19-
CO - Take AnCYC?ri e ;.-
EST - Fc+ Your I?,'.,r;;
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET EC - sr.'e „h
90 -- Nondle,

Date 6/18/93
Revision Date - P??r?Rc:: `or
Project Develop ment Stab ?rri'Ourr
Programming lgesia„Comrn?,., c,
Planning X _ Otter -??a, ""
Design
TIP # U-2922

Project # 3.2341201

F.A. Pro ject # STP-1165( 2) _ '
1?
111\1
21 93
Division

County Ni I:; on

Route(s) SR 1165 Irest Hills Road)
',n0N0'`
Functional Classification Urban Minor arterial
Len;th 2 . 31 111i Ies
Purpose of Project: To %_? iden SR 1_165_ from_ Sh 1166 to ? R 1. 163
St.) and from Horton Blvd. to US 264. These
i rove merits w1 11 reduce _congest ion and imprO_Ve safety- aIo_ng
th--is - - h-i-?hwa? _ Also?,_ th_is_p_roject_Nti_l 1_p-rovide west S'; i 1_son
-- -
with a continuous multi-lane Link bet«veen US 301 and US 264_._
TnroLr4h and -_turn _n- tra_i f is from ad Latent land develomnunL
would also be accommodated by these _imi)rov_ements
Description of Project (i-ncluding specific limits) and major
elements of work: 'NCDOT recommends that SR 1165 (Forest
Hills Road) be widened from SR 1166 to US 264. The project _
is divided into three sections, known as A. B and C. Sect ;on
A. from ?R 1166 Loop R? to SR 1163 (Downing St. and
Section C, from Horton Blvd. to US 26_4, are five-lane, 64-
foot, face-to-face, curb and gutter sections with 8-foot
earth berms, on 100-feet of right-of-way. These sections
total 2.3 miles in_-length._ Section B,from SR 1163 to Horton
Blvd. (0.4 mil e, is being improved as a Division 4
Design/Construction project (State Project 9.3044589).
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA & FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA 3f 94
FONS I _-3 94 -
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes ___ No X
-Pane t-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or (%)
Pow and when will this be paid?
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None Y
Number of Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings 2 (culverts)
Typical Section: Existing: 2 lanes, 24' shoulder section
Proposed: 5 lanes 64' face-to-face curb &
Butter.
Traffic (ADT): Current _8,600 vpd Design Year
% TTST % Duals
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO Y 3R
Design Speed: 50 mph
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . $ 3,Q00.000
Right of Way (including relocation,
utilities, and acquisition) . . . . . S 2,400,000
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . S
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . S
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 6,300.000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . . $
-Page 2-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which could affect cost ov schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Es imated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ D 095 -
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recyling. . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
V Earthwork $ 35* "?'5o--
Subsurface items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . $ _ L3:3, tit>o
Drainage ( list any special items) $ -1
_0, C)C"o
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
Structures
Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
- --
New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
__ Other Misc. $
? Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . . . $ Z?3??joo
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Fencing
W.W.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
C.L. . . . . . . . . . . . . $
? Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 47 9mo
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . :, _
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Signing
New $
-
Upgraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 60, Coo
RR Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 89?e?o
)
ed $

itt
/
t/without arms
6V_1
$
-Page 3-

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
Drainage Safety
Roadside Safety
Realignment for
Pavement Markings
Paint . . . . .
_{C Thermoplastic .
Raised Pavement
Delineators . . . .
Other (clearing, gr
Enhancement . . . . . . $
Enhancement . . . . . . $
Safety Upgrade. . . . . S
. . . . . . . . . . . $
$ sgo
Markers . . . . . . . . S
ubbing, misc. , and mob. ) S Coq 35
CONTRACT COST Subtotal. . . . . . . . S G? 00'o
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Subtotal. . . . . . . S 3. c>??C???n
Right-of-way
Will Contain within existing R/W^ Yes No
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated cost. $ _
Easements: Type Width _
Estimated cost. S
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right-of-Way Subtotal $
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. $
Prepared by: Date
The above scoping, has been reviewed and approved* by:
Init. Date Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
: Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
-Page 4-
0
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date
Right oI Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Init. Date
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineering.)
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
scoping, note your proposed revisions or comments here:
-Page 5-
r
•\ I
I
j ® I
1166 O I ?7
T ?
g U .
zsa
F?
FAS 1194
L ^ Jam.??
. N
n
1x72 ?
P
NORTON BLVD
DIVISION 4 PROJECT
START PROJECT
L ? III
FPV 1159
1.156
ry ,/® 3011 a
,.,,..
WTGGINS AM, II69
RESERVOIR 11ra,` _ - lznl
\\ g? ,? Ian
?.? ?115a
?p
END PROJECT
CA-t4K, I
N ----=
°
I
1.01 \
I
FPP Fad.
1 I 44w,r
I a ~? .
N
IM4
Imz
,oz
a II76///
NORM CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF RIGIIWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVMONMENTAL
IMANCII
Wilson, SR 1165 (Fac'est Hills
Rd.) from SR 1166 to US 264,
Wilson Co., U-2922, 8.2341201
Q felt 3000
I
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project = / TIP # 8.2341201 / U-2922
Description SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road), from SR
1166 to US 264. Widen to a multi-
lane facility.
Length 3.0 miles
Funding Federal Aid # STP-1165(2)
Division/County 4 / Wilson
Type Document Federal EA and FONSI
Current Schedule EA In progress - 3/94
FC'?SI 5/94 - S/q4
Planning Cost Estima,e $ 6.3 million
[$ 3.9 million - c.%nstruction;
$ 2.4 mil?ion - R/W]
Functional Class. Urbin Mi.?or Arterial
Existing Cross-Section 24', 2-lane shculder section
Proposed Cross-Section 64', 5-laiie curb & gutter section
Right-cf-Way to' (existing)
100' (planned)
Stream Crossings No bridges or culverts listed on
State Inventory
Railroad Carolina and Northwestern Railway -
crosses SR 1165 450'south of US 264
Current Traffic 6,300 vpd
Design Year Traffic (Still awaiting estimates)
i
Lai ?; S O
uu ma AISCM Creel
;?/aSvtsntonsbur

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF RIGIiWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIItONMF,NTAL
BRANCH
Wilson, SR 1165 (Forest Hills
Rd.) from SR 1166 to US 264,
Wilson Co., U-2922, 8.2341201

O
1
FAS p
WIGGZIVS MILL
rIESSRtvtR
3A
?1T
r \
FPP
MAY
P I?
Ljw
g
T. P .?
- F AU
4\
A \
A2
F?

4t
i
i
iias
lit
.rQ
x X
5TATf
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR, DIVISION OP HIGI IWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. WX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
S1CRE.1ARY
August 24, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager/. /
Planning and Environmental Branc ?se
SUBJECT: Wilson, Wilson County, SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) from
SR 1166 to US 264, F. A. Project No. STP-1154(2), State
Project No. 8.2341201, T.I.P. No. U-2922
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road). The
project is included in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1994
and construction in fiscal year 1996.
This project will widen SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) from SR 1166 to
US 264. The proposed improvements are to widen the existing 2-lane shoulder
section roadway to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility. 'The widening will be
principally symmetrical about the existing centerline; however, asymmetrical
widening may be used in selected locations to avoid costly right of way
acquisition. These improvements will reduce congestion and improve safety
along this highway. Also, this project will provide western Wilson with a
continuous multi-lane link between US 301 and US 264. Through and turning
traffic from adjacent land development also would be accommodated by these
improvements.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment and FONSI. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that
your agency respond by October 1, 1993 so that your comments can be used in
the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Richard
Brewer, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment

4r 9
r2sa?
F?
yy°
END PROJECT
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMF,NTAL
BRANCH
Wilson, SR 1165 (Forest Hills
Rd.) from SR 1166 to US 264,
Wilson Co., U-2922, 8.234201
Q feat 3000
FAS
. 64
n N
1272
WIGGINS MII,L
RESERVOIR
I I63
I
V \\ r
LLW
BEGIN PROJECT
Its ?
LLM G ? `p LM
LLW
h ? //0' • 3p1
1148 ,r /'.aatfu. 12411
UDD
66 J 11? / °?
t. 0 L1117 s L2?
C7 °j c .
02
ry ?'_? •'sLm3
September 21, 1993
TO: Melba McGee, P?llaaJnning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart?, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0139; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to SR 1165 from SR 1166 to US 264,
TIP #U-2922, Wilson, Wilson County
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current. From the
preliminary information provided, it appears that the proposed
improvements would occur within the Contentnea Creek Water
Supply Watershed which is classified as WS-IV NSW by the State
of North Carolina. In addition, the southern portion of the
project appears to fall within the critical area of Contentnea
Creek (Wiggins Mill Reservoir) Water Supply Watershed.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
Melba McGee
September 21, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10332er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
q 5 -7 93
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RF?F/OFD
WILMINGTON DISTRICT em1110/ft, S
c,111Scools
Action ID. County
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
S\ak Qco,?e.? ?. a.2.3y?ao? TAP ?. v` agaa
Property Owner/Agent SAC nCT
Address c%A o Mc. \,\. scar\?\.r, Mcte?c.n C . P\ay% .r.ci F 1.t,1,1,1110 Telephone No. L`\\q> 'k'?Z?
Size and Location of project (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.)`I, SR ;N? Fec?s? !\'.\\6
_cean?-
Description of Activity
ynre--O' 9" Anrne -'k`?a `?o- 5 •\nr-'e1 Q --.coo--
QI.T.?tPC .?.?I . ??c P C` r c7'S 9 . nn S CYO 1. nr?nr?n p? `?re-.?n..?oc i PS p k.? Qv\lo aG«
\"?
yCsection 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only. To\o_\ ..c;S? ?C?`•a^0` hoc ``ecoj?clt o?cQ.
.\?\o.CC? CLS •??CO?? Cssce-?S o?O.Er.Ct
Section 404 and Section 10. v.%
Regional General Permit o tionwide Permit Number.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve the undersigned
permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee
may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and conditions of this
permit.
Property Owner/Authorized Agent Signature
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
DateZ?S, - %.. Expi tion Date NNN,
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED TO
THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.

C• ii:Yr?1% ;ofl) W16
CESAW Form 891
Doe 1993

A. I
A? ?o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 24, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ?,! I £
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wilson County, Widening of Forest Hills Road, Federal Aid Project
STP-1165(2), State Project No. 8.234120 1, TIP No. U-2922.
The project consists of widening Forest Hills Road (SR 1165) to a five lane curb
and gutter roadway from SR 1166 to US 264. The project will cross five unnamed
tributaries resulting in 1.14 acres of impacts to wetlands and waters of the US. Three of
these crossings will result in 0.16 acres of impact. The remaining two crossings are
tributaries of the Wiggins Mill Reservoir and will each result in approximately 0.5 acres of
wetland impacts (see enclosed drawings).
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report and addendum
clarifying 404 permit requirements. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document states that
an individual 404 permit may be required for impacts associated with the project. This
addendum explains the reasons for this statement and clarifies that the project is being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33
CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will
apply to this project, and are providing copies of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, for their review.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141, Ext. 307.
Sincere( ,
H. Frar klin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Desig l Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. R. Dupree, PE, Division 4 Eng veer

• wi
1 ?

4U

IL R
?

r FAU
SITE 4 C n f1 ??1

' ?"" ?tosFC r
i s.wr
I ?

517"r ?
5 1 're-
_ I Q
I I c
80
;? ° I z C? U -. ...r Q
Ln V5
LIJ
`t I co
w - 00 f)
O ?z, Qom .
6? a v?
3 7,
I
= I I
- z o
L/) Lij
`) I a ?Q0
D I J I
z _ J !-
\ (n LL)
'z
vl?
a x -
w U
? (2m I N
U
V) LIJ
= i.
f.?
SS, I I; _ G
I I
I -
I I ?? tb
I I ? v;
W
Cv G
1?
" y I' I '
Lj-j
CD
Jl-? ?? I Cr-
l
,?J j J J \-y1

gJ

o ?
o =
Z
0
_ V
O
/// ? rrt M
z
o ??

?
W
F ?7r
o C
?
z O
?
z o ?
® ® ?

aw U
ti 4 a
? ? 01

U a
z
V
J
i ?
J
J
0
0
O o
N i
N

U.
rl
w
0
U
U..
A
z
F
w
a
w
F
0
z
w
Q

SUMMARY REPORT
Average Disturbed Structure
Site # Daily Flow Wetland Area Size & D.A. Station
CFS Type Sq. mi.
1 1.43 0.48 Ac. 3@8x6 1.3 27+60
RCBC -L Rev-

2 0.59 0.5 Ac. 108x4 0.49 42+90
R.C.p.G• -L Rev-

VP n111? 103 ?- ?" f
rL ?? J

4
S Nl (,, Oy RCP rJ1? 17:- ?s
-?. R ?v
? e,,. 5TATL
P?f? e ?o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT J R.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
1S July 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Teresa Hart. Unit Head
Urban Unit
R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill
SECRETARY
Hal Bain. Environmental Supervisor
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Correction of the Permit discussion of the
Natural Resources Technical Report for the
Proposed Widening of SR 1166 (Forest Hills
Drive) Wilson, Nilson County; TIP Y U-2922;
State Project n 8.2341201; Federal Aid
Project r STP-1165(2).
ATTENTION: Richard Brewer, Project Manager
The original tasking for the proposed widening of SR
1166 (Forest Hills Drive) described the subject project as an
Environmental Assessment (EA). Between the time of the
original tasking and the completion of the natural resources
technical report (nrtr) it was determined that the subject
project could be classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE).
This change in project status was not incorporated in the
nrtr and thus permit issues relative to this project were
depicted as if the project remained an EA.
Section 4.2 (Permits) of the nrtr should be corrected to
indicate the likely 404 permit required for the subject
project is a Nationwide permit 23. Wording for this portion
of the nrtr is stated below.
"A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to
be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal
agency or department where that agency or department has
determined the pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions
of the National Environmental Policv Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is

included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency' or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs
with that determination."
I apologize for any confusion this error has caused.
Please contact me at extension 309 if you have any questions.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Scott Gottfried, Permit Coordinator, Per. and btit. Unit
Wilson County
Forest Hills Road (SR 1165)
From SR 1166 to US 264
Federal Aid Project STP-1165(2)
State Project No. 8.2341201
TIP No. U-2922
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
iz We 0
at H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
4at r Nich as Gra , P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Wilson County
Forest Hills Road (SR 1165)
From SR 1166 to US 264
Federal Aid Project STP-1165(2)
State Project No. 8.2341201
TIP No. U-2922
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning & Environmental Branch by:
Richard L. Brewer, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
ccOI -
Ric and B. Davis, ., Assistant
Planning and Environmental Branch,
10 11 off
.•`?p'ONA CA.RO"' %
1ESSIpNq
••• ??
.
4-A
SEAL s
6944
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Permits ...................................................
Envi ronmental Commitments ..................................
I. Need for the Proposed Project .............................. 1
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H. General Description... .... .......................
Historical Resume and Project Status ..................
Existing Conditions ...................................
Stream Crossings ......................................
Traffic Volumes .......................................
Capacity Analysis .....................................
Accident Analysis .....................................
Thoroughfare Plan ..................................... 1
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
II. Description of Proposed Action ............................. 4
A.
B.
C. Proposed Improvements .................................
Construction Detour..... .. ........................
Hydraulics and Drainage Structures .................... 4
5
5
D. Estimated Costs ....................................... 6
III. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ........................ 7
A.
B. Recommended Alternative ..........................
"Do Nothing" Alternative .............................. 7
7
IV. Effects to the Environment ................................. 7
A. Land Use .............................................. 7
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ..............
2. Existing Land Use ................................
3. Existing Zoning ..................................
4. Future Land Use ..................................
5. Farmland ......................................... 7
7
8
8
8
B. Socioeconomic Impacts ................................. 9
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ..................... 9
2. Economic Factors .................................
3. Public Facilities ................................
4. Relocations ......................................
5. Social Impacts ................................... 9
10
10
10
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ....................... 10
1. Archaeological Resources .........................
2. Architectural/Historical Resources ............... 10
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
D. Nat ural Resources ................... 12
..................
1. Study Area ....................... 12
2 ..
Methodolo
.
3. gy.. . ............................
Topography and Soils 12

4. .............................
Biotic Resources 12
................................. 12
a. Terrestrial Communities ................ 12
b. Man-dominated 13
C. .... . ... ..................
Mixed-Pine/Hardwood Forest ............... 13
d. ...
Pine Forest.. . .... .... . 14
e. ................
Mixed Hardwood Swamp Forest .......... 14
f. .......
Aquatic Community... .. ...... 14
g. .........
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic
Communities ................. 15
h .............
Terrestrial
.
i .................................
A
uatic 15
. q
..................................... 16
5. Water Resources .................................. 16
a. Water Quality... .. ............... 16
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources...... 17
6. Special Topics ................................... 17
a. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional
Issues......... ... .................. 17
b. Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters...... 18
C. Permits ..................................... 18
d. Mitigation.. .... ................... 18
e. Rare and Protected Species .................. 19
f. Federally Protected Species.. ... ....... 19
g. Federal Candidate/State Listed Species...... 22
h. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 22
E. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ......................... 23
F. Geological Environmental Impact ....................... 27
1. Physiography, Relief and Drainage ................ 27
2. Geology and Soils ................................ 27
3. Mineral Resources ................................ 28
4. Erosion Control .................................. 28
5. Groundwater......... .... ....... .... 28
6. Underground Storage Tanks/Hazardous Materials
Involvement .................................... 28
7. Landfills..... . ... . ... .... ... 29
8. Other Potentially Contaminated Properties and
Liabilities .................................... 29
V. Conclusions ................................................ 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLES
Table 1 - Level of Service at Signalized Intersections..... 3
Table 2 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial

Table
3 - Communities ..... .. ....... .........
Water Resources Best Usage Classifications 15
and Approximate Waterbody Dimensions ............. 17
Table 4 - Approximate Impacts to Wetlands .................. 19
Table 5 - Federally Protected Species ...................... 20
Table 6 - Federal Candidate Species ........................ 22
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial View of Project Area
Figure 3 - 1996 and 2016 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 4 - Wetlands
APPENDIX
PERMITS
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification administered
through the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
will be required.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
"Waters of the United States".
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion. It was
determined during the site inspection that most of the work may be
eligible for Nationwide Permit authorization, with the exception of one
crossing that may require a Department of Army individual permit. Final
permit decisions, however, are left to the discretionary authority of the
United States Corps of Engineers.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Impacts will be minimized by Best
Management Practices. Hazardous spill retention basins will be placed in
permanent easements at all water supply stream crossings and will be
maintained by NCDOT.
In accordance with Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and
DOT order 5660 (Preservation of the Nations Wetlands), construction in
wetlands should be avoided and all practical measures will be taken to
minimize or compensate or mitigate for unavoidable wetlands impacts.
Wilson County
Forest Hills Road (SR 1165)
From SR 1166 to US 264
Federal Aid Project STP-1165(2)
State Project No. 8.2341201
TIP No. U-2922
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The purpose of the project is to improve safety and increase capacity
along a busy and accident-plagued highway in western Wilson. By improving
SR 1165 from a primarily 2-lane road to a 5-lane road, reduced congestion
and improved safety will be realized. Land development is likely to grow
at a rapid pace in this area of Wilson. Therefore, through and turning
traffic from the adjacent development will also be accommodated by these
improvements. Also, the project will provide the city a continuous
multi-lane link between US 301 and US 264.
The project consists of widening Forest Hills Road (SR 1165) to a
5-lane curb-and-gutter roadway from SR 1166 to US 264 on the western edge
of the City of Wilson in Wilson County. Figure 1 is a vicinity map of the
area. This project is included in the NCDOT 1994-2000 Transportation
Improvement Program (TI,P). The construction contract for this project is
scheduled to be let in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1996. The TIP funding
estimate for this project is $6,800,000, which includes $4,200,000 for
construction and $2,200,000 for right of way. The acquisition of right of
way is schedule to begin in FFY 1994.
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is not
anticipated that this project will have a significant detrimental effect
on the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant
changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in
nature. Therefore, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is
applicable.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The western areas of Wilson have seen abundant growth in the last
several years, including large-scale commercial and residential
development. This is particularly the case along Forest Hills Road on the
western edge of Wilson. Among the roadside development are such large
retailers as Wal-Mart located at the intersection of SR 1165 and US 264.
Lowes is located near the intersection of SR 1165 and SR 1163 (Downing
Street). Brendles anchors the Regency Plaza Shopping Center at the
intersection of SR 1165 and NC 42 (Tarboro Road). Also, adjacent to
SR 1165, are other retail development in the form of smaller, strip-type
shopping centers. Additionally, a day-care center, fire station, gas
stations, and other small businesses align SR 1165.
2
Volumes of traffic have steadily increased in direct proportion to
this development boom. Motorists now confront moderate to heavy
congestion during morning and evening rush hours, particularly at the
route's termini and at the two internal signalized intersections. Future
traffic projections point to a continued heavy demand in this area as
development is likely to continue. To accommodate this future traffic
demand, a widening of the existing 2-lane road to a 5-lane curb and gutter
cross-section is proposed. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project
area.
C. Existing Conditions
SR 1165 in the project vicinity has a variable cross-section and
right of way width. From SR 1166 to the south city limits of Wilson
(south of SR 1163) the road is 2-lanes wide (24 feet) with 4 to 6-foot
wide unpaved shoulders on a 80-foot right of way width. Within the city
limits of Wilson, SR 1165 is primarily a 3-lane (34 feet) road with
alternating curb and gutter and shoulder drainage treatment. This section
of road is contained in an 60-foot right of way width. From the northern
city limits to US 264 the road is 2-lanes wide (24 feet) with 4 to 6-foot
wide unpaved shoulders on a 80-foot right of way width.
The facility currently has no control of access, and this feature of
the road is not recommended to change. The posted speed limit is and is
expected to remain 45 miles per hour. This segment of SR 1165 is part of
the Wilson Thoroughfare Plan, and it is classified as an Urban Minor
Arterial in the Functional Classification System.
Underground utilities that run the entire length of the project are
sanitary sewer, water and telephone. Natural gas runs from US 264 to
SR 1163 (Downing Street) but does not serve areas south. There is no
sidewalk along the project.
D. Stream Crossings
The roadway crosses Wiggins Mill Tributary, a detailed study stream
with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. The
road also passes through the 100-year flood plain of Contentnea Creek,
also a detailed study stream, but is located outside of the floodway.
E. Traffic Volumes
The 1993 average daily traffic on SR 1165 ranges from 9,600 to 13,400
vehicles per day (vpd), and it is projected that volumes will increase to
nearly 32,000 vpd by the year 2016. Figure 3 shows average daily traffic
volumes for 1996 and the design year (2016) including turning movements,
design hourly volume (DHV) percentage, and percentages of trucks.
F. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative
measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how
these conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A LOS
3
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 of service 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.
Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of
delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel
consumption, and lost travel time. LOS for the three existing signalized
intersections on the project was calculated for 1993 conditions and for
opening day (project completion, in 1996) and design year (2016) traffic.
Table 1 presents the results of the capacity analyses.
The signalized intersection capacity analysis shows that traffic
operates at LOS C at the SR 1163 intersection with SR 1165 from present
day through the life of the project. The 1996 and 2016 estimations are
contingent on the widening of SR 1163 to a multi-lane facility (TIP
Project No. U-3117). LOS C describes operations where the number of
vehicles stopping is significant, although many pass through the
intersection without stopping.
TABLE 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Intersection 1993 1996 2016
SR 1165 & SR 1163 (Downing St.) C -C-FD ) C F)
SR 1165 & NC 42 C C (D) D (F)
SR 1165 & US 264 D C (D) D (F)
Note: term in parenthesis denotes No Build LOS.
At SR 1165 and NC 42, LOS C describes current operations and expected
operations in 1996. In 2016 the LOS drops to D. Even with dual left-turn
lanes and exclusive right-turn lanes on the busiest approaches, the
intersection will not function better than at LOS D. At LOS D, the
influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop, and
the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
At SR 1165 and US 264, traffic presently operates at LOS D. With
improvements brought about by the project, the LOS improves to C when the
project is constructed and open to traffic. However, increasing traffic
by the year 2016 will likely deteriorate operations to LOS D. The 2016
calculation was based on unscheduled additional turn-lane improvements
that would be needed to sustain LOS D.
If the project were not built, traffic operations at the signalized
intersections would deteriorate to unacceptable LOS F by the year 2016.
Level of Service F represents forced flow conditions with lengthy motorist
delays.
4
G. Accident Analysis
An accident analysis was conducted for the
time period from July 1, 1990 through May 31,
eighteen accidents occurred during this period,
Of the 118 accidents, the most predominant were
50%). The total accident rate is 316 accidents
miles (acc/100mvm). This rate exceeds the 1993
acc/100mvm for all primary 2-lane highways.
subject project for the
1993. One hundred and
none of which were fatal.
,ear-end accidents (59, or
per 100 million vehicle
statewide rate of 197.4
The addition of two through lanes and a continuous, two-way, center
left turn lane will allow for safer operations along SR 1165. Extra
capacity is obtained by the addition of the through lanes. This decreases
vehicle density and increases average headway. The frequency and length
of acceptable gaps is increased, thereby making it safer to enter SR 1165
from side streets and driveways. The two-way center left turn lane has
proven to be a safety enhancement for accident-prone streets that at one
time did not provide protected turning storage areas. This lane provides
a safe protected storage area for left-turning vehicles by moving them out
of the through traffic stream. The frequency of rear-end accidents will
be reduced with through traffic no longer stopping and starting as
left-turning vehicles are making their maneuver.
H. Thoroughfare Plan
The-subject project is included in the thoroughfare plan for Wilson
and vicinity, mutually adopted by NCDOT and the City of Wilson in 1984.
SR 1165 is identified on this plan as an urban minor arterial.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Proposed Improvements
The project, included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program, is to widen SR 1165 from its beginning at SR 1166 to its
termination at US 264. The project length is 3.3 miles. Primarily a 2
and 3-lane road, the project will widen SR 1165 to a 5-lane curb and
gutter facility. The cross-section consists of five 12-foot lanes with
curb and gutter (64 feet face-to-face total width).
The proposed right of way width
to purchase additional right of way
properties fronting SR 1165.
Most widening will be symmetrical
some sections may undergo asymmetrical
minor widening improvements. Examples
SR 1165 to SR 1163 (Downing Street)
commercial development is located. A
widening is likely to occur is just nc
where a cemetery has been located (see
is 100 feet. This will require NCDOT
varying from 20 to 40 feet along the
about the existing centerline, but
widening to conform with prior
ire the northbound approaches of
ind to NC 42, where existing
iother area where asymmetrical
rth of the start of the project,
Agure 2).
5
In addition to the general widening from a 2-lane road to a 5-lane
facility, additional lanes are proposed at signalized intersections to
accommodate anticipated heavy turning traffic.
At US 301, just south of the formal project limits (but included in
construction activities for this project), an exclusive right-turn lane is
recommended on the southbound approach of US 301. In addition, exclusive
left, through and right turn lanes are proposed on both the eastbound and
westbound approaches of SR 1163 (Downing Street). Furthermore, dual
left-turn lanes are proposed for southbound SR 1165 and westbound NC 42 at
their intersection. Also, separate right-turn lanes are proposed on
northbound SR 1165 and westbound NC 42. Finally, at US 264, the
northbound approach of SR 1165 is proposed to receive dual left-turns
lanes and an exclusive right-turn lane; southbound SR 1165 will also get
dual left-turn lanes; eastbound US 264 will have an exclusive right-turn
lane for traffic heading south on SR 1165; and westbound US 264 will have
a typical 5-lane approach, with a through-right, through, and single
left-turn lane configuration.
At the Carolina and Northwestern Railway at-grade crossing three
gates will be installed to stop traffic. Due to the roadway width on the
northbound approach two gates are needed, and a single gate will handle
the southbound movement.
The City of Wilson has requested the construction of sidewalks on the
east side of SR 1165, from Dover Street to the northern Wal-Mart property
line. The DOT has estimated the cost of a 5-foot wide sidewalk,
approximately 3600 feet long, to be $41,400. For a city with a population
of Wilson's, the municipal share of the sidewalk construction cost is 30
percent, or $12,420. The City has agreed to pay their share of the cost,
and the sidewalk will be constructed as part of this project.
B. Construction Detour
Widening will be accomplished in a manner that will allow traffic to
use the existing roadway. Temporary detours will be established and
travel lanes delineated by the use of barrels, temporary signing and
pavement markings.
C. Hydraulics and Drainage Structures
New drainage structures will be required at two stream crossings
along the project. The first stream crossing (from the south) is at
Wiggins Mill Creek Tributary. The existing drainage structure is a 2 @ 48
inch CMP pipe located approximately 1300 feet north of the southern
project terminus, SR 1166. These pipes are currently undersized and will
need to be replaced with a 2 @ 10 ft. x 6 ft. reinforced concrete box
culvert (RCBC). The roadway grade in this area will need to be raised
approximately 3 feet above the existing grade to accommodate the proposed
structure and to provide protection against roadway overtopping (for the
50-year storm).
The second crossing is at Bloomery Swamp Tributary, located
approximately 150 ft. north of Crescent Drive or approximately 3000 ft.
north of NC 42 (Tarboro St.). The existing structure is 2 @ 42 inch
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) which is currently undersized and should be
6
replaced with a 2 @ 54 inch RCP with a roadway grade approximately the
same as existing. The proposed structure sizes for both crossings may be
increased or decreased to accommodate peak discharges as determined by
detailed hydrologic analysis during final hydraulic design. Both streams
will not be rechannelized or relocated.
Wilson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program and Wiggins Mill Creek Tributary is included in the
detailed flood insurance study for Wilson County. The existing floodplain
is in the vicinity of Wiggins Mill Creek Tributary. This floodplain area
is urban but is mostly undeveloped. The proposed construction will not
adversely affect the existing floodplain and will not increase the
100-year flood level above existing levels. Therefore, the encroachment
into the floodplain is not significant as defined by 23 CFR 650.105(q).
It is not known at this time whether there are any buildings with flood
elevation below the 100-year flood level. The NCDOT Hydraulic Design Unit
will assess flood levels in detail during final hydraulic design and
incorporate measures to avoid or minimize any potential adverse impacts.
The entire project is located in a water supply watershed, and the
portion south of NC 42 is located in a water supply critical area.
Therefore, more stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures will
be required for this project as appropriate for the critical water supply
area. Permanent spill catch basins will be placed at all water supply
stream crossings. These catch basins will be placed in permanent
easements-and-willibe maintained by NCDOT. Construction operations must
be carefully planned to minimize disturbance of existing stream banks.
Any material excavated must be removed from the immediate vicinity to
prevent it from eroding back into the water. All runoff crossing the
construction area will be directed to temporary silt basins via lateral
ditches with rock check dams. Roadway slopes must be stabilized with
seeding and other sedimentation controls. Berms along the tops of fill
slopes will be used to convey runoff laterally to temporary slope drains,
which empty into temporary sediment basins. Special attention will be
given to proper specification, installation and maintenance of all erosion
and sedimentation control devices.
There are four wetland locations along this project, and impacts to
these wetlands will be minor. However, one site referred to as unnamed
tributary #1 in Figure 4, is likely to be authorized by provisions of an
Individual Permit. Existing drainage patterns and groundwater resources
will not be affected by the proposed project. See Section V. D. 6. b. for
a complete discussion of impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters.
D. Estimated Costs
The TIP cost estimate for the project is $6,800,000. Included in this
cost is $4,200,000 for construction, $2,200,000 for right of way, and
$400,000 for preliminary engineering and other prior expenditures. The
current project planning estimate, which is more detailed with itemized
construction expenditures, is tabulated below.
Right of Way $2,074,000
Construction $3,900,000
Total 5,974,000
The construction cost estimate includes engineering and contin-
gencies. The right-of-way estimate includes utility, relocation and
acquisition costs.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is to build a 5-lane curb and gutter
facility from SR 1166 to US 264. Much of the right of way (60-80 feet) is
already owned by the state for the proposed widening. Because of the
limited corridor width available for widening in some areas of the
project, a 5-lane curb and gutter cross section is the most economically
feasible option. A 4-lane, median-divided section, for example, would
require additional right of way and would cause many relocations and
displacements. This project will complete a multi-lane link between
US 301 and US 264 in a growing part of the Wilson area.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
SR 1165 is an integral part of the Wilson Thoroughfare Plan as an
urban minor arterial. The "do nothing" alternative would stifle full
implementation of this plan. More importantly, present day traffic
problems and accidents would not be alleviated, and future traffic growth
would not be accommodated. For these reasons, the "do nothing'
alternative is not reasonable or feasible and is not recommended.
IV. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Land Use
1. Status of Local Planning Activities
SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) serves as a portion of the western
municipal boundary for the City of Wilson in that area. The land on
the west side of the roadway, and on both sides near US 264, is
contained within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The City
and Wilson County jointly adopted the Wilson Growth Plan in 1990.
The Plan details the urban growth boundary or t-ReCity, and provides
a series of policies and guidelines for directing growth throughout
the county. The City also enforces a zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
Virtually every type of land use is located within the project
corridor. Wal-Mart and associated out-parcels are located at the
northern end of SR 1165, separated from a residential subdivision by
wooded areas and fields. South of the Pinewood Subdivision a variety
of services front the roadway, including medical offices, a nursing
home, a day care center, retail stores, and a municipal fire station.
8
At Tarboro Road, a shopping center containing a Food Li
Brendles encompasses the southeast quadrant of the intersec
South of the shopping center are a variety of businesses, in(
professional offices, large retail centers, distributors and
light industrial uses. An apartment complex is located on tt
side of SR 1165. An electric substation is also located in tt
Land use becomes much less dense and more rural in char
south of SR 1163 (Downing Street). Agricultural fields domin
landscape, although highway oriented commercial uses surroun
intersection of SR 1165 and SR 1163. A Shriner's meeting ha
the City of Wilson's Wiggins Mill Water Treatment Plant are 1
along SR 1165 within the project area.
3. Existing Zoning
Like the existing land uses along SR 1165, a variety of
districts are also found in the project area. Business distri
all intensities are the most common along the roadway. Thes(
from Neighborhood Business zones to Heavy Business and Higl
Business Park. The only residential districts along SR 1:
accommodate existing development, the Pinewoods subdivision a
apartment complex near Downing Street. Some residential devel
is possible in two Office and Residential-Suburban districts,
just north and south of NC 42. Several Agricultural district
scattered throughout the project area, with the largest at
southern end of the project.
4. Future Land Use
The Wilson Growth Plan indicates that the entire project
located wit 1n tFe Primary Urban Growth Area of the City of W
This includes areas where urban development and redevelopmen
encouraged, and where public utilities and other services are
currently available, or will be available by the year 2000.
Primary Urban Growth Area will receive first priority when pro,
or extensions of public services are made.
The plan also indicates support for thoroughfare pla
improvements. Concern was expressed about controlling sty
commercial development along highways. The plan recommended tl
City ordinances be revised to limit the number of driveways an
cuts onto arterials to preserve the roadway capacity.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all f
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important fi
soils. These soils are designated by the U.S. Soil Conservi
Service based on consistently high crop yields with a minimum
of resources.
Land on which development has occurred, or which has b
committed to urban development by the local governing body is
from the requirements of the Act. The proposed improvement is
9
located in an area where development is rapidly occurring, and where
the remaining land is expected to develop by the year 2000.
Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to farmland
soils is required.
B. Socioeconomic Impacts
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Wilson County, the site of the proposed project is located in
the east central section of the state and is bounded by Pitt, Greene,
Wayne, Johnston, Nash and Edgecombe Counties. The county as of 1990
had a population count of 66,061 (taken from the 1990 census).
Wilson is the county seat of Wilson County. Wilson, according to the
1990 Census has a population of 36,930.
The proposed project begins just north of existing US 301
Business at SR 1166, and continues north along Forest Hills Road
(SR 1165). The neighborhood is characterized along the proposed
length of the project with businesses, industries, multi-family and
single-family dwellings, and some institutions and farms.
Near the beginning of the proposed action, but off of the
proposed project site is a trucker's motel. On the east side of
existing SR 1165 is some vacant farm land. Directly across from the
vacant farm land on the west side of existing SR 1165 are City of
Wilson Wiggins Mill Water Treatment Plant, Wilson County Shrine Club,
and a carpet retail store.
In this same area there are vacant fields on the east side of
existing SR 1165. Just prior to reaching the Wilson City Limit sign,
Wilson Textile and Wilson Textile Screening Plant are located along
the existing highway facility on its east side. Patterson Chapel
Christian Holiness Church of God is located across the existing
highway from Wilson Textile Screening Plant.
Beginning at the city limit north to Fire Station Number 2, the
neighborhood is characterized by commercial development on the east
side of SR 1165. On the west side of SR 1165 and north of Forest
Hill Manor Apartments to Kiddie Kampus are more vacant fields. On
the east side of SR 1165, across from Fire Station Number 2, the
development changes to residential. There is a large single-family
development in this vicinity. North of the residential development
and Delwood Street, the existing 2-lane road changes to a 3-lane
facility. The land use changes back to agricultural prior to
reaching the Brendles Shopping Center, Carolina and Northwestern
Railway, and the end of the proposed project at US 264.
2. Economic Factors
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates
Preliminary Data or December 1993 indicated that Wilson County ad a
a or force o 34,750. Out o this total, 32,390 persons were
gainfully employed. This left an unemployment total of 2,360, or 6.8
percent.
10
The proposed improvement of existing Forest Hills Road
SR 1166 to US 264 will enhance the economic growth along the I
project site. Positive impacts will be realized first to the
of the proposed widened highway facility through increased a
convenience and safety of travel. Each of these improved con
also yield an economic benefit of reduced costs both in terms
savings and operating expenses.
The proposed widening will probably induce economic growl
the proposed project site. New businesses, institutions,
industries may relocate in the area because the proposed hi
widening will increase the accessibility and visibility of
highway facility.
3. Public Facilities
There are a few public facilities along the proposed pr
site. Wilson County Shrine Club is located on the southern
the proposed project near the beginning. Patterson Chapel Chri
Holiness Church of God is on the southern end of the proposed
site just outside of the Wilson City limit. The Moose Lodg
within the Wilson City Limits just south of Horton Street.
Kampus and Fire Station Number 2 are north of NC 42 and soul
where the existing road changes to a 3-lane facility.
The project will not impact any public parks, recreati
areas, of wildlife refuge areas. Hence, the project will ha
4(f) involvement.
4. Relocations
The proposed project will relocate two
located just south of SR 1166. No businesses
affected. See the appendix for a statement
Programs.
5. Social Impacts
house trailers,
or industries w
of NCDOT's Reloc
The current existing highway facility is a busy trafi
corridor. There are many major traffic generators along the p
project. By improving Forest Hills Road by widening, the er
community will benefit. Traffic flow will be improved conside
and safety will be enhanced by it.
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesi,
interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services, al
not displace community residents and businesses.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is propos
widen SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) from SR 1166 to US 264, a di
of approximately 3 miles. The project (TIP U-2922), currently
11
lane road, is to be widened to five lanes with accompanying curb and
gutters. The existing right of way is meters wide 60 feet and will
be widened to 100 feet.
A pedestrian survey of the proposed project was conducted to
locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that could
be damaged or destroyed. Greater than 50 percent of the area of
potential effect has already been modified by various construction,
landscaping operations, water and sewer pipelines, and particularly
landfill to raise the elevation of the marshy, low lying ground
surface for subsequent construction. Two NCDOT archaeologists
conducted a walkover survey of approximately 30 percent of the
proposed right of way, or 4.5 acres.
A recent cemetery was located near the juncture of SR 1165
(Forest Hill Road) and SR 1166, a small lithic scatter was recorded
1600 feet north of the same intersection, and finally, at the
opposite end of the proposed project, a scatter of broken brick and
other historic material was located near the intersection of US 264
and SR 1165. The survey results indicate the lack of any significant
archaeological sites eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. No further archaeological work is recommended. The
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has concurred with this
finding (see 2/23/94 letter from the N. C. Department of Cultural
Resources in the Appendix).
2. Architectural/Historical Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
The Phase I survey of the project area was conducted and the results
compiled to document compliance with these laws. This survey was
conducted by NCDOT and adheres to the requirements of the FHWA
Technical Advisory T 6640.8A; the Secretary of Interior's Standards
and Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic Preservation; 36 CFR
Part 800; 36 CFR Part 60; Phase I (Reconnaissance) Survey Procedures
for Historic Architectural Resources by NCDOT.
The project area was surveyed in the field by a NCDOT staff
architectural historian, and the area of potential effect (APE) was
determined. It has been determined that there are five buildings
older than 50 years of age within the APE. None of the properties
located in the APE possesses the qualities required for listing in
the National Register. Correspondence from the SHPO regarding
Architectural Historic Resources is included in Appendix.
No further compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act or Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act is required.
12
D. Natural Resources
1. Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in Wilson County (F1
in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. This county is
forested river bottomland, open farmland, and urban-industrial
Major economic resources for Wilson County include indust
agriculture, and forestry.
2. Methodology
Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey (l1
quadrangle map (Wilson), National Wetland Inventory Map (NW]
Wilson, NCDOT aerial photograph of project area 1" = 200',
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps, Fish and Wildlife Servic
list of protected and candidate species, and N.C. Natural Hei
Program (NHP) database of uncommon and protected species and
habitats. Research using these resources was conducted pric
field investigations taking place.
General field surveys were conducted on the proposed pr
alignment by NCDOT biologist Hal Bain March 16, 1994. Pla
Communities and their associated wildlife were identified
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a variety of observ
techniques: active searching and capture including visua
observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic sig
wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
3. Topography and Soils
The topography of the area is moderately dissected intc
distinctive elements, the smooth, gently undulating uplands ar
flood plains of streams and rivers. Soils in the region are f
upper coastal plain and piedmont systems and the large river r
and flood plain systems.
4. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections inc
communities of associated plants and animals. These descrip.
refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and hoi
biotic components relate to one another. A list of vertebr
species which were visually observed during field surveys
contained in Appendix A. Complete listings of fauna can be foi
one or more technical references in section 5.0.
a. Terrestrial Communities
MAN-DOMINATED, MIXED PINE/HARDWOOD FOREST, PINE FORE;
MIXED HARDWOOD SWAMP FOREST are the 4 terrestrial commun
found in the subject project study area. Dominant faui
components associated with these terrestrial areas will
discussed in each community description, however many spec
13
are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the
project alignment and may not be mentioned in each community
description.
b. Man-dominated
Lawn, road shoulder, power line R/W, gas line R/W,
agricultural field, and cutover areas make up the man-dominated
community. This community is maintained at an early
successional disclimax sere by mowing, forestry practices, and
cultivation. Lawns are dominated by tall fescue (Festuca sp.)
and other ornamental plant species.
Plant species, which are quick to colonize disturbed areas
such as tall fescue, wild onion (Allium canadense), vetch (Vicia
sp.), henbit (Lamium am lexicaule , and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera a onica dominate t e roadshoulder, lawn borders,
rai an ga ri
s g is-of-way and edges of agricultural fields.
Other early successional species like dog fennel (Eu atorium
sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.) colonize the less we
maintained locations.
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are
opportunistic and are capable of surviving on a variety of
forage resources ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves,
seeds, and fruits) to animal matter (living and dead). Gray
squirrel (Sciurus cC droinlis , opossum (Dide vir innorthern car ina (Car in-a Tis cardinalis)north northern mockingbird
(Mimus of lottos), American crow Corvus brach rh nchos), and
mourning dove Zenaida macroura) are examp es o species
attracted to lawns y t ee year-round feeding stations and
abundance of cultivated forage items provided by humans.
Rufous-sided towhee (Pi ilo er thro hthalmus), and several
species of mice (Peromyscus spp. prefer the less well
maintained margins or ecotones of disturbed habitats.
C. Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This community is dominated in the canopy by loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (uercus
a a , a-- sweet gum (Li uiTam6ar std racifl?ua). American o ly
TM ex opaca) is most common in t he su canopy, while wax myrtle
(My ca cerifera), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and Japanese
honeysuckl a are the vegetative components most common in the
shrub/vine layer.
Faunal diversity in this community is similar to that
mentioned in the man-dominated community, primarily due to its
limited size and highly fragmented state. Animals such as slimy
salamander (Plethodon gl?utino?sus) and eastern box turtle
(Terrapene caro ina arelke residents and visitors to this
community.
14
d. Pine Forest
Loblolly pine is the exclusive canopy species in this
community, while red maple and sweet gum dominate the subcanopy.
Dense stands of giant cane (Arundinaria i antea) along with wax
myrtle are prevalent at ground eevel. Stan s of pines also
exist associated with development and generally these areas
exhibit little or no subcanopy and groundcover other than that
related to landscaping.
Pine woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis), broadhead skink
(Eumeces laticeps), great horned ow (Bubo vir inianus), blue
jay C anocitta cristata), brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta
usilla , an w ite-Throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albIco is)
are the dominant species in this habitat.
e. Mixed Hardwood Swamp Forest
Two swamp forest locations (between SR 1166 and SR 1163)
are crossed by Forest Hills Drive. These communities are
dominated in the canopy by red maple, ash (Fraxinus sp.), and
willow oak (uercus hellos) with scattered o o y pine also
present. Black wi low Salix nigra) is more common in the
eastern crossing and along the swamp borders. Elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), privet (Li ustrum sinense), blueberry
(Vac- c n um sp. , an giant cane along with green rier, crossvine
(Anisostichus ca reolata), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), and
soft needle rush Juncus effusus) make up t e s ru vine/herb
layer. Other herbaceous vegetation which exists in the flooded
portions of the swamp includes bur-reed (S ar anium sp.),
seedbox (Ludwigia sp.), and knotweed (Polygonum sp. .
This community consists of stream channel, flood plain,
forested, and overflow ephemeral pool habitats. Beaver (Castor
canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and raccoon are
mammas which were not6-F during t e site visit. Other animals
likely to be found in the swamp community include crayfish
(Family Cambaridae), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenoce hala),
yellow-bellied slider (Chr sem s scripta), rroown water snake
(Nerodia taxis ilota), prot onotary warbler (Protonotaria
citrea , an swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana).
f. Aquatic Community
Five unnamed tributaries of Contentnea Creek/Wiggins Mill
Reservoir make up the aquatic community associated with the
proposed project. The three located between SR 1166 and SR 1163
are bordered by hardwood swamp. The creek south of NC 42 is
bordered mixed forest and the creek south of US 264 is located
in a pine dominated habitat. Much of the runoff area associated
with these waterbodies is disturbed by industrial and urban
development with very few areas of natural vegetation left to
act as buffer zones for storm runoff which has resulted in large
amounts of silts being deposited on the substrate.
15
Most, if not all, of the creeks have been channelized. The
three southern most creeks, which are surrounded by forested
vegetation, still show extensive degradation due to physical
(tires, styrofoam, drink bottles, etc.) and likely chemical
pollution.
Few aquatic organisms were noted during the site visit.
Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) were observed during the site
visit and other 'species 6-f_fisTi such as pirate perch
(A hredoderus sayanus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus),
shiners Notropis spp.), and sunfish (Le orris spp. are likely
inhabitants. No mussel (Family Unions ae) evidence was
uncovered during the site visit.
g. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project
construction are being addressed separately as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
communities, particularly in locations exhibiting moderate to
steep slopes can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy
sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be isolated to the
communities in which the construction occurs.
h. Terrestrial
Natural communities are few in the project area and those
communities remaining have been highly fragmented and reduced as
a result of previous development. The man-dominated community
component of the project area will receive the greatest impact
from habitat reduction resulting in the loss and displacement of
plant and animal life. Animals such as raccoon and Virginia
opossum, which forage along roadside habitats often are roadkill
victims, while roadways restrict movements of other less mobile
species entirely. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial
communities are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
(acres)
Community Type
MD MPHF PF MHSF Totals
11.2 0.8 0.4 0.3 12.7
Note: Impacts based on 100 t R /W.
"*" MD = Man-Dominated Community
MPHF = Mixed Pine\Hardwood Forest Community
PF = Pine Forest Community
MHSF = Mixed Hardwood Swamp Forest Community
16
i. Aquatic
As mentioned previously, the aquatic component of the
project area has already been altered by siltation from erosion
due to development in south Wilson. Project construction is
likely to increase sediment loads in the aquatic community.
Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are important parts of the
aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms such as many of the
filter feeders may be covered and smothered by sedimentation
resulting from construction related erosion. Local fish
populations can also be harmed by construction-related
sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and suspended
particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced
depth of light penetration in the water column and reduction in
the waters oxygen carrying capacity.
5. Water Resources
This section describes each water resource and its relationship
to major water systems. The proposed project lies within the Neuse
River basin. Five stream habitats are crossed by the proposed
project alignment. Water flow is generally from northeast to
southwest and bottom composition for these habitats includes a mix of
predominantly sand and silt.
a. Water Quality
Water resource discussions include waterbody
classification, location of high quality waters, and licensed
dischargers. Table 3 contains information Best Usage and
waterbody characteristic information.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
lists no dischargers for the project area. Also, no waters
classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) nor waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II will be
impacted by the proposed project, nor are these resources
located within 1 mile of the subject area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring
sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the
presence of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation
gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a
community structure quite different from that in an unstressed
waterbody. BMAN information is not available for the immediate
project area.
17
b. Anticipated impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources in the project area
will be increased sedimentation and turbidity from construction-
related erosion as well as non-point discharge of toxic
substances from increased roadway surface area (engine fluids
and particulate rubber). Sedimentation and erosion control
measures (Best Management Practices) will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms
along construction areas (roadsides, bridge sites, road medians)
help decrease erosion and allow toxic substances to be absorbed
into the soil before these substances reach waterways. Special
permanent spill catch basins will be employed at all water
supply stream crossings.
6. Special Topics
a. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category
of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and
in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE).
TABLE 3
WATER RESOURCES BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATIONS
AND APPROXIMATE WATERBODY DIMENSIONS
WATER CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION
RESOURCE DEPTH WIDTH
Unnamed tri # 1 2.0 t 10.0 t WS-IV NSW CA
Unnamed trib # 2 2.0 ft 8.0 ft WS-IV NSW CA
Unnamed trib # 3 0.5 ft 2.0 ft WS-IV NSW CA
Unnamed trib # 4 1.0 ft 6.0 ft C NSW
Unnamed trib # 5 0.5 ft 2.0 ft C NSW
NOTE: Order o creek data shown from beginning o project at SR 1166
(Fig. 4).
NOTE "*": Class WS-IV: waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; suitable
for all Class C uses.
Class C: suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
NSW: Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require
CA: Critical Area is defined as the area adjacent to a water supply
intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is
greater than that from the remaining portions of the watershed.
No special development restrictions are required for CA's.
18
b. Impacts to Wetlands and Surface waters
Improvements to SR 1165 cannot be accomplished without
infringing on jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters.
Jurisdictional wetlands associated with the subject project are
located along drainages connected to Wiggins Mill Reservoir and
Bloomery Swamp (Fig. 4). These jurisdictional areas were
identified using methods of the 1987 wetland delineation manual
(Environmental Laboratory). Waters of the US crossed by or
bordering the project alignment are classified by the National
Wetlands Inventory as Palustrine Emergent Persistent Saturated
(PEM1B), Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Temporarily
Flooded (PF01A), and Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous
Semipermanently Flooded (PFO1F). Wetland field indicators
present included; hydrophytic plants, anoxic soils, oxidized
rhizospheres, sediment deposits, buttressed tree trunks, water
marks, and mottled soils. Approximate impacts to wetlands are
listed in Table 4.
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. Four of the 5
crossings of Waters of the U.S. will likely be authorized by
provisions of Nationwide 14. This Nationwide permit authorizes
fills for roads crossing waters of the U. S. provided: a) the
width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing; and, b) the fill placed in waters of the U. S.
is limited to a filled, area of no more than 2 acres.
Furthermore, no more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill
for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including
wetlands. Construction at the fifth site (unnamed tributary # 1)
is likely to be authorized by provisions of an Individual
Permit, due to the length of fill in wetlands (over 200 linear
ft) and due to the below headwaters status of the waters being
crossed. Comments from the N. C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (see appendix for memo dated
9/21/93) have been coordinated with the Planning and
Environmental Branch of DOT and are included as part of this
report.
C. Permits
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the
state issue or deny water quality certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States. This water
quality certification must be obtained prior to issuance of
Federal 404 permits for project construction.
d. Mitigation
Since a portion of this project will likely be authorized
under an individual permit, mitigation for impacts to wetlands
and surface waters will be required by the COE. The State of
North Carolina along with federal agencies require that adverse
19
impacts to coastal lands and waters be mitigated or minimized
through proper planning, site selection, compliance with
standards for development, and creation or restoration of
coastal resources. NCDOT has minimized impacts to wetlands by
widening along the existing corridor. The fill slopes have been
steepened from 4:1 to 3:1, thereby minimizing the width or
cross-section of fill. With this alignment along the existing
corridor, all wetlands are crossed at nearly right angles.
Mitigation requires that the wetlands functions and values
be reestablished to similar preconstruction conditions. Several
methods of mitigation are generally accepted. These methods
include creation of new wetlands from uplands, enhancing and
diversifying existing wetlands, restoring previously disturbed
or damaged wetlands, and acquiring and preserving existing
wetlands through purchase, easements, or mitigation banking. A
final determination regarding mitigation requirements will be
made in coordination with various environmental review agencies
during the final design phase of the project.
TABLE 4
APPROXIMATE IMPACTS TO WETLANDS
(Acres)
Wetland Wetland Types
Locations (PF01A) (PFO1F) (PEM1B) Totals
UT#1 0.05 0.15 -0- 0.2
UT#2 0.05 0.05 -0- 0.1
UT#4 0.1 -0- -0- 0.1
UT#5 -0- -0- 0.1 0.1
Totals 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5
Note: UT = Unnamed Tributary
e. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are
in the process of decline either due to natural forces or due to
their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species
listed for Wilson County and any likely impacts to these
species, as a result of the proposed project construction are
discussed in the following sections.
f. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
20
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists 3 federally
protected species for Wilson County as of December 20, 1993.
These species are listed in Table 5.
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered
locations throughout the southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20
cm long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. The male has
a small red spot on the each side of the head. Both males and
females show a black cap and stripe on the side of the neck.
The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are
white. Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the
back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine stands (minimum age
60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more
pine). Longleaf pine (Pinus alustris) is most commonly used,
but other species of soutFern pine are also acceptable.
TABLE 5
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Listed for Wilson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Picoides borealis
A asmi onta a erodon
Rhus mic aux '41 W-
COMMON NAME STATUS
red-cockaded woodpecker
dwarf wedge mussel
Michaux's sumac
"*" Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20 years.
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with its range).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat exists along the proposed project alignment.
Surveys in pine and pine dominated forested stands were
conducted on March 23, 1994 to determine presence or absence of
this species. No evidence of Red-cockaded woodpeckers was found
during the survey. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage
Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject
project study area. It can be concluded that project
construction will have no impact on red-cockaded woodpecker.
21
dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) E
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac
River, Canada to the Neuse River, North Carolina. In North
Carolina populations are found in Middle Creek and the Little
River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and
Cedar, Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system. This
mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well
oxygenated water to survive.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size
from 1 to 1.5 inches in length. It's shell is distinguishable
by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half.
The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in
color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
General mussel surveys conducted along streams crossed by
the proposed project alignment revealed no live mussels or shell
evidence mussel fauna. Results of mussel surveys along with
evidence of (in stream waste including widespread sedimentation,
tires, and other assorted garbage) poor water quality suggests
that few if any native mussels remain in these streams. It can
be concluded that project construction will have no impact on
dwarf wedge mussel.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) E
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner
coastal plain and lower piedmont of North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia. It is currently known from only 21
populations in North Carolina and Georgia. In North Carolina
populations of Michaux's sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond,
Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent
on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its
habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full
sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as
Japanese honeysuckle that it is often associated with.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub
that grows 8 to 40 inches in height. The narrowly winged or
wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to
oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are each 1.5 to 3.5 inches long,
0.8 to 2 inches wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small
flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are
greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August
to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent
drupe, 0.2 to 0.25 inches across.
22
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Road shoulders along the project alignment are too well
maintained to allow for the presence of this species. No other
habitat exists in the subject project study area. It can be
concluded that subject project construction will have no impact
on Michaux's sumac.
g. Federal Candidate/State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under
the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. The following
table includes federal candidate species listed for Wilson
County and their state classifications (Table 6). Organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list
of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
h. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No federally protected species were located in the subject
project study area. Therefore, no impacts to federally
protected species will result from project construction,
furthermore, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
records revealed no state listed species occurring in the
subject project study area.
TABLE 6
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
(and their State Status) listed for Wilson County
COMMON NAME
(Scientific name)
STATUS
Federal/State HABITAT
Henslow's sparrow C2 SR NO
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) C2 T NO
(Fusconaia soni)
Caro ina asphodel C2 C NO
(Tofieldia labra)
Note: Species represented in bold is protected by state law.
"*" Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20 years.
T = "Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a significant
portion of its range".
23
E. Traffic Noise and Air Oualit
The project is located within the jurisdiction of air quality of the
Raleigh Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Wilson County has
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and
any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a
point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once
the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together
to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and
to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
• The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
24
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of
sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions
are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it
is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any alternative. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year
of 1996 and the design year of 2016 using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer
model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
25
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #17
at a distance of 40' from the centerline of the roadway. The "build"
one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest receptor for the years of 1996
and 2016 are 3.8 and 4.1 ppm, respectively. The "no-build" one-hour CO
concentrations for receptor #17 for the years 1996 and 2016 are 3.7 and
4.1 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, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. In the appendix,
tables Al and A2 are provided showing input data and output.
The project is located within the jurisdiction of air quality of the
Raleigh Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Wilson County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated
by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no
additional reports are necessary.
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.
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Table N2 (appendix).
26
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The field data was also used to establish ambient noise levels for
residences and businesses in the vicinity of the project. The existing Leq
noise level along SR 1635 as measured at 50 feet from the roadway ranged
from 64.2 to 65.7 dBA.
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-11-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4 (appendix). Information included in these tables
consist of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project,
their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there are 31 impacted receptors within
the project limits. Predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +7 to +10 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible
to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more
readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a
doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise 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 (appendix).
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category; however, there are no impacted receptors in
the project limits.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
27 residences would experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of +4 to
+7 dBA. As previous noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily
noticed.
Noise levels in the immediate area could increase during
construction, but the increase will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
27
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of 23 CFR 772 (highway traffic noise) and no
additional reports are required.
F. Geological Environmental Impact
1. Physiography, Relief and Drainage
The project corridor is located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Relief within the corridor is nearly level to gently sloping.
Overall, the county slopes to the southeast. The soils in the area
are well drained to moderately well drained with a loamy or clayey
subsoil. Wiggins Mill Reservoir is less than one-half mile west and
southwest of the project and should raise the water table to near the
ground surface in the southern section of the project.
2. Geology and Soils
Soils in the project area are underlain by unconsolidated,
fossiliferous clay with varying amounts of fine-grained sand from the
Yorktown Formation. Fossil assemblages are locally concentrated into
bluish gray, shelly lenses. The depth to bedrock is greater than 60
feet throughout the area.
The Norfolk-Gritney-Wagram (NGW) and Tomotley-Altavista-State
(TAS) soil associations are present within the project corridor. The
NGW is nearly level, well to moderately well drained soils with a
loamy or clayey subsoil. These soils are on broad ridges and side
slopes and are dissected by many drainages along narrow to wide flood
plains. NGW soils are yellowish brown to brown sandy loams.
Subsoils are strong, brown to brownish yellow sandy clay loam and
sandy loam. TAS soils are nearly level to gently sloping, poorly
drained in horizontal units giving way to well to moderately well
drained soils upslope. Surface soils are dark gray to dark grayish
brown fine sandy loam and brown loamy sand. Subsoils are gray clay
loams, olive to yellow brown sandy and sandy clay loams and yellow
brown sandy clay and sandy loams.
Engineering properties for soils in the project corridor
indicate a variable degree of suitability for construction purposes.
Moderate to severe limitations due to wetness, flooding and low
strength mark the TAS soils. The Gritney sandy loam of the NGW
association has severe limitations due to high shrink-swell potential
and low strength. Other members of this association have slight
limitations. Soil-water content throughout the corridor is high and
portions of the area erode easily. Shallow excavations are
moderately to severely limited due to wetness and clay content. In
areas, cutbanks are expected to cave. Norfolk and Wagram soils are
well suited for backfill material, other soils in the area are poorly
to fairly suited due again, to wetness, low strength and shrink-swell
potential. Soils in the area are acidic with a range of pH between
3.6 and 6.0. There is a moderate to high risk of corrosion for
concrete structures. AASHTO classifications of soils in the project
corridor are A-1, A-2, A-2-4, A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-7-6.
28
3. Mineral Resources
The are no known mineral resources of economic significance
known to be present within the vicinity of this proposed
construction.
4. Erosion Control
Erosion hazards
corridor. In shallow
experienced. Adequate
damage and erosion and
project.
5. Groundwater
are expected to be slight throughout the
excavations and cutbanks some caving may be
measures will be taken to minimize slumping
to maximize safety for the duration of the
The apparent water table is at a depth between 1.5 feet and
greater than 6 feet. Appropriate measures will be necessary to
minimize backflow into excavations.
6. Underground Storage Tanks / Hazardous Materials Involvement
Based on a reconnaissance survey, two active sites with the
potential for underground storage tank (UST) involvement within the
project corridor.
Handy Mart #22 UST Owner: E. J. Pope & Sons
2603 Forest Hills Rd. Mount Olive, NC
Wilson, NC
There are three gasoline USTs [two at 8000 gal and one at 6000
gal] and one oil UST [4000 gal] registered with the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Management (DEM) at this facility. All
four of the USTs are located approximately 146 feet from the
centerline of Forest Hills Road in the northeast quadrant of its
intersection with Wooten Boulevard. The three gasoline USTs are of
steel construction and have cathodic protection. The oil UST is of
steel construction with buffhide protection. All USTs have been in
place since February 28, 1983.
Bissett's Exxon UST Owner: Aubury Bissett
1600 Forest Hills Rd. 1600 Forest Hills Rd.
Wilson, NC Wilson, NC
There are three gasoline USTs [two at 6000 gal and one at 5000
gal] and one oil UST [1000 gal] registered with DEM at this facility.
The three gasoline USTs are located approximately 139 feet from the
centerline of Forest Hills Road in the northeast quadrant of its
intersection with NC 42 (Tarboro Rd.). The three gasoline USTs are
of steel construction and have no cathodic protection. The oil UST
is of fiberglass reinforcing plastic with no cathodic protection.
The three gasoline USTs have been in place since April 7, 1971 and
the oil UST has been in place since April 3, 1985.
29
Additional right of way acquisition should not be allowed to
encroach further upon the USTs within the project corridor.
Purchasing property containing USTs creates the liability for any
leakage that may occur and the possibility for long-term, costly
remediation.
7. Landfills
The files of the Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste
Management were consulted and no landfills were located on the
project corridor for Wilson County.
8. Other Potentially Contaminated Properties and Liabilities
The files of the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Sections of DEM
were consulted to determine whether any unregulated dump sites or
other potentially contaminated properties exist within the proposed
project limits. Based on those records and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Superfund list, there are no potential
environmental problem sites that should affect this project corridor.
There is, however, an Electric Substation (No. 5) operated by
the City of Wilson approximately 61 feet off the centerline of SR
1165 and 1030 feet from the intersection of SR 1165 and SR 1163
(Downing St.).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The widening of SR 1165 will benefit motorists by reducing the
likelihood of accidents and by improving the traffic-carrying capacity of
the roadway. The project will better handle future growth that is likely
in the western areas of Wilson. It is therefore concluded that the
proposed project will have an overall positive effect on the surrounding
area.
Based upon the findings of this report, the proposed improvements are
not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
RLB/plr
FIGURES
Akv
I 264
??7<J.iw.,'?.'" of AP
END PROJECT 'Kw?r
I
I a I?
I
1 1,? c
P I
FMS
_ L 0 1
• C'S ' s
1=3 ?
11W ?
lI _ it ?t?
I
14
LlN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
TRANSPORTATION
DI
dd DIVISION OF HIC3HWAYS
PLANNINf3 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FIGURE 1
WILSON, SR 1165 (FOREST HILLS RD.)
FROM SR 1166 TO US 264, WILSON CO.
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2341201
TIP NO. U-2922
MILES / 1
O (KILOMETERS) \ 1.61)
l I
?tiy: I
i \ BEGIN PROJECT
WTGGZNS JML 1 Ltd foV Lim
L1S1 ,Q .Lllb %f'
I N ? //d• 3p1
L
,i?uudiT. iml
? 8. ? •G lIDC
JIlm c?
izz
US 220
264 420
ESTIMATED 1996/2016 ADT VOLUMES IN HUNDREDS. U-2922
WILSON, SR 1165 (FOREST HILLS ROAD), WILSON CO.
FROM US 264 TO US 301. JtjLY, 1993
SR 1165
108
208
54 I 1 54
104 'V 104
A 11
15 26 13 21
29 50 25 67
110 ?-- 128 88
?- 210 ? 110 9 168
~- 176
110
210
15 A 4) I
29
65 28 28 10
-S
124 53 54 19
30

57
66 , A 66
126 V 126
1

65 1 2
124 2 2

4

336
88 -i
168
3
6 ~-
3
6
65 2
124 4
67
128
k 1
2
?- 2
4
67 I I
128
66 1
126 2
1
3
6 ?-
__ 66 2
126 4
68 I •? 68
130 130
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A
3 --?
6
6 CRESCENT
12 DRIVE
6 OAKDALE
12 DRIVE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF H10HWAYS
PLANNINM AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FIGURE 3 - ESTIMATED 1996/2016
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WILSON, SR 1183 (FOREST HILLS RD.)
FROM SR 1168 TO US 264, WILSON CO.
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2341201
TIP NO. U-2922
U-2922
WILSON CO.
JuL"l', 1993
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --A
68 4 A 68
130 1 130
A 1

67 1 2
128 2 1

l r 2
v y

67 1
128 2
68 I A 68
130 `d 1 130
A 1-
68 1-
129 1

l `' 1

RR i-
129 1
68 I A 68
130 r 4 130
.? 1
67 1 2
128 2 2

I t 4
? y

67 2
128 4
69 I A 69
132 V 1 132
2 ?-
4
2
4
1 ?
2
1 -+
2
4 DELLWOOD
8 DRIVE
2 STAFFORD
4 DRIVE
3 ?'-
6
6 DOVER
12 STREET
3
6
8-------1--------8
B --- ----- -- --- --- B U-2922
WILSON CO.
69 A 69
132 132 JMLY, 1993
i
16
31
4 51 14 34
?---
8 97 27 64
50 21 71

135
?
100 95 'Y 40 142 TARBO RO
NC 42
- -
190 270 STREET
50 4 ?
s
I 71

-?
95 8 135
12 49 21
36
-? 23 93 40
68
10 -?
19
82 I A 82
156 ' 156
4
78 4 8
148 8
? 6 10
?-
11 l -'Y 11 9
1 20 WOOTEN
38 BLVD.
0 a
( 10
-?
19
78 6
148 11
34 1 34
159 ' 159
3
81 3 6
153 6
1
4

f-
l q 2 8 8 NORTON
16 BLVD.
4
-?
82 8
155 ' 81 1
153 2
1 81
2 153 A 82
?
I 155

3
BIRCHWOOD 2 A
LAN E 6
-? 3 2 'J 1 81
-
1 153

1 ?
81 I .? 81
154 154
C --- ----- -- --- --- C

8 C-

9

32 --

6

i1 ---
81
154

58
112

r --
'

7
31 i --
s

-

r ---
81
154
17
31
11
17

2
4 --- C

0

52

0 U-2922
WILSON CO.
JULY, 1993

OWNING
64 6 30 104 STREET
19 (
32 11 52
2 58 2
11 -? 4 112 4
17
2 -1
4
62 I ? 62
120 7 120
A` 1-
62 1- 1
119 1 _ 1_ ? ?--
` 1 2 CHICKEN
~ y 4 DRIVE

2
62 1-
-
ii9 -T
62 I A 62
119 V 119
7

13
7 48 7 1
F
13 94 13 2
17
17
18 2 18 SR 1166
34 ? h 34
17 13 17
1 44 1
i
-- -? 2 85 2
2
1
2
50 , A 50
98 v 96
1 00
1 96
Unnamed Tributary # 5
(Wetlands associated)
6
,cam'; ,; a? ? Iw
?vo
26A
1.01
1",v
END PROJECT FAP
Unnamed Tributary # 4
(Wetlands associated)
I
@LOOMERY
SWAMP 1
c I
Fau
- .64 .96
C5
Unnamed Tributary # 3
Elm Ci IY T??A? _ _ Fn
® +'I Creek i 1
r I t '..
r - T WdDanks l?
sum 7a1 ?;. 4v 42 Mac 1 Se.
+ o C 9
ilson
12 I '*5 ' OOaratoaa u
i i ??ca 9alackCree\1 ; 9 Unnamed Tributary # 1
,y'C i?/slaMpnlCW ?. "''?' 'nit•
(Wetlands associated)
Unnamed Tributary # 2 4
1 ? BEGIN PROJECT
(Wetlands associated)
.,
WTGGINS MILL ,.tls'J. F?J tp 11G9
?+ '•T? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 1 ,lo
ro ,?F L
OF TRANSPORTATION 1 i
DIVISION OF HIC3HWAYS
PLANNIND AND ENVIRONMENTAL t 1106 /?yutiviT• jml
BRANCH
?4r e . r? • s.
0
01
FIGURE 4 - WETLANDS Q? JLM
\ V ll?/ • q p 1SS
WILSON, SR 1165 (FOREST HILLS RO.) ? .?
FROM SR 1166 TO US 264, WILSON CO.
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2341201
TIP NO. U-2922
MILES (1.60
O (KILOMETERS) I ,

APPENDIX
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2922: SR 1635, Wilson County RUN: SR 1635, YR-1996, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 12/16/1993 TIME: 15:42:49.13
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) - (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 7.3 -804.7 7.3 804.7 1609. 360. AG 902. 17.2 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 902. 17.2 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R17, 40 RT. CL RES -7.9 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2922: SR 1635, Wilson County
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.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
3.8
6
RUN: SR 1635, YR-1996, BUILD 45 MPH
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2922: SR 1635 Wilson County RUN: SR 1635, YR-2016, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 12/16/1993 TIME: 15:48:42.96
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
LINK COORDINATES
(M)
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 7.3 -804.7 7.3 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1749. 10.4 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1749. 10.4 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R17, 40' RT. CL RES -7.9 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2922: SR 1635 Wilson County RUN: SR 1635, YR-2016, BUILD 45 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 4.1
DEGR. 6
TABLE A3
1 CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2922: SR 1165 Wilson County RUN: SR 1165 YR-1996, NOBUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 10/22/1993 TIME: 09:00:39.10
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS a .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S
T. T MW VLA T LnT.FC
LINK DESCRIPTION
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 10. CM
CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 902. 17.2 .0 9.8
.0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 902. 17.2 .0 9.8
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R17, 40' RT. CL RES -9.8 .0 1.8
1
JOB: U-2922: SR 1165 Wilson County
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.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
3.7
4
RUN: SR 1165 YR-1996, NOBUILD 45 MPH
TABLE A4
1 CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2922: SR 1165 Wilson County RUN: SR 1165 YR-2016, NOBUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 10/22/1993 TIME: 09:00:58.43
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7
2. Near Lane Link .0 604.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
RECEPTOR X Y
1. R17, 40' RT. CL RES -9.8
JOB: U-2922: SR 1165 Wilson County
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.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 4.1
DEGR. 7
3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1749. 10.4 .0 9.8
.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1749. 10.4 .0 9.8
Z
COORDINATES (M)
0 1.6
RUN: SR 1165 YR-2016, NOBUILD 45 MPH
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
1/3
Forest Rills Road (SR 1165), From SR 1166 to US 264,
Wilson County, TIP# U-2922 State Project# 8.2341201
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
...................... .................. ..... .................. ........................
SR 1166 to SR 1163 (Downing Street)
1 Residence B SR 1165 230 L
2 Residence B " 120 L
3 Business C 70 R
4 Business C " 175 L
5 Business C " 130 L
6 Business C 110 L
7 Residence B " 170 L
8 Residence B " 230 L
9 Residence B " 80 L
10 Residence B " 95 L
11 Business C " 200 R
12 Business C 90 L
13 Residence B " 140 R
14 Residence B " 130 R
15 Businesses (5) C " 170 R
16 Businesses (4) C " 70 R
17 Business C " 40 R
18 Business C 110 L
SR 1163 (Downing Street) to NC 42
19 Business C SR 1165 100 R
20 Business E " 65 L
21 Business C " 100 L
22 Business C 130 L
23 Business E " 80 L
24 Business C " 90 L
25 Business C " 235 R
26 Business C " 400 R
27 Business C " 100 L
28 Business C " 230 R
29 Businesses (8) E " 80 L
30 Business C " 50 . L
31 Business E " 85 R
32 Business E " 90 R
33 Business C " 100 R
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
53 SR 1165 230 L - - 60 + 7
59 " 120 L - - * 66 + 7
63 " 70 R - - 70 + 7
56 " 175 L - - 63 + 7
58 130 L - - 66 + 8
60 " 110 L - - 67 + 7
56 " 170 L - - 63 + 7
53 230 L - - 60 + 7
62 80 L - - * 70 + 8
61 " 95 L - - * 68 + 7
55 200 R - - 62 + 7
61 90 L - - 69 + 8
56 " 140 R - - 65 + 7
58 " 130 R - - * 66 + 8
56 " 170 R - - 63 + 7
63 " 70 R - - 70 + 7
66 " 40 R --------------------R/W--------------
60 " 110 L - - 67 + 7
60 SR 1165 100 R - - 69 + 9
63/40 " 65 L - - 72/47 + 9/7
60 100 L - - 69 + 9
58 " 130 L - - 67 + 9
61/40 " 80 L - - 71/46 + 10/6
60/40 " 90 L - - 70/45 + 10/5
52 " 235 R - - 61 + 9
47 400 R - - 56 + 9
60 " 100 L - - 69 + 9
53 " 230 R - - 62 + 9
61/40 " 80 L - - ? 71/46 + 10/6
64 " 50 L --------------------R/W--------------
61/40 " 85 R - - 71/46 + 10/6
60/40 " 90 R - - 70/45 + 10/5
60 " 100 R - - 69 + 9
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y- Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
2/3
Forest Bills Road (SR 1165), From SR 1166 to US 264,
Wilson County, TIPN U-2922 State Project# 8.2341201
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
SR 1163 (Downing Street) to NC 42 (CONT'D)
34 Business E SR 1165 135 R 57/40 SR 1165 135 R
35 Business E " 80 R 61/40 80 R
36 Business C " 250 R 52 " 250 R
37 Businesses (10)E " 85 R 61/40 85 R
38 Residence B 130 L 58 130 L
39 Residence B " 60 L 63 60 L
40 Residence B " 50 L 64 50 L
41 Residence B " 40 L 65 40 L
42 Residence B " 90 L 60 " 90 L
43 Residence B " 90 L 60 90 L
NC 42 to US-264
- - 67/42 + 10/2
- - 71/46 + 10/6
- - 61 + 9
- - 71/46 + 10/6
- - * 67 + 9
* 73 * + 10
-------------------- R/W----- ---------
-------------------- R/W----- ---------
- 70 * + 10
- - * 70 * + 10
44 Business C SR 1165 130 R 59 SR 1165 130 R - - 67 + 8
45 Business C •' 180 R 56 " 180 R - - 64 + 8
46 Business E " 80 R 63/40 •' 80 R - - 71/46 + 8/6
47 Business C " 85 R 62 " 85 R - - 70 + 8
48 Business C 120 R 60 120 R - - 68 + 8
49 Business C 120 L 60 " 120 L - - 68 + 8
50 Business C " 110 R 61 " 110 R - - 68 + 7
51 Business C 150 L 58 '• 150 L - - 65 + 7
52 Business C " 90 L 62 90 L - - 70 + 8
53 Residence B 60 R 65 " 60 R - - * 73 + 8
54 Residence B 150 R 58 150 R - - 65 + 7
55 Residence B " 265 R 52 265 R - - 60 + 8
56 Residence B 90 R 62 " 90 R - - * 70 + 8
57 Residence B " 150 R 58 " 150 R - - 65 + 7
58 Residence B " 230 R 54 " 230 R - - 61 + 7
59 Residence B " 80 R 63 " 80 R - - * 71 + 8
60 Residence B 110 R 61 " 110 R - - * 68 + 7
61 Residence B " 80 R 63 " 80 R - - * 71 + 8
62 Residence B " 210 R 55 210 R - 62 + 7
63 Residence B 99 R 62 '• 90 R - - * 70 + 8
64 Residence B " 250 R 53 " 250 R - - 61 + 8
65 Residence B " 80 R 63 " 80 R - - * 71 + 8
66 Residence B " 80 R 63 " 80 R - - * 71 + 8
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y- Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (56/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 3/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Forest Hills Road (SR 1165), From SR 1166 to US 264,
Wilson County, TIPN U-2922 State Project# 8.2341201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N
.... LAND USE CATEGORY
.................. NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........ ........... INCREASE

.......?
NC 42 to US-264 (CON"T)
67 Residence B SR 1165 75 R 63 SR 1165 75 R - - * 71 + 8
68 Residence B " 80 R 63 80 R - - * 71 + 8
69 Residence B " 240 R 54 " 240 R - - 61 + 7
70 Residence B " 60 R 65 " 60 R - - * 73 + 8
71 Residence B " 250 R 53 250 R - - 61 + 8
72 Residence B " 80 L 63 " 80 L - - * 71 + 8
73 Residence B '• 70 L 64 70 L - - * 72 + 8
74 Residence B •' 70 L 64 70 L - - * 72 + 8
75 Residence B •' 80 L 63 " 80 L - - * 71 + 8
76 Residence B •• 90 L 62 90 L - - * 70 + 8
77 Residence B " 60 R 65 60 R - - * 73 + 8
78 Residence B " 150 R 58 " 150 R - - 65 + 7
79 Residence B " 250 R 53 " 250 R - - 61 + 8
80 Residence B " 250 R 53 " 250 R - - 61 + 8
81 Residence B " 150 R 58 " 150 R - - 65 + 7
82 Residence B " 70 R 64 " 70 R - - * 72 + 8
83 Residence B 80 L 63 80 L - - * 71 + e
84 Residence B " 90 L 62 " 90 L - - * 70 + 8
85 Residence B " 100 L 61 " 100 L - - * 69 + 8
86 Residence B " 80 L 63 " 80 L - - * 71 + 8
87 Residence B " 50 R 66 " 50 R --------------------R/W--------------
88 Residence B 150 R 58 150 R - - 65 + 7
89 Residence B 250 R 53 " 250 R - - 61 + B
90 Residence B " 50 R 66 " 50 R --------------------R/W--------------
91 Residence B " 130 R 59 '• 130 R - - * 67 + 8
92 Residence B " 230 R 54 " 230 R - - 61 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y- Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * - Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
?y SEP
.? ] 993 n -
RECEIbte o orth Carolina
Dep nE?rsnfq@m 't, Health, and Natural ;_Resources
AD lvisi? f Land Resources UHLJT+` Sc^
i, T1
ro
James G. Martin, Governor b(t l 7 ? \\ OJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: 3, county: L? S i
Project Name: C11 3 1
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact _ geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.o. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
?? 4` C f?1L(r(r_ C( L
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
/ than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
-? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimehtation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date

P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Policy Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
John Humphrey, Director
F
MEMORANDUM 199 ?
"
0
soD
FF/
CF -?
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0139 - Scoping Forest Hills Road from SR 1 166 to US
264
DATE: September 8, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list. and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review. The Department of Transportation is encouraged to notify
our commenting divisions if additional assistance is needed.
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission was unable to respond
at this time. Should comments be provided they will be forwarded
for your file.
attachments

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: /? „?
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources IP
Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number:
/ a 9 e
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) andlarapprovals-indicated may need to be obtaiped in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
!statutory time
PERMITS
Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment
? facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
I NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
? discharging into stale surface waters.
?I Water Use Permit
?I Well Construction Permit
?I Dredge and Fill Permit
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment tacihty-granted after NPDES Reply
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
7 days
prior a athe ppli installation of t a be received and permit issued
well. (15 days)
roperty
ian
i 55 days
p
par
Application copy must be served on each adjacent r
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. (? days)
Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement
? facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
NIA
SEP 1993 w
c RECEIVED
a' SECRETARY'S
NIA
OFFICE
DOA ?
?,7I
? complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
ntation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedimentatic
? will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30
beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or par, .must accompany the plan
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
?I Mining Permit
?I North Carolina Burning permit
?I Special Ground Clearance Buming Permit - 22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
?I Oil Refining Facilities
?I Dam Safety Permit
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued.
On-Vie inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit
exceeds 4 days
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is plannetl.'-
NIA
limit)
30 days
(90 days)
90.120 days
(N/A)
60 days
(90 (jays)
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
(30 davs)
(30 days)
30 days
(60 days)
1 day
(NIA)
1 day
(NIA)
90.120 days
(NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR aoorov•
ad plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of S200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
Continued on reverse
30 days
(60 days)
Norr-al Proce!
Time .11
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
r File surety bond of $5,000 witb.EHNR running to State of N.C. -10 days
Permit to dri:::: i?•,.:,.1 oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions b drawings of structure b proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
. N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
I (NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
?S ?j{?pl."?Ii r?T A-,-+z;, iA-34 ^ G?9?? 7?R cam- ..r^,?r T Gk' 14oOR?rtc? / N /a<zc ?r-.??.11

4 o4 AIM LS Ceti' e-
ZY?i1ab??c,
(7?c1,u?S ?p,2 o 11I.r-rn 577ia.?r-?f yi,J ?v w?G?,r.vr /4tr.? 2??siE/ZJc???
A3 ?77K3/c ? Ccty4,l•?•.rczs f}wo SIioF--? O!?fi.J au; rs,
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]-
El Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
Washington Regional Office
.1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
_ 8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A
- A4
[D F= F1
September 21, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, e'Water Planninand Assessment
FROM: Monica SwiharQuality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0139; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to SR 1165 from SR 1166 to US 264,
TIP #U-2922, Wilson, Wilson County
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current. From the
preliminary information provided, it appears that the proposed
improvements would occur within the Contentnea Creek Water
Supply Watershed which is classified as WS-IV NSW by the State
of North Carolina. In addition, the southern portion of the
project appears to fall within the critical area of Contentnea
Creek (Wiggins Mill Reservoir) Water Supply Watershed.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for?.maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee ,
September 21, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be. in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10332er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 30, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for widening of SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road)
from SR 1166 to US 264, Wilson, Wilson County, North
Carolina, TIP No. U-2922, DPA Project No. 94-0139.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
improvements, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves modifications to an existing
roadway segment in a relatively urban setting. Impacts to fish
and wildlife resources are expected to be minimal, provided that
erosion and sedimentation control measures are implemented and
maintained. The NCWRC is concerned regarding possible impacts to
Wiggins Mill Reservoir and associated wetland habitat. The NCDOT
should ensure that its contractors take precautions t.o_ minimize
impacts on this resource-.
The environmental documentation process described in Mr.
Ward's letter should provide satisfactory information on project
impacts. For purposes of reference, our informational needs are
listed below:
Memo
Page 2 September 30, 1993
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or A
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a_result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
,Memo Page 3 September 30, 1993
4. Cover type maps showing acreages_of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 F99Z
IN REPLY REFER TO October 29, 1993 C
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, 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. Ward:
This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1993,
requesting our comments on the initiation of a study of the
project, "Wilson, Wilson County, SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) from
SR 1166 to US 264, F. A. Project No. STP-1154(2), State Project
No. 8.2341201, T.I.P. No. U-2922" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D.
No. 199304572).
Our comments are from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
perspective and involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains,
and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands.
The proposed interchange would not involve any COE-constructed
navigation or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in Wilson which participates in
the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the July
1982 Wilson County Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Boundary
and Floodway Map, the roadway crosses Wiggins Mill Tributary, a
detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined
and a floodway defined. The road also passes through.the 100-year
flood plain of Contentnea Creek, also a detailed study stream,
but is located outside of the floodway. We recommend that you
coordinate with the city of Wilson for compliance with their flood
plain ordinance and-any possible changes to their flood insurance
study report and/or maps.
-2- -"
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has-
provided the following comments. A routine jurisdictional
determination was conducted at the request of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation regarding the expansion of the
currently serviceable three-lane facility, Forest Hills Drive
(S.R. 1165), to a five-lane facility. It was determined during
the site inspection that most of the work may be eligible for
Nationwide Permit authorization, with the exception of one
S1, 1.
Illy I V\.G,.:U aUVUt LVV 1 -t- IIVI I.II V 1 1.1V Wu f. I I i I %,I 4L, I VII
plant off Forest Hills Drive. This area consists of 240 linear
feet of a bottomland hardwood swamp, subject to our regulatory
authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977,
as amended, which drains into Wiggins Mill Reservoir. This area
may require that a Department of the Army individual permit be
submitted for this portion of the road improvements. The
remaining wetland areas noted along the construction corridor may
be eligible for Nationwide Permit Nos. 14, 18, or 26. If there
are any questions related to permits, please contact Mrs. Jean B.
Manuele, Raleigh Regulatory Office, at [phone],
extension 24.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Yef ncW
, Pka
i
1EB '2 1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour DiVISICN OF Qs
c HIUHwAYS
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division ves
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William . %. wr
February 17, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widening SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) between US
264 and SR 1166, Wilson, Wilson County, U-
2922, 8.23412021, STP-1165(2), ER 94-8232 .
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of January 26, 1994, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the Phase I historic architectural resources survey report
prepared by Helen Ross, architectural historian for the North Carolina Department
of Transportation. We understand that five properties over fifty years of age are
located in the area of potential effect for the project.
Based upon the information provided in the report, we concur with the Federal'
Highway Administration's determination that none of the five properties are eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places since they possess little
historical or architectural significance. Thus, no historic properties are located in
the area of potential effect for the project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions -
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,.
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/
cc: / F. Vick
B. Church
LuAnn Monson, Wilson County Joint HPC
109 F49 Jooes Stmt - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
W
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
U4 Ray MnCain. secretary
February 23, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological survey report for widening of SR
1 165 between US 264 and SR 1166, Wilson
County, Federal-aid Project No. STP-1165(2), TIP
U-2922, State 8.2341201, CH 94-E-4220-0139,
ER 94-8231
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
4 ?ei? o
FEB2Sft
l'U
DIVISION OF
-0 HIGHWAYS ?Q
??N??RONME?P?
Thank you for your letter of January 26, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Gerold Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31 WL228 and 31 WL229 * *
These sites lack integrity and contain no important informatioki.
There are several omissions in the archaeological survey report that need
attention. As submitted, the report does not meet our office's guidelines nor
those of the Secretary of the Interior. Specific comments and concerns are
attached. While we agree that the discovered archaeological sites are not eligible
and we do not recommend additional investigation, we request that our comments
be addressed and a corrected report be submitted to us as soon as possible.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance-with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
`J
109 Fast Jones St:+eet • Raleigh, North CxoRna 27601.2807
Nicholas L. Graf
February 23, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
cc: --HmeF. Vick
T. Padgett
State Clearinghouse

i
ppff?? r• ?WW `??? S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPOPTATION
JAMES G. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GowikNoic P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 17, 1994
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section
Division of Archives & History
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Brook,
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey Report, SR 1165, Wilson
County, TIP U-2922.
Enclosed are two copies of a revised survey report for the
referenced highway widening project. This report contains
minor corrections and revisions to the report submitted
earlier. Please forward these copies to the Office of State
Archaeology to replace the earlier versions.
If you have any questions concerning the report, please
contact me or the project archaeologist, Gerold Glover, at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Padgett
Archaeology Supervisor
Enclosure (2)
cc: Greg Punske, FHwA, w/copy enclosure
1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
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.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with information such as availability
and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and
financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule
its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for
and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.