19960277 All Versions_Complete File_19960326

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 30, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRPTARY
RECEIVED
SEP 0 6 199,5
ENVIRONMENTAL Si;IENG!_:S
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
Wilson County, Merck Road (SR 1157), From Wilson Christian Road
(SR 1158) to US 264, State Project Number 9.8044593, T.I.P. Number
U-3345
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved State
Environmental Assessment/FONSI and the Natural Resources Technical Report for
the subject proposed highway improvement. This report records the
determination that implementing the proposed action will not have a
significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
?l
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
as
?- ....
Widen SR 1157 (Merck Rd.) From 2 Lanes to a 5-Lane Curb and
Gutter Facility from SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Rd.) to US
264; Existing Location 3.4 km (2.1 mi) and
New Location 0.5 km (0.3 mi).
TIP No. U-3345
No Federal Aid Project No. Exists
State Project No. 9.8044593
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-3345
NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'T'MENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVTQ,TON OF HIGHWAYS
PLANN T N(? %1N! i I RONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
GERARD NIETF_,RS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
03 JULY 1995
1 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Methodology ...................................1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ................2
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Soils and Topography ...........................2
2.2 Water Resources ................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ...3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .............5
2.2.3 Water Quality ..........................5
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........ 5
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................6
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................6
3.1.1 Maintained/Agriculture Community ....... 6
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest .............8
3.1.3 Upland Pine Forest ....................10
3.2 Aquatic Communities ...........................10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................11
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ..............................13
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................13
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters ...................13
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
to Wetlands ...................... 13
4.1.3 Permits ...............................13
4.1.4 Mitigation ............................14
Avoidance. ....................... 15
Mi.nimi.zati.on......... ...........15
Compensatory M i i .atiun...... < , . 16
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................16
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............ 16
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
Stage Listed Species ..............19
5.0 rferences............ .................. ............ 20
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical" Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a State Environmental
Assessment (SEA) for the proposed project. The project lies
in Wilson County, 0.2 km (0.3 mi) east of I-95 and 0.9 km
(1.5 mi) southwest of the Wilson Airport (see Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project has been divided into Sections A
and B, two alternatives have been submitted for Section B.
Section A calls for the widening of Merck Rd (SR 1157) from
Wilson Christian Rd. (SR 1158) to 203.0 m (650.0 ft) north of
Merck Inc.'s access road. The existing roadway is 2 lanes
with a width of-7.3 m (24.0 ft) and unpaved shoulders 1.2 m
(4.0 ft) wide. Section A proposes widening the existing
roadway to a 5-lane curb and gutter.facility 20.0 m (64.0 ft)
wide.
Section B begins 203.0 m (650.0 ft) north of a Merck
Inc. access road and extends to US 264. A 5-lane curb and
gutter facility is also proposed for this section of the
project. Two proposed alternates exist for this portion of
the project; Alternate B-1 and Alternate B-2. Alternate B-1
is 0.7 km (0.4 mi) in length 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of which is
widening and 0.2 km (0.1 mi) is on new alignment. Alternate
B-2 consists of 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on new location.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Wilson, Bailey, Winstead Crossroads and
Lucama), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps, NCDOT aerial
photomosaics of project area (1:2400) and. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) soil maps of Wilson County. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993)
and from the Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Wilson

?Z?? lLKa NR:N.

M$CV.

County (N.C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species (28 March 1995) and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Gerard Nieters on 21 June 1995.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification relied upon
one or more observation techniques including: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Cursory studies for aquatic organisms
were conducted using tactile searches. Organisms captured
during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corp-s of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Gerard J. Nieters, Biologist, NCDOT
Education: BS Degree Natural Resources: Ecosystem
Assessment
NC State University, College of Forestry
Employment: Biologist, NCDOT, May 1994-Present
Expertise: Wetland delineations, NEPA investigations and
Section 7 field investigations
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the stud}, area,
are discussed below. Soil types and water availability
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Soils and Topography
Wilson county lien, in the ?,uastal plain physiographic
province. The topography of Wilson County is characterized
b* nearly level to gently sloping terrain with associated
broad bottomland floodplains. The dominant land use in the
area is agriculture, punctuated by occasional forest stands.
Most of the soils in the region are sandy loams found on
slopes from 0 to 2 percent. Trble 1, provides an i)-iventory c
spcc:i i.: soil types w)-ii(:. in he pro,jr.ct -).rc:
3
Table 1 Soils in the Project Area
MAPPING UNIT SYMBOL % SLOPE HYDRIC CLASS
Bibb loam Bb - A
Norfolk loamy sand NoA NoB 0-6 C
Rains sandy loam Ra - A
Goldsboro sandy loam GoA 0-2 B
Exum very fine sandy loam ExA 0-2 B
Grantham very fine sandy loam Gr - A
Aycock very fine sandy loam AyA AyB 0-4 C
NOTE: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
"B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or
which have wet spots.
"C" denotes soils with little or no hydric
characteristics.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The proposed project will cross 14 drainage ditches that
are tributaries to Bloomery Swamp, as well as Bloomery Swamp
itself. Bloomery Swamp is a tributary of Contentnea Creek of
the Neuse River drainage Basin. Table 2 displays complete
descriptions of the characteristics of these water bodies.
The drainage ditches are numbered in the order that they
appear while traveling from SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Rd.)
o US 264.
4
TABLE 2 DRAINAGE CROSSINGS
CHARACTERISTICS DITCH 1 DITCH 2 DITCH 3 DITCH 4
Substrate sand sand sand sand
Flow Rate slow n/a n/a moderate
Channel Width 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0) 0.9 (3.0)
Channel Depth 0.6 (2.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0)
Water Depth 0.3 (1.0) n/a n/a <0.02 (0.07)
Clarity poor n/a n/a poor
Aquatic Veg. none none none none
CHARACTERISTICS
Substrate
Flow Rate
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Water Depth
Clarity
Aquatic Veg. DITCH 5
gravel
moderate
2.5 (8.0)
1.1 (3.5)
0.3 (1.0)
poor
none DITCH 6
sand
slow
1.2 (4.0)
0.9 (3.0)
0.1 (0.3)
poor
yes DITCH 7
sand
slow
1.4 (4.5)
1.2 (4.0)
0.08 (0.3)
moderate
yes DITCH 8
sand
slow
1.5 (5.0)
1.4 (1.5)
0.09 (0.3)
poor
yes
CHARACTERISTICS DITCH 9 DITCH 10 DITCH 11 DITCH 12
Substrate sand gravel gravel gravel
Flow Rate moderate slow moderate moderate
Channel Width 2.1 (7.0) 1.5 (5.0) 2.5 (8.0) 1.2 (4.0)
Channel Depth 1.4 (4.5) 1.2 (4.0) 1.4 (4.5) 0.9 (3.0)
Water Depth 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3)
Clarity poor moderate good poor
Aquatic Veg. yes none yes none
CHARACTERISTICS DITCH 13 DITCH 14 BLOOMERY SWAMP
Substrate sand sand sand
Flow Rate moderate moderate slow
Channel Width 1.2 (4.0) 1.4 (4.5) 9.2 (30. 0)
Channel Depth 0.9 (3.0) 1.1 (3.5) unknown
Water Depth 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3) unknown
Clarity poor poor poor
Aqu,9 s- i c Veg, r)one Y e5 none
NOTES: Distances are cited in meters (feet).
"n/a", Stands for; not/applicable.
Measurement s w,-re reraf•ed over a i ; ; ?„re, 0 m
(100.0 ft) oj) ??u,s %vns i fe.a-m of c'a(.:i ?)ss; 1,?.
5
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Bloomery
Swamp has a classification of "WS IV NSW" in the project
area. The "WS IV" portion of this classification denotes
that these waters are protected water supplies which are
located in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Local
programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge
of pollutants are required. The "NSW" classification means
that the waters are nutrient sensitive and require
limitations on nutrient inputs. Neither High Quality Waters
(HQW), WS-I or WS-II, Water Supplies nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study
area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water'
quality monitoring program which.addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Some macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass can be interpreted as
indicators of water quality. No BMAN data has been gathered
for Bloomery Swamp or the surrounding area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. No permitted
dischargers are listed for Bloomery Swamp.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
During project construction vegetation will be cleared
but precautions should be taken around the hydrologic bodies
(drainage ditches and streams) encountered. The loss of
stream vegetation, both aquatic and terrestrial, can lead to
elevated water temperatures, yin summer ,ind depressed.
temperatures in the winter. Stream vegetation is also
critical in and around the drainage ditches in the project
area because it slows stormwater flow, thus lessening its
erosivity and its potential for carrying sediment into
Bloomery Swamp. Moreover, the presence of stream vegetation
can lower the amounts of agricultural and roadway runoff (ie.
fertilizers and pesticides) through absorption, therefore
lowering these concentrations before reaching Bloomery Swamp.
Sedimentation and substrate disturbance occurring during
construction, could significantly reduce already poor water
6
clarity. Sediment deposition into the stream causes
turbidity which inhibits light penetration thus depressing
aquatic vegetative growth. Furthermore, channelization and
flow changes may also occur as a result of construction,
modifying the hydrology of the water resource.
Stringent sedimentation and erosion control precautions
(Best Management Practices) should be implemented to prevent
potential sediment/fill and toxin deposition into Bloomery
Swamp. Field drainages should also be afforded these strict
control measures because they are tributaries to Bloomery
Swamp.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes ecosystems encountered in
the study area, as well as, the relationships between fauna
and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography., hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identified in the
project study area: maintained/agriculture, bottomland
hardwood forest and pine forest. Transition zones that
display characteristics of adjacent communities are
frequently seen between habitat types. These transitional
zones are referred to as ecotones. Due to these gradual
variations between habitats, community boundaries are
(-?om)i-innly i 11 (3(-- fino d, Many faunal st,)ecies -ire highly
adapti,ve and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed. Species commonly found in the
habitats mentioned are listed below. An asterisk (*)
signifies those animals that were directly observed during
field investigation.
3.1.1 Maintained/Agriculture Commun;iy
These regions of perpetual disturbance have various land
uses. Common uses include agricultural practices, maintained
yards (industrial and residential) as well as roadsides. The
abundant farmland in the project area is currently cultivated

,in tobacco, corn, soybeans and grain crops. The adjacent
maintained communities are comprised of fescue (Festuca sp.),
lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), Bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon), clover (Trifolium pratense), wild
onion (Allium canadense), Ranunculus abortivus and sour-weed
(Rumex crispus). In the frequently mowed yards fescue is the
dominant vegetation with sparse tree cover consisting of
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Bradford pear (Pyrus
calleryana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and pecan
(Carya illinoensis). Conversely, in less frequently
maintained areas species like blackberry (Rubus sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) and morning glory
(Ipomoea Purpurea and I. hederacea) exist. The small trees
present in these less maintained areas are red maple (Acer
rubrum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and winged sumac (Rhus copallina). Overall,
this habitat provides little cover for many indigenous animal
species, but foraging opportunities are plentiful.
The composition of the faunal community found in 'this
habitat is reflective of the early successional development
of the vegetative community. Many species utilize this
habitat for foraging, while remaining in close proximity to
adjacent areas that provide greater protective cover. The
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) forages largely in
field edges and grassy areas where it avoids capture by
darting into nearby thickets. Another resident of these
weedy areas is the hispid cotton rat* (Sigmodon hispidus).
This rodent inhabits field and field edges by moving through
a network of tunnels constructed in dense low vegetation
where it is concealed from above by a grassy canopy.
However, the black rat snake* (Elaphe obsoleta) and the red-
tailed hawk* (Buteo Jamaicensis) quietly watch these areas
for opportunities to forage on the hispid cotton rat and
other similar rodents, which are their prey of choice. Red-
tailed hawks may also select black rat snakes as forage if
given the opportunity. The white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus
virginianus) forages greatly in agricultural fields and
grassy areas where it can readily escape into nearby
woodlands at any sign of danger. Racoons* (Procyon lotor)
forage during the night on agricultural crops like corn as
Are 1 1. as on re 3 dent i?j 1 f a, dcy) c:Lops a.z)dl garbage
Avian species which inhabit this community are mourning
dove* (Zenaida macroura), eastern meadowlark* (Sturnella
magna), northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), common
grackle* (Quiscalus quiscula), blue jay* (Cyanocitta
cristata) and American robin* (Turdus migratorius). These
birds forage in maintained areas on insects and seeds there
in.
Northern bobwhite quail* (Colinus virginianus) is a
popular game species that inhabits agriculture fields and
their edges. They forage on seeds and berries in areas where
s
dense groundcover is readily available, for they prefer
escaping while remaining on the ground.
Bird species like the chimney swift* (Chaetura pelagica)
and purple martin* (Progne subis) forage on insects while in
flight above this community, especially during and after
mowing events force many insects to the air. The American
crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) is commonly seen in this
habitat omnivorously feeding on anything from fruit to
roadside carrion.
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community is present on poorly drained soils in
close association with Bloomery Swamp. A portion on the
south side of Bloomery Swamp has been significantly impacted
by logging activity within the past 2 years. Remnant canopy
species remain in this area with a proliferation of
herbaceous and shrub growth. Little topographic relief is
found within this community further differentiating it, from
the surrounding environment. The canopy species found here
include willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum, red maple
(Ater rubrum) and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). The
shrub layer consists of Japanese privet (Ligustrum
.iaponicum), American holly (Ilex opaca), pepperbush (Clethra
alnifolia), red maple, Virginia bay (Magnolia virginiana) and
blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). The herbaceous vegetation is
predominantly impatiens (Impatiens capensis), Lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus), rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), southern lady fern (Athyrium
asplenioides), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), barnyard grass
(Echinochloa crusgalli), knotweed (Polygonum sp.) and jack-
in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum). The vines present are
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle and
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
The faunal composition of this habitat differs
significantly from that of the upland communities in the
project area due to the presence of surface hydrology. Many
species found in this habitat have adapted in one fashion or
,f,ifot.hcr fo the water in their envi roiiment . This is not to
say, however that uplancs species do not migrat(: i irough this
bottomland system or inhabit it during dry periods of the
year.
A wide variety of amphibian and invertebrate life
composes a rich forage base from which many higher bottomland
species draw. The two-lined ;alama.nder. (Eurvicea bislineata)
and .,potted salamander (/gpbystoma inacJatum) art. known to
utilize this habitat type for its water holding ability,
because their eggs must be deposited in pools in order to
develop. Moreover, in isolated pools fish may be absent
minimizing egg and offspring predation. Marbled and slimy
9
,salamanders (Ambvstoma opacum and Plethodon $lutinosus ,
respectively) are also found to inhabit the drier edges of
this community. Insects and earthworms are the primary food
source of salamanders as well as indigenous spotted and
eastern mud turtles (Clemmys Aluttata and Kinosternon
subrubrum, respectively) which will also feed on salamanders.
Several frog species are also commonly found in and
around the water pockets of this habitat. The southern
leopard frog* (Rana sphenocephala), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris) and bullfrog* (Rana catesbeiana) also deposit eggs
in shallow waters throughout this community. These tadpoles
also have a greater chance of reaching maturity in waters
devoid of fish, their primary predator.
The previously mentioned amphibians that mature in this
habitat still remain a common food source for the brown water
snake (Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly water snake (Nerodia
erythrogaster) and the poisonous cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivorus). These reptiles commonly bask on logs, ro'cks and
overhanging limbs in order to thermoregulate and maintain
ready access to the water for flight or hunting purposes.
Bottomland snakes are not restricted to amphibian forage
sources only. As these snakes grow in size (over 60 in (24
cm) in length] marsh rice rats (Oryzomys palustris), bird
eggs and other water snakes are added to their diets. During
their juvenile years these established predators may become
prey for large bullfrogs and fish. The marsh hawk (Circus
cyaneus) may also forage on these and other snakes by
striking from a perch or from low flight.
The Barred owl (Strix varia) shares the strategy of the
marsh hawk, but its fluffy plumage allows it to descend more
quietly upon marsh rice rats, marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus
palustris) and snakes also in this habitat. The nocturnal
bobcat (Felis rufus) is known to inhabit this community type
as well, foraging heavily on the herbivorous marsh rabbit,
large rodents and white-tailed deer, occasionally.
White-tailed deer* and raccoons* are commonly found in
this habitat in addition to the previously mentioned
Mai,nta.ined/a.gricultura.l Community„
There are many avian species that are known to inhabit
this community as well. The red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus) and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea) cha.racter.i l tally otilize, this habitat for either
foraging or pest i.ng
10
3.1.3 Upland Pine Forest
This community exists in the project area sporadically
and vegetative diversity is low. The canopy is dominated by
loblolly pine with a subcanopy consisting of sweetgum, water
oak (Ouercus nigra) and red maple. Virtually no herb layer
exists with the exception of a few vines that are represented
at different heights within the community. These vines are
greenbrier, Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus auinauefolia),
poison ivy and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
Many of the heretofore mentioned animal species could
also utilize this habitat for foraging, shelter and/or cover
to conceal movement between ecotypes, especially those
commonly found in the adjacent maintained areas. Species
dependent on wetter sites (ie. bottomlands) however, would
not be found in these well-drained woodlands.
3.2 Aquatic Community
A coastal plain, brown water, perennial stream is
crossed by the proposed project. This large, slow moving
stream is closely associated with a wide saturated
floodplain. During periods of relatively high flow it is
evident that this stream swells to incorporate the bottomland
floodplain for prolonged periods of time. This hydrologic
cycle is closely-related and contributes greatly to semi-
aquatic and terrestrial habitats and organisms in and around
the aquatic community. Within this aquatic system species of
small fish like the lined topminnow (Fundulus lineolatus),
creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sayanus), and eastern mudminnow (Umbra pyAmaea)
move throughout the stream and flooded areas in search of
food and cover. Larger fish range throughout the system
also, preying upon aquatic invertebrates, vertebrates and
smaller ichthyoid species. A few of these species are
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus) and longnose
gar (Lepisosteus osseus). Margined madtom (Noturus insignis)
feed on dead fish, invertebrates and other organic matter
along the substrate of this stream also.
Freshwater mussels inhabit this stream system. F.lliptio
icterina and Elliptio complanata commonly bury themselves in
the sandy substrate while exerting a filtering structure into
the water column to feed on microscopic organisms. This
filter-feeding makes these species and all mussels especially
susceptible to high stream suspended sediment loads. Mussels
are a ?opular food source for raccoon,, which are common in
the adjacent bottomland hardwood. The muskrat* (Ondatra
zibethicus) feeds upon these mussels as well as the abundant
plant matter found in and around the stream.
11
The semi-aquatic organisms that were previously cited as
inhabiting the Bottomland Hardwood Forest depend highly upon
this habitat for survival. Avian species also rely heavily
on this aquatic system for food and cover. The belted
kingfisher (Ceryle alcvon) and great blue heron (Ardea
herodias) are two species that forage largely on fish
species.
Ephemeral drainage ditches are also found throughout the
project area. These channels have the capacity to provide
suitable habitat for amphibians, reptiles and small fish
species, previously mentioned.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subsequent project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction-
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This sectiop
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the proposed right-of-way limits of
30.5 m (100.0 ft). Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right-of-way area, so actual impacts are
frequently less than estimated values.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY SECTION A SECTION B
ALT B-1 ALT B-2
Maintained/Agriculture 7.9 (19.5) 1.7 (4.1) 1.6 (4.0)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.1 (0.3) 0.2 (0.6) 0.5 (1.3)
)piai.)d Pine 3'oTest: 0,), ?0, (0 0... 0- 0 0.,.
Aquatic Community .-0- -0- 0.1 (0.2) 0.2 (0.4)
TOTAL IMPACTS 8.2 (20.4) 2.0 (4.9) 2.3 (5.7)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
'T'his new alignment „ef,rrr:i?t will disrupt the habitat that
many species are utilizing for either cover or forage. The
proposed project is likely to result in new population
dynamics within the affected communities. The new corridor
will continue to erode an already shrinking amount of
existing faunal habitat. liowc:ver, many of the species that
12
compose this area's animal community are edge-adapted species
which are common in the project area. These species are well
adapted to disturbed environments and will likaly be
minimally impacted by the proposed project.
The bottomland habitat impacts, however, may cause a
larger amount of disturbance to animals that are poorly
adapted to open habitats and migratory activities. The wood
thrush ( Hylocichla mustelina ) has been shown to decline in
numbers when subjected to nearby land disturbances (i.e.
clearing). This bird and other species are forced to compete
against more numerous edge-adapted species for limited food
resources. Moreover, many of the reptiles and amphibians
found in this community type are ill suited for migrations
across an expanded roadway and its associated upland
shoulder.
Only one alternative is proposed for Section A of this
project. It is primarily impacting habitats that are
currently greatly influenced by man, therefore impacts-will
probably be short term in nature. Alternative B-2 in Section
B however, will have significant impacts on the bottomland
hardwood habitat associated with Bloomery Swamp due to its
amount of new location. Alternative B-1 will have fewer
impacts on Bloomery Swamp because of its closer adherence to
the existing alignment. From a biological standpoint
Alternative B-1 in Section B of this project should be
selected due to its greater use of the existing roadway and
its smaller impact on Bloomery Swamp and its associated
bottomland community.
The coastal plain stream habitat will be affected by
both alternatives in similar fashions. Sedimentation, runoff
of roadway deposits (ie. rubber, oil, and debris), and
increased velocity of runoff will affect Bloomery Swamp in
both alternatives. The movement of the stream crossing will
cause an initial increase in sedimentation by construction
equipment and/or materials. These impacts may be short term
in scope. However, there is potential for hydrologic
disruptions found in the saturated floodplain around the
stream which will directly impact the quality of the water
Tesntr-°. immer3iatF)v snd nv^* time, These impacts include
:lllcr(.,l? k,0 iIIJJ)(;ii Iii su ;r ir(J ?: ,3e0jmcn(. ).evcls; product;
of substrate disturbance which modifies sheet flow and water
retention capacity of the existing floodplain, resulting in
increased water velocities. These impacts will be most
pronounced during periods of high flow. These influences
could potentially last for an extended period of time,
seriously harming populations of gquatic and semi-aquatic
orgy sm which aye extreme)y e),;.itive t(, high serii.me,t
loads, and introduced toxins from construction. The proposed
improvement could cause the loss of many stream-related
organisms previously mentioned. Therefore, stringent
adhe: nee to Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be
13
enforced in order to minimize impacts to surface waters.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS -
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analyses pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology. Wetlands are located in association with the
crossing of Bloomery Swamp. No delineation was performed
during the site visit, however standing water was observed
and a soil color of 10 YR 3/1-4/1. The hydrophytic
vegetation encountered is cited in the Bottomland Hardwood
Community description. According to the criteria specified
in the 1987 COE Delineation Manual, this region should be
classified as a wetland.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classifies the
floodplain of Bloomery Swamp as PF01C. This classification
is interpreted as palustrine (P), forested (FO) habitat with
broad-leaved, deciduous vegetation (1). The water regime is
seasonally flooded (C).
-0 ?.. ?iIYFfI1Tl}.;y ?t 1xk't.7 E.? f1i3.l.Ca. I1)1)1ii.<-:f.t? I'l)1?tC'. V. ) ?dllU.t;
The wetland region potentially impacted by the proposed
project is approximately 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) in size, and with
stringent construction guidelines could be further minimized.
Construction activities which fill wet areas and/or compact
saturated soils pose the greatest threat to these wet
features and I.lie siirrotxoaimt, !! ylr t a-t:. fly r,.c:aut ions must be
take during the construction phase that maintain an optimal
amount of the wetland area.
14
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters
are anticipated. This project will then require a 401 Water
Quality General Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) prior to the approval of
Section 404 authorization. In accordance with provisions of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit
will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
This wetland falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. COE
and will likely require an Individual Permit (IP) if measures
are not taken to lessen the "footprint" of the Bloomery Swamp
crossing. If modifications are made to the current design a
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) could be applicable in
the study area. This permit authorizes construction provided
the following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited
to a filled area of no more than 0.1 hectares (1/3
acre);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill
for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed
to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand,
expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of
aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project for crossing of a Water of the United
States.
4.1.4 Mitigation
11.1111J j. )i ii. J,,; 0k I I ti11 LI).A' i l ()1ii)
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of impacts
has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetland::), minimizing; impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
15
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Bridging the crossing of Bloomery Swamp is an
option that would avoid many impacts to this sensitive
wetland system. However, if this option is found to be
infeasible, widening SR 1157 (Merck Rd.) in its entirety
would also have minimal wetland impacts due to the parallel
orientation of Bloomery Swamp and the northern end of SR 1157
(Merck Rd.). These options will need to be considered to
satisfy the wetland mitigation policy.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. If
impacts to the wetland community cannot be avoided, then
impacts to these sites should be minimized to the fullest
extent possible. Of the alternatives submitted for study,
Alternative B-1 is best suited for minimizing wetland
impacts. Practical means to minimize impacts to the waters
crossed by the proposed project are listed below.
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of
surface waters during the entire life of the project
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly
in riparian areas
wteductiua/eJ ).1TI)oal;,.' Co , (A J 1 iF?.? 4 Jiticha.IAe iLn?ES Jt-:rCFlm
- Reduction of runoff velocity
- Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
judicious pesticide & herbicide management
.- Minimization of "in-stream" activity
- Litter/debris control.
The use of 1-My numbev of these methods will be effective
in reducing water quality egradation Fesulting from project
construction.
16
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the U.S. have been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all avoidance and minimization options have been explored.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of waters of the U.S., specifically wetlands.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to, or
contiguous to the impacted site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army. If this project
requires an IP then compensatory mitigation may be required
as compensation for those wetlands lost due to construction.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of September 15, 1994, the FWS lists
the following federally-protected species for Wilson County.
".;t -f federally--protected species is provided in Table 4
iE,l ic,WC() ,y a bri(A tieso t ipt i!_;,- ;J (,.<lc.Ti )idli)' 'tand
characteristics.
17
Table 4. Federally-Protected Species
for Wilson County -
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Alasmidonta heterodon
Picoides borealis
Rhus michauxii
COMMON NAME
dwarf wedge mussel
red-cockaded woodpecker
Michaux's sumac
STATUS
E
E
E*
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"*" No specimen from Wilson County found in the past twenty
years (1973--1993).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted 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.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found within the Tar and Neuse River Drainage
Basins. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic,
and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free
streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Suitable dwarf-wedge habitat does exist in Bloomery
Swamp and must be surveyed in order to determine either the
presence or absence of this protected species.
]P,ico_i_d_es bo_reeal.i.s (red-cockaded woodpecker) lE
Animal Family: Pici.dae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, .Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
ftntgome? y, Moore, Na,,;)),, :New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson,.
1S
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks
on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black
cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
500 pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and
are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW
lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Many young southern pine trees were found in the project
area with a few scattered old pines interspersed. No
cavities were found in these older trees and no woodpeckers
were observed.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin,
Hoke, Lincoln, Moore, Orange, Richmond,
ktobe;?c,n, cot.lr;.l„i, Wake, Wiisan.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous
shrub. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges
are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac
are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from
August. !o September on female plants, are a red densely
?hox i -p; jbescent drupe..
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
19
association with basic soils and occurs on sand'or sandy
loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it
can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does nat compete well
with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which
it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat exists for Michaux's sumac throughout the
project area. A plant by plant survey showed that winged
sumac is the only sumac represented in the project area.
Michaux's sumac was never found.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 15 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Wilson County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to'extinction although no
sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5. Federal Candidate Species Wilson County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
furifT1odramus jells lowi tic r?:; 1 c?«"::; spar; c,w
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) Y
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel N*
*" No specimen found in Wilson County in twenty years.
20
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 19S3. Check-List of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.F. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
PIan L vatl lon )I) Ufy1 a11l. O9) IJQ? l.ll I.ClJ (i? )11Fb ,.,
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Ca.rolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. BLI1. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
?lniversity of North Carolina Press.
21
Schafale. M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina- Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Wilson County Soil Survey. 1983. North Carolina
Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. 28 March 1995. Listed and
Candidate Species of North Carolina., Asheville Field
Office.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Hart,'Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
ATTENTION: Richard Brewer, Project Manager
FROM: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental. Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Mussel Survey for Proposed
Widening of Merck Road (SR 1157) From US
264 to SR 1158, Wilson County, State
Project No. 9.8044593, T.I.P. No'. U-3345.
REFERENCE: July 03, 1995 Natural Resources Technical
Report for U-3345, prepared by Gerard
Nieters. -
The referenced report stated that a specific survey for
the federally Endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) (DWM) needed to conducted to determine if the
proposed project will have an impact on this species. The
proposed project will impact Bloomery Swamp.
A survey for the DWM was conducted near the project
crossing on July 18, 1995 by NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge.
Survey methodology included visual and tactile searching
using mask and snorkel. Mussel fauna was found to be present
in Bloomery Swamp. A total of 65 eastern elliptio mussels
(Elliptio complanata) were found during the 0.5 man-hour
(mhr) survey. The very large size of all the individuals
found indicate that this population may no longer be viable
(no reproduction taking place). The introduced Asian clam
(Corbicula fluminea) was found to be abundant. No other
IIII'S s01. sped.Ies ?4t.'.Y (.'. 1 ()Ll)IJ ..
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the DWM is
not present in Bloomery Swamp. It can be concluded that
construction of this project will have no impact of the
.lwarf-wedge mussel.
The strict enforcement of Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for the protection of surface waters is recommended
to protect the mussel fauna present in this water body.
Although the species found during the survey are not afforded
any legal protection, they are important components of the
aquatic ecosystem and are very sensitive to changes in water
quality. The implementation of these measures will minimize
impacts to this mussel population.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D, Unit Head Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-3345
File; Section 7 Aquatic Issues

I .!
State of North VaKolina
Department o .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
October 2, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney?
From: Eric Galambs°
Subject: EA/FONSI for R 1157 (Merck Road)
LT7-KWA
C)o FE F1
Wilson County
State Project DOT No. 9.8044593, TIP #U-3345
EHNR # 96-0202, DEM No. 11060
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 1.7 acres of waters including wetlands will be
impacted. The following comments are based on a review of the EA/FONSI
document:
A) DEM requests that DOT utilize high quality soil and erosion control measures
since Bloomery Swamp has a water supply classification. DOT should not use
weep holes in bridges where practicable to protect the existing uses.
B) DOT does not justify the need to widen the stream channel to accommodate
the proposed culvert. DEM requests that DOT install a bridge if the culvert
restricts the stream flow rather than widen the stream.
C) DOT acknowledges that the wetland associated with Bloomery Swamp is a
sensitive habitat and that bridging should be an option if widening SR 1157 in
its entirety is infeasible (page 26) but DOT proposes a culvert with stream
modifications (page 6). DEM requests that DOT use a bridge without weep
holes for the crossing over Bloomery Swamp to minimize environmental
impacts.
D) DEM believes that an Individual 404 permit will be needed for this project.
Therefore, a wetlands mitigation plan will need to be submitted with the permit
application.
DEM does not concur with the document due to the unresolved wetland and water
issues described above. DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA/FONSI by DEM
would not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or
water impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
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
1
Melba McGee Memo
October 2, 1995
Page 2
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Richard Brewer, DOT
Raleigh COE
Monica Swihart
sr1157.fon
FACED
N" T 0 21995
r
Depijftme,nt„of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form I ?Q?pp
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
-?Jf" ?k ? pty??
This project is being reviewed as Indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ts
Fayetteville kAir coastal
Management ? Water Planning
:Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
Groundwater
Ildlife ?Solid Waste Management

Raleigh
,NJ
Land Quality Engineer
Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources David Foster
?Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Environmental Management RECEI\JED
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart p 1 A 199Y
St ?4
NM(NTAL SCIENCES
Manager Sign-Off/Region:. Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient Information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes Incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(les) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Ps to
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Wilson County
Merck Road (SR 1157)
From Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) to US 264
State Project Number 9.8044593
T.I.P. Number U-3345
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
a
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Approved:
.J6&56?-5- - zez ?F L-
ate 11. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
T
Wilson County
Merck Road (SR 1157)
From Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) to US 264
State Project Number 9.8044593
T.I.P. Number U-3345
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
August 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Richard L. Brewer, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
?J4?c"? 0;? k4
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
CA "
SEAL
(Z = 20115 ?W
:??o'••NGINEE?:• ??c'
?'••..'?1'VRENG..••`
I
II
III.
IV
V
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Commitments
PAGE
.............. 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... I
A. General Description ................................................................................... I
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ........................................................ I
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................. 2
A. Existing Roadway ...................................................................................... 2
B. Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 2
C. Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................... 2
D. Accident Analysis ...................................................................................... 3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................... 4
A. The Project with Alternate B-1 .................................................................. 4
B. The Project with Alternate B-2 .................................................................. 5
C. "No-Build" Alternative .............................................................................. 5
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ................... 5
A. Recommended Location and Cross-Section ............................................... 5
B. Recommended Highway Design Elements ................................................. 6
C. Bridges/Culverts ........................................................................................ 6
D. Maintenance of Traffic .............................................................................. 7
E. Estimate of Cost :....................................................................................... 7
EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................. 8
A. Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................ 8
1. Archaeological Resources .................................................................... 8
2. Architectural/Historic Resources ......................................................... 8
B. Land Use Planning .................................................................................... 8
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ...................................................... 8
2. Existing Land Use ................................................................................ 9
3. Current Zoning .................................................................................... 9
4. Future Land Use ................................................................................... 9
5. Farmland .............................................................................................. 9
r
C. Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................................
10
1. General Description ............................................................................. 10
a. Neighborhood Characteristics ................................................. 10
b. Economic Characteristics ........................................................ 10
c. Public Facilities ....................................................................... 10
2. The Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action ..................................... 11
a. Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact ........................ 11
b. Social Impacts .......................................................................... 11
D. Natural Resources ...................................................................................... I 1
1. Background Information ....................................................................... 11
1.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 11
1.2 Qualifications of Investigator ................................................. 12
2. Physical Resources ............................................................................... 12
2.1 Soils and Topography ............................................................ 12
2.2 Water Resources ..................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ...................... 13
2.2.2 Best Useage Classification ..................................... 15
2.2.3 Water Quality ......................................................... 15
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................ 15
3. Biotic Resources ................................................................................... 16
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ......................................................... 16
3. 1.1 Maintained/Agriculture Community ....................... 17
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ................................. 18
3.1.3 Upland Pine Forest .................................................. 20
3.2 Aquatic Community ................................................................ 20
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................. 21
4. Jurisdictional Topics .............................................................................. 23
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................................................... 23
4, 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters..... 24
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts To Wetlands....... 24
4.1.3 Permits .................................................................... 24
4.1.4 Mitigation ............................................................... 25
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .................................................... 27
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................................... 27
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species........... 31
E. Air Qualit} ................................................................................................... 31
F. Traffic Noise ............................................................................................... 34
G. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ............................................ 39
1. Physiography, Relief and Drainage ....................................................... 39
2. Geology and Soils ................................................................................. 39
3. Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 39
4. Erosion Control .................................................................................... 39
5. Groundwater ......................................................................................... 39
6. Hazardous Materials Evaluation - Underground Storage Tanks........... 40
7. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties .................... 40
TABLES
1. Estimated Level of Service on Merck Road ........................................................... 3
2. Estimated Costs for Recommended Alternative (A/B-2) ....................................... 7
3. Soils in the Project Area ........................................................................................ 14
4. Drainage Crossings ................................................................................................ 15
5. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......................................................... 22
6. Federally-Protected Species for Wilson County .................................................... 28
7. Federal Candidate Species Wilson County ............................................................ 31
FIGURES
APPENDIX
Environmental Commitments
The proposed roadway and culvert may require a floodway modification. The
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with local authorities and with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency during final hydraulic design regarding floodway modification and to
ensure that the proposed culvert will not have any significant adverse impact on the
existing floodplain and floodway nor on the existing flood hazard.
Additional archaeological surveys will be performed to determine if the three
archaeological sites discovered during the preliminary surveys are eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. If they are determined eligible, then archaeological data
recovery may be the preferable mitigation.
Efforts to minimize wetland impacts will be made during the design of the project.
State Environmental Assessment/
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The purpose of this project is to provide a roadway facility with increased traffic-
carrying capacity and improved safety. By improving Merck Road (SR 1157) from a 2-
lane road to a 5-lane road, the capacity of the facility will be increased to accommodate
the increase in traffic brought about by the development of the Wilson Corporate Park,
currently under construction on the west side of SR 1157. The improved 5-lane facility
will accommodate traffic to and from the corporate park and US 264/I-95. The project
also includes improvements to US 264 and Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) at their
intersection with Merck Road.
The project limits are from SR 1158 on the south to US 264 on the north.
Figure 1 is a vicinity map of the project area. This project is included in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The right of way acquisition phase is
scheduled to start in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1996 (November 1995). The construction
contract is scheduled to be let in FFY 1997 (November 1996). The TIP funding estimate
for this project is $5,525,000.
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 or land use and is not
controversial in nature. Therefore, it is concluded that a State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI) is applicable.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
Merck Road is a north-south roadway situated in the rural, western periphery of
the City of Wilson. It connects US 264 and Wilson Christian Road. The road is
characterized by scattered residential/farm development. Merck Road also provides a
point of access for Merck Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Recently, the Wilson Corporate Park was
approved for construction, to be located between Merck Road and Lamm Road
(SR 1001). This park is estimated to employ 4000 workers when fully occupied near the
year 2015 and will generate nearly 18,000 vehicle-trips per day. Half of these trips is
expected to use Merck Road.
To accommodate this anticipated growth in traffic, the NCDOT proposes a
widening of the existing 2-lane roadway to a 5-lane, curb and gutter roadway. Figure 2
provides an aerial view of the project area and its alternatives.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway
Existing Merck Road is a 2-lane roadway consisting of 6.1 meters (20 feet) of
pavement and 1.8- to 2.4-meter (6- to 8-foot) grass shoulders. The current right of way is
18.3 meters (60 feet) wide. Merck Road is a non-controlled access roadway, and this
attribute of the facility will not change. The horizontal alignment is generally good but
one curve located south of the Merck, Inc. access road has a degree of curvature too great
for the proposed 80 kilometers per hour (kmph) (50 miles per hour) design speed. This
curve will be "flattened out" to improve the safety of the roadway and the motorists' ease
and comfort when maneuvering this section of the roadway. The vertical curvature of
Merck Road is also generally good, with one exception being the approaches to the
existing grade crossing of the Carolina & Northwestern Railway. The crest of the vertical
alignment, located near the tracks, is too abrupt. The length and grade of the approaches
will be improved to level the crest of the vertical curve. The existing speed limit is not
posted, which according to North Carolina law translates to 55 mph for rural highways.
All roads intersecting Merck Road do so at grade, and all interior and terminus
intersections are controlled by stop signs.
B. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes on Merck Road in 1995 were estimated at between 1200 and 1400
vehicles per day (vpd). When the Wilson Corporate Park becomes built out around the
year 2020, an estimated 5600 to 9000 vpd will travel Merck Road. This estimate is based
on the completion and operation of the now proposed US 264 bypass. Without the
bypass, Merck Road is expected to handle a range of 6900 to 7700 vpd. Figure 3 breaks
down the average daily traffic volumes for the years 1995 and 2020, including.turning
movements, design hourly volume (DHV) percentages, and truck percentages.
C. Capacity Analysis
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions
within a traffic stream and how motorists and/or passengers perceive these conditions. A
LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service,
with letter designations from A (best) to F (worst), represent operations for each type of
facility for which analysis procedures are available.
2
Level of service A, the highest level of service, is characterized by very low delay
in which most vehicles do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns are
freely made. In level of service B, traffic operations are stable but more vehicles are
stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of service C is characterized by stable
operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through more than one red indication.
Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At level of service D, the
influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may be
substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level of service E is considered to be
the limit of acceptable delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level
of service F represents over-saturated or jammed conditions which are considered
unacceptable to most drivers.
The Highway Capacity Manual was used to determine the LOS for the years 1995
and 2020 on Merck Road. Traffic conditions on a built 5-lane facility was compared with
a no-build option of keeping the road 2-lanes wide in future years. To establish the worst-
case scenario, the highest-volume section for each of the studied years was analyzed. For
the current year (1995), the section between US 264 and the Merck, Inc. entrance road
has the highest volume and was studied. For the design year 2020, the highest-volume
section was between Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) and the southernmost private road
to Wilson Corporate Park. All other segments of the roadway will operate at this level of
service or better during that particular year. Table 1 below shows the anticipated build
and no-build levels of service.
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED LEVEL OF SERVICE ON MERCK ROAD
ALTERNATIVE 1995 2020
Build 5 lanes --- A
No-Build/Remain 2 lanes A E
The analysis shows that 1995 traffic is operating at a high level of service on the 2-
lane Merck Road. However, the road will see a gradual deterioration in level of service if
the Corporate Park builds-out as expected and the road is not widened. By the year 2020,
it is estimated that a 2-lane road would carry traffic volumes at its capacity (LOS E).
Congestion and accident potential will go up as traffic increases. Building a 5-lane facility
in advance of the increase in traffic will allow traffic conditions on Merck Road to
continue to operate at a high level of service all throughout the build-out period and
beyond.
D. Accident Analysis
The NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch provided an accident analysis for Merck
Road for the period from November 1, 1991 through October 31, 1994. During this 3-
year period, 17 accidents occurred on Merck Road. None of the accidents involved a
3
fatality. The calculated total accident rate for Merck Road was 360.17 accidents per 100
million vehicle-kilometers (acc/100mvk). Converting to English units, this rate is 579.64
accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (acc/100mvm). This rate is much higher than a
recent 3-year statewide average for all rural secondary roads, which is 213.92 acc/100mvk
(344.20 acc/100mvm).
Although no particular type of accident was predominant, contributing factors to
the high accident rate can likely be attributed to the narrow travel lanes [3.0 m (10 feet)],
and deficient horizontal curvature. With this project, wide, 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with
a special center left-turn lane will be provided, and the horizontal curvature will be
improved to accommodate a safe design speed [80 kmph (50 mph)]. These design
elements will make for a safe, efficient roadway facility. This, in turn, should lessen the
high accident rate on Merck Road.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Two build alternates and the No Build alternate were studied during the planning
process for this project. Section A, widening Merck Road from SR 1158 to about 670 m
(2200 ft) south of US 264, is common to both of the build alternates. From the end of
Section A, the project splits into Alternates B-1 and B-2, which carry the project to its
northern terminus at US 264. Alternate B-2 (recommended) is discussed further in this
document in Section IV.
A. The Project with Alternate B-1
Alternate B-1 follows the existing alignment on Merck Road to a point
approximately 180 meters (600 ft.) south of the US 264 intersection where existing Merck
Road curves sharply to the west (see Figure 2). The realigned roadway intersects US 264
at an approximate right angle, eliminating the bad skew of the existing intersection. The
right of way cost for Alternate B-1 is $ 1,484,000, some $ 349,000 greater than similar
costs for alternate B-2. This alternative results in one residential relocation, a house
located in the area of sharp bend on Merck Road about 180 meters (600 ft) south of
US 264. A pump station owned and operated by the City of Wilson and a family-
maintained cemetery prevented a shift of Merck Road to avoid the residence.
Construction of alternate B-1 is estimated at $ 4,850,000, which is some $ 50,000 higher
than alternate B-2. The total cost of the B-1 project is $ 6,334,000, approximately
$400,000 higher than the preferred B-2 alternate project.
Another detriment to the B-1 alternate is that it did not provide the desirable
4-legged intersection with US 264 and SR 1309 provided by Alternate B-2. Instead, B-1
formed its own new t-intersection with US 264. If traffic grows as anticipated, traffic
operations at this and adjacent intersections may suffer due to poor traffic signal timing
and progression and heavy turning movement demands. In other words, the recom-
mended B-2 alternate creates one intersection where B-1 would create two. This
translates into better traffic operations and safety with the implementation of B-2.
4
B. The Project with Alternate B-2
Alternate B-2 (recommended) diverges from Merck Road approximately 670 m
(2200 ft.) south of US 264 and provides new alignment, intersecting US 264 opposite
SR 1309 (see Figure 2). This will form a conventional, 4-legged intersection and will
enhance traffic operations along this section of US 264. Right of way costs for alternate
B-2 are less than for B-1. The recommended alternate traverses open fields, part of
Bloomery Swamp and farmland. Since B-2 is less expensive, does not cause any
relocations, and provides better traffic operations it is recommended for Section B of the
project. The cost for right of way for Alternate B-2 is $ 1,135,000.
Environmentally, the major issue was the amount of disturbance to wetlands in the
Bloomery Swamp area. While the Natural Resources section found later in this report
may show that wetland impacts caused by B-2 are slightly greater than those caused by
alternate B-1, this report did not take into account the right-turn lane to be built on
eastbound US 264. If B-1 were chosen, this lane would be constructed in a wetland
environment. Thus it can be concluded that the difference in impacts to wetlands is
essentially negligible.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
If Merck Road was not widened increasing travel demands in this area, a result of
the developing Wilson Corporate Park, would generate increased congestion and accident
potential. Capacity analysis shows that by the year 2020, a 2-lane Merck Road would
carry traffic volumes at its capacity (LOS E). For these reasons, the "no-build" alternative
is not practical or feasible and is not recommended.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
A. Recommended Location and Cross-Section
The 1996-2002 TIP calls for Merck Road to be widened. An aerial view of this
project is displayed in Figure 2. This figure shows the project broken down into two
sections, A and B. Section B has two alternates. As discussed in Section III, Alternate B-
2 is the recommended alignment. The project runs from Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158)
to US 264. The project length is 3.4 kilometers (2.1 miles). The recommended cross-
section for Merck Road consists of five 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide lanes with 750
millimeter curb and gutter. The road will total 19.5 meters (64 feet) wide, measured from
the face of one curb to the other.
5
The improvement will be on existing location for majority of the project. Widening
will be asymmetrical to the existing centerline and will follow a slightly altered alignment.
This alignment will flatten out horizontal curves and improve vertical curvature near the
Southern Railway, thereby enhancing safety.
B. Recommended Highway Design Elements
The recommended design speed is 80 kmph (50 mph). Typically, 5-lane curb and
gutter facilities are posted no greater than 72 kmph (45 mph). This is due to the curb
acting as a lateral obstruction. Faster speeds require the driver to customarily use more of
the travel lane, and if a driver hit the curb he could re-direct the vehicle back into other
lanes of travel.
All intersections on the proposed project are and will remain at grade. A traffic
signal will likely be installed where the new Merck Road intersects US 264. Initial traffic
volumes may not warrant the signal, but the multi-lane approach on Merck Road will, in
the best interest of safety, require signalized control. Eventually, the Merck Road
intersection with SR 1158 will likely be signalized as traffic volumes in the project area
grow.
There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this
project. This section of SR 1157 in Wilson County does not correspond to a bicycle TIP
request, nor is it a designated bicycle route. At present there is no indication of an unusual
number of bicyclists on this roadway.
C. Bridges/Culverts
Based on recent field review and a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the
recommended drainage structure for the Bloomery Swamp crossing is a three-barrel 3.7 m
by 3.7 m (12 ft. by 12 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). Some channel
widening will be needed approximately 20 m (70 ft.) upstream and downstream to
accommodate the proposed culvert. This crossing is in a designated flood hazard zone
and is included in the detailed flood study with established flood plain and flood way limits
and corresponding regulatory water surface elevations. The proposed roadway and
culvert may require a flood way modification. Hydraulics Design Unit will coordinate
with local authorities and with the Federal Emergency Management Agency during final
hydraulics design regarding flood way modification and to ensure that the proposed
culvert will not have any significant adverse impact on the existing flood plain and flood
way nor on the existing flood hazard. Wilson County and the City of Wilson are both
participants in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The Appendix includes a
copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, on which are delineated the established limits of
the 100-year flood plain and flood way in the vicinity of the Bloomery Swamp crossing.
6
From recent field review, there appeared to be extensive wetlands in the vicinity of
the proposed crossing at Bloomery Swamp. This site is below headwaters, and it is
anticipated that an individual permit may be required for the project. With the exception
of minor channel widening to accommodate the proposed new culvert at Bloomery
Swamp, no other channel modifications are anticipated for the project. The Hydraulics
Unit, in conjunction with the Planning and Environmental Branch, will coordinate with the
Army Corps of Engineers in final hydraulics design to ensure that environmental concerns
are appropriately addressed and to facilitate the permitting process, if needed. The project
is in a water supply watershed, but is not within 1.6 km (1 mile) of a WS-I or WS-II water
supply zone nor in a high quality water zone. Therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled through the installation and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation
control measures. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable.
Groundwater resources will not be affected, as little, if any, excavation will be necessary.
D. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction. Temporary
shifts in the traffic stream will be instituted and travel lanes will be delineated by barrels,
temporary signing and pavement markings.
E. Estimate of Cost
The 1996-2002 TIP cost estimate for widening Merck Road to multi-lanes is
$5,525,000. A planning cost estimate for widening to a 5-lane facility along the
recommended corridor is provided in Table 2. The construction cost includes engineering
and contingencies. The right of way estimate includes utility, relocation and acquisition
costs. The total planning cost estimate is $ 410,000 greater than the TIP estimate.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (A/B-2)
ITEM COST
RIGHT OF WAY $ 1,135,000
CONSTRUCTION $ 4,800,000
TOTAL $ 5,935,000
7
V. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Historic and Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
The archaeological survey work conducted for this project concentrated on
addressing potential cultural resources that may be present on the proposed new
location corridors for Alternative B-1 and Alternative B-2. The field inspection for
Alternative B-1 revealed that the 150 meters (500 feet)) of new location roadway
was planned on an area that was determined to have low potential for the presence
of significant archaeological resources. This 150-m (500-ft) section is planned in
an area that has been disturbed by residential development. Therefore, no further
work is recommended for Alternative B-1.
During inspection of the study area for Alternative B-2, three previously
unrecorded archaeological sites (31 WL233, 31 WL234 and 31 WL235) were
located along Bloomery Swamp. Cultural material recovered from these sites is
diagnostic of a Middle to Late Archaic Period occupation. Since Alternative B-2
has been selected, additional work will be performed determine if these sites are
eligible for nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. If they are
determined eligible, then archaeological data recovery may be the preferable
mitigation.
2. Architectural/Historical Resources
An architectural historian with the Historic Architectural Resources
Section of the NCDOT has researched the files located at the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in order to locate any properties which may be listed
on the National Register of Historic Places along this portion of Merck Road in
Wilson County. No properties are listed on the National Register or on the State
Study List. This is a State Funded Project requiring at least one Federal Permit.
No buildings over fifty years of age are located in the permit area.
B. Land Use Planning
Status of Local Planning Activities
SR 1157 (Merck Road) serves as a portion of the western municipal
boundary for the City of Wilson's extraterritorial boundary. The City and Wilson
County jointly adopted the Wilson Growth Plan in 1990. The Plan details the
urban growth boundary for the City, and provides a series of policies and
guidelines for directing growth throughout the county. The City also enforces a
zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.
8
Existing Land Use
Most of the project area is undeveloped and partially wooded. Some
agriculture fields will be impacted. Linear development has occurred along Merck
Road, including industrial, agricultural and some residential uses. The Wilson
Airport is located approximately 3 kilometers (2 miles) northeast of the project
corridor.
Current Zoning
The north side of Merck Road is zoned Agriculture/Residential with
Industrial Potential. The south side of Merck Road is zoned Industrial. The
project area is in the center of Wilson's planned 160 hectare (400 acre) industrial
park.
4. Future Land Use
The Wilson Growth Plan indicates that the entire project area is located
within the Primary Urban Growth Area of the City of Wilson. This includes areas
where urban development and redevelopment is encouraged, and where public
utilities and other services are either currently available, or will be available by the
year 2000. The Primary Urban Growth Area will receive first priority when
provisions or extensions of public services are made.
The plan also indicates support for thoroughfare plan improvements. The
plan recommended that the City ordinances be revised to limit the number of
driveways and curb cuts onto arterials to preserve the roadway capacity.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service based on consistently high crop yields with a
minimum input of resources.
Land on which development has occurred, or which has been committed to
urban development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements
of the Act. The proposed improvement is located in an area where development is
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.
9
C. Socioeconomic Resources
General Description
a. Neighborhood Characteristics
Wilson County is located in the east central section of the State and
is bounded by Pitt, Greene, Wayne, Johnston, Nash and Edgecombe
counties. It has a population of 66,061 (US Census Data).
The proposed project begins at Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158)
and follows along existing SR 1157 almost to US 264 prior to going on
new location.
The neighborhood is characterized by rural farm homes situated on
both sides of SR 1157. Near the beginning of the proposed action near
Wilson Christian Road, the homes are large and appear to be in the upper
price range. Two or three of these homes, unlike the others along SR 1157
may not be located on land that is currently being farmed. The majority of
the homes along SR 1157 have space between them typical to homes in
most farming communities in Eastern North Carolina. Homes along
SR 1157 are back from the existing highway facility.
b. Economic Characteristics
Wilson County, like may counties in the state, is losing farm land to
make economic strides in what appears to be more lucrative economic
fields, characterized by less security risks and less menial labor. Therefore,
the land along SR 1157 appears.to have the potential to lending itself to
further expansion in terms of economic diversity. The new access roads in
Section A and Merck, Inc. are indicators of the changes to come. The
proximity to the town of Wilson, US 264 and I-95 make economic growth
and diversity a pronounced reality in this area.
The economic status report of Wilson County as of April 1995,
according to the State's Employment Security Commission, shows the total
Civilian Labor Force consisted of 34,160 persons. Out of this total 30,860
persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemployment total of 3,300
(9.7 percent).
C. Public Facilities
On Section B-1, on the west side of the proposed action is what
appears to be a small family cemetery.
10
2. The Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action on the Environment
Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact
It appears that the development along the farming community of
SR 1157 is set back far enough to receive limited adverse impact by
relocation. However, if relocation occurs, 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
b. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion or
interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
D. Natural Resources
Background Information
1.1 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information
sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U. S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Wilson, Bailey, Winstead
Crossroads and Lucama), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps,
NCDOT aerial photomosaics of project area (1:2400) and Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of Wilson County. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Wilson County (N.C. Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species (28 March 1995) and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment
by NCDOT biologist Gerard Nieters on 21 June 1995. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification relied upon one or more observation techniques including:
active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory studies for aquatic organisms were conducted using
tactile searches. Organisms captured during these searches were identified
and then released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.2 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Gerard J. Nieters, Biologist, NCDOT
Education: BS Degree Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment
NC State University, College of Forestry
Employment: Biologist, NCDOT, May 1994-Present
Expertise: Wetland delineation, NEPA investigations and Section 7
field investigations
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and water availability directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Soils and Topography
Wilson County lies in the coastal plain physiographic province. The
topography of Wilson County is characterized by nearly level to gently
sloping terrain with associated broad bottomland flood plains. The
dominant land use in the area is agriculture, punctuated by occasional
forest stands. Most of the soils in the region are sandy loams found on
slopes from 0 to 2 percent. Table 3 provides an inventory of specific soil
types which occur in the project area.
12
TABLE 3
SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
MAPPING UNIT SYMBOL % SLOPE HYDRIC CLASS
Bibb loam Bb - A
Norfolk loamy sand NoA Nob 0-6 C
Rains sandy loam Ra - A
Goldsboro sandy loam GoA 0-2 B
Exum very fine sandy loam ExA 0-2 B
Grantham very fine sandy loam Gr - A
Aycock very fine sand loam A a A b 0-4 C
NOTE: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major component.
"B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or which have wet spots.
"C" denotes soils with little or no hydric characteristics.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources
likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information
encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major
water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The proposed project will cross 14 drainage ditches that are
tributaries to Bloomery Swamp, as well as Bloomery Swamp itself.
Bloomery Swamp is a tributary of Contentnea Creek of the Neuse
River drainage Basin. Table 4 displays complete descriptions of the
characteristics of these water bodies. The drainage ditches are
numbered in the order that they appear while traveling from
SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Rd.) to US 264.
13
TABLE 4
DRAINAGE CROSSINGS
CHARACTERISTICS DITCH 1 DITCH 2 DITCH 3 DITCH 4
Substrate sand sand sand sand
Flow Rate slow n/a n/a moderate
Channel Width 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0) 0.9 (3.0)
Channel Depth 0.6 (2.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.2 (4.0)
Water Depth 0.3(l.0) n/a n/a <0.02 (0.07)
Clarity poor n/a n/a poor
A uatic Veg. none none none none
CHARACTERISTICS DITCH 5 DITCH 6 DITCH 7 DITCH 8
Substrate gravel sand sand sand
Flow Rate moderate slow slow slow
Channel Width 2.5 (8.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.4 (4.5) 1.5 (5.0)
Channel Depth 1.1 (3.5) 0.9 (3.0) 1.2 (4.0) 1.4 (4.5)
Water Depth 0.3(l.0) 0.1 (0.3) 0.08 (0.3) 0.09 (0.3)
Clarity poor poor moderate poor
Aquatic Veg. none es es es
CHARACTERISTICS DITCH 9 DITCH 10 DITCH 11 DITCH 12
Substrate sand gravel gravel gravel
Flow Rate moderate slow moderate moderate
Channel Width 2.1 (7.0) 1.5 (5.0) 2.5 (8.0) 1.2 (4.0)
Channel Depth 1.4 (4.5) 1.2 (4.0) 1.4 (4.5) 0.9 (3.0)
Water Depth 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3)
Clarity poor moderate good poor
Aquatic Veg. es none es none
CHARACTERISTICS DITCH 13 DITCH 14 BLOOMERY SWAMP
Substrate sand sand sand
Flow Rate moderate moderate slow
Channel Width 1.2 (4.0) 1.4 (4.5) 9.2 (30.0)
Channel Depth 0.9 (3.0) 1.1 (3.5) unknown
Water Depth 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3) unknown
Clarity poor poor poor
Aquatic Veg. none es none
NOTES: Distances are cited in meters (feet); "n/a" = not applicable;
Measurements averaged over a distance of 30.5 m (100 ft.)
up and downstream of each crossing.
14
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Bloomery
Swamp has a classification of "WS IV NSW" in the project area.
The "WS IV" portion of this classification denotes that these waters
are protected water supplies which are located in moderately to
highly developed watersheds. Local programs to control nonpoint
source and stormwater discharge of pollutants are required. The
"NSW" classification means that the waters are nutrient sensitive
and require limitations on nutrient inputs. Neither High Quality
Waters (HQW), WS-1 or WS-II, Water Supplies nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project
study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes
in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass can
be interpreted as indicators of water quality. No BMAN data has
been gathered for Bloomery Swamp or the surrounding area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register
for a permit. No permitted dischargers are listed for Bloomery
Swamp.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
During project construction vegetation will be cleared but
precautions should be taken around the hydrologic bodies (drainage
ditches and streams) encountered. The loss of stream vegetation,
both aquatic and terrestrial, can lead to elevated water temperatures
in summer and depressed temperatures in the winter. Stream
vegetation is also critical in and around the drainage ditches in the
project area because it slows stormwater flow, thus lessening its
erosivity and its potential for carrying sediment into Bloomery
Swamp. Moreover, the presence of stream vegetation can lower
the amounts of agricultural and roadway runoff (i.e. fertilizers and
15
pesticides) through absorption, therefore lowering these
concentrations before reaching Bloomery Swamp. Sedimentation
and substrate disturbance occurring during construction, could
significantly reduce already poor water clarity. Sediment deposition
into the stream causes turbidity which inhibits light penetration thus
depressing aquatic vegetative growth. Furthermore, channelization
and flow changes may also occur as a result of construction,
modifying the hydrology of the water resource.
Stringent sedimentation and erosion control precautions
(Best Management Practices) will be implemented to prevent
potential sediment/fill and toxin deposition into Bloomery Swamp.
Field drainages should also be afforded these strict control
measures because they are tributaries to Bloomery Swamp.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of
biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography,
hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur,
in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided
for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identified in the project study
area: maintained/agriculture, bottomland hardwood forest and pine forest.
Transition zones that display characteristics of adjacent communities are
frequently seen between habitat types. These transitional zones are
referred to as ecotones. Due to these gradual variations between habitats,
community boundaries are commonly ill-defined. Many faunal species are
highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed. Species commonly found in the habitats mentioned
are listed below. An asterisk (*) signifies those animals that were
directly observed during field investigation.
16
3.1.1 Maintained/Agriculture Community
These regions of perpetual disturbance have various land
uses. Common uses include agricultural practices, maintained yards
(industrial and residential) as well as roadsides. The abundant
farmland in the project area is currently cultivated in tobacco, corn,
soybeans and grain crops. The adjacent maintained communities
are comprised of fescue (Festuca sp.), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.),
plantain (PlantaQo sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), clover
(Trifolium rap tense), wild onion (Allium canadense), Ranunculus
abortivus and sour-weed (Rumex crispus). In the frequently
mowed yards fescue is the dominant vegetation with sparse tree
cover consisting of loblolly pine (Rim taeda), Bradford pear
(P rus calleryana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and pecan
(Carya illinoensis). Conversely, in less frequently maintained areas
species like blackberry (Rubus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera 'a onica) and morning glory (I o? moea u urea and I.
hederacea) exist. The small trees present in these less maintained
areas are red maple (Acer rubrum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and winged sumac (Rhus
co allina). Overall, this habitat provides little cover for many
indigenous animal species, but foraging opportunities are plentiful.
The composition of the faunal community found in this
habitat is reflective of the early successional development of the
vegetative community. Many species utilize this habitat for
foraging, while remaining in close proximity to adjacent areas that
provide greater protective cover. The eastern cottontail (SyIvilagus
floridanus) forages largely in field edges and grassy areas where it
avoids capture by darting into nearby thickets. Another resident of
these weedy areas is the hispid cotton rat* (Siamodon hispidus).
This rodent inhabits field and field edges by moving through a
network of tunnels constructed in dense low vegetation where it is
concealed from above by a grassy canopy. However, the black rat
snake* (Elaphe obsoleta) and the red- tailed hawk* (Buteo
jamaicensis) quietly watch these areas for opportunities to forage
on the hispid cotton rat and other similar rodents, which are their
prey of choice. Red- tailed hawks may also select black rat snakes
as forage if given the opportunity. The white-tailed deer*
(Odocoileus vir ing, ianus) forages greatly in agricultural fields and
grassy areas where it can readily escape into nearby woodlands at
any sign of danger. Raccoons* (Procyon lotor) forage during the
night on agricultural crops like corn as well as on residential garden
crops and garbage.
17
Avian species which inhabit this community are mourning
dove* (Zenaida macroura), eastern meadowlark*
(Sturnella magna), northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis),
common grackle* ( uiscalus uiscula), blue jay*
(Cyanocitta cristata) and American robin* (Turdus migratorius).
These birds forage in maintained areas on insects and seeds there in.
Northern bobwhite quail* (Colinus virginianus) is a popular
game species that inhabits agriculture fields and their edges. They
forage on seeds and berries in areas where dense groundcover is
readily available, for they prefer escaping while remaining on the
ground.
Bird species like the chimney swift* (Chaetura elp agica) and
purple martin* (Pry subis) forage on insects while in flight
above this community, especially during and after mowing events
force many insects to the air. The American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) is commonly seen in this habitat omnivorously
feeding on anything from fruit to roadside carrion.
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community is present on poorly drained soils in close
association with Bloomery Swamp. A portion on the south side of
Bloomery Swamp has been significantly impacted by logging
activity within the past 2 years. Remnant canopy species remain in
this area with a proliferation of herbaceous and shrub growth.
Little topographic relief is found within this community further
differentiating it from the surrounding environment. The canopy
species found here include willow oak ( uercus hp ellos),
sweetgum, red maple (Ater rubrum) and tulip tree (Liriodendron
li if ra). The shrub layer consists of Japanese privet
(Ligustrum iaponicum), American holly (Ilex opaca), pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), red maple, Virginia bay (Magnolia vir ing? iana)
and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). The herbaceous vegetation is
predominantly impatiens (Impatiens capensis), Lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus), rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane (Arundinaria
& au ntea), southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), cinnamon
fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), barnyard grass (Echinochloa cruaalli), knotweed
(Polygonum sp.) and jack- in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum). The
vines present are poison ivy (Toxicodendron radi ans), Japanese
honeysuckle and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
18
The faunal composition of this habitat differs significantly
from that of the upland communities in the project area due to the
presence of surface hydrology. Many species found in this habitat
have adapted in one fashion or another to the water in their
environment. This is not to say, however that upland species do
not migrate through this bottomland system or inhabit it during dry
periods of the year.
A wide variety of amphibian and invertebrate life composes
a rich forage base from which many higher bottomland species
draw. The two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) and spotted
salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) are known to utilize this
habitat type for its water holding ability, because their eggs must be
deposited in pools in order to develop. Moreover, in isolated pools
fish may be absent minimizing egg and offspring predation.
Marbled and slimy salamanders (Ambystoma oopacum and
Plethodon glutinosus , respectively) are also found to inhabit the
drier edges of this community. Insects and earthworms are the
primary food source of salamanders as well as indigenous spotted
and eastern mud turtles (Clemmvs glut tat and
Kinosternon subrubrum, respectively) which will also feed on
salamanders.
Several frog species are also commonly found in and around
the water pockets of this habitat. The southern leopard frog*
(Rana sphenocephala), pickerel frog (Rana palustris) and bullfrog*
(Rana catesbeiana) also deposit eggs in shallow waters throughout
this community. These tadpoles also have a greater chance of
reaching maturity in waters devoid of fish, their primary predator.
The previously mentioned amphibians that mature in this
habitat still remain a common food source for the brown water
snake (Ngrodia taxispilota), redbelly water snake
(Nerodia e , hro ag ster) and the poisonous cottonmouth
(ARkistrodon piscivorus). These reptiles commonly bask on logs,
rocks and overhanging limbs in order to thermoregulate and
maintain ready access to the water for flight or hunting purposes.
Bottomland snakes are not restricted to amphibian forage sources
only. As these snakes grow in size [over 60 in (24 cm) in length]
marsh rice rats (Oryzomys alp ustri s), bird eggs and other water
snakes are added to their diets. During their juvenile years these
established predators may become prey for large bullfrogs and fish.
The marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus) may also forage on these and
other snakes by striking from a perch or from low flight.
19
The Barred owl (Strix varia) shares the strategy of the
marsh hawk, but its fluffy plumage allows it to descend more
quietly upon marsh rice rats, marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris)
and snakes also in this habitat. The nocturnal bobcat (Felis rufus) is
known to inhabit this community type as well, foraging heavily on
the herbivorous marsh rabbit, large rodents and white-tailed deer,
occasionally.
White-tailed deer* and raccoons* are commonly found in
this habitat in addition to the previously mentioned
Maintained/agricultural Community.
There are many avian species that are known to inhabit this
community as well. The red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), ovenbird
(Seiurus aurocapillus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), rufous-
sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) and blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea) characteristically utilize this habitat for either
foraging or nesting purposes.
3.1.3 Upland Pine Forest
This community exists in the project area sporadically and
vegetative diversity is low. The canopy is dominated by loblolly
pine with a subcanopy consisting of sweetgum, water oak ( uercus
niara) and red maple. Virtually no herb layer exists with the
exception of a few vines that are represented at different heights
within the community. These vines are greenbrier, Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy and muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia).
Many of the heretofore mentioned animal species could also
utilize this habitat for foraging, shelter and/or cover to conceal
movement between ecotypes, especially those commonly found in
the adjacent maintained areas. Species dependent on wetter sites
(ie. bottomlands) however, would not be found in these well-
drained woodlands.
3.2 Aquatic Community
A coastal plain, brown water, perennial stream is crossed by the
proposed project. This large, slow moving stream is closely associated
with a wide saturated floodplain. During periods of relatively high flow it
is evident that this stream swells to incorporate the bottomland floodplain
for prolonged periods of time. This hydrologic cycle is closely-related and
contributes greatly to semi-aquatic and terrestrial habitats and organisms in
20
and around the aquatic community. Within this aquatic system species of
small fish like the lined topminnow (Fundulus lineolatus), creek chubsucker
(Erimyzon oblongus), pirate perch (Aohredoderus sayanus), and eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pyQmaea) move throughout the stream and flooded
areas in search of food and cover. Larger fish range throughout the system
also, preying upon aquatic invertebrates, vertebrates and smaller ichthyoid
species. A few of these species are redbreast sunfish (Le omis auritus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus) and
longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus). Margined madtom (Noturus insi nis)
feed on dead fish, invertebrates and other organic matter along the
substrate of this stream also.
Freshwater mussels inhabit this stream system. Elliptio icterina and
Elliptio complanata commonly bury themselves in the sandy substrate while
exerting a filtering structure into the water column to feed on microscopic
organisms. This filter-feeding makes these species and all mussels
especially susceptible to high stream suspended sediment loads. Mussels
are a popular food source for raccoons which are common in the adjacent
bottomland hardwood. The muskrat* (Ondatra zibethicus) feeds upon
these mussels as well as the abundant plant matter found in and around the
stream.
The semi-aquatic organisms that were previously cited as inhabiting
the Bottomland Hardwood Forest depend highly upon this habitat for
survival. Avian species also rely heavily on this aquatic system for food
and cover. The belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) and great blue heron
(Ardea herodias) are two species that forage largely on fish species.
Ephemeral drainage ditches are also found throughout the project
area. These channels have the capacity to provide suitable habitat for
amphibians, reptiles and small fish species, previously mentioned.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subsequent project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction- related activities in or
near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 5 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
21
are derived using the proposed right-of-way limits of 30.5 m (100.0 ft).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way area,
so actual impacts are frequently less than estimated values.
TABLE 5
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
SECT ION B
COMMUNITY SECTION A ALT B-1 ALT B-2
Maintained/Agriculture 7.9 (19.5) 1.7 (4.1) 1.6 (4.0)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.1 (0.3) 0.2 (0.6) 0.5 (1.3)
Upland Pine Forest 0.2 (0.6) -0- -0-
A uatic Community -0- 0.1(0.2) 0.2 0.4
TOTAL IMPACTS 8.2 20.4 2.0 4.9 2.3 5.7
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
This new alignment segment will disrupt the habitat that many
species are utilizing for either cover or forage. The proposed project is
likely to result in new population dynamics within the affected
communities. The new corridor will continue to erode an already shrinking
amount of existing faunal habitat. However, many of the species that
compose this area's animal community are edge-adapted species which are
common in the project area. These species are well adapted to disturbed
environments and will likely be minimally impacted by the proposed
project.
The bottomland habitat impacts, however, may cause a larger
amount of disturbance to animals that are poorly adapted to open habitats
and migratory activities. The wood thrush ( Hylocichla mustelina ) has
been shown to decline in numbers when subjected to nearby land
disturbances (i.e. clearing). This bird and other species are forced to
compete against more numerous edge-adapted species for limited food
resources. Moreover, many of the reptiles and amphibians found in this
community type are ill suited for migrations across an expanded roadway
and its associated upland shoulder.
Only one alternative is proposed for Section A of this project. It is
primarily impacting habitats that are currently greatly influenced by man,
therefore impacts will probably be short term in nature. Alternative B-2 in
Section B however, will have an impact on the bottomland hardwood
habitat associated with Bloomery Swamp due to its amount of new
location. Alternative B-1 will have fewer impacts on Bloomery Swamp.
22
From a biological standpoint Alternative B-1 in Section B of this project is
preferable due to its greater use of the existing roadway and its smaller
impact on Bloomery Swamp and its associated bottomland community.
The coastal plain stream habitat will be affected by both alternatives
in similar fashions. Sedimentation, runoff of roadway deposits (i.e. rubber,
oil, and debris), and increased velocity of runoff will affect Bloomery
Swamp in both alternatives. The movement of the stream crossing will
cause an initial increase in sedimentation by construction equipment and/or
materials. These impacts may be short term in scope. These impacts
include increased turbidity and suspended sediment levels; products of
substrate disturbance which modifies sheet flow and water retention
capacity of the existing floodplain, resulting in increased water velocities.
These impacts will be most pronounced during periods of high flow. These
influences could potentially last for an extended period of time, seriously
harming populations of aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms which are
extremely sensitive to high sediment loads, and introduced toxins from
construction. The proposed improvement could cause the loss of many
stream-related organisms previously mentioned. Therefore, stringent
adherence to Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be enforced in order
to minimize impacts to surface waters.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analyses
pertinent to two important issues--rare and protected species, and Waters of the
United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
23
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence
of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Wetlands
are located in association with the crossing of Bloomery Swamp.
No delineation was performed during the site visit, however
standing water was observed and a soil color of 10 YR 3/1-4/1.
The hydrophytic vegetation encountered is cited in the Bottomland
Hardwood Community description. According to the criteria
specified in the 1987 COE Delineation Manual, this region should
be classified as a wetland.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classifies the floodplain
of Bloomery Swamp as PFO1C. This classification is interpreted as
palustrine (P), forested (FO) habitat with broad-leaved, deciduous
vegetation (1). The water regime is seasonally flooded (C).
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts To Wetlands
The wetland region potentially impacted by the proposed
project is approximately 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) on Alternate B-2 and 0.2 ha
(0.6 ac) on Alternate B-1. Efforts to minimize wetland impacts will
be made during the design of the project. Construction activities
which fill wet areas and/or compact saturated soils pose the
greatest threat to these wet features and the surrounding habitat.
Precautions will be taken during the construction phase that
maintain an optimal amount of the wetland area.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. This project will then require a 401 Water Quality
General Certification from the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) prior to the approval of Section 404
authorization. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from
the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States."
This wetland falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. COE
and will likely require an Individual Permit (IP) if measures to
lessen the "footprint" of the Bloomery Swamp crossing are not
successful. If modifications are made to the current design a
24
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) could be applicable in the
study area. This permit authorizes construction provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for
the actual crossing,
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited to a
filled area of no more than 0.1 hectares (1/3 acre);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including
wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows and tidal flows and movement of aquatic organisms,
and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project for crossing of a Water of the United States.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation)
must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United
States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
25
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Bridging the crossing of Bloomery Swamp is an option
that would avoid many impacts to this sensitive wetland system.
However, if this option is found to be infeasible, widening SR 115 7
(Merck Rd.) in its entirety would also have minimal wetland
impacts due to the parallel orientation of Bloomery Swamp and the
northern end of SR ] 157 (Merck Rd.). These options will need to
be considered to satisfy the wetland mitigation policy.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the
United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed
project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths. If impacts to the wetland
community cannot be avoided, then impacts to these sites should be
minimized to the fullest extent possible. Of the alternatives
submitted for study, Alternative B-1 is best suited for minimizing
wetland impacts. Practical means to minimize impacts to the
waters crossed by the proposed project are listed below.
Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of surface
waters during the entire life of the project
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in
riparian areas
- Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
- Reduction of runoff velocity
- Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
judicious pesticide & herbicide management
Minimization of "in-stream" activity
Litter/debris control.
The use of any number of these methods will be effective in
reducing water quality degradation resulting from project
construction.
26
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the U.S. have been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that
"no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved
in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts which remain after all avoidance and minimization options
have been explored. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of waters of the U.S.,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to, or contiguous to the impacted site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army. If this project requires an
Individual Permit then compensatory mitigation may be required as
compensation for those wetlands lost due to construction.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish
and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of September 15, 1994, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Wilson County. A list of federally-
protected species is provided in Table 6 followed by a brief
description of each species habitat and characteristics.
27
TABLE 6
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WILSON COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhos michauxii Michaux's sumac E*
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
No specimen from Wilson County found in the past twenty years (1973-1993).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Nash,
. Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge mussel (DWM) is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted 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.
Known populations of the DWM in North Carolina are
found within the Tar and Neuse River Drainage Basins. This
mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free stream bed with well
oxygenated water to survive.
A survey for the DWM was conducted near the project
crossing on July 18, 1995 by NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge.
Survey methodology included visual and tactile searching in
Bloomery Swamp. A total of 65 eastern elliptio mussels (Elliptio
complanata) were found during the 0.5 man-hour (mhr) survey.
The very large size of all the individuals found indicate that this
population may no longer be viable (no reproduction taking place).
The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) was found to be
abundant. No other mussel species were found.
28
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the DWM is
not present in Bloomery Swamp. It can be concluded that
construction of this project will have no impact on the dwarf-
wedge mussel. However, the strict enforcement of Best
Management Practices (1) for the protection of surface waters
is recommended to protect the mussel fauna present in this
water body. Although the Asian clam is not afforded any
legal protection, they are important components of the aquatic
ecosystem and are very sensitive to changes in water quality.
The implementation of these measures will minimize impacts to
this mussel population.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bettie, Bladen, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus,
Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the
sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and
white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pines alp ustris), for foraging and nesting
habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a
thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200
hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-
heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-
29
100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50 ft) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June,
the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Many young southern pine trees were found in the
project area with a few scattered old pines interspersed. No
cavities were found in these older trees and no woodpeckers
were observed.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke,
Lincoln, Moore, Orange, Richmond,
Robeson, Scotland, Wake, Wilson.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub.
The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or
doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to
white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's
sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the
openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic
soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac
does not compete well with other species, such as Japanese
honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat exists for Michaux's sumac throughout the
project area. A plant by plant survey showed that winged
sumac is the only sumac represented in the project area.
Michaux's sumac was never found.
30
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 15 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Wilson County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 7 lists federal candidate species, the species state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable
habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is
provided for information purposes as the status of these species
may be upgraded in the future.
TABLE 7
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES WILSON COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow Y
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) Y
Tofieldia alabra Carolina asphodel N*
"*" No specimen found in Wilson County in twenty years.
E. Air Quality
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 (SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
31
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 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
32
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 gasoline. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.53
grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.0035 grams per liter.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and
as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after
December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration 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 2000 and the design
year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
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 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor # 19 at a
distance of 15.2 meters from the centerline of the proposed project. The "build" and "no-
build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 2000
and 2020 are shown in the following table.
33
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor Year
2000 Year
2020 Year
2000 Year
2020
R-19 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.7
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. Tables Al through A4 (input data and output) are located in the Appendix.
The project is located in Wilson County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. 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.
F. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
SR 1157 (Merck Road) from SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) to US 264 in Wilson
County on noise levels in the immediate project area (Figure N1; this and all other noise
figures and tables are located in the Appendix). This investigation includes an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient
noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for
the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
34
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.
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N 1.
Review of Table N I indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things: I) the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship between the
background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type of activity occurring when the
noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
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. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level
of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does
time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
35
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along SR 1 l 58 as measured at 15
meters from the roadway was determined to be 63.4 dBA. The ambient measurement site
is identified in Figure N 1.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic
noise prediction model in order to calculate the existing noise level for comparison with
the noise level actually measured. The calculated existing noise level was within 2.7 dBA
of the measured noise level for the location where noise measurement was obtained. The
Difference in the dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables which
describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model
uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and
height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was available for
use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing two lanes of SR
1157 to a 5-lane section from SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) to US 264. Only those
existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made
in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the
year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2020. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching
36
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30,
60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were determined by the changes in
projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The
result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N3. These are noted in terms of
those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR
Part 772, Section A contains 21 residential impacted receptors and Alternate B 1 has 6
residential impacted receptors; whereas, Alternate B2 has no impacted receptors due to
highway traffic noise in the project area. Other information included in Table N3 is the
maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands
adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper
information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Table N4 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range
from +4 to +9 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change
is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category.
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of placing the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement.
37
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with
a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier
120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 29 residential receptors would
experience traffic noise impact by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the
receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of
+6 to +8 dBA. As previously 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.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
38
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
G. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Physiography, Relief and Drainage
The study corridor is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province.
The topography is characterized by flat land to gently rolling hills and valleys. The
elevations along the existing project corridor generally range from 130 to 150 feet
above mean sea level. Drainage along the project corridor is by Bloomery Swamp.
2. Geology and Soils
The geologic map of North Carolina (1985) is depicted by this portion of
the coastal plain as consisting of fossiliferous clay with varying amounts of fine-
grained sand of the Yorktown Formation, and limestone of the Duplin Formation.
Soils within the project corridor consist mostly of moderately drained soils. These
soils are composed of AASHTO Soils Classifications A-2, A-4, and A-6 with
minor traces of A-7.
Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources of economic significance known to
be present within the vicinity of the proposed corridor.
4. Erosion Control
Standard erosion control measures should be sufficient during construction
of this project.
Groundwater
Groundwater across the project area generally occurs at depths 3 to 6 feet
from the surface. The Bloomery Swamp crosses the corridor and in this area the
groundwater will be near the surface.
39
6. Hazardous Materials Evaluation - Underground Storage Tanks
Based on our reconnaissance survey, we identified three (3) sites with the
potential for environmental problems or underground storage tank (UST)
involvement within the project corridor. A description of each facility is a follows:
a) William Boswell's Home UST Owner: Same
4459 Merck Road
Wilson, NC
An old gas dispenser is located on the northwest side of the house,
approximately 120 feet from the centerline of Merck Road. Mr. Boswell
informed us that there is one (1) gasoline UST behind his house, which is
far off the proposed right-of-way. The site is located approximately a tenth
of a mile from the railroad tracks on the west side of Merck Road.
b) John W. Boyett's Farm
4550 Merck Road
Wilson, NC
Four (4) above ground storage tanks are located on the south side of the
farm approximately 40 feet from the centerline of Merck Road. Mr. Boyett
informed me that there were no USTs on the premises. The farm is located
on the east side of Merck Road.
C) Small Junkyard
Merck Road
Wilson, NC
A small junkyard was located approximately a quarter of a mile north of
the farm (Site #2) on the east side of Merck Road. The junkyard contains
rusted vehicles and barrels. The site is located approximately 30 feet from
the centerline of Merck Road.
7. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographic Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor in Wilson County. The study revealed that there were no regulated or
non-regulated landfills or dump sites within the project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and the records search, there are no
further potential environmental problem sites known of, that should affect this
project other than those mentioned in this report.
RLB/plr
40
fleffRAES
lo.
.10
I..L
?. / CD 7 7N1 1 R')J VW .t
l f SS
? r n ? J.*Y 'YY? ? r y
#x
Ilk
?'
Wj?
v l r,
Mks a D q`" ?(? w .,
;Y
f ' c t _
J?
z LL 0 > PAO
LLJ < PAO
yy
Q w x Q In cn Q N
- O
po
) a ?
00
T? <t coo
z Q
o
Z Q w T-- J
O? Q
CC ?'`^ U)
?" 1i< ei . ?? 1 r LL.
LA-
4
Y-"dA
1

r
Ik.
•a
rr?
LWr
407

nY th .:
T
i
1
? is v.
`i
Al 1. { s? s±`' • m ` ? .
?rF
116,
r 'T O
r ? -
= So"
II
IWT
el I

r
LLJ
MAW 7- ui
k •e
r?Y !^• Tr
eAL
?? PG
t sit,
r...y .. a
'Air
?• W
J rk! F i Y? M? r
AW'
Ic.
1
rr? 'F 7.1
dip
r
r
iv?
/ !? O ,.'?
ell
1
No,
0
1
*- _ -- S
r A
,
J
.Dpi - .: ? ?, ae?T •,,,?!`r
-71
#For
*now, AL, I
Z
Z0 LL 0

_j

?
W

O
?

Z
Q/
0 > _ ? E 0
Q cW x
U20 aC
Fr In
I to z
O Q / cv,
0
Z

CL Q
? Q

N
(Y)

?0
WH

V
Z
O

p J

?
owx
z o ?- _
- j
o ?-

a
F ` Y w { ? -wP +S
ANI`1 H31.VW

f
trS i iry ?i
'I Y t ,?_aa _ J O w W Q
Y .-. N / V
Qw? Q ?(A Q/N
L O 0 r
w V=?N W v? U0 U ?p w
' Q J
' k O w oC N cn o cn
Z 0 F- 1 J 0 a.
!a ?..-may
.. ' ? Lei
1 . _
a
fir{ J
'• -z Sri •?. ? ? -"q - '' `? _. _. __. __._.._....._.. __ _.__-___.
M-
u.
4? 1 1
..,' ?.. f ;.1 ???;11,?,11 , 1 ;l ,,??lA,? ?,?\1?, `I,?i 1? Y? 11 ?•. ?' -''
P, 1 1 }
_$ 1. P ???i?1?111 l' ?• 1 ?1 W
7
_ k
?.
"1h11
?r `Ci
./?` (/J?? ? oaak
wee
Jy.
i14t,
.. 'v
.
r?
NOT:
iew
,.n w
?1 H7?_VW
•j ti 1'
i1
j

US 264
17000
600p) I x800
1400
Merck Co. Entranc1000 - Po 90
is (2
1200
PM
55 ?- 11
(3 .4)
17200
0
a
b
V
w
SR 1157
J
W
Legend
J
XXX VPD Vehicle/Day °
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)
D Directional Flow (%) SR 1158
PM PM Peak
(0,0) Duals, TTST (%) 3200
Note: DHV -? D 400
Indicates the direction D 800
Reverse flow direction for AM Peak PM .70
1s
3600
FIGURE 3 - TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Estimated 1995 ADT Volumes
Drawing not to scale
US 264
24400
3100 I 2700
5800
Merck Co. Entrance
1200 pM go
PM
60 e-- 9
(a 2)
700
500 SR 1157
5600 -
Ni

Private road to Wilson
Corp. Park
9000
2800r
6200
o
24000
9000
4700
4300
Legend
10300
XXX VPD Vehicle/Day
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)
D Directional Flow (%)
PM PM Peak
(0,0) Duals, TTST (%)
Note: DHV -o D
Indicates the direction D
Reverse flow direction for AM Peak
Drawing not to scale
SR 1158
10700
PM 60
i5 (2)
FIGURE 3 - TRAFFIC VOLUMES I
Estimated 2020 ADT Volumes
US 264
36300
7100
PM
60 -4 13
(4 , 5)
700 q
Merck Co. Entrance ./
500
1200 p1A 90
Iw.
is
6900
Private road to Wilson
Corp. Park
9000
Legend
4400 I 2700
8500
XXX VPD Vehicle/Day
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)
D Directional Flow (%)
PM PM Peak
(0,0) Duals, TTST (%)
Note: DHV -? D
Indicates the direction D
Reverse flow direction for AM Peak
Drawing not to scale
SR 1157
4100 R
34600

4900
J
IT
w ?= 7700 SR 1158
10200
4700
3000 R
?J pM so
is
FIGURE 3 - TRAFFIC VOLUMES I
Estimated 2020 ADT Volumes
JPPINBII
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3345: SR 1157 Wilson County
DATE: 06/23/95 TIME: 10:32
RUN: SR 1157 2000 BUILD 55 MPH
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
T.TNx VARTARLF.S
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 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 91. 13.3 0.0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 91. 13.3 0.0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-19, 15.2 m RT RES -9.8 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.0
1
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.00 PPM AT I DEGREES FROM REC1
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3345: SR 1157 Wilson County
DATE: 06/23/95 TIME: 10:32
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS a 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
T.TNR VAATAATSA
LINK DESCRIPTION
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
RUN: SR 1157 2020 BUILD 55 MPH
VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 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)
11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 675. 9.8 0.0 13.4
0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 675. 9.8 0.0 13.4
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-19, 15.2 m RT RES -9.8 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.8
4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3345 SR 1157 Wilson County RUN: SR 1157 2000 NO BUILD 55 MPH
DATE: 06/23/95 TIME: 10:33
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO a 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS 6 (F) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB - 1.8 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 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 91. 13.3 0.0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 91. 13.3 0.0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-19, 15.2 m RT RES -13.4 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.0
DEGR. 0
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.00 PPM AT 0 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3345: SR 1157 Wilson County
DATE: 06/23/95 TIME: 10:33
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F)
LINK VARIABLES
RUN: SR 1157 2020 NO BUILD 55 MPH
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 675. 10.6 0.0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 804.7 0.0 -604.7 1609. 180. AG 675. 10.6 0.0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-19, 15.2 m RT RES -13.4 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.7
2
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.70 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM REC1
PROJECT LOCATION & AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
FIGURE N1
SR 1157 (Merck Road)
Wilson County
TIP# U-3345 State Project# 9.8044593

FM

>3
?
w

WILSON
AIRPORT
?•-

1117

0
© ?
BG-1
.a `
`J(N \
a
12v??
i 1
1
` BEGIN `
b
N

TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

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

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD

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

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE 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 Lsq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
SR 1157 (Merck Road),From SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) to US 264
Wilson County, TIP M U-3345 State Project # 9.8044593
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFA Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
SECTION A:
1. From Beginning of Project to
Wilson Corporation Parkway
2. From Wilson Corporation Parkway
to Merck Inc. Access Road
TOTALS 0 21 0 0 0
ALTERNATE B1:
1. From Merck Inc. Access Road to US 264
TOTALS 0 6 0 0 0
ALTERNATE B2:
1. From Merck Inc. Access Road to US 264
70 66 61 16.Bm 33.8m 0 8 0 0 0
69 65 59 <14.7m 29.6m 0 13 0 0 0
69 65 59 <14.7m 29.6m 0 6 0 0 0
69 65 59 <14.7m 29.6m 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS
0 0 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 7.6m, 15m, and 30m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1157 (Merck Road),From SR 1156 (Wilson Christian Road) to US 264
Wilson County, TIP N U-3345 State Project N 9.8044593
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increasas(1) Criteria(2)
SECTION A:
1. From Beginning of Project 0 0 15 0 0
to Wilson Corporation Parkway
2. From Wilson Corporation 0 0 26 0 0
Parkway to Merck Inc. Access
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 0 43 0 0 0 0
ALTERNATE B1:
1. From Merck Inc. Access Rd. 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
to US 264
TOTALS 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
ALTERNATE B2:
1. From Merck Inc. Access Ad. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
to US 264
TOTALS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
U- 334S
aPPSMS_ NT of United States Department of the Interior
O? ym
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
a Post Office Box 33726
M,RCH 7 Ie' Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 26, 1995
CE L

Mr. H. Franklin Vick
North Carolina Department
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:
of Transportation
27611-5201
JUN 2 B 1995
C DIVIS?G
pylGHv Or.
P??Q;<
A?s
FtiL?9
This is in response to your April 21, 1995 letter requesting U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) comments on the proposed widening of Merck Road (SR
1157) from Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) to US 264, Wilson County, North
Carolina. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and candidate
(C) species that are known to occur in Wilson County. Candidate species refers
to any species being considered by the Service for listing as endangered or
threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule. These species are not
legally protected under the Act or subject to its provisions, including Section
7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. Although
candidate species have no legal status and are accorded no protection under the
Act, their inclusion will alert you of potential proposals or listing.
Therefore, it would be prudent for you to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate
species or their habitat.
The Federally-listed red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is known to
occur in Wilson County. If any of the road widening plans include removing pine
trees greater than or equal to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat,
surveys should be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a one-half mile radius of the project boundaries. If
red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or active cavity
trees are found, you should contact this office for further information.
Additionally, the Federally-listed endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
is known to occur in Wilson County. This plant species appears to be dependent
upon some form of disturbance to maintain the open quality of habitat. Disturbed
areas, such as maintained railroad and highway rights-of-way, are providing some
of the openings historically provided by periodic fires. These disturbed areas
have little competition for light by other plant species. Michaux's sumac is
known to occur in areas of sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic
soils. If potential habitat exists for Michaux's sumac and the results of
surveys indicate that Federally-listed species are located within the project
area, the project has the potential to adversely iffect Federally-listed species,
and you should contact this office for furthe,• consultation before proceeding
with the project.
The service's review and comment on the endangered species section of any
environmental document could be expedited if it contained the following
information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species or
critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
The Service is particularly concerned about potential impacts the proposed
project may have on stream ecosystems and associated wetlands within the study
corridor. At least one stream and/or wetland crossing are present in each of the
study corridors. Special care should be exercised in the design and
implementation of all stream crossing structures.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly facilitated
if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list and acreage of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland
types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineatina Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels along
with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses associated with the project. These
measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction as
a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to similar
environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in the area
(cumulative impacts).
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Kate Looney, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 16).
Sincerely
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
The Service's review and comment on the endangered species section of any
environmental document could be expedited if it contained the following
information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species or
critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
The Service is particularly concerned about potential impacts the proposed
project may have on stream ecosystems and associated wetlands within the study
corridor. At least one stream and/or wetland crossing are present in each of the
study corridors. Special care should be exercised in the design and
implementation of all stream crossing structures.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly facilitated
if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list and acreage of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland
types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels along
with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses associated with the project. These
measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction as
a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to similar
environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in the area
(cumulative impacts).
The service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Kate Looney, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 16).
Sincerely,
ur-hi 4,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Wilson County
Birds
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoi es borealis) - E
Plants
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E"
Clams
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Birds
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) - C2
Plan
Smooth bog-asphodel (Tofieldia glabra) - C2"
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masons) - C2
"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
1 /f µ 5TAlj ., y 4
aJ V? F
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 25, 1995
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
?GEI V EO
Q
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T s ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State storic Preservation
May ? ? 1995 :?
a
?y oN\S?GN OF m
2? T??GNW P"?r?`2'•
?4 ENViRON Officer
SUBJECT: Widening Merck Road (SR 1157) from Wilson
Christian Road (SR 1159) to US 264, Wilson County,
State Project 9.8044593, TIP U-3345, GS 95-0047,
GS 95-0079
Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the report and find that it meets our guidelines and those of
the Secretary of the Interior. We agree with the recommendation that the three
sites located--31 WL233, 31 WL234, and 31 WL235--will require testing to
determine eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places should
they be affected by the proposed project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807P
SfNio
?' •MOM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Y S,CYq Secretary 95
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transp rtation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Dist c Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to SR 1157 from SR 1 158 to US 264,
Wilson County, U-3345, State Project 9.8044593,
95-E-4220-0775
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw '/
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
d?o 1
f
NORTH CAROLINA
•'• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
May 4, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Charles H. We r
Assistant State rintendent
Auxiliary Seri'ces
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent

-9 MAY 1 1. 1995
22
DIVISION OF
G' HIGHWAYS 0`
??N?'RONN??P\•
Wilson County, Merck Road (SR 1157) from Wilson Christian Road
(SR 1158) to US 264, State Project No. 9.8044593, TIP No. U-3345
Please find attached communication from Dr. Larry E. Price, Assistant
Superintendent for Wilson County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
?ouNrr a
WILSON COUNTY SCHOOLS
4 w
Ex Lary E. Price, 5e -,/I es
MAY - 4 1995
May 2, 1995
To: Dr. Charles Weaver
From: Larry E. Price, Ed.D. 4P
Assistant Superintend nt for Auxiliary Services
Subject: State Project No. 9.8044593
I have reviewed the proposed project to widen Merck Road and find that this project does
not pose any problem or concern for Wilson County Schools. We support the project and
look forward to its completion.
Please contact me if you need additional information.
117 North Tarboro Street ¦ Post Office Box 2048 ¦ Wilson, North Carolinc 27894 ¦ [phone] ¦ Pax(919)399-7743
OF W14f
'°- CITY OF WILSON
boy•? norih Carolina
'Yp RTN L? INCORPORATED 1849
27894-0010
office of the
City Engineer
May 1, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201

MAY 0 4 1995 U
2
22,E DIVISION OF QQ
?1 1GHWAYS P?
F11/VIRON
RE: Wilson, SR 1157 (Merck Rd.) from Wilson Christian Rd (SR 1158) to US 264
Wilson County, State Project No. 9.8044593, TIP No. U-3345
Dear Mr. Vick:
The City of Wilson does not anticipate any environmental impacts from the above
project. No permits will be required from Public Services.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at (919)-399-2465.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WILSON
4'XA?
Gary L. Mills, P.E.
Assistant Public Services Director / City Engineer
P.O. BOX 10, WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 PH: [phone]
OPERATIONS CENTER: [phone] FAX: [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
JT r i^V E
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
June 29, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
RE: SCH File #95-E-4220-0775; Scoping - Proposed Improvements
to Merck Road (SR 1157) from Wilson Christian Road (SR
1158) to US 264; TIP #U-3345
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing
this document which identify issues to be addressed in the
environmental review document. For compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act the appropriate document
should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for environmental
review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Attachments
CC.* Region L
Richard Brewer, NCDOT
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00 (PQ
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer QOV
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James Hunt, Jr.; Governor ® E__= H N R
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V111-
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0775 Scoping Proposed Improvements to Merck Road,
Wilson County
DATE: June 7, 1995 t
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More.specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
attachments
RECEIVED
JUN p 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
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
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
May 26, 1995
Al 74**
[D F= Pt
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart Beater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0775; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Merck Road (SR 1157), Wilson
County, TIP No. U-3345
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4)' Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 "telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper
Melba McGee
May 26, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10939.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of Norm -41- u
Department of Environment, Health, and Naturah88SQUrces_ICr1. :
- -'r c"- `- Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -- PROJECT COMMENTS.- ..• .
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law. _
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional pffice indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Time
Regional Office. (stawt ume
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions, ft sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
D discharging into slate surface waters.
Water Use Permit
DI Well construction Permit
DI Dredge and Fill Permit
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application (90 clays)
technical conference usual
Application 180 days before begin activity. On•site inspection. 90.120 days
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
l
IWA)
y
construct wastewater treatment laciiity•granted after NPDES Rep
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 clays
Complete application must be received and permit issued (15 days)
pnor to the installation of a well.

must be served on each adjacent riparian property
Application copy
55 days
owner. On-site Inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling (90 days)
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
60 days
NIA (90 daysl
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demoiition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
N/A
60 Clays
(90 days)
D Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.080 - '
The Seciime:,tation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 6 sedimentatto
clays
D control plan will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Duality Sect thea1 least 30 20
days before be ,nnin activity. A fee or i30 for the liras acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany t tan (30 tlavsi
130 clays)
_• j'I The.Sedimpnjatan Po :swoon Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the re(errenced Local Ordinance:
.. „ On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed witn EHNR. Bond amo rnt
ELmtrEs a4rrnit vanes with type-itdhe tmd humbet QLAcres o{ allectee land Any area II 30 nays
!? ? a, _. ` ' ' I 1hiR6d greater than bna icro jnust bt3 ptitml{utl The approifrate+a sd ;1 a` ti160 days) A,.
s-.%- •" t7,,f4t i5A rei:c!?N4 J?.IKe Permit can'oe'tssued y_`_.,.
?. ?.?n•aN! Ibh bJ'N. . L51v1sIcin Forest Resovict!'It $iolfn;t ?-'""''
- ' \ ,. Y t a "' c {N. *)
No. •e+fiK f!r . fling aeffMi
r Y,-' a •xeasG? A dayslaid
"I' Me
Gillund Clesralt4 Burning Peifn+t .:2 :On ale Matter tlfllfr by N.tl. Eivtaw Forel? 1iir1M .3 'Rtti! t
thin aereIII io` rouAd'tafi0rmty rr tivitiei in 1Dw ,?d. thapecnons (r' _
toi+ At?s .' in coastal N.C. with ur^an!c so,^
_? - should be rep6C6tf I:I1t WAI tee dayi belisFie De:uat:6um isal8nnetl."
_ " ..:+?+?•??? - - •? ."t+.t:?--....? } t• , o : ' k , ..yy - mr......- 90.1. /- ..
' -- ..tNIA _.z+bsr?i INrAI I ±
-'Oil Refining' Facilities
,",? ?••-? -- - If peffillt.fkquired, Volit,406v 60 days Gttdh !?a,11 :?io:tion J°`' - s?? « .
fz. Appllcan! must a !'N;6. 4ilaiifled, engmeor > ;: G4#: rv Y tJI? 30 days __
Zafi Safely^alndY' inspectal:%ris:rt!tilon,:•l???Iitt;t?natructWr'•r'+ {T? iris t?l E°•li`A'acDrov ,
a; eG plans .May ?!fib''ro rune gelmrl un`d`rT` "?'st ?,?,c?!{:W pr",-¢'n. And ;x(60 JAYS) ..y
a'4Cd•per-nit ftomvtfts-o: i7dces• 2
t. ?=
`• f, ; 'fY•tc Yetl'y HaiZ?fq?rlassrli?y(rn'1' 4 ?fh?'R•!'1!. ?: ;3"tY,i':%:.U^ must ac -
• .??1: _ .. k w? (w byj:? An a
?k .1.,, 'ti e: rapl+•Ilon
i` .... s ?t..r._,. cornW9Y'lhe.a6ptrf?Jl4n Ah atld Clonal fM__.31 •D - .. _
rc?Tl!!r'ge or th:jt0tal pro4S1,LOa rHr e
..........
•--»:,1N11Tnved on revetse
EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2D .0800
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-213;
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0803 ? IGHWAY PROJECTS
Environmental assessments regarding highway projects shall be
revIeWed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
`ttte North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. If there is no assessment,
or if an assessment shows that there may be a problem in complying with
an ambient air quality standard, or if the environmental impact
assessment fails to show that the highway project will not result in
violations of applicable portions of the control strategy, and will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard, then
the following regulatory provisions shall apply:
(1) A person shall not construct or modify any highway if that
highway will result in a contravention of ambient air quality
standards;
(2) Before construction or modification of any highway with an
expected maximum traffic volume of 2,000 vehicles per hour or
more within 10 years, a person shall apply for and have
received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600 , and shall
comply with any terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0804 AIRPORT FACILITIES
Before constructing or modifying-any airport facility designed to
have at least 100,000 annual aircraft operations, or at least 45
peak-hour aircraft operations (one operation equals one takeoff or one
landing) , the owner or developer of the airport facility shall apply
for and have received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600, and
shall comply with all terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary
March 8, 1994 for a
Until the Permanent
Whichever is Sooner;
Amendment Eff.
Period of 180 Days or
Rule is Effective,
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
S 27
D-800-2
)J?.I ' I\ iV i N::'.':?: 1 II'.tVl.I 1"I,
AND NAl'URAL, RESOURCES
DIVISION 01=: .LNVIRONMLNTAI_ HLALTI-I
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
C'rojcct Number
County,
LC.J
Project Name 4,1 i,l d % Type of Project -4-
--
nor all water system
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications r
r
?
?-? improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to.the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public '\x/ater Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
- If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure 6f feet of adjacent
?? waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfisi sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should.
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the 'removal or demolition of dilapidated
an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
es
t
ur
,
struc
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information. concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public. Health Pest Management. Section at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the.local health department regarding their
uirements for septic. tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
re
q
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at. [phone].
r--? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
L--J facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
F relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
z22z? C? .? Em s a
Reviewer Sect•orl/Branch Date
DF,MNK 3199 (Kc,,,rd 8i91)
Givuion nl I?nv;?c.a:nr.ntal I?calih
NCWRC.,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Jun 05'95 7:29 No.001 F.06
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission P-,-
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276041188, 919.7333391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C9? mato?
4/
Habitat Conservation Program I.LJ
DATE: June 5, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N, C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for Merck Road (SR 1157)
from Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) to US 264, Wilson County, North
Carolina, TIP No. U-3345, SCH Project No, 95-0775.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113A-
1 ct seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
We have no project specific concerns or recommendations at this tine, however
to help facilitate document preparation, our general informational needs are outlined
below:
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. 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,
NCWRC$HCP,FRLLS LRKE
Memo
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
6/5/95
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.
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.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state,
municipal, or private development projects, a description of these projects
should be included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
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].
TEL:[phone] Jun 05'95 7:29 No.001 P.07
cc: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
..c_?
.??yr c I
State of North Carolina ; V I C:?Department of Environment, Health, and Naturkkesources1995
Division of Land Resources J L11
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COHMENTS LLLV------------Chadcs H. Uner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary / trector
.Project Number: t1,1 i v County: U ? 7
Project Name:
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].
Reviewer
0 -F1 J-
Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
This projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
?e
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
State of North Carolina ILF9;4A,
`B artment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • 0
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p ? H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C. Dewey Botts, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison Al
May 24, 1995
SUBJECT: Merck Road (SR 1157) from Wilson Christian Road (SR
1158) to U.S. 264, Wilson County. Project No. 95-0775.
The proposed 0.8 miles of improvement involves widening the
existing 2 lane road to a 5 lane, curb and gutter facility. The
Environmental Assessment should include an estimate of the amount
of prime, unique, and statewide important farmland that will be
impacted.
DH/tl

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
I P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF June 27, 1995
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
50'
C E
O
i JUN 3 0 1995
`y ?. a
?'? ?Q
This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1995, requesting our
comments on "Wilson County, Merck Road (SR 1157) from Wilson Christian Road
(SR 1158) to US 264, State Project No. 9.8044593 TIP No. U-3345" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199502788).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects.
The proposed roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood
control or navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
JA, ?J 4161?
William R. Dawson, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Printed on ® Recyded Paper
June 27, 1995
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Wilson County, Merck Road (SR 1157) from Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) to
US 264, State Project No. 9.8044593 TIP No. U-3345" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199502788)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located. within the jurisdiction of the city of
Wilson, which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a
review of Panel 80 of the January 1983 City of Wilson Flood Insurance Rate
Map, the proposed roadway corridor appears to cross Bloomery Swamp, a detail
study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined.
We suggest that you contact Region IV of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in Atlanta relative to the need for a no-rise certification and
coordinate with the City for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and
any changes to their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mrs. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 24
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the subject document and has provided
the following comments. A review of the information provided and various maps
indicate that there may be several crossings of unnamed tributaries to
Bloomery Swamp along the corridor of the proposed road, as well as some
impacts associated with Bloomery Swamp immediately south of US 264 at the
intersection of Merck Road. Examination of the Soil Survey for Wilson County
reveals that there may be wetlands associated with these unnamed tributaries
based upon the presence of hydric soils. There may also be other wetland
areas (example: pine flatlands) along the corridor which are typically not
associated with tributaries and streams since they occur in depressional areas
on high ground. The crossing of the headwater wetland areas may be eligible
for authorization by various Nationwide Permits (Numbers 14, 18, and/or 26),
while any impacts associated with Bloomery Swamp may require that a Department
of the Army (DA) individual permit be issued. Permit eligibility will depend
upon the amount of jurisdictional waters of the United States and their
associated wetlands to be impacted and the type of construction techniques to
be employed.
June 27, 1995
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON: (continued)
"Wilson County, Merck Road (SR 1157) from Wilson Christian Road (SR 1158) to
US 264, State Project No. 9.8044593 TIP No. U-3345" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199502788)
Due to the limited information provided regarding the extent of
jurisdictional impacts associated with the project, we will be unable to
provide specific comments regarding permit applicability until additional data
is furnished regarding the number of wetland crossings and the amount of
jurisdictional impacts for the project. When this information becomes
available, it should be forwarded to our office for review and comment, as
well as a determination of DA permit applicability (nationwide versus
individual). Any questions related to DA permits for this project should be
addressed to Mrs. Manuele.
RECEIM
'JAN u 4 Wvy
ENVIRUNMENTpI 1?P1i, i
ti'ti?4ti
STATI: m Noui i CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AM FS B. IiUNJ, )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
G0V1 KN(7R P.O. WX 25201, RAITIGI I, N.C. 27011-5201
December 29, 1994
R. SAMU[L HUNK I I I
SWRI IARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Notice for Wilson County, SR 1157 (Merck
Road), from SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) to US 264 and
SR 1309 intersection, State Project No. 9.8044593, T.I.P.
Project No. U-,3?4ff?(- 3'3jf
Attached for.your use are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). Preliminary cost estimates have been
provided for the proposed action. The purpose of these sheets and the
related review procedure is to establish the scope of work to be performed,
thereby enabling us to implement a project best suited to the highway
transportation needs of the area or region.
A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled for Monday, January 30,
Environmental Branch Conference Room
1995 at 3:00 p.m. in the Planning and
(Room 470 in the Transportation Building). You can provide us with your
comments at this meeting or by mail prior to the meeting date. CU
Thank you for your assistance in this part of the planning process. you have any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Richard Brewer, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
RLB/pl r
Attachment
1
wiflv X-44f Z/
J
T
_ ? (;11(_x' 7/Nl
1. -?

N
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
4
Date 12/27/9
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming _
Planning X
Design -
TIP # U-3346
Project # 9.8044593
F.A. Project # N/A
Division 4
County Wilson
Route SR 1157 (Merck Rd.)
Functional Classification
Length 2.30 miles
Purpose of Project: To provide greater traffic-carrying
capacity and improved safety in this growing region.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: New and widening to 5-lane c & g (64'F-F)
from SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Rd) to US 264 & SR 1309-inter-
section. New location (0.3 mi) and existing location
(2.0 mi).
Type of environmental document to be prepared: SEA/SFONSI
Environmental study schedule: In progress - Oct 95
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes _ No -
If yes, by wham and amount: ($) or M
How and when will this be paid?
-Page 1-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: Full - Partial _ None X
Number of Interchanges _ Grade Separations _
Stream Crossings 2
Typical Section: Existing 2-lane (20' w/ grass shoulders)
Proposed 5-lane c & g (64'F-F)
Traffic (ADT): Current 600 Design Year (awaiting traffic)
% TTST % Duals
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R _
Design Speed: 50 mph
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . $ 4,100,000
Right of Way (including relocation,
utilities, and acquisition) . . . . . $ 850,000
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 4.950.000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . . $
-Page 2-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which could affect cost or schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
_ Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 911,000
_ Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Milling & Recyling. . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Shoulders
_ Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 471 , 600
Subsurface items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 229,000
X Drainage (list any special items) . . . . . $ 426,000
_ Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Structures
_ Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
- New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
- Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Other Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . . . $ 194,320
_ Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Fencing
_ W.W .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ C.L .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 441000
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57,500
_ Signing
_ New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Upgraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Signals
_ New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 70 , 000
_ Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X RR Signals
_ New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100 , 000
_ Revised . . . $
_ With/without arms $
-Page 3-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
_ Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
_ Realignment for Safety Upgrade. . . . . $
X Pavement Markings
- Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Thermoplastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50,600
_ Raised Pavement Markers . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) $ 1,027,380
CONTRACT COST Subtotal. . . . . .. . . $ 3,582,000
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . $ 518,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Construction Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 4,100,000
Right-of-Way
Will Contain within existing R/W? Yes - No X
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated cost. $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated cost. $
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right-of-Way Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 850,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. . $ 4,950,000
Cost Prepared by: Doug Lane Date 11 1 94
Scoping Sheets Prep. by: /'Cv Date IZIZ71"?
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Init. Date
-Page 4-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Init. Date
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
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
d `.. STATE
A.. A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Gowemoik 11.0. BOX 25201, RALEIGLI, N.C. 27611-5201
RL'L!VL D
4PR 2 5 1995
trvv?rzon'Mi_N1T,L ?(,qL=PJCE;
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
Sec Rr 1ARY
April 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Wilson County, Merck Road (SR 11 7 from Wilson Chris
Road (SR 1158) to US 264, State Project No. 9.8044593,
TIP No. U-3345
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to Merck Road. The project is
included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1996 and construction in
fiscal year 1997.
This project proposes to widen Merck Road (SR 1157) from a 2-lane
roadway to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility [19.5 meters (64 feet),
face-to-face of curb]. The limits of the project are Wilson Christian Road
(SR 1158) on the south and US 264 on the north. For study purposes, the
project is broken down into two sections as follows:
Section A - from SR 1158 to about 650 meters (0.4 miles) south of
US 264
Section B - from approximately 650 meters (0.4 miles) south of US 264
to US 264
Section B has two corridor alternatives. Please note the attached figure.
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 state funded
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. This document
will be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It
is desirable that your agency respond by June 30, 1995 so that your comments
can be used in the preparation of this document.
G)
r- -April 21, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning the
L. Brewer, P. E., Project Planning Engineer,
733-3141, Extension 213.
HFV/plr
project, please contact Richard
of this Branch at (919)
Attachment
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
WA
•
•
A, A
loft •
C) F= F 46,vEo
Mq y 3 1 1995
May 26, 1995 E"V"0" ENTgLSCIENC?S
bW,MRANDTJM
?o? . .
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart','Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0775; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Merck Road (SR 1157), Wilson
County, TIP No. U-3345
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested-
from DEM.
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
May 26, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10939.mem
cc : #