19970932 Ver 1_Complete File_19971029

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, J"W
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality
ova
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ID E H N FE
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 4, 1997
Pin County
WQC 401 Project #970932
TIP # R-2251
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Frank Vick
NC DOT
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear W. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill, excavate and mechanically
clear in 0.272 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of road widening at Greenville, as you described in
your application dated October 17, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 14 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified
in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed
in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
in ly,
ton Howar Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
9709321tr
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
,4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recydedI100/6 post consumer paper
,asTnTEa
1 <?,•@? ?• 401 1SSGZ
Q?G
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 17, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
Kc? .9?
Subject: Pitt County, Widening of NC 33 from River Bluff Road to Black Jack-
Simpson Road (SR 1755) in Greenville, Federal Aid Project STP-33(1);
State Project No. 8.122130 1, TIP No. R-2251.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 33 from River
Bluff Road to Black Jack-Simpson Road (SR 1755) in Greenville from a two lane
shoulder section to a five lane curb and gutter facility. The project is approximately
4.7 kilometers (2.9 miles) in length. Construction of the proposed project will result in
0.109 acres of fill in wetlands, 0.037 acres of excavation in wetlands and 0.126 acres of
impact due to mechanized clearing and grubbing. In addition, there will be 0.06 acres of
fill in surface waters. Due to Hardee Creek's function as an anadromous fish spawning
and nursery area, a time-of-year restriction of in-stream construction activities will be
observed from February through March. We have determined that this activity will be
authorized under Nationwide Permit 14.
A Federal Highway Administrative Action, Environmental Assessment was submitted by
the USDOT-FHWA and the NCDOT and approved on April 19, 1995. The EA explains
the purpose and need for the project; provides a description of the project and the
alternatives considered; and characterizes the social, economic, and environmental effects
of the project. After the EA was approved and circulated, a Public Hearing was held on
September 18, 1995. On November 12, 1996 the FONSI was approved for R-2251.
Copies of the EA and FONSI have been provided to regulatory review agencies involved
in the approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon request.
RIO J
2
Enclosed please find the project site map, the preconstruction notification form, and
drawings for the above referenced project. We anticipate a 401 General Certification will
apply to this project, and are providing one copy of these documents to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Teresa A. Hart, P & E Project Planning Unit Head
IL

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. R-2551
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): NWP 14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Pitt NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Greenville
1

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): NC 33 from River Bluff Road to Black Jack-
Simpson Road (SR 1755) in Greenville
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Hardee Creek
RIVER BASIN: Tar/Pamlico
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT,
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(WS-I OR WS-II) ? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN: _
TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
(ORW), WATER SUPPLY
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
2
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
approximately 0.28 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.109 acre EXCAVATION: 0.037 acre
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER: 0.126 acre clearing
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.272 acre
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM.CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: x
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Extension of culvert and pipe. Incidental fill in wetland from
widening road.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Widen NC 33 from River Bluff Road to
SR 1755 in Greenville
3
a
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
Widen existing roadway.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See EA & FONSI.
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: See EA and FONSI
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO H (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. See EA and FONSI
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
Low density residential
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
40ER';S//AGENT'S SIGNATURE
f z,: 9
ATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

i' u ?' r
BEC lP ECT -
GRE ILLE s w
PO > j
j \ 0
C4
a ?
2
41
ork' 4 17-32
73 tT
0
? - e
i 3 1 34 .
END PROJECT
S ETCH MAP SH ING LOCATION
F STATE PRO ECT 81221301
?5x
o°
Bethel t
s 13 v
I 8 S kes
?Falklan ? 11 ?
I a 1 v 7
7
7 Fountain Bruce 3 o Se
Toddy lit 4 /3 I 9 Pactolus
6 30 VICINITY MAP
2 8, 264 5 *t
^i• ell Art ur t .? 0
I pson
n stand 3
r I G Ne
FAA P I„ I T T 4
r Wmtervnlle tt Chocowinity
ountree 81ack lack
/
Ayden It Shelmerdine
?e 1 7
to e
7 Calico
Grifton -
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1221301
(R-2251)
NC 33 from US 264 Bypass to SR 1755
SHEET I OF 5

1?

O
o Q;
O LO
CO CO
±.r .J
14
Ev) N
•l+
ern ..?,

w
w
iZ9 ?Z
i?•
0
r
?

W I I I r
r
"
A• "? r
•

W I
I
I

W

I ? N
N
r •
I : r
? i ?l?J
I
W I
i Lo
I
I
I
I
I 7
J L

2 I o

0
s
F
I
J d
PD 75 I I ' I `
00 \ a
I m ?Qtd

I °
I
? °
ILL- I + I
W
I I O to
r- I
+
i
I
I
o?
I
?""
I I I dd
ti
F- vx- k'
C\1 0 '
I N
bo _
J
z

\
to
CL v
z
0
N .

£ ?
mZ U
V 0
091
3bd o
I ?
N N
0i ^i
'f
1
I t? I

tj z z

® c
w ® O

M
a ® ?" ra U ? M
A ? 9 z
Q G r?
J Z U

?I
Lncl,
o ,n
+ N,
i
i
??~ I
821 N
O + ?A
R-- ----
+ /r

A
z

o .a
a
E~

Uk'

w
z

@ z

w z

?
cL w

a
W
z
A E-
a
z W
z
A W
°z
A (Wj
a
?

W
r?
U
Wo
U

00
Ws•1 X Wr•?
z
0
1..1

z x z o
M
,. ® 0
`
E-4 00
w
o
o z
E-

M
0
- ? ? ?-

W > ® z H

° z
"C•1Z d (,Ir9•Zy) £Tt c
rss+ o _ ?,, .,
,J ?
'1S3 z
L '1S3 ?
SYlD _ -9 L1- 005'OL+ z z z
? w 01HOI?dS '4 HdTSOf ' W
8113 9) L' ZO L C1N`d'iJ3M z a
00
8'891 W LZ _ w F w w v
-l- 000'x£+ 1,96'£9) u'S'bl °a ° °
z z a
cr) co -l- 000'4Z+ a z a c
Cil

01>0 L 04£ g? 71- 000'tr
1

8nlda :
61/ 11IVN
ON ooZiSllbM ONIM/M DEMI _
-
_ 1ONOO b'Z 1
H ONOO O'Lg:)
09

z
(,£lZ'6V) U19L ?,$t
-l- 009'LV+
(,09'S9) w0Z -`I
-I- 005'L''+ SaOOM

W
W
O
t o
I-
Cd? Ln

Temp impacts
Fill in Excavation in Fill in due to Mechanized
Site Station Structure Wetlands Wetlands Surface Waters Clearing
1 26+20 to 2@ 2.4m x 0.017 ha 0.00 ha 0.013 ha 0.018 ha
27+10-L- 3.7m RCBC
2 27+60-L- N/A 0.004 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.005 ha
3 65+60 to 2.4m x 1.8m 0.023ha 0.015ha 0.013 ha 0.028 ha
66+50-L-
Totals 0.044ha 0.015ha 0.026 ha 0.051ha
Note: Method of Clearing III to be used on project (3 meters beyond construction limits).
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
JamesB. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
fflX.;WAIT
?EHNR
January 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for NC 33 Widening
Pitt County
State Project DOT No. 8.1221301, TIP # R-2251
EHNR # 97-0387, DWQ # 11453
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which
impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project may impact 0.15 hectares of
waters including wetlands. The following comments are based on the review of the document:
A) DOT may be required to provide stream mitigation if significant stream loss or
degradation occurs.
B) DWQ has reread the EA and we cannot locate an alternative that presents the impacts to
wetlands or waters from asymmetrical widening. DWQ noted this problem to DOT in our
comments on the EA. The FONSI still does not present this information..
C) DWQ stated in the scoping meeting that a shoulder section should be studied in order to
minimize stormwater impacts to the receiving streams. DOT states in the document that
curb and gutter was selected at the city's request. The memo from Mr. Ulma from the
City of Greenville to Mr. Robinson does not support curb and gutter for the entire length
of the road.
Due to the above concerns, DWQ does not concur with the FONSI. DOT is reminded that
endorsement of a FONSI by DWQ would not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon
application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb
or Cyndi Bell in DWQ's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Washington COE
Bob Booker, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe
nc33pit.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
FAXED
JAN _x:5199]
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
NC 33, Greenville
From River Bluff Road
to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
Dat ,tNicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 33, Greenville
From River Bluff Road
to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
November 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
'::
?? a
Robert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
a'.
1
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head F ?-1.0 -
Z' L SE AL
I l ti -
Richard Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager ;..? 6944
0 -P Planning and Environmental Branch ••?.GIN'L .-* J?C-:)
r
q p ?.
NC 33, Greenville
From River Bluff Road
to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251
160
Summary of Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitments.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices will
be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Due to Hardee Creek's function as an anadromous fish spawning and nursery area,
a time-of-year restriction on in-stream construction activities will be observed from
February through May.
NC 33, Greenville
From River Bluff Road
to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT RVIPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment which has
been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental
Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for
the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
11. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), proposes to widen
NC 33 near Greenville from River Bluff Road to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road).
The proposed improvement will widen the existing two lane shoulder section to a five
lane, 19.2 meters (64-foot), curb and gutter facility. The total project length is 4.7
kilometer (2.9) miles. The current estimated cost of this improvement is $9,034,000
including $4,450,000 in right of way and $4,450,000 in construction. The estimated
project cost in the 1997-2003 TIP is $7,759,000.
This project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1997,
and construction scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1999.'.
2
III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A five-lane, 19.2 meter (64-foot), curb and gutter facility is recommended for
NC 33. This cross section will provide two through lanes 7.3 m (24 feet) in each
direction, and a 3.7 m (twelve-foot) continuous center left turn lane. This cross section is
compatible with the adjoining five lanes at the beginning of the project.
IV. PERMITS REQUIRED
According to the Corps of Engineers (COE), the total impact 0.15 ha (0.37 acre)
of wetlands for the project is considered minimal and no requirement for compensatory
mitigation is anticipated at this time. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and
place fill materials into any wetlands affected by construction. Nationwide Permit [33
CFR 330.5(a)(14)) authorizes fills for roads crossing water of the U. S. here the fill placed
in waters is no more than 0.37 acres.
Five wetland sites were identified and delineated within the project corridor. Total
wetland impacts were approximately 0.15 ha (0.37 ac) with Site A being the largest at 0.8
ha (0.19 ac).
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NDEHNR will be required for fill activity in wetlands
and surface waters where a federal permit is required.
V. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Division of Highways, on April 18, 1995 and by the Federal Highway
Administration on April 19, 1995. The approved Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments. An
asterisk (*) indicates a response was received from that agency. Copies of the
correspondences received are included in the Appendix of this document.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
U. S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
*Wildlife Resources Commission
*Division of Environmental Management
City of Greenville
The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the public.
IV. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from five
agencies and many interested citizens and property owners. The following are excerpts of
the substantive comments with responses, where appropriate:
(A) U S Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
(1) Comment:
The portion of roadway proposed for improvement is located in the
jurisdiction of two National Flood Insurance Program participating communities,
which are the city of Greenville and Pitt County. From a review of the September
1,990 Pitt County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the road is not located in an
-identified flood hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the April 1986
Greenville FIRM, the road crosses Hardee Creek, a detail study stream with
100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. We suggest that
you coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency relative to the
need for a no-rise certification and with the city for compliance with their flood
plain ordinance.
Response:
NCDOT's standard policy requires the construction of highways and
structures within flood plains, to keep upstream surcharge below 0.3 m (1.0 foot).
NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will complete all necessary analysis and will prepare
plans, forwarding the latter to local agencies. After approval by these agencies,
the plans will be forwarded to the Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA) for review.
(2) Comment:
We also concur that no mitigation will be required in the stream crossings
that impact less than one acre of wetlands and/or waters of the United States. If
the proposed project would impact more than one acre of waters of the United
States, we believe bridging the wetlands could be cost effective after consideration
is given to the cost of borrow material (including purchase of borrow site, cost of
excavation and delivery, etc.), and the cost of mitigation to offset the impacts of
the approach.
4
Impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands, should be
identified for proposed borrow and waste areas.
Response:
Bottomland hardwood forest wetlands associated with Hardee Creek will
be impacted by the proposed project. Based upon a review of USGS topographic
maps of the project area, it appears these wetlands would not be considered above-
the-headwaters wetlands. Approximately 0.15 hectares (0.39 acres) of
unavoidable wetland impacts will occur due to the widening of NC 33. Wetland
sites will be avoided as much as possible in the selection of borrow/waste sites.
Prior to approving any waste/borrow sites, NCDOT will make sure that the
contractor has carried out any required additional coordination. Approximately
0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of surface water impacts will occur due to the widening
of NC 33.
(3) Comment: ,
We do not concur with some aspects of the Environmental Assessment.
The concerns coincide with DEM in their letter dated June 1, 1995, to DOT.
Response:
See Section VI Response for B 1.
(B) N.C. Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
(1) Comment:
DEM participated in a Scoping meeting on July 14, 1994. DEM informed
DOT that the NWI maps show a large wetland system on the north side of the
existing road and west of the trailer park. The technical memorandum does not
address whether this is a jurisdictional wetland or not.
Response:
The wetland area in question was determined to be beyond the study area.
(2) Comment:
During that same scoping meeting, DEM requested that a 5 lane shoulder
section be studied east of SR 1807. This alternative was not presented in the
document.

5
Response:
The 5 lane curb and gutter section was selected at the city's request and for
economic reasons. The C&G section was significantly less costly than the
shoulder section by approximately 2 million dollars and involved six less residential
relocatees and eight less business relocatees.
(3) Comment:
DOT did not investigate asymmetrical widening to minimize wetland
impacts.
Response:
NCDOT did investigate asymmetrical widening, a shift to the right or left
would cause greater property and wetland damage, the recommended alternate
was the most economical and preferred by the city.
C. Mid East Commission
(1) Comment:
Several combinations for the amount of curb and gutter (e.g., to
Oxford Road, to Port Terminal Road, to Portertown Road) were
discussed. Of concern was the potential environmental effect on the Tar
River of Stormwater run-off from extensive use of curb and gutter.
Preliminary cost figures for the alternatives showed little difference in
construction and right-of-way acquisition for the options; more accurate
figures will be developed by NCDOT. The consensus was that curb and
gutter should be considered to Portertown Road, with an open ditch
section for the remainder.
Response:
See Responses (B-2) and (B-3).
(2) Comment:
Bicycle, pedestrian, and landscaping aspects.
Response:
See comment (D-1), (D-2) and (D-3).
6
D. City of Greenville
(1) Comment:
It is recommended that widened outside lanes to accommodate bicycle
traffic be included with this project. Bicycle usage in Greenville continues to
increase making it imperative that we construct thoroughfares with widened
outside lanes within the Greenville Urban Area. A 68F /F cross section was
discussed at the public officials meeting on this project. This would allow for an
additional 2-feet of width in each outside travel lane.
Response:
This section of roadway did not correspond to a bicycle TIP request at the
time when the scoping review for the subject project was initiated; nor was it a
designated bicycle route. The City of Greenville had given no indication of
unusual number of bicyclists on this roadway.' For these reasons NCDOT did not
have sufficient justification for recommending additional width in the proposed
roadway cross section for bicycle safety.
The existing 5-lane portion of NC 33 west of US 264A has a 19.2 m
64-f6ot), face-to-face cross section. Since the proposed improvement of the
subject section of NC 33 is a 5-lane curb and gutter roadway, it is reasonable to
design the improvement for a 19.2 m (64-foot) typical section which will match the
existing 19.2 m (64-foot) roadway west of the subject project. In order to provide
an AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodation as a part of the improvement
of the subject roadway, we recommend striping the outside lanes for a 3.9 m
(13-foot) width and reducing the inside lane width to 3.3 m (11-feet). As
additional bicycle safety considerations, we recommend that bicycle-safe drainage
grates and Share-the- Road signs be included as elements of the upgrading of this
section of NC 33.
(2) Comment:
Inclusion of a sidewalk from the beginning of the project to SR 1533 (Port
Terminal Road) is recommended. This will provide pedestrian access from the
t commercial development along the western portion of the project to the residential
developments to the east. The draft 1996-2002 State Transportation Improvement
• Program includes sidewalks as an incidental project.
Response:
NCDOT has investigated the need for pedestrian facilities along this
project. The construction of sidewalks can be included with this project on a cost
sharing basis with the City of Greenville.
7
(3) Comment:
. Landscaping to include canopy trees is requested along the corridor to
enhance the appearance of NC 33 as a major entrance to Greenville.
Response:
Landscaping will be provided up to 3/4 of one percent of the total
construction project. Additional landscaping should be requested through the
NCDOT Division office.
(4) Comment:
Consider underground placement of all utilities along project to improve
appearance and facilitate landscaping. This is recommended since most utilities
will have to be relocated to accommodate the additional street width and right of
way.

Response:
Utilities will be moved by the utility companies. Underground placement
of utilities will be decided by the utility company.
E.
Eight (8) written letters and comments from the public were received and were
personally answered or noted during the official commenting period following the hearing.
A principal topic of concern was traffic noise and air quality.
(1) Traffic Noise and Air Quality
Several neighborhoods and communities along NC 33 expressed concern
over increased noise levels and degraded air quality that would result from the
construction of this project. Many residential areas requested walls or berms be
placed to protect their homes from intrusive traffic noise. NCDOT's Noise
Abatement Guidelines, approved on June 13, 1990, states unless special conditions
exist and effective abatement can be provided, it is not considered reasonable to
provide noise abatement on non-controlled or partial access controlled facilities
(Section II.B.7).
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough, continuous enough, and long enough to shield the receptor (dwelling,
structure, -etc.) from significant sections of the highway. Openings for access such
as driveways and crossing streets severely reduces the amount of noise level
reduction provided and makes the barrier cost unreasonable compared to the
8
benefits gained. In addition, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barriers length
would normally be eight (8) times the distance from the barrier to the receptor.
For example, a receptor located 15 m (50 feet) from the barrier would normally
require a barrier 122 m (400 feet) long. An access opening of 12.2 m (40 feet)
(10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy stipulates that after the "Date of Public
Knowledge", the federal/state governments are no longer responsible for providing
noise abatement for new development for which building permits are issued within
the noise impact area of the proposed highway project. The "Date of Public
Knowledge" of the location of a proposed project will be the approval date of the
CE, FONSI, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. One design
criterion is that it will not be reasonable to provide abatement unless the receptor is
located a distance of four times the height of the wall or more from the proposed
wall. Furthermore, safety at openings in the barrier, because of restricted sight
distance, is also a concern. For these reasons, noise walls are not reasonable or
feasible for all development abutting NC 33.
VII. PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a public hearing was held
at E. B:'Aycock Middle School on September 18, 1995. Over 100 citizens attended the
public hearing. The questions and concerns dealt with individual property concerns, as
well as questions about the typical cross section, noise abatement, right of way, relocation
assistance, and the project schedule. All of the questions and comments were sufficiently
answered at the hearing. A transcript of the hearing is on file with the N. C. Division of
Highways.
VIII. REVISION TO THE EA
An exclusive right turn lane will be constructed as part of this project at the
intersection of NC 33 at US 264 Bypass. No additional right of way will be required for
this improvement. However, the new cross section of NC 33 at this intersection will be
22 m (72-feet) face to face of curbs. The addition of the turn lane has been evaluated and
no environmental impacts were found. The construction cost for this turn lane is
estimated at $50,000.
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and comments received from Federal, State, and
local agencies, it has been concluded that the proposed action will have no significant
adverse affect upon the quality of the environment. The following is the basis for this
conclusion:
9
(a) While the project has received moderate input from the public, it is not
considered controversial on environmental grounds.
(b) No significant adverse impacts on natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic
resources of national, state, or local significance are expected.
(c) The project is anticipated to displace two single family homes and will not
disrupt community cohesion.
(d) No significant detrimental impact on air quality, water quality, or by
increased noise levels is anticipated in the project area.
In view of the above, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is applicable to this project.
RJB/plr

APPENDIX

13 30 ` +
stokes
y Pountafn 9ruce Dose
Today lil +3 •sr„. 9Pfctaua
: t - teenville + u
Gr esland
':. P', I T T , a
Chow
wmtetvJle It Black
ounvae
.y AyCen it Snelmefay
e 1 a
calico
® ^ GrHton -

?s;y?4i> rata .1,.
541 ' ?' uQ $ tab
Ilk
His
PROJECT LIMITS
,„:
PAS _
sort. `'If
>m NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMEN'
TRANSPORTATION
- '• ?.•= ;; LAKE
" Ulu GLENWOOD DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
War ,, "4 - ,?„ '• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT.
y :?. p! }__ M se % a " BRANCH
Y`e Da uQ. E nut NC 33
a
. ::; y` laa< t`- ""`
„Q ?. US 254 BYPASS
RIVER BLUFF ROAD TO SR 1755
PITT COUNTY
R -2251
1192
sea ,? a llN rp s.x +? 0 mile 1 /2
:. ?? inz s t I FIG
wo .: VR
W O p
61 1, w Z ', ro
y
r 1
e - a .5
as. ate: .. * .
7t
14ij :4TIT
r ??

t-
tul

t
?.
,?
??
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
`i'nn + P.O. BOX 1890 ?, ?O• c
_ WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
-- REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF June 16, 1995
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
JUN 2 3 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager ?2 v
Planning and Environmental Branch DIVISION OF
North Carolina Division of Highways ;:IGHWAYS
Post Office Box 25201 ONt?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1995, requesting our
comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 33, From River Bluff
Road to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road), Pitt County, State Project
No. 8.1221301, Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1), T.I.P. Project No. R-2251"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199502847).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
including waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The
proposed roadway does 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,
William R. Dawson, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Pnnteo on 0 RerycW Paper
June 16, 1995
Page l.of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 33, From River Bluff Road to SR 1755 (Black
Jack-Simpson Road), Pitt County, State Project No. 8.1221301, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-33(1), T.I.P. Project No. R-2251" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199502847)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The portion of roadway proposed for improvement is located in the jurisdiction of
two National Flood Insurance Program participating communities, which are the city of
Greenville and Pitt County. From a review of the September 1990 Pitt County Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the road is not located in an identified flood hazard
area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey
topo map of the area. Based on a review of the April 1986 Greenville FIRM, the road
crosses Hardee Creek, a detail study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined
and a floodway defined. We suggest that you coordinate with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency relative to the need for a no-rise certification and with the city
for compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mike Bell, Washington Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone]
a. Based upon review of the comparison of alternatives contained in the
Environmental Assessment for the subject project, it appears that the selected
alternative is the least environmentally damaging of the "build" alternatives. We
concur that Nationwide Permits will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
proposed stream crossings.
b. We also concur that no mitigation will be required in the stream crossings
that impact less than one acre of wetlands and/or waters of the United States. If
the proposed project would impact more than one acre of waters of the United States,
we believe bridging the wetlands could be cost effective after consideration is given
to the cost of borrow material (including purchase of borrow site, cost of excavation
and delivery, etc.), and the cost of mitigation to offset the impacts of the approach
fills.
c. Impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands, should be
identified for pro posed borrow and waste areas.
We do not
d concur with some aspects of the Environmental Assessment. The
.
concerns coincide with DEM in their letter dated June 1, 1995, to DOT
e. Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Bell.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster It, Director C) F` F;Z
June 12, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee rv%
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0807, North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) for NC 33 improvements, from River
Bluff Rd. to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Rd.), Pitt.County, North Carolina, T2 f R-2251
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) has reviewed the
subject document.
We appreciate the efforts made by NCDOT to minimize environmental impacts by widening on
existing alignment for this project While DEHNR does not anticipate any significant
environmental impacts from this project, there are several questions that have been raised by the
Division of Environmental Management that should be addressed in the FONSI. Timely response
to these questions will help avoid needless delays in any required permits.
Thank you for the opportunity to be involved with this project, and for your timely attention to
the completion of the requested information for the Division of Environmental Management.
RECEIVED
. JUN 12 1993
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.o. Box 27687. Rcteigh: North Ccrolina 2761 1-7687 Teleohone 919-733-4984
recyciedJ IC % post-consumer pc;.et
An Ecuo? Cpr-orruruty AtSrmotive Ac`ion Employer '011
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / Y15WA •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C)F " N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornew
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for NC 33 Widening
Pitt County
State Project DOT No. 8.1221301, TIP # R-2251
EHNR # 95-0807, DEM # 10947
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.31 hectares of waters including wetlands. The
following comments are based on the review of the document:
A) DEM participated in a Scoping meeting on July 14, 1994. DEM informed DOT
that the NWI maps show a large wetland system on the north side of the
existing road and west of the trailer park. The technical memorandum does not
address whether this is a jurisdictional wetland or not. Repeated telephone
calls to the project planning engineer to resolve this question were not
answered.
B) During that same scoping meeting, DEM requested that a 5 lane shoulder
section be studied east of SR 1807. This alternative was not presented in the
document.
C) DOT did not investigate asymmetrical widening to minimize wetland impacts.
Due to the above concerns, DEM does not concur with the EA. DOT should address
these concerns to the satisfaction of DEM in the FONSI. DOT is reminded that
endorsement of an EA or FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Washington COE
Bob Booker, P&E
Monica Swihart
nc33pit.ea
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
RE North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MI MMORANDUM
TO: Melba Mcgee
office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: • David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ??
DATE: May 24, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for NC 33 improvements, from River Bluff Road to SR 1755
(Black Jack-Simpson Road), Pitt County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2251, SCH
Project No. 95-0807.
Staff biologists with the NC. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing NC 33 to five-lanes from US 264 to SR 1755. The
project length is approximately 2.9 miles. Estimated wetland impacts total approximately 0.79
acres.
We support NCDOT in the decision to improve existing facilities rather that to construct
new roadways. Improving existing roadways avoids new stream and wetland crossings, does not
further fragment wildlife habitat, and does not promote secondary development.
We feel the EA adequately addresses impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources. Weiland
impacts will likely be authorized under a nationwide "404" permit.
Memorandum 2
5/24/95
Due to the limited scope of the project and the environmental commitments outlined in the
document, we concur with this EA and anticipate concurrence with the upcoming Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). We request that NCDOT continue efforts to minimise wetland
impacts, enforce NCDOT Best Management Practices and observe the construction moratorium
to protect anadromous fish.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Brad Hammers, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, NG/ES Program Manager
Howard Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
1

MID-EAST COMMISSION
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL- REVIEW
The enclosed information is being sent to you because the named project(s) are located federal or have
some impact on your locality. This information is either a Notification of intent to Apply fo program
funds or as Regional Coordinator of this process, he Mid-East Commission passes through information to
revie ai
you for your r review and comment. location, etc., please knowledge of inaccuracies in the
this opportunity to respond in writing. You may con ct
regarding the need, design,
he applicant directly with specific questions. Negative comments are shared Hof ctohtnments isarequir deice
manner to resolve the issues prior to application to the funding agency. A copy
the application package sent to the funder.
While these review items only represent ehe number aces can keep you abreast of the
your area (and not the number which are ultimately funded), the review p
percieved needs and potential efforts in your locality.
Feel free to distribute this information to the appropriate agency within your organization, but return
comments-by tha date shown below.
State Number. 41 .5 - r -
Return this form by: Me- ? .?
Local Government: ?L11- t r t n s i
(.? The City/County named above supports this project.
() The City/County named above objects to this project.
Commentees Name:
Address and phone i
Date: /
5 ! !-1
Comments:
_

l
Atuch additional pages as needed. Return comments to: Jane Daughtridge
Regional Clearinghouse Coordinator
Mid-East Commission
P.O. Box 1797
Washington. Nc 27339.
l___ ; P.O. Drawer 1787 Washington, North Carolina 27889 [phone] FAX [phone]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Robinson, County Manager
FROM: Jeffery G. Ulma, Planning Director
RE: Public Officials Meeting - NC 33 Widening Project
DATE:
Commissioner Bright and I attended today's public officials meeting concerning the NC 33 widening
project from the Greenville city limits east toward Simpson.
Discussion and input provided to NCDOT project coordinators dealt with the following:
1. Several combinations for the amount of curb and gutter (e.g., to Oxford Road, to Port Terminal
Road, to Portertown Road) were discussed. Of concern was the potential environmental erect on
the Tar River of stormwater run-off from extensive use of curb and gutter. Preliminary cost figures
for the alternatives showed little difference in construction and right-of-way acquisition for the
options; more accurate figures will be developed by NCDOT. The consensus
the that c rb and
gutter should be considered to Porter-town Road, with an open ditch section for
3. Bicycle, pedestrian, and landscaping aspects.
3. A traffic signal at Oxford Road, the northern entrance into Brook Valley.
4. The project schedule was reviewed, with construction anticipated in 1998.
A public workshop is scheduled for Thursday, October 27 from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm at E.B Aycock
Middle School.
Planning staff will keep you informed of this project's progress. Let me know if you need any
additional information.
cc: Commissioner Ed Bright
/GR•"?c, P.O. EOX ,207
CITY OF G REENV I LLE
J (-?'c NORTH CAROLINA
27835-7207
N. C ' November 22, 1995
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Bob Booker
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
.?T.. rrrv tJ?
Re: R 11511-Sidewalk Issues
Dear Mr. Booker: relati . • As a follow up to our previous letter dated mNovember 3the location of sidewalk we wormation ould like to sertas part of t
construction in Greenville and enclosed p clarifying .
the referenced project.
Relative to your inquiry about what requirements the City of Greenville has concerning sidewalk, we have sidewal enclosed an excerpt from the Subdivision Regulations t (da 9-5-123) which Detail?from the Manual ° f installation in
new subdivisions. Also enclosed is a copy of sidewalk installation.
Standazd.Designs and Details showing a typical
Further, funds have been set aside in this year's Capital Improvement Program for what N e hope will be an
ongoing Sidewalk Construction Program. Enclosed are copies of the Summary of Capital Improvement Requests
by Service Area and the Sidewalk Construction Program project description for your information-
'beginning is requested that you plan for sidewalk along Highway 3at the shopping centers near Greenville the City limits. It is further requested that
•. .. Boulevard and extending to Port Terminal Road as if this area is ? le. W realize that not all of the Highway
you inform us of the potential cost for which the City may be resp
::. 33 right of way within this area is currently in the City limits. However, we fully expect, the area to be annexed as
development continues and prior to the Widening of NC-33. If necessary, we will pursue annexation of the right
of way that has not been annexed
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
T. N. Tysinger, Jr., E,
Public Works Director
1
1 r%%,
Enclosure
cc: Ronald R. Kimble, City Manager
Glen E. Whisler, PE, City Engineer
G. R. Shirley, PE, NCDOT
H:WCvQ`11PR0XC 1NC33WMZBOOKFt=.D13
NC-33 WIDENING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(From River Bluff Road to SR 1755)
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-330)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251
CITY OF GREENVILLE REVIEW COMMENTS
May 1995
i) BICYCLES
?•. It is recommended that widened outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic be included with this protect Bicycle
usage in Greenville continues to increase making it imperative that we construct thoroughfares with widened
- • outside lanes within the Greenville Urban Area. A 68' F/F cross section was discussed at the public officials
meeting on this project. This would allow for an additional 2-feet of width in each outside travel lane. Widened
outside lanes are included in the draft 1996-2002 State Transportation Improvement Program as an incidental
project. This has been a repeated request to NCDOT.
2) SIDEWALK 11
Inclusion of sidewalk from beginning of the project to SR 1533 (Port Terminal Road) is recommended. This wt
provide pedestrian access from the commercial development alone western portion of the projecclO?
residential developments to the east. The draft 1996-200.. State Transportation Improvement Program
sidewalks as an incidental project.
3) LANDSCAPING
Landscaping to include canopy trees is requested along the corridor to enhance the appearance of NC-33 as a major
entrance to Greenville.
4) SIGNALIZATION
Consider installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Oord Road and NC-33. In response to earner
requests for signalization, NCDOT responded that this will be included in the widening project Oxford Road section is a major enhanceto Brook Vallev subdivision from NC-33. Currently, delays
as ienco at this nternues to
during the morning and afternoon peak periods. These delays will only get worse
occur on NC=33. It is our belief that signalization of this intersection will become more critical with the widening
of NC-33.
5) HISTORIC SITE
was located on a site north of NC-33 and west of O?ord Road adjacent to a new
The old Pitt County Courthouse
tion
single family subdivision (Courthouse Square) currently under construc The structure no longer remains;
however, Dr. Phelps of ECU has conducted studies of this area and can be contacted for further information-
6) DRAINAGE
The drainage structure for Hardee Creek adjacent to Oxford Road needs to be designed and constructed to such
a way as to not increase upstream flood elevations. Hardee Creek is a regulated stream and was recently re-
evaluated by the Corps of Engineers. The structure should be designed in accordance with the City of Greenville's
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and the recent study by the Corps of Engineers.
7) UTILITIES appearance and facilitate landscaping.
Consider underground placement of all utilities along project improve aPPS
This is recommended since most utilities will have to be relocated to accommodate the additional street width and
right of way.
Department of Environment; Health, and Natural Resources ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
_P1+4 -3
J"This oroiect is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
E) Air [I Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Fayetteville
? Water
Water Resources. ? Environmental Health
?
El Mooresville ? Groundwater ?
,/
bd'Wildiife ? Solid Waste Management
0 Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
C Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster `
? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others >k?nvironmental Management
01 Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-OfflRegion: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
C No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
0 Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
rEl Project Controversial (comments attached)
rut Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
El Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS 10,
tJW0 &'('M 6
r..
V
United States Department of the Interior F
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 83726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
December 6, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch boy I ??
Division of Highways ?2? OI O 11 N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
m
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of November 25, 1996, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated November 1996, for
the Widening of NC 33, Pitt County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2251)
This report is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to the FONSI, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 33 near Greenville from
River Bluff Road to Black Jack-Simpson Road (SR 1755). The proposed
project would change the existing two-lane shoulder section to a
five-lane, curb and gutter facility. The total length of the
project would be approximately 4.7 miles.
Alternatives Analysis
The Service is pleased that transportation improvements can be made
by upgrading the existing road rather than construction on new
location. We consider the analysis of alternatives to be adequate.
Design Features and Construction Techniques
The FONSI notes that there will a moratorium on in-stream
construction from February through May. This would reduce impacts
on fish which may use Hardee Creek for spawning and as a nursery
area. The Service supports this measure.
Wetlands
The FONSI indicates (p. 2) that the proposed project would impact
five wetland sites with a total loss of 0.37 acres of wetlands.
Based on data in the FONSI, the Service believes that the NCDOT has
endeavored to avoid and minimize wetland impacts associated with
this project.
r
Federally Protected Species
Pitt County is known to contain four species protected by the ESA.
These are the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The
Service's primary concern is that project construction does not.
increase sediment loads in Hardee Creek which flows into the Tar
River. The FONSI states that all standard procedures and measures,
including Best Management Practices, will be used to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. The Service trusts that stringent
water quality and erosion control procedures will be employed during
construction.
Based on the information supplied by the NCDOT, the Service concurs
that this project is not likely to adversely affect any Federally-
listed endangered and threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal listing
under the ESA, as amended. We believe that the requirements of
Section 7 of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that
obligations under Section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; and/or, (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
Summary
The Service believes that the Environmental Assessment and FONSI
adequately describe the purpose and need for the project, the
alternatives considered, and the environmental impacts of the
project. At this time, the conclusion of the NCDOT that the
proposed project will have no significant adverse affect upon the
quality of the environment appears appropriate.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning
process, including your official determination of the impacts of
this project. If our office can supply any additional information
or clarification, please contact Howard Hall at (919)-856-4520 (ext.
27).
Sincerely,
Tom Augspu er
Acting Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:12/6/96:WP:A:pitr2251.d96
NC 33
From River Bluff Road
to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:
?
Da a H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nic as L. Graf, P. E.
F ? ivision Administrator, FHWA
NC 33
From River Bluff Road
to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
April, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
?T? W
C/
L?-
Ro ert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
?)?. a.
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head •01"Is"v„
.• CAS P?
,,• O ?•HU.-.;?
?'.••?FESS/dIN
• SEAL r'
ze?a2. Richard Davis, P. E., Assistant a a' r 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch
TAGLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. System Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Existing Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
E. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F. Existing Alignment . 3
G. Intersections and Type of Control 3
H. Railroad Crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
J. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
K. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
L. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
M. Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT 4
A. Project Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Project Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F. Access Control . . .
*
* 4
G. Type W Control
Intersection Treatment and 4
H. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 4
J. Bicycles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
K. Bridge Work Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
L. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
M. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
P. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
V. ALTE RNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Alternate 1 5
B. Reduced Faci 1 i ty 5
C. Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
D. No-Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE OB.CONT'rNTS (continued),
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Status of Local Planning Activities . . . . . . . . .
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Future Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
6
6
6
7
7
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT
OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Social and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. Air Quality Analysis . . . . 11
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis . . 14
E. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Water Resources . . . . . . . . 23
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands. . . . . . . . 24
5. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Rare and Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Federally-Protected Species. . . . . . . . . . . 25
F. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
G. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
VIII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
APPEN DIX
Envivanment'al Commitments '
This document calls for the following environmental commitments.
All standard procedures an measures, including ent
Prrrill be_ implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
NCDOT will apply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for a
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) =)?Pfor this project.
Due to Hardee Creek's function as an anadromous fish spawning and
nursery area, a time-of-year restriction on in-stream construction
activities should be observed from February through May.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to widen NC 33 in Pitt
County from US 264 to SR 1755 (See Appendix, Figure 1). The 4.7
i
c osets',-?,to w ,den the existi-rig two
kilometer To
e ray to a five lane'°curb a utter. fl The proposed
cross section will consist of a 3.6 meter (12-foot) center left turn
lane and two 3.6 meter (12-foot) travel lanes in each direction. The
total estimated cost is $9,034,000. The estimated cost in the
1995-2001 TIP is $6,700,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the area by improving the safety and
traffic handling capacity of this major thoroughfare. There may be
some erosion and siltation during the construction; but, strict
adherence to Best Management practices will minimize damage. No
significant impacts to plant or animal life are expected and no
recreational facilities or historic sites will be involved. A small
amount of wetlands (less than 1.0 acre) will be impacted by the
project. One family and one business will be displaced by the
proposed improvements. Future noise labels are not expected to
exceed acceptable limits. Two businesses and 37 residential
receptors are anticipated to be impacted by highway traffic noise in
the Design Year of 2019 with exterior noise level increases in the
range of +6 to +9 dBA.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the
widening of an existing facility, no alternative corridor alignments
were considered; however, in addition to the recommended five lane
cross section, a reduced facility alternative and a public
transportation alternative were considered, but eliminated. The "Do
Nothing" Alternative was also considered, but rejected because of the
need to increase the traffic carrying capacity along this section of
NC 33. The five lane cross section is recommended because it
provides adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated future traffic
volumes, and anticipated future development, and provides increased
safety benefits due to the separation of traffic movement with a
center turn lane.

4. Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were
consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received during the preparation of
this assessment:
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
City of Greenville
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies - Nationwide permits from the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required for this project under
the provisions of Section"404 of the Clean Water Act.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Greenville, NC 33
From River Bluff Road to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road)
Pitt County
State Project No. 8.1221301
Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1)
T.I.P. Project No. R-2251
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen NC 33 near Greenville from River Bluff
Road to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road). The proposed improvement will
widen the existing two lane shoulder section to a five lane, 19.2 meters
(64-foot), curb and gutter facility. The total project length is 4.7
kilometer (2.9) miles. The current estimated cost of this improvement is
$9,034,0.00. The estimated project cost in the 1995-2001 TIP is
$6,700,000.
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 1996, and construction scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year 1999.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 33 is designated as an urban major thoroughfare in the 1990
mutually adopted Greenville Thoroughfare Plan. This facility is also
classified as an Urban Minor Arterial on the Functional Classification
System. -
Since, the proposed improvement of NC 33 is in concurrence with this
thoroughfare plan, the construction of this project will be a step toward
the implementation of this plan.
B. System Linkage
The proposed widening of NC 33 will serve as a vital link in the
major transportation system for the City of Greenville. NC 33 will
function as an east-west cross town facility in the eastern portion of
Greenville. It will reduce travel time, increase capacity and safety, and
Y provide access from points east and anticipated development along this
corridor.
C. Economic Development
Much of the future development is anticipated to occur in northeast
Greenville. Increased development in an area creates an increased
transportation demand. The proposed project will aid in the economic
development of the area by improving the accessibility to.east Greenville.
The improved access to the area, savings in operating costs, reduced
2
accident potential, reduced travel time`, and-the general improvement in...
the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local community, as
well as the State.
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated 1993 and projected 2019 traffic volumes are shown in
the Appendix. Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1994 range from a
low of 9800 vehicles per day (vpd) to a high of 18,000 vpd. Projected
average daily traffic (ADT) estimates for the year 2019 range from a low
of 24,000 vpd to a high of 39,000 vpd. These estimates include 2% dual
tired vehicles, and 1% truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Presently, NC 33 is operating at a level of service C. As traffic
volumes continue to increase the traffic service will deteriorate. By the
year 2019 NC 33 will operate at Level of Service F if no improvements are
made. The capacity of an arterial is generally controlled by the capacity
of its signalized intersections described by levels of service (LOS) which
range from A through F. 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 operation is stable but more vehicles are
stopping and causing higher degrees 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 period 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. In the design year the level of service at all intersections are
expected to approach LOS "F".
The proposed project should operate at a level of service of C or
better when constructed, and based on traffic projections should continue
to operate at level of service of C through the design year (2019).
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section on NC 33 consists of a two lane, 6.6
meters (22-foot) roadway, with .6 meter (2-foot) paved shoulders.
B. Existing Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along the project is 19 meters (60
feet). The right-of-way is symmetrical about the existing centerline.
C. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 73 kph (45 mph).
3
D. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
E. Structures
There is one major stream crossing on NC 33 at Oxford Road consisting
of two 2.4 x 3.9 meters (8 x 12 foot) culverts, which will have to be
extended during construction phase of the project.
F. Existing Alignment
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment is good.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
All intersections within the project limits are at grade and stop
sign controlled, except at the NC 33 and SR 1726 intersections.
Additionally SR 1726 is a loop facility intersecting NC 33 twice.
These intersections are signalized.
H. Railroad Crossings
No Railroads are involved with the project.
I. Bicycles
No provisions for bicycles will be included in the project.
J. School Bus Data
Six school busses travel NC 33 within the project area daily. These
buses travel NC 33 both in the morning and afternoons.
K. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along the project.
L. Utilities
Utility conflicts along this project are considered to be medium.
Existing utilities within the project corridor include overhead power,
telephone lines, and a sanitary sewer line.
M. Project Terminals
The east end of the project begins at River Bluff Road with an
unsignalized channelized intersection. At this location NC 33 is a 2 lane
facility. At the west end of the project, NC 33 is a two-lane facility.
The existing cross section is a five lane roadway with outside curbing.
This 19.2 meters (64-foot) curb and gutter section will start to taper to
the existing 6.6 meters (22-foot) shoulder section at SR 1755.
4
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
A. Project Length
The proposed project is approximately 4.7 kilometers (2.90 miles)
long.
B. Project Termini
The proposed project begins at US 264 and terminates at SR 1755. An
upgraded signal system at the intersection of River Bluff Road and NC 33
is proposed.
C. Cross Section Description
A five lane, 64-foot, curb and gutter facility is recommended for
NC 33. This cross section will provide two through lanes (24 feet) in
each direction, and a twelve-foot continuous center left turn lane. This
cross section is compatible with the adjoining five lane at the beginning
of the project.
D. Design Speed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing roadway
development and a minimum of 81 kph (50 mph). Design speed is a
correlation of the physical features of a highway which influence vehicle
operation and reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired along a
highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted as a recommended posted
speed limit.
E. Right-of-Way
It is recommended that the proposed improvement be constructed on a
31 meters (100-foot) right-of-way.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections on the proposed project are at grade. At present,
there is a traffic signal located at SR 1726 (Portertown Road). This
signal will need to be upgraded in conjunction with this project.
H. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project.
I. Parking
Parking will not be provided for or permitted along the project.
5.
J. Bicycles
Special accommodations for bicycles are not recommended for the
proposed project.
K. Bridge Work Required
One double barrel 2.4 x 3.9 (8 x 12 foot) culvert exists at Oxford
Road.
L. Special Permits Required
Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be
needed for this project.
M. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along the project is 73 kph (45 mph). The
speed limit is expected to remain the same after completion of the
project.
N. Cost Estimate
Construction $4,450,000*
Right of Way $4,584,000**
Total $990349000
Includes 10% for engineering and contingencies.
** Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs.
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternate 1 (Recommended)
This alternate widens NC 33 to a five lane, 19. meters (64-foot),
curb and gutter section. The proposed widening is hroughout
the project and provides for two 3.6 meters (12-foot) travel lanes in each
direction, and a 3.6 meters (12-foot) center lane for left turns.
B. Reduced Facility
This four lane alternative is. somewhat less expensive than the
recommended five lane cross section; however, it is not considered to be a
viable alternative. Left turning traffic generated by the anticipated
development will clog the center lanes of a four lane roadway reducing the
effective capacity to two lanes. For this reason, this alternate is
therefore rejected.
C. Public Transportation
The City of Greenville has a public transportation system at the
present time. However, it does not serve NC 33 outside the city limits.
The privately owned automobile is the major form of transportation for the
6
residents. The development 6f a public transportation system is not
considered to be a prudent alternative to the construction of a facility
that will provide a direct East/West route to the east side of Greenville.
D. No-Build Alternative
If the "No-Build" alternative were chosen, it would avoid the adverse
effects arising from the project. However, it would have a definite
negative impact on transportation in the proposed corridor since the
project will provide.a safe, more efficient route in the area. Not
constructing the proposed project will hamper commercial and residential
growth in the area.
As traffic increases, safety for both motorists and pedestrians will
decrease. Without the proposed facility, it will require a longer travel
time and increased road-user costs for cross town travel. Since the
advantages of the project outweigh the disadvantages of not constructing
it, the No-Build alternative was rejected.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. STATUS OF LOCAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES
The proposed improvement is located within the planning and
zoning jurisdictions of both the City of Greenville and Pitt County.
The City adopted its comprehensive plan, Horizons: Greenville's
Community Plan in 1992. It also enforces a zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations. Pitt County adopted its Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1990. Although the Plan recommends adoption of a
county-wide zoning ordinance, no ordinance has been approved to date.
The County does enforce a number of other ordinances which affect
land use, including subdivision regulations, a mobile home ordinance,
and others.
B. EXISTING LAND USE
The project area supports recent suburban development which is most
dense at its western end. Some commercial development is scattered
throughout the length of the project. Two cemeteries, Homestead Memorial
Gardens and Pinewood Cemetery are located near the center of the project.
Most land fronting the roadway is occupied with residential land uses.
Some agricultural uses remain along the roadway, although new residential
development is encroaching on that formerly dominant land use.
Subdivisions accessed from NC 33 throughout the length of the project
include Courthouse Square, Farmington, Eastpoint, Edwards Acres, River
Hills, Brook Valley, Lake Glenwood, and Valley Landing.
The City of Greenville's zoning ordinance indicates that low
density residential development is currently permitted throughout most of
the project area within the city's jurisdiction, which ends just west of
SR 1723. Commercial districts are located at the intersections of NC 33
with SR 15339 SR 15939 SR 1726, and US 264.
7
C. FUTURE LAND USE
The City of Greenville's Horizons Plan divides the city into several
"focus areas," and provides a set of land use objectives specific to each
sector. The NC 33 project is located within "Focus Area C." Actions
identified for managing growth in this focus area include limiting strip
commercial development and maintaining the trend toward medium density
residential development along NC 33.
Development activity in Pitt County over the last twenty years has
been strongest immediately east of Greenville, which includes the project
area. Other portions of the county experiencing a high rate of growth
includes the areas immediately to the west of Greenville, and to a lesser
extent, south of Greenville. The majority of new development in the
county is comprised of single family residences and mobile homes. The
Pitt County Comprehensive Plan indicates that the NC 33 project area
remains desirable for additional urban development. Strip commercial
development will be discouraged in the area.
D. FARMLAND
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been
previously developed or is committed to urban development by the local
governing body is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The project
area supports suburban residential development. Although some
agricultural uses remain in the area, conversion to suburban development
is planned by both Pitt County and the City of Greenville. Therefore, no
further consideration of potential farmland impacts is required..
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
In the vicinity of River Bluff Road, the existing highway facility
NC 33 tapers down from a multi-lane facility to a two-lane facility. The
proposed widening will begin in this section. On the north side of the
existing highway facility are located Greenville Mobile Homes Supply and
St. Paul Pentecostal Holiness Church. The church appears to be located in
what used to be a farm field. The further east one travels along NC 33 in
this vicinity the less dense the population becomes. There is scattered
development at various intervals. Residential homes and new subdivisions
are scattered at various intervals along the proposed project site.
A. Social and Economic
North Carolina preliminary civilian labor force estimates for August
1994 indicated that Pitt County had a total labor force of 58,970. Out of
this total 55,670 persons were gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total of 3,300 or 5.6 percent.
There are several public facilities located at various intervals
along the proposed project: St. Paul Pentecostal Holiness Church is
located near the beginning of the proposed action on the north side of
existing highway NC 33 and just inside the Greenville city limits. East
8
of SR 1533 or Port Terminal on the south side of existing NC 33 is
Oakhurst Medical Park. East of SR 1593 on the north side of NC 33 is a
day care facility delineated as Kids Kountry. Directly across from Kid
Kountry on the south side of NC 33 is the Pineland Memorial Park Cemetery.
Diagonally across from Pineland and Memorial Park Cemetery on the north
side of NC 33 and due east of SR 1593 or River Hills Drive is Homestead
Memorial Garden's Cemetery. East of Homestead Memorial Gardens on the
north side of existing NC 33 and in close proximity to it is a Jewish
Synagogue designated as Congregation Bayt Shalom.
The widening of the proposed project will include relocating one
business and one residence.
B. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
"One of the unfortunate, but unavoidable, consequences of a modern
highway program... is the necessary displacement of a comparatively small
percentage of the population for the greater good of the whole". "It is
the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable 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:
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation assistance,
*Relocation moving payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement".
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with information such as availability
and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and
financing or other housing. programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
9
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses,. non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule
its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and individ-
uals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for
and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) .
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, .
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision. .
. A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
10
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. It is also
subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
As part of the environmental studies conducted by NCDOT, the
historic architectural resources present in the area of potential
effect (APE) of the undertaking must be identified and evaluated with
reference to the National Register of Historic Places criteria for
evaluation. If any properties in the APE are determined to be
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, then
additional compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act is required.
Section 106 of the National historic Preservation act of 1966,
as amended, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Architectural Resources
As part of the process .for identifying significant historic
architectural resources located in .the APE, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted. On October 5, 1994,-the
SHPO replied with the information that there are no properties either
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
located in the general area of the project. As a result of this
determination, the SHPO recommended no historic architectural survey
be conducted for the project (See letter in the Appendix).
3. Archaeological Resources
The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine
whether any archaeological resources that could potentially qualify
for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places would be
affected by the proposed widening project. These objectives were
fulfilled through a combination of archival research and
archaeological field investigations.
11
This project is being coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with. the Federal Highway
Administration's procedures for compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Federal-Aid Highway Acts (Department of
Transportation Act as amended).
Systematic archaeological field investigations conducted within
the 4.6 km (2.9 mi) study area failed to locate any significant
prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. Therefore, no
further archaeological investigations of the study area are warranted
or recommended (see SHPO letter, Appendix).
This finding that there are no properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register located in the APE of
the undertaking concludes compliance with all relevant laws and
regulations addressing historic architectural and archaeological
resources for the project.
C. Air Oualitv Analvsis
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 (S02), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a
point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling.
and the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once
the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together
to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and
to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,(NAAQS).
12
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 sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with.catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions.. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it
is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
13
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the CAUQHC
model was the highest volume within the project limits. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 1999 and the
design year of 2019 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #7
at a distance of 22 m from the proposed centerline of the roadway and 22 m
from the existing centerline. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1999
and 2019 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest
siti
Se Build No-Build
n
ve
Receptor
-
1999
2019
1999
2019
I
R-7 3.1 3.3 3.6 7.0
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. See
Tables Al through A4 for input data and output.
The project is located within the jurisdiction of the Washington
Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and.Natural
Resources. The ambient air quality for Pitt County has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality
of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated
by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
14
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of NC 33 in Pitt County on noise levels in the immediate project
area (Figure N1). 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
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 N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas
are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about
their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to
note- that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises
bother some more than others and some individuals become irate if an
15
unwanted noise persists.. The time patterns of noise also enter into an
individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For
example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to
be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when
background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be more
objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation
would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities
requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises,
while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the
same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals
and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into
their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of
noises including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and
highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the.aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
level of constant sound which, in a given situation and time period, has
the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a
steady noise level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing.the impact of noise level increases.
The existing Leq noise level along NC 33 as measured at 15 meters from the
roadway ranged from 65.9 to 67.0 dBA. The ambient measurement sites are
presented in Figure N1.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing
noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The
calculated existing noise levels were within 1.5 dBA of the measured noise
16
levels for the two locations where noise measurements were obtained.
Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low
traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's
"evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continual changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
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-lane highway to a five lane facility from River Bluff
Road to Black Jack Road (SR 1755). 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 2019. A land use is considered to be impacted when
exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement
criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 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 locations 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.
17
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N3. Information included in these tables consists of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient
and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for
each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is.shown in Table N4.
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. The noise analysis performed indicates
that 2 businesses and 37 residential receptors were determined to be
impacted by highway traffic noise. Other information included in Table N4
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 N5 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise. level
increases for this project range from +6 to +9 dBA. When real-life noises
are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA.
A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by
most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic noise impacts.occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value),., or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category. There are 39 impacted receptors in the
project area.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and
other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway
alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
18
Traffic Svstem Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For
this project, traffic management measures are not considered appropriate
for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and
level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the
project at grade.
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
(50 feet) from the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters
(400 feet) long. An access opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent of
the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA
(FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No.
FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement
would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
20 residences and businesses would experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range
of +3 to +5 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.
19
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime
hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures
are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This'
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
E. Ecological Analysis
1. Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being
gently sloping to nearly level. io 1-W-d er- fiaif -Hardee
-Just below its confluence with Meeting -House, Brant- =Creek.. _w-as
observed along the. .:project This portion of Pitt County
contains soils from the Norfolk-Exum-Goldsboro soil association,
which are characterized as being moderately well to well drained
soils that have a subsoil of dominantly friable sandy clay loam or
clay loam on uplands. The area adjacent to Hardee Creek contains
soils from the Bibb-Portsmouth association, which are characterized
as being poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that are
underlain by very friable fine sandy loam, or that have a subsoil of
friable sandy loam and sandy clay loam on floodplains and stream
terraces. Elevations within the project corridor range from
approximately 1.8 meters (6.0 feet) near the project's beginning at
US 264 Bypass to approximately 4.4 meters (14.0 feet) near the
project's terminus at SR 1755. The project area is located on a low
terrace above the Tar River to the north. The project study area has
experienced mostly agricultural and low-density single family
residences with some undeveloped land uses.
2. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions
refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species include
the common name only.
20
Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and Mixed Hardwood Forest are the two terrestrial
communities found in the project study area. Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed
in each community description. Many species are adapted to the
entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may
not be mentioned separately in each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulders, utility
line easements, residential lawn habitats and agricultural fields.
Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas are dominated by fescue
Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium
repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago
rugelii), wild onion (Allium sp.) and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are dominated by those
species previously listed as well as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), common morning glory..(Ipomoea purpurea), dog fennel
(Anthemis sp.), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), and wild blackberry (Rubus
sp.). Agricultural plant species within the project corridor include
corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max).
The animal species present in these habitats are opportunistic
and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from
vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and
dead faunal components. Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red-wing blackbird (Agelaius
phoeniceus), Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), bluebird (Sialia
sialis), starlings (Sturnidae), vultures (Cathartidae), and
red-tail hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) are often attracted to roadside
and agricultural habitats. Many faunal species, such as the Virginia
opossum, which migrate across heavily traveled roadways become
vehicular fatalities and forage items for other animals, such as the
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs in small fragmented areas along
the project corridor. Gently sloping to nearly flat topography in
these areas supports a variety of mixed hardwoods including white oak
(Quercus alba), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple
(Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and Eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana). The herbaceous layer includes such species
as Japanese honeysuckle, wild blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), bedstraw (Galium sp.), beauty berry
(Callicarpa americana), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Animals previously listed may also be found in this community.
21
Small mammals such
(Sylvilagus floridanus),
and field mice may take
offered in this habitat.
Aquatic Communities
as the gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail
Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotor)
advantage of food and protective resources
???fty ?ofTtfien:,a?quat?i>c comrnunity in the stogy area,
f uri,stdictaonal ?bottomland hardwood forest Wet Tai fs;°ez.ists
w' Winrdee-Creek just downstream of its merger with Meeting House,
reek.a Hardee Creek is a perennial tributary of the Tar
River, which is located approximately 0.80 km (0.5 miles) downstream
of the project crossing of Hardee Creek. In addition, two steeply
sloped man-made drainage ditches begin on the north side of NC 33
within the project area and are directed downgradient toward the Tar
River.
MA19 -of `Hardee'Creek are gently sloped and vegetated with
Eastern sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and sweet gum (Liquidamber
styraciflua),in the upland, d?10a d-cypress.!(Taxodium distichum) and
bl%MWMM7 (Sal i x ni gra) taWard` -and °wi thi.n . the wate r,Aquati c
vegetation along and within the stream itself includes jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), water milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.) and duck
potato (Sagittaria latifolia). Animals such as the bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), black swamp snake
(Seminatrix pygaea), and salamanders likely reside along the water's
edge. ,M 1 Cre ktis moderately flowing sandyottomed, blackwater
am A variety of macroinvertebrates occur on and within the
substrate as well as on the aquatic vegetation within the stream bed.
The dominant macroinvertebrates observed within the stream include
caddisfly larvae (Hydropsyche sp. and Chematopsyche sp.),
oligochaetes, freshwater limpets (Ferrissia sp.), freshwater clams
(Corbicula sp.), and amphipods (Gammarus sp.). It is likely that
dragonfly, mayfly and chironomid larvae are also present in the
macroinvertebrate community. Fish species expected to inhabit Hardee
Creek include sculpin (Cottus spp.), shiner (Notropus spp.), bream
(Lepomis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), mosquitofish (Gambusia
spp.) and american eel (Anguilla rostrata).
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts.
However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in
locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic
community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion.
It is important to understand that construction impacts may not be
restricted to the communities in which the construction activity
occurs. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
22
Terrestrial Communities
Natural communities occur within the project area, and those
communities have been fragmented and reduced due to past and present
agricultural activity. The man-dominated community will receive the
greatest impact from project construction, resulting in the loss of
existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in
residence. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial
and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
NC 33 Man Mixed Aquatic Combined
Widening Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Community Community (including
wetlands)
Impacts 7.71 (19.05) 0.58 (1.43) 0.32 (10, 8.61 (21.27)
NOTES:
* Impacts are based on 36.58 meters (120 feet) of Right-of-Way
limits.
* Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated
above.
* Values given are in hectares (acres).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area, including bottomland
hardwood forested wetlands, exists within and adjacent to Hardee
Creek and two man-made ditches. The replacement or extension of the
existing culverts conveying these waterbodies under NC 33 will result
in 0.32 hectares (0.79 acres) of impact to aquatic communities. Of
this 0.32 hectares (0.79 acres), 0.31 hectares (0.76 acres) of
bottomland hardwood forested wetlands will be impacted and 0.01
hectares (0.03 acres) of natural stream bottom will be impacted.
However, a natural substrate will accumulate in the culvert bottoms
with time. Construction of the project is likely to temporarily
increase sediment loads to Hardee Creek. Construction-related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates
which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile
organisms such as many of the filter feeders may be covered by this
sedimentation, preventing their feeding. Increased sediment loads
and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs,
reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of
dissolved oxygen, and alterations in water temperature. However,
23
potential adverse effects can be minimized through the utilization of
erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the
State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
3. Water Resources
This section describes each water resource and its relationship
to major water systems. The proposed project lies along a low
terrace above the Tar River to the north.
Water Resource Characteristics
Water resource discussions include waterbody classification,
location of high quality waters, and licensed dischargers. Hardee
Creek flows northward through the project area to its confluence with
the Tar River approximately 0.80 km (0.5 miles) downstream. The
creek has a variable width of approximately 7.62 meters (25 feet) to
9.14 meters '(30 feet), with a depth ranging from 0.30 meters (1 foot)
just above its crossing under NC 33 to 1.22 meters (4 feet,) just
downstream of the crossing. Stream bank vegetation includes
sycamore, bald cypress,'sweet gum, black willow, jewelweed, and
various grasses. Vegetation within the stream channel itself
includes duck potato and water milfoil. Hardee Creek has a Class C
Nutrient Sensitive Waters rating from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating that the creek is
suitable for fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading or other uses
requiring waters of lower quality, and that the creek contains
nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient
inputs.
The NC Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) does not
have a sampling station located on Hardee Creek. However, according
to information supplied by the NC Division of Environmental
Management Water Quality Section, similar creeks in Pitt County
contain a variety of trichopteran, odonate, ephermeropteran, and
chironomid larvae as well as a variety of molluscan fauna. Cursory
sampling done at the time of the site visit revealed fauna indicative
of good water quality conditions, including Hydropsyche sp. and
Chematopsyche sp. (caddisfly larvae), Ferrissia sp. freshwater
limpet), and Corbicula sp. (freshwater clam).
The NC DEM Water Quality Division does not maintain a fish
sampling station on Hardee Creek at NC 33. However, they did collect
fisheries data at the mouth of Hardee Creek and the Tar River in
September 1987, and found American eel (Anguilla rostra), bream
(Lepomis macrochirus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), chain pickerel (Esox
nigra), bowfin (Amia calva), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), and
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has 1968 survey information on Hardee
Creek. They indicate that the creek is a good fishing area and have
documented occurrences of catfish (Ictalurus sp.), bream (Lepomis
macrochirus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus), and
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus). According to the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDMF), Hardee Creek near its entry into the Tar River
serves as an anadromous spawning and nursery area for river herring.
24
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are
located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project area. According to the
NCWRC, no Proposed Critical Areas exist within the project corridor.
No permanent impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will
take place as a result of the project construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will
result from sedimentation and turbidity associated with project
construction. Permanent impacts to the streambed will result at the
crossing of Hardee Creek and the two man-made ditches under NC 33 due
to the replacement or extension of the existing culverts.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management Practices
and Sediment Control Guidelines) should be strictly enforced during n?
the construction stage of this project. along
tion areas help decrease erosion and.. allow potentially°`toxic G
- : ees such as engine_ fluids and "parti cu"l ate -rubber--to- be -"
absorbed, into the soil beore these substances reach, waterways-.
Poorly managed application of sedimentation control policies will
result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
Due to Hardee Creek's function as an anadromous fish spawning
and nursery area, a time-of-year restriction on in-stream
construction activities should be observed from February through May.
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
Bottomland hardwood forest wetlands associated with Hardee Creek '
will be impacted by the proposed project. `B;a, d?XW a review; of
M -topographic maps of the project, area, .it._appears _ that, these
we .
PPxt lands y would not be"considered above-the-headwaters wetlands.
A imatel 0.31 hectares (0.76 acres) of unavoidable wetland
impacts will occur due to the widening of NC 33. Investigation into
wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using
methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of',, \
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and project construction
cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface
waters. Approximately 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of surface water
impacts will occur due to the widening of NC 33.
c,
25
5. Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031 and/or Nationwide Permit Nos. 14 and/or 33,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Also, Section
401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to
issuance of COE permits. General Permit No. 198200031 and Nationwide
Permit Nos. 14 and 33 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management before
certification can be issued. Additionally, if actual construction
impacts to waters of the United States, including jurisdictional
bottomland hardwood forested wetlands, exceeds 0.13 hectares (0.33
acres), Nationwide Permit No. 14 will not apply to the project.
6. Mitigation
Mitigation for wetland impacts may be necessary if the project
is authorized under a general permit or if wetland impacts exceed the
impact criteria for the nationwide permits. Mitigation for impacts
to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
7. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in
the process of decline either due to natural forces or due to their
inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
Pitt County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of
the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following
sections.
8. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification 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.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two
federally protected species for Pitt County as of September 15, 1994.
These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
. FOR PITT COUNTY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Elliptio steinstansana tar spinymussel , E*
26
NOTES:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
No specimen of this species has been found in Pitt County
in at least twenty years.
Picoides borealis
.(red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare,
Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax,
Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde,
Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond,
Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell,
Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has a black and white cross-barred
back, black head and neck, and white cheeks. The small red cockade
on each side of the head are present in males but absent in females.
The overall length of the red-cockaded woodpecker is 220 millimeters
(9 inches) on average and wing span approximately 122 millimeters (5
inches). The white eggs are laid from mid-April to early-June, in a
clutch of two to five, and are incubated for approximately 10 days by
both the male and female.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is found in open stands of mature
long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus elliotii),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) or shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) with
sparse hardwood subcanopies. Most red-cockaded woodpeckers maintain
year-round territories near their nesting trees. The woodpeckers
drill small holes in the bark of the pine tree's trunk, and the
exuding resin is believed to repel predators.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the red-cockaded
woodpecker as the project area does not contain mature stands of the
previously listed pine species. It can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this Endangered species.
Elliptio steinstansana
(tar spinymussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed:
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash,
Pitt, Warren.
27
One of several freshwater bivalved mollusks, often called
naiads, the tar spinymussel contains two valves (or shells) joined
together at the dorsal surface by a hinge ligament with two strong
internal muscles. Two sets of hinge teeth on the inner dorsal
surface keep the valves in juxtaposition. Adults are characterized
by a dark brown epidermis with prominent growth rings and beaks
typically eroded. Morphologically similar to marine mussels and
clams, reproduction in naiads is quite different, Naiad females
exude eggs through the oviducts then move them to the water tubes of
the gills, which become modified as gill pouches or marsupia. Sperm
shed by the males are drawn into the marsupia by ciliary action, and
the fertilized eggs develop into a unique larval form, called
glochidia. The larvae is then discharged into the water with a
mucous secretion. The tar spinymussel is a lotic species that occurs
in runs with moderate current and sand, gravel, and cobble
substrates. The presence of the Asian clam ( Corbicula sp. ) in
native mussel habitats is being studied as a possible factor in the
reduction of native mussels, including the tar spinymussel.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the tar
spinymussel as the stream in the project area contains a silty sand
bottom with low to moderate current and a competitor species, the
Asian clam (Corbicula sp.), was observed in Hardee Creek. It can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact this Endangered
species.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Table 3 includes 3 federal candidate
species listed for Pitt County and their state classifications.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are insufficient data
to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
or Proposed Threatened at this time. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Candidate (C) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
28
TABLE
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES AND THEIR STATE STATUS
PITT COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Federal-State Present
Ammodramus henslowii C2/SR No
(Henslow's sparrow)
Fusconaia masoni C2/T No
(atlantic pigtoe mussel)
Procambarus medialis C2/UNK No
(Albemarle crayfish)
NOTES:
by state laws.
* SR denotes Significantly Rare species, which are not
afforded protection by state laws.
* UNK denotes a species status is Undetermined.
* Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
* Species notated with "*" indicate no specimen from Pitt
County has been found in at least 20 years.
* T denotes Threatened species, which are afforded protection
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any candidate species
known to occur in Pitt County. Also, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for rare
species or habitats in the Dro_iect area.
F. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced with
the construction of this project. Measures will be taken to mitigate
these effects to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that.the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement. of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in stric
of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roac
contractor shall be required to observe and
ordinances, regulations, orders and decreases
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed
disposal site which is in violation of state ri
adherence to the Division
s and Structures". The
comply with all laws,
regarding the disposal of
into any existing land
les and regulations.
29
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of
way is permitted by the Engineer.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Divisions. of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines
and interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of this
project. For this reason an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work which must be coordinated to reduce
erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion
control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction
with the erosion control schedule the contractor will be required to
follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use
of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures".
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source
will have'no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. A
copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to
performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
G. Hazardous Waste
Based on records maintained at the Solid Waste Management Branch no
potential hazardous waste sites are known to be in the project area. Land
uses observed reveal it is primarily agricultural and a low risk for
hazardous waste. There was no evidence of any underground storage tanks
regulated under 40 CFR 280 along the project corridor.
.
30
VIII. BASIS.FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this
project, it is determined the proposed project will not have significant
adverse effects upon the human or natural environmental. Therefore, an
Environmental Assessment is applicable-for this project.
I
:<- PROD
?^yM
33
410b
l.Lr ?p
ti
,.at: r"`zi .a.
1
\ A,
?? d1 +ab
?+ d niwr
not
1,..
_ Lau
izu v
-11
.H
>z¢
11 ! - ?-- Mit
lat, . GLEWOOD
ll a 13 30 t
,1\
? a Stales
?Fa1M1aa +2 1 ?
1 v )
y 2, Fountain Bruce auae 30
Toddy = 43 .p 1 a Pactolus
5 2
.C. II?fle?
• µa (?yr
a
IT
13 P', •' 1 T f T
wintemn• +i Black Jf
tree
lY
Ayden 11 sa.lm•ray
,e 1 ? a
1 V Calico
Griltan ? ` •
1,?gR
R
eP? PROJE7-"-- u `..
f WL

„ Jolt
..,,
a
w, os .? •- ?
sates
g itlr lax
4
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OE
m TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Ne7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
eau NC 33
US264 BYPASS
(RIVER BLUFF ROAD) TO SR 1755
PITT COUNTY
R - 2251
0 mile 1/2
+ + + FIG.I
??
?Y
t

O
w
J?? re
a

AK?l
*vv
AN` ,d

f1 3
?,?;
--

m
.a t s ?
m z
m
W 1
37!"WZ
wD n WI- C!1_c
a 05 -m ?A r
N*m"m , >'71
w<>41,
u'OAO
Z7gN?
Q _
T m -4
wW?

TABLE Al
CAL3QBC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MMn - MUM 1990 VERSIM
JOB: WC 33, R 2251, Pitt County RUN: BUILD, 5-LN/12•LNS, YR-1999, 45-MPB
DATE: 08/29/1994 TIM: 12:49:26.46
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS • .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD . .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) ATLM - 60. MINUTES MD03 - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF B W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) - (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEB.
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 1075. 14.7 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane yank .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1075. 14.7 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-7, 22m L CL, BUS -16.5 .0 1.8
JOB: NC 33, R 2251, Pitt County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only.the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REM
MAX 3.1
DEGR. 8
RUN: BUILD, 5-LN/121LNS, YR-1999, 45-MPH
TABLE AZ
CAL3QBr: LISE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - HAM, 1990 VERSION
JOB: NC 33, R 2251, Pitt County RUM: BUILD, 5-Iii/1211NS, YR-2019, 45-M
DATE: 08/29/1994 TIME: 12:49:51.73
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS : 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MI)W ' 400. M AMB 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPB EF 9 W V/C QUEUE
I X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -604.7 11.0 804.7
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-7, 22s L CL, BUS -16.5 .0 1.8
JOB: MC 33, R 2251, Pitt County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the asxiaus concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with sass Maximus
concentrations, is indicated as saxia -
WIND AMOLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
W13NID CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) MCI
MAX 3.3
DEGR. 8
1609. 360. AG 1830. 10.6 .0 13.4
1609. 180. AG 1830. 10.6 .0 13.4
RUN: BUILD, 5-LN112'LMS, YR-2019, 45-MPH
TABLE A3
CAL3QBC:.LrNZ SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: PC 33, R 2251, Pitt County RUN: NO Build 2-1211ns , YR-1999, 25-M
DATE: 08/29/1994. TIME: 12:50:33.58
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - I08. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXE - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
- LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Yl X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1075. 25.8 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1075. 25.8 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-7, 22m L CL, BUS -20.1 .0 1.8
JOB: NC 33, R 2251, Pitt County RUN: NO Build 2-1211ns , YR-1999, 25-MPH
MODEL RESULTS
FdMhRKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximas 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 3.6
DEGR. 5
TABLE 714
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: NC 33, R 2251, Pitt County RUN: NO Build 2-1211ns , YR-2019, 10-MPH
DATE: 08/29/1994 TIME: 12:50:56.54
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - .0 C14/8 ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) AM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMID - 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H w WC QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -.804.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RBCEPSOR X Y Z
1. R-7, 22m L CL, BUS -20.1 .0 1.8
JOH: RC 33, R 2251, Pitt County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WM ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 7.0
DEGR. 7
1609. 360. AG 1830. 44.3 .0 9.8
1609. 180. AG 1830. 44.3 .0 9.8
RUN: NO Build 2-1211ns , YR-2019, 10-MPH
TABLE lti
HE6R NC: SOUng BOlMMING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E so Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUA
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body.
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Barford
(Researched by N. Jane Bunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE AHASzMM CRrZMTA
Hourly A-VOighted 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.
` 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
H
(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 (CPR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (M)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<50 _15
> 50 110
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3 1/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE ZK OSURES
NC 33
From River Bluff Road to Black Jack Road (SR 1755)
Pitt County
TIP/ R-2251 State Project# 8.1221301
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROAD WAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY
=eo=====.e.=.====ss NAME DISTANCE (M)
..soeoaa...=o LEVEL
oo= NAME
....= DISTANCE (M)
oo.==...._: -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
_..------ --v o= INCREASE
=a°o=
From Beginning of Project to River Bluff Road
1 Business C NC 33 35.0 R 61 NC 33 35.0 R - - 68 + 7
2 Business C " 37.0 R 61 •' 37.0 R - - 68 + 7
3 Business C •' 37.0 L 61 ^ 37.0, L - - 68 + 7
4 Business C ^ 95.0 L 52 " 95.0 L - - 58 + 6
5 Business C " 35.0 L 61 ^ 35.0 L - - 68 + 7
6 Business C ^ 55.0 L 57 It 55.0 L - - 64 + 7
7 Business C It 22.0 L 65 ^ 22.0 L - - ' 72 + 7
8 Business C It 17.0 L 66 ^ 17.0 L ------------ ------- R1W --------------
9 Business C " 60.0 L 57 It 60.0 L - - 63 + 6
10 Business C ^ 32.0 L 62 ^. 32.0 L - - 69 + 7
11 Business C •' 30.0 R 63 ^ 30.0 R - - 70 + 7
12 Business C " 30.0 R 63 •' 30.0 R - - 70 + 7
13 Business C " 35.0 R 61 " 35.0 R - - 68 + 7
14 Residence B •' 55.0 R 57 It 55.0 R - - 64 + 7
15 Church E •' 32.0 L 62/00 ^ 32.0 L - - 69/44 + 7/+4
16 Residence B ^ 22.0 L 65 ^ 22.0 L - - • 72 + 7
From River Bluff Road to SR 1726 (Portertown Road)
17 Residence B XC 33 55.0 R 56 NC 33 55.0 R - - 64 + 6
16 Residence B If 57.0 R 56 ^ 57.0 R - - 64 + 8
19 Residence 8 It 62.0 R 55 It 62.0 R - - 63 + 8
20 Residence B if 55.0 R 56 It 55.0 R - - 64 + 8
21 Residence B It 60.0 R 56 ^ 60.0 R - - 63 + 7
22 Residence a It 35.0 L 60 ^ 35.0 L - - * 68 + 8
23 Residence a It 65.0 L 55 •' 65.0 L - - 63 + 6
24 Residence B to 30.0 R 61 It 30.0 R - - * 70 + 9
25 Residence B It 20.0 R 64 It 20.0 R - - * 73 + 9
26 Residence B ^ 65.0 R 55 It 65.0 R - - 63 + 8
27 Business C It 32.0 R 61 It 32.0 R - - 69 + 8
28 Residence B It 27.0 L 62 ^ 27.0 L - - ' 70 + 8
29 Residence B ^ 52.0 L 57 It 52.0 L - - 65 + 8
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). ' ?> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 772).
TABLE N3
Leq TRAPPIC 10018E ZXPOBURES
NC 33
Prom River Bluff Road to Black Jack Road (SR 1755)
Pitt County
TIP# R-2251 State Project# 8.1221301
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (M) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (M)
--a saaa-sa-s eas a?aoasaaa a--s seas -aaaa a-
Prom River Bluff Road to SR 1726 (Portertown Road) (COnt.d)
30 Residence B NC 33 65.0 L 55 NC 33 65.0 L
31 Residence B " 35.0 L 60 to 35.0 L
32 Business C " 40.0 L S9 It 40.0 L
33 Business C to 22.0 L 64 of 22.0 L
34 Residence S it 38.0 L 60 of 38.0 L
35 Residence B •' 30.0 L 61 " 30.0 L
36 Residence B " 25.0 L 63 " 25.0 L
37 Residence B " 62.0 L 55 of 62.0 L
38 Residence S " 60.0 L 56 it 60.0 L
39 Residence B " 55.0" L 56 to 55.0 L
40 Residence B " 45.0 L 58 It 45.0 L
41 Residence B to 67.0 L 55 of 67.0 L
42 Residence B It 52.0 L 57 of 52.0 L
43 Residence B to 42.0 R 59 It 42.0 R
44 Residence B " 32.0 L 61 '. 32.0 L
45 Residence B to 35.0 L 60 of 35.0 L
46 Business C of 38.0 L 60 " 38.0 L
46A Cemetery S " 125.0 R 48 to .125.0 R
46B Cemetery B ° 47.0 L 58 IS 47.0 L
From SR 1726 (Portertown Road) to End of Project
47 Business C NC 33 15.0 R 66 NC 33 15.0 R
48 Church E " 45.0 L 58/<40 " 45.0 L
49 Residence B " 22.0 R 64 " 22.0 R
50 Residence B' " 20.0 R 64 " 20.0 R
51 Residence B " 60.0 L 56 " 60.0 L
52 Residence B " 35.0 R 60 of 35.0 R
53 Residence B to 32.0 R 61 It 32.0 R
54 Residence B " 62.0 R 55 It 62.0 R
55 Residence a It 57.0 R 56 " 57.0 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
s-sasss-aaaaaaas
:2/4
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
-aaa-
_ _ 63 + 8
- - * 68 + 8
_ - 67 + 8
_ - * 72 + 8
- - * 68 + 8
- - * 70 + 9
- - * 71 + 8
- - 63 + 8
- - 63 + 7
- - 64 + 8
- - * 66 + 8
- - 62 + 7
- - 65 + 8
- - * 67 + 8
- - * 69 + 8
- - * 68 + 8
- - 68 + 8
- - 55 + 7
- - * 66 + 8
-------------------R/W--------------
- - 65/40 + 7/+0
- - * 71 + 7
It 71 + 7
- - 62 + 6
- - •. 67 + 7
- - * 68 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 63 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N3 3/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE ZXPOSURES
NC 33
From River Bluff Road to Black Jack Road (SR 1755)
Pitt County
TIP# R-2251 State Project# 8.1221301
+ AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (M) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (M) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
sssaas
sas:aaaaaaaas aassaaaaaa aas saaaasaaas sassaaaaaaaaas
From SR 1726 (Portertown Road) to End of Project (Copt-d)
56 Residence B NC 33 35.0 R 60 NC 33 35.0 R - - * 67 + 7
57 Business C
of
45.0
L
58 "
45.0
L
- - 65
+ 7
58 Residence H
of
55.0
L
56 it
55.0
L!
- - 63
+ 7
59 Residence H
of
50.0
L
57 to
50.0
L
- - 64
+ 7
60 Residence B
to
58.0
R
56 to
58.0
R
- - 63
+ 7
61 Residence B to 60.0 R 56 " 60.0 R - - 62 + 6
62 Residence B to 35.0 L 60 " 35.0 L - - * 67 + 7
63 Residence H
to
50.0
L
57 "
50.0
L
- - 64
+ 7
64 Residence B
1.
35.0
L
60 to
35.0
L
- - * 67
+ 7
65 Residence H
to
25.0
R
63 "
25.0
R
- - ' 70
+ 7
66 Business C N 60.0 R 56 to 60.0 R - - 62 + 6
67 Business C of 70.0 R 54 to 70.0 R - - 61 + 7
68 Residence B to 40.0 R 59 It 40.0 R - - It 66 + 7
69 Residence B it 55.0 R 56 '. 55.0 R - - 63 + 7
70 Business C it 60.0 L 56 of 60.0 L - - 62 + 6
71 Residence B
„
30.0
R
61 to
30.0
R
- - It 68
+ 7
72 Residence H to 45.0 R 58 " 45.0 R - - 65 + 7
73 Residence 8
of
25.0
R
63 It
25.0
R
- - * 70
+ 7
74 Residence B 01 ,
27.0
R
62 to
27.0
R
- - * 69
+ 7
75 Residence B
to
25.0
R
63 M
25.0
R
- - * 70
+ 7
76 Residence B
to
30.0
R
61 "
30.0
R
- - * 68
+ 7
77 Residence B to 40.0 R 59 of 40.0 R - - * 66 + 7
78 Residence 8
of
40.0
R
59 to
40.0
R
- - * 66
+ 7
79 Residence H of 45.0 R 58 n 45.0 R - - 65 + 7
80 Residence B
to
50.0
L
57 It
50.0
L
- - 64
+ 7
81 Residence B
«
25.0
R
63 It
25.0
R
- - It 70
+ 7
82 Residence 8
to
25.0
R
63 It
25.0
R
- - *.70
+ 7
83 Residence B
to
28.0
R
62 N
28.0
R
- - * 69
+ 7
'
84
Residence
B
to
30.0
R
61 to
30.0
R
- - * 68
+ 7
B
„
35.0
R
60 to
35.0
R
- - * 67
+ 7
85 Residence - At 67 + 7
86 Residence B
„
34.0
R
60 "
34.0
R
-
H
of
30.0
L
61 n
30.0
L
- - to 68
+ 7
87 Residence
Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways- -L--> Propo
NOTE sed roadway's noise level contribution.
:
vels are hourly A-weighted noise levels-
l
i -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
se
An no e
i vels shown as exterior/interior (58/46).
l to -> Traffic noise impact (par 23 CFR Part 772).
Category se
z no e
TABLE N4
FM NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SU*WY
NC 33
From River Bluff Road to Black Jack Road (SR 1755)
Pitt County
TIP# R-2251 State Project# 8.1221301
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA
1. NC 33; From Beginning of Project to 72 68 62 24m 44m
River Bluff Road
2. NC 33; From River Bluff Road to SR 1726 71 67 61 20m 39m
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 1 1 0 0
0 36 1 0 0
TOTALS
0 37 2 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m 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 N5
TRRFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUlKVff
NC 33
From River Bluff Road to Black Jack Road (SR 1755)
Pitt County
TIP# R-2251 State Project# 8.1221301
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 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1. Beginning to River Bluff Rd. 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. River Bluff Rd. to SR .1726 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0
70TAW 0 0 69 0 0 0
0 0 0
TA,_ k 1
NC ZZ from US 264A to SR 1755? P=tt County
Project R-2251
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC SUMMARY SHEET

East Fort Rd. 2 2 6 1 2 ± 0 60
SR i $ : 10 •2 20 2 10 60
SR 2112 8 10 lb 1 2 =0 60
E -cehrook Rd. 2 2 6 1 2 10 boy
SR 1735 '-2 40 72 bG

ti;r ZZ
• N C 66 90 176 1 10

- -
60
-

ROUTE NAME
ADT VOLUME IN
100'S
%
i. i f ri
1993 1999 2019 TTS T DUAL DHV D_R
NC ZZNUS 264A 214 258 464 3 .4 10 60
Tenth Street 198 240 4;,2 " T• 10 bu
..US 264A S. of 260 314 .566 2 Z. 10 60
NC ?v
River S1u-rf Rd. 12 20 =ti^' 2 10 60
Owforr Rd. 14 16 32 1 1c; 60
Hawthorne Rd. 2 6 1 2 10 60 t
.Foxtiaven Rte. 4 4 E 1 ? 10 S`'
SR 15z;zl '0 12 20 1 ? 11 60
SR 1593 10 14 26 1 10 60
Sit 171-6 66 78 1-3.2' 2 3 1=
j
60
SR 172? 10 12 2n 1 _ 2 _0 60
SR, 1-877 4 4 10 1 2 10• 60
\S+

!.
N
?fl
t?
r_
IL
W Ct-
fZr
z 0
= O
N
Ow
O
Q=
com
r U.
O co)
w co)
G0
MZ
F- 5
U) O
III tL_
R.
t
Q _ ?3Nil H-"V"
Va o
bc:. ?'a
A?
1-Q ??
? b
o ?
s ?
a?
c9 b
C)
m
_ a
? s
w
a
?o
9 '` m
N A!
N?a 4
Vi
?v
?? 9N
A
v
A

t- N
IA
z
N ?
? a
T
N O =
w
z
t=
-o C
N
2
?I

9 P.
A ?` c
A

? a-- O

O
r I

c
s
?
X01

C ? 4 e
cl I ? c
4b as
.
?
N ? ^ m N ?
? ? Q

CA O
?? { Ci
? ? `?1 ly?b
•? a7 ?,? T
0 fz

Cu
?A-
ib
ei
C V
Z
• l
C.%
7_7
O w

m
W
J
U
O
0
r
r
O
Z
tl
z
i
t
Q
a
SY
0
z
ZW4
}

q
. ?

a II
?
?
a
4? N
A 'O-

o
:b 4Q
.. o
--e
O N

a
LL:

0
V
ap N
o-
C LA

= I- C¢ i
9 eb
t
z w
i 7 ..

co
m

0
t? 9?i gm -o c ? ?-
IA N
0
!p j m ?o (n C

M

00

C! Q

o 1
1O

m
m Q

Iii

LU V)
a P

to O
L ?
I r. cn
*
L
LU a `
L
LU
4i

cu
Sr i
cli
.

•
o
m?
?
? eo
t
o
•

. `•\ s

!
? ? N
?'-
;
as
92
-o
c
z• •
?
?
?
s a
te?go- ?-

M-6 ^.Vrv
C , W

N
IM O ?-
b
> N
a
w
O
x a
O
N -d
a 4-
a
O

Q

o arc w
1a
z O a-
A ? w

O m

-1
O
A
en 00
-v

a
m
z
(, a
w
V N ¢.
43
W
N
ab 4

w z
0

?
N
a?
?' CJ
C
9
r
S P m
r
N 4? A Q- A US
i
s r a
? w
N N
A
N a

iA W rc

4 r r- N „
N Q
m
?O
w

W

? 70)4
i
V
W
V?
i `v
r
a
yy
W?
i v
i
N? 4N
can V ?~
Q Y W -o ' .TT .
N
A
?{
+ ?
O w
i w

m
O
CJ
p Q Q

a
i
CAW
m

co

re ?

i a
w iv w
?
W i
_ (J
J
4
w? ro14

0
i
D - MATCH UNE - D
-n rn
Oca
Z?
n
W M
W Q
Z1 N
31 0
i
co
cD
?v
N l11
?Z
W
?v
im
vim, v
as ca
'Q
A
09
-?

ti
Co• C
V 4?
N
CD ?
C

mm
0 ? W
-4 -4
Vm
Q
Z W

z
O
-4
T
v

N C

z o
O ?-
J
O
O
A
A

r
m
co A

?m
Q-
N m
? V
V N
UAri;W i.;yo
m 1?d d
V1
?i
to
V11?
r CA i
r
W W
N
W W
q r ?W N
N W
er-
i N
W
N
N
. r
W
? N
ca i d W
N '
d
A
N 1 N
? J
°
m? ? 4
N? r
m
N N
m
r r
m
to
62
11i? W
O
O? 44
v
A -
of as
-df-- °
OI V
V
v
0
W m
O ?
O
W a
A
C
mM
O?
M_
Z?
n?
wm
wa
S] O
O-.
?D
C
CA Q
N fA
T
Q ^j
VA Z
my
m
?v
'Q
A
o :p
C N3
Z?
? J
{
M
w
U
.
+yH
r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray mecam Secretary
October 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways .
Department of Transportl3tion
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State ?AJtoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widening NC 33 from US 264 Bypass to SR 1755,
Pitt County, R-2251, 8.1221301, STP-330 ), 95-E-
4220-0139
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Scott Power conducted a comprehensive survey of historic architectural resources
in Pitt County in 1989. We have conducted a search of our maps and files and
have located the following structures of historical or architectural importance
within the general area of the project:
John Moore House (PT 330). North side of NC 33, 0.05 mile west of
junction with SR 1726.
John Chapman Boyd House (PT 332). West side of NC 33, 0.4 mile
southeast of junction with SR 1533.
House. South side of NC 33, 0.05 mile east of junction with NC 264.
x

We have reviewed our survey site files for these properties and believe none of the
three are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Also, no
properties listed in the National Register or on the state study list are located in the
area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be
conducted for the project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
H. F. Vick.
October 5, 1994, Page 2
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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:siw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N,.6raf
&-ff. Church
T. Padgett
• rANi..
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
-Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
March 7, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 33 from US 264 Bypass to SR 1755; Pitt
County, R-2251, Federal-aid Project STP-33(1),
State 8.1221301, ER 95-8435
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1995, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by John, Mintz concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the report and find that it meets our guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior. As no archaeological sites were located, no further work
is needed as long as the project proceeds as planned.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?6a_vid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
1,1r'. Padgett
i
1
r
?QQ
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina '27601-2807 ?P
R E V I S E D
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1221301 COUNTY- PITT SECTION: I 100' R/W
°I.D.- N0.: R-2251 F.A. -PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (RIVER BLUFF ROAD) TO SR 1755 WIDEN ROADWAY TO 5 LANES

E
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INUX%-- LtvtL

p?splaaces
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ittes
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M 50 UP

Individuals

Families
Businesses VALE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN GS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenant s For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
150-250
ANSWER A LL QUEST IONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP.
'
600 UP
100 UP
600 UP
affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL
be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
etc.
minorities
ees
lo
em
REMARKS (Respond by Number)

THERE IS NO RELOCATION ON THIS SECTION.
,
,
y
p
5. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage

6. Source for available hous-
(list)
in
g
7. Will additional housing '
rams be needed
ro -
p
g
8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
^?;=
??rr • r T.? ?? t
y1!
?
' ?? -
S. Are there large, disabled,
families
etc
elderly ,_ • A S '+
? L. ? '
.
,
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 9
10. Will public housing be 0
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
able

DRZr',DDtI
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
AompjebeAELOCATION
i 3-5;- 2x
Michael L. n ' 03/pate5 Approved Date
Re ovation Ag
Form 15.4 Revised Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Ager
2 Copy:.Area Relocation File
R E V I S E D
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
_
PROJECT: 8.1221301 COUKTY• PITT SECTION- II 100' R /W
I.D.-NO.: R-2251 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (RIVER BLUFF ROAD) TO SR 1755 WIDEN RO"AY TO 5 LANES
t
Michael L. 03/06/95
Re ovation a Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5y
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type
Displaces
Owners
Tenants
Total 11
Miint?es
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-`-
50 Up

Individuals
Families
Businesses VALLIE OF DWELLING DES DWELLIN GS AVAILABtF
Farms Owners Tenant s For Sa le For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER A LL QUEST IONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANS1NERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
600 UP
100 UP
600 UP
affected by displacement
3. Will business services still TOTAL
be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
THERE IS NO RELOCATION ON THIS SECTION.
etc.
minorities
ees
lo
em
,
,
y
p
5. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage
6. Source for available hous-
(list)
in
g
7. Will additional housing
rams be needed
ro
p
g
S. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
families
etc
elderly
.
,
ANSW R THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to

? pl eke R?C©CATION
original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Ager
Approve Date
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
REVISED

f '.
Michael L.??? :.
Rei ocat i on Ac en
Form 15.4 Revised 90
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1221301 COUNTY: PITT SECTIONIIT'100' R/W
I.Di. NO.: R-2251 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (RIVER BLUFF ROAD) TO SR 1755 WIDEN ROADWAY TO 5 LADS
EST IMATED DISPIACEES INCOME LEVEL
Disploacee Owners Tenants Total Mtieess O-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 2 - 2 - 1 1
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN GS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenant s For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 0-2014 - $ 0-150 -
ANSWER AL L QUEST IONS 20-40M - 150-250 20-40M 78 150-250 2
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-400 40-70M 223 250-400 22
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 - 400-600 70-100 114 400-600 16

X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
-
600 UP
100 UP
223
600 UP
7

x affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL
2
0
638
47

X be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
All residential displacees counted as families.
type, estimated number of
etc
minorities
l
No businesses being displaced
3
.
,
oyees,
emp .
.
X 5. Will relocation cause a
e
shorta
in
h
Newspaper Ads.
Multiple Listing Service
Realtors
6
g
g
ous ,
,
.
X 6. Source for available hous-
(list)
i As mandated by State Law.
S
ng .

X
g
7. Will additional housing
ams be needed

Newspaper Ads.
Multiple Listing Service
Realtors
14
progr ,
,
.
X S. Should Last Resort Housing
nsidered
b
X e co
9. Are there large, disabled,
families
rl
etc
ld NOTE: The owner in range 0-20K involves a single wide
There are ample mobile homes and
mobile home
e
y,
.
e
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN .
mobile home lots available for sale in the

10. Will public housing be surrounding area.
roject
ded for
p
nee
11. Is public housing avail-
able

12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
relocation period
durin
g
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means

x 14. Are suitable business sites
vailable (list source)
a
15. Number months estimated to
1 e'te pECOCATION
03/06/95 Z) -? ?- 3 -.5; - 5 S
Date Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Ageni
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
37
c? m x d __ I,
? .. X ` ,.? c .. ,/ u \ ? 1. ';
.. ?? •? 1, •/?r?` ?? ' _ .. (•F .• ? '?
--?`-?-- =?° ?, - ,'- r ??„,:,?' 1,?? 41- p ?.?/? Sri-°? ? °?i J //'/ ?i , ?i ?/ r . ?
..._ ? ? ?? ?` of ? ? r,.o.. `??II ?: ?._,-^.?. •+?i ? "/ f i•:. •? ? • rr'
??? ,:Y ° .: .i ?t=!„? ?..-':.. ?../JYr E.r:., ?A?`? _ ,., nr.. ?`?? ? r h... 1 T-? r ??J
frr
17
?.. ??
-78
? !o ?? . l ?:T JI
T _.r ?°'? \• ? may,/ ?I ° 02'? •.hLt
i ?
'J
x t ? `..`" •b ?. li xm s
"n w . C I .. ' ? II .il
•? QVAW ?s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 21, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
MAY 0 1 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
aRn?Mu
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 33, From River Bluff Road
to SR 1755 (Black Jack-Simpson Road), Pitt County, State Project
No. 8.1221301, Federal Aid Project No. STP-33(1), T.I.P. Project
No. R-2251
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and a copy of the
Natural Resources Technical Report for the subject proposed highway
improvement. It is anticipated this project will be processed with a
"Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the
Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for pre-
paring a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part
of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by June 1, 1995. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely
H. Frank n' ' k, ., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 LT.WA ?
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, ,Secreta ? C"
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornew
From: Eric Galamb?
Subject: EA for NC 33 Widening
Pitt County
State Project DOT No. 8.1221301, TIP # R-2251
EHNR # 95-0807, DEM # 10947
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.31 hectares of waters including wetlands. The
following comments are based on the review of the document:
A) DEM participated in a Scoping meeting on July 14, 1994. DEM informed DOT
that the NWI maps show a large wetland system on the north side of the
existing road and west of the trailer park. The technical memorandum does not
address whether this is a jurisdictional wetland or not. Repeated telephone
calls to the project planning engineer to resolve this question were not
answered.
B) During that same scoping meeting, DEM requested that a 5 lane shoulder
section be studied east of SR 1807. This alternative was not presented in the
document.
C) DOT did not investigate asymmetrical widening to minimize wetland impacts.
Due to the above concerns, DEM does not concur with the EA. DOT should address
these concerns to the satisfaction of DEM in the FONSI. DOT is reminded that
endorsement of an EA or FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Washington COE
Bob Booker, P&E
Monica Swihart
nc33pit.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
•
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernm4nf r. irs
Project Review Form l y¢?
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
.oa
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville it ?Coastal Management ?Water Planning
Water ? Water Resources pEnvironmental Health
El Mooresville Groundwater 41Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh and Quality Engineer 'Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington Recreational Consultant , and Resources El David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
Wilmington ? Others (environmental Management RFGE/?
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart M4
Fib,/RON 08,?SI1
?FNrA4sc/?Nc
F
L
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
10 No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
10 Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
M104
N. ?t?,'. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
F. 62 /olilr,i ? )on- E111/2
: FROM: R
EFF..NO.. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-P&
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?. NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS [!t?10R YOUR INFORMATION
'?. PLEASE ANSWER ?FOR YOUR COMMENTS
?. PR?EPAREREPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE.
/ ? SIGNATURE
Li_{
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

Yp

JUN 1
6 I
W4
!AAA 1c0?GE'?? ?f I

y??o
paw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
,21.
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets
Road to Black Jack Road
T.I.P. No. R-2251, State
No. STP-33(1)
?f L
for NC 33, from River Bluff
(SR 1755), Pitt County,
Project #8.1121301, F. A.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for July 14, 1994 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call 1751W`a?? r, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JK/pl r
l I ' Attach ent
f "l

3 - -
?r
) S 'J
C A`a C111
S
9A t,?
? Se ia?? (c?14kY?d) -h ??st?f r/y?
FT1GYft .C'l'ef
?N
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 6/14/94
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning 1993
Design 1995
TIP # R-2251
Project # 8.1221301
F.A. Project # STP-33(1)
Division 2
County Pitt
Route NC 33
Functional Classification Minor Arterial Collector
Length 3.1 Miles / 5.0 KM
Purpose of Project: Widen the existing two-lane highway to a
five-lane facility to increase traffic
carrying capacity and enhance safety
conditions.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Widen NC 33 from River Bluff Road to Black
Jack Road (SR 1755), Pitt County
Type of environmental document to be prepared: An EA is proposed
for this project followed by a FONSI.
Environmental study schedule: The EA is due for completion
in March of 1995. The FONSI is due to begin May 1995
and scheduled for completion in September 1995.
Type of funding: This project is federaly funded.
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid?
or (%)
Page 1

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: Existing: A two-lane shoulder section
with two foot paved shoulders.
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: NC Route
Interchanges: Grade Separations: none Stream Crossings: 2
Typical Section of Roadway: 22-foot shoulder sectioq,with 4foot S-1
paved shoulders. 1k SS foe(
Traffic: Current Traffic: 6600 ADT Design Year: 17600 ADT Zp(?
% Trucks: 3
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 55 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate: (Five-Lane Shoulder Section)
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,550,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.500.000
TIP Cost Estimate:
\C
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,400,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,000,000 Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,400,000
Page 2

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( X ) COMMENTS - COST
5-lane shoulder section with 4-foot paved shoulders.
X Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_
1,157,100
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . $ 280,350
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . ... . . . . $ 216.300
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $. _620,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x S
New Bridge x $
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge x $
New Culverts: Size Length
Fill Ht.
X Culvert Extension . . . . . $ 83.000
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht.
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any other misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . .$
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
X Erosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 54,000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62,000
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . $
RR signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 55,800
Markers
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . . $
X Other Clearing & Grubbing & Mobilization . $ 640,450
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 3,169,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 481,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: 3,550,000_
X Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
X Existing Right of Way Width: 60 feet
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: w
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Julius Kachmer O" 3 ?, Date: 6/14/1994
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
SHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( X ) , COMMENTS COST
Five-lane, 64-foot face to face curb & gutter section.
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _938 , 100
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 254,450
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . $ 216,300
X Drainage (List any special items) .. . . . . $ 620,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridge x
Widen Bridge x
Remove Bridge x $
New Culverts: Size Length
Fill Ht.
X Culvert Extension . . . . . $ _83,000
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $ 294.624
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. 8
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 54,000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62,000
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 55.800
Markers
Page 5
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . . $
X Other Clearing & Grubbing & Mobilization $ 650,726
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 3,229,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 471,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $ 3.700.000
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
X Existing Right of Way Width: 60 feet
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Julius Kachmer Date: 6/14/1994
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Mgr. Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer-Precons
Design Services Chief Engineer-Oper
Geotechnical Secondary Roads off.
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Roadside Environmental
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Planning & Environ. Statewide Planning
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engineering Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res..
City/Municipality Dept. of EH & NR
Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 6
..4?, go.
?n
Ijy

Bethel 1
8
13 30 s
8
' 7? 8 Stokes
?Falklan
2 E 7 7
3 7 r
`
Fountain Bruce 8 Ouse
' Soddy 121 43 b 1 Pactolus
Z 8 d F. c. u
nv +
1 • ell A fiur
im n N
- Gr esland -
13 P'7 1 T T
II Choca
ountree t Winterville Black Jr
? IO
Ayden II Shelmerdti
e 1 H 10 8
7 Calico
Griffon
0`l PROJECT LIMITS
f
.N FIS
ra
/ 1733
s7 sAS y nsi
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 33
US 264 BYPASS
(RIVER BLUFF ROAD) TO SR 1755
PITT COUNTY
R-2251 t
0 mile 1/2 6
I I Flr I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 22, 1994
AM 2 41994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR 6th Floor WETLANDS GROUP
' WATER UALITY SEC ION
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Pitt County, NC 33, From US 264 Bypass to SR 1755. Widen
existing facility to a multi-lane road near Greenville,
State Project No. 8.1221301, Federal-Aid No. STP-33(1),
T.I.P. No. R-2251
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 33. 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 1999.
The proposed improvement will widen NC 33 to a five lane curb and gutter
section from US 264 Bypass to Oxford Road. From Oxford Road to SR 1755, a
five lane shoulder section is recommended.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please,identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. This document
will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
It is desirable that your agency respond by October 10, 1994 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Bob
Booker, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
NO)
mw?
NORTH CAROLINA
PITT COUNTY
armel,
:j' Bethel'; 1
>. a 30 9 4
Stokes
I/Fa Iklan ?1 11 h l-
? 3 ? 7 ? t
Bruce
§FOUnta?n 3 ouse
•2tl Toddy 121 435 9Pactolus
2 4
'?l ?^.'3+ rlrlnur 1f +
w
'(P 3 I T ,
o
s W'Inizrville I1
oun ee
10 ?
Ayden I Sh,
7 Calico
1 V _ 2
?Grifton
'. ?.t? .:_t....?r?ru`- ' r S:.d:3>^'3`+aSs •"?._ .?,..c..t ` "?.'? _ .,a .>,a ........,..:...W .,..._... m.m....a..'v3+e );:?€?_ '
t
PROJECT LIMIT
/sift
PROJECT LIMIT
01,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF'/'j
_ TRANSPORTATION
u a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Y +?? PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANC11
NC 33
US 264 BYPASS
(RIVER BLUFF ROAD) TO SR 1755
PITT COUNTY
R - 2251
0 feet 3700
FIG. 1

t? ''Peaejjj?
September 27, 1994 1994
NZKQBAN=
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swiha42 Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0139; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 33, TIP R-2251
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
Melba McGee
September 27, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
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.
10728er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

A77
Proposed Widening of NC 33
from 304.8 Meters East of
US 264 Bypass (River Bluff Road)
to SR 1755 (Black Jack Road)
Pitt County
TIP No. R-2251
State Project No. 8.1221301
FAP No. STP 33 (1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BY:
Resource Southeast, Ltd.
4915 Waters Edge Drive, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27606
November 8, 1994
.G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................. 1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
13 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology ................................... 2
1.5 Topography and Soils ............................ 2
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................ 3
2.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................... 3
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community .................. 3
2.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community ............ 4
2.2 Aquatic Communities ............................ 4
23 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............ 4
23.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................... 4
232 Aquatic Communities ....................... 5
3.0 WATER RESOURCES ................................ 6
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics ..................... 6
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .............. 6
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ................................... 7
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues ........ 7
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... 7
4.2 Permits ....................................... 7
43 Mitigation ..................................... 7
4.4 Rare and Protected Species ........................ 7
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species ................... 7
4.4.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ....... 8
4.43 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............... 8
5.0 REFERENCES ...................................... 9
TABLES
Table 1 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial & Aquatic Communities ... 5
Table 2 - Federally Protected Species for. Pitt County .............. 10
Table 3 - Federal Candidate Species and Their State Status ......... 13
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map ................................ 11
Figure 2A - NC 33 Widening ................................ 12
Figure 2B - NC 33 Widenin¢ ................................ 13
APPENDIX A - Photographic Record
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report is submitted for use as a supplement to assist
in preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) document.
1.1 Project Description
posed project involves the, widening of NC 33 from a two
lane undivided facility to a five lane undivided facility with curb and gutter
sections,; or a five lane shoulder section. The 5.0 kilometer (3.1 mile)
project begins approximately 304.8 meters (1000.0 feet) east of US 264
Bypass (River Bluff Road) and ends at SR 1755 (Black Jack Road). NC
33 is proposed to be widened symmetrically from 5.49 meters (18 feet) of
pavement with 030-0.91 meter (13 foot) shoulders to 1951 meters (64.0
feet) face-to-face of pavement for curb and gutter sections, or 1951 meters
(64.0 feet) of pavement with 1.82-2.44 meters (6-8 feet) of grassed
shoulders. The existing 18.29 meters (60 feet) of right-of-way will be
expanded to 3658 meters (120.0 feet).
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. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the
likely consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria
change.
13 Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in Pitt County (Figure 1) in a
low-density agricultural and residential area. The project area has
experienced some urban development near the US 264 Bypass. The
remaining portion of the project includes low-density single family
residences, agricultural and undeveloped land uses. The project site lies
within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Pitt County's major
economic resource is agriculture and industry.
1
1.4 Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Greenville Southeast);
NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:2500); Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
list of protected and candidate species; N.C. Natural Heritage Program's
(NC-NHPs) database of uncommon species and unique habitats; and data
from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management Water Quality
Section, N.C Wildlife Resources Commission, and N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field
investigation-
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project
route by Resource Southeast biologists on September 28-29, 1994. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks,
scats, and burrows).
1.5 Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being gently
sloping to nearly level. One surface water feature, Hardee Creek just
below its confluence with Meeting House Branch Creek was observed
along the project corridor. This portion of Pitt County contains soils from
the Norfolk-Exum-Goldsboro soil association, which are characterized as
being moderately well to well drained soils that have a. subsoil of
dominantly friable sandy clay loam or clay loam on uplands. The area
adjacent to Hardee Creek contains soils from the Bibb Portsmouth
association, which are characterized as being poorly drained and very
poorly drained soils that are underlain by very friable fine sandy loam, or
that have a subsoil of friable sandy loam and sandy clay loam on
floodplains and stream terraces. Elevations within the project corridor
range from approximately meters (6.0 feet) near the project's beginning at
US 264 Bypass to approximately meters (14.0 feet) near the project's
terminus at SR 1755. The project area is located on a low terrace above
the Tar River to the north. The project study area has experienced mostly
agricultural and low-density single family residences with some
undeveloped land uses.
2
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer-to
the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationship of
these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names
(when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only.
2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and Mixed Hardwood Forest are the two terrestrial
communities found in the project study area. Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each
community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of
habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned
separately in each community description.
2AA Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulders, utility line
easements, residential lawn habitats and agricultural fields. Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas.
Regularly maintained areas are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp), ryegrass
(Lolium sp), white clover (Tnfolium repens), red clover (TnfoUum pratense),
plantain (Plantago rugelii), wild onion (AUium sp) and dandelion
(Tarazacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are dominated by
those species previously listed as well as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), common morning glory (Jpomoea purpuma), dog fennel
(Anthemis sp), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp), and wild blackberry (Rubes sp).
Agricultural plant species within the project corridor include corn (Zea
mays) and soybeans (%vine maz).
The animal species present in these habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation
(flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal
components. Virginia opossum (Didelphis vaginiana), gray squirrel (Schow
cwvUnensis), red-wing blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Eastern meadowlark
(SturneUa magna), bluebird (Skdia slabs), starlings (Stumidae), vultures
(Cathartidae), and red-tail hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) are often attracted to
roadside and agricultural habitats. Many faunal species, such as the
Virginia opossum, which migrate across heavily traveled roadways become
vehicular fatalities and forage items for other animals, such as the turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura).
3
2.12 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs in small fragmented areas along the
project corridor. Gently sloping to nearly flat topography in these areas
supports a variety of mixed hardwoods including white oak (Quemus alba),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Ater mbrum), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), and Eastern red cedar (Juniperus iftiniana). The
herbaceous layer includes such species as Japanese honeysuckle, wild
blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifoUd), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Tadcodendron radicans), bedstraw
(Galium sp ), beauty berry (CaUkarpa americans), and muscadine grape
(Vids rotundifolia). Animals previously listed may also be found in this
community.
Small mammals such as the gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotorj and field
mice may take advantage of food and protective resources offered in this
habitat.
22 Aquatic Communities
The majority of the aquatic community in the study area, including
jurisdictional bottomland hardwood forest wetlands, exists within Hardee
Creek just downstream of its merger with Meeting House Branch Creek.
Hardee Creek is a perennial tributary of the Tar River, which is located
approximately 0.80 km (0S miles) downstream of the project crossing of
Hardee Creek. In addition, two steeply sloped man-made drainage ditches
begin on the north side of NC 33 within the project area and are directed
downgradient toward the Tar River.
The banks of Hardee Creek are gently sloped and vegetated with
Eastern sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and sweet gum (Liquidamber
styraciflua) in the upland, and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and black
willow (Salix nigra) toward and within the water. Aquatic vegetation along
and within the stream itself includes jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), water
milfoil (MyriophyUum sp) and duck potato (Sagittaria kuVolia). Animals
such as the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), spring peeper (Hyla cruciferj, black
swamp snake (Semina&& pygaea), and salamanders likely reside along the
water's edge. Hardee Creek is a moderately flowing sandy?bottomed
blackwater stream. A variety of macroinvertebrates occur on and within
the substrate as well as on the aquatic vegetation within the stream bed.
The dominant macroinvertebrates observed within the stream include
caddisfly larvae (Hydropsyche sp. and Chematopsyche sp.), oligochaetes,
freshwater limpets (Ferrissra sp ), freshwater clams (Corbicula sp.), and
4
amphipods (Gammarus sp ). It is likely that dragonfly, mayfly and
chironomid larvae are also present in the macroinvertebrate community.
Fish species expected to inhabit Hardee Creek include sculpin (Cottus
spp), shiner (Notropus spp), bream (Lepomis spp), darters (Etheostomd
spp), mosquitofish (Gambusia spp) and american eel (Anguilla rostrata).
23 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However,
impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting
gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to understand that
construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs. Efforts should be made to ensure that no
sediment leaves the construction site.
23.1 Terrestrial Communities
Natural communities occur within the project area, and those
communities have been fragmented and reduced due to past and present
agricultural activity. The man-dominated community will receive the
greatest impact from project construction, resulting in the loss of existing
habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
NC 33 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Widening Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Community Community (including
wetlands)
Impacts 7.71 (19.05) 0.58(l.43) 032 (0.79) 8.61 (21-27)JI
NOTES:
* Impacts are based on 36.58 meters (120 feet) of Right-of-
Way limits.
* Actual construction impacts may be less than those
indicated above.
* Values given are in hectares (acres).
E
232 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area, including bottomland
hardwood forested wetlands, exists within and adjacent to Hardee Creek
and two man-made ditches. The replacement or extension of the existing
culverts conveying these waterbodies under NC 33 will result in 032
hectares (0.79 acres) of impact to aquatic communities. Of this 032
hectares (0.79 acres), 031 hectares (0.76 acres) of bottomland hardwood
forested wetlands will be impacted and 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of natural
stream bottom will be impacted However, a natural substrate will
accumulate in the culvert bottoms with time. Construction of the project is
likely to temporarily increase sediment loads to Hardee Creek.
Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of
invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less
mobile organisms such as many of the filter feeders may be covered by this
sedimentation, preventing their feeding. Increased sediment loads and
suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced
depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of dissolved
oxygen, and alterations in water temperature. However, potential adverse
effects can be minimized through the utilization of erosion and sediment
control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment
Control Program.
6
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to
major water systems. The proposed project lies along a low terrace above
the Tar River to the north.
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Water resource discussions include waterbody classification, location of
high quality waters, and licensed dischargers. Hardee Creek flows
northward through the project area to its confluence with the Tar River
approximately 0.80 km (0.5 miles) downstream. The creek has a variable
width of approximately 7.62 meters (25 feet) to 9.14 meters (30 feet), with
a depth ranging from 030 meters (1 foot) just above its crossing under NC
33 to 1.22 meters (4 feet) just downstream of the crossing. Stream bank
vegetation includes sycamore, bald cypress, sweet gum, black willow,
jewelweed, and various grasses. Vegetation within the stream channel itself
includes duck potato and water milfoil. Hardee Creek has a Class C
Nutrient Sensitive Waters rating from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating that the creek is
suitable for fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading or other uses
requiring waters of lower quality, and that the creek contains nutrient
sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The NC Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) does
not have a sampling station located on Hardee Creek. However, according
to information supplied by the NC Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, similar creeks in Pitt County contain a variety of
trichopteran, odonate, ephermeropteran, and chironomid larvae as well as
a variety of molluscan fauna. Cursory sampling done at the time of the site
visit revealed fauna indicative of good water quality conditions, including
Hydropsyche sp. and Chematopsyche sp. (caddisfly larvae), Ferrissia sp.
(freshwater limpet), and Corbicula sp. (freshwater clam).
The NC DEM Water Quality Division does not maintain a fish
sampling station on Hardee Creek at NC 33. However, they did collect
fisheries data at the mouth of Hardee Creek and the Tar River in
September 1987, and found American eel (Anguilla rostra), bream (Lepomis
macrochirus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), chain pickerel (Esox nigra), bowfin
(Amia calva), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has 1968 survey information on Hardee Creek.
They indicate that the creek is a good fishing area and have documented
occurrences of catfish (ktalurus sp), bream (Lepomis macrochirus), redfin
7
pickerel (Esox amencanus americanus), and warmouth (Lepomis gulosus).
According to the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF), Hardee
Creek near its entry into the Tar River serves as an anadromous spawning
and nursery area for river herring.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 are
located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project area According to the
NCWRC, no Proposed Critical Areas exist within the project corridor. No
permanent impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place
as a result of the project construction.
32 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result
from sedimentation and turbidity associated with project construction.
Permanent impacts to the streambed will result at the crossing of Hardee
Creek and the two man-made ditches under NC 33 due to the replacement
or extension of the existing culverts. Sedimentation and erosion control
measures (Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines)
should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of this project.
Grass berms along construction areas help decrease erosion and allow
potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and particulate rubber to
be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways. Poorly
managed application of sedimentation control policies will result in serious
damage to the aquatic environment.
Due to Hardee Creek's function as an anadromous fish spawning
and nursery area, a time-of-year restriction on in-stream construction
activities should be observed from February through May.
8
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Watt, of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 3283 and in
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
Bottomland hardwood forest wetlands associated with Hardee Creek
will be impacted by the proposed project. Based upon a review of USGS
topographic maps of the project area, it appears that these wetlands would
not be considered above-the-headwaters wetlands. Approximately 031
hectares (0.76 acres) of unavoidable wetland impacts will occur due to the
widening of NC 33. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project
impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and project construction cannot be
accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Approximately 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of surface water impacts will
occur due to the widening of NC 33.
4.2 Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031 and/or Nationwide Permit Nos. 14 and/or 33,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Also, Section 401
of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification
for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE
permits. General Permit No. 198200031 and Nationwide Permit Nos. 14
and 33 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
Additionally, if actual construction impacts to waters of the United States,
including jurisdictional bottomland hardwood forested wetlands, exceeds
0.13 hectares (033 acres), Nationwide Permit No. 14 will not apply to the
project.
9
43 Mitigation
Mitigation for wetland impacts may be necessary if the project is
authorized under a general permit or if wetland impacts exceed the impact
criteria for the nationwide permits. Mitigation for impacts to surface
waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
4A Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or due to their inability to
coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Pitt County, and
any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification 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.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two
federally protected species for Pitt County as of September 15, 1994.
These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR PITT COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Elliptio steinstansana tar spinymussel E?
NOTES:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
No specimen of this species has been found in Pitt
County in at least twenty years.
10
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare,
Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnet,
Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones,
Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash,
New Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow,
Orange, Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans,
Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson,
Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has a black and white cross-barred
back, black head and neck, and white cheeks. The small red cockades on
each side of the head are present in males but absent in females. The
overall length of the red-cockaded woodpecker is 220 millimeters (9
inches) on average and wing span approximately 122 millimeters (5 inches).
The white eggs are laid from mid-April to early-June, in a clutch of two to
five, and are incubated for approximately 10 days by both the male and
female.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is found in open stands of mature
long-leaf pine (Pinus pahatris), slash pine (Pinus elliotu), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) or shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) with sparse hardwood
subcanopies. Most red-cockaded woodpeckers maintain year-round
territories near their nesting trees. The woodpeckers drill small holes in
the bark of the pine tree's trunk, and the exuding resin is believed to repel
predators.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the red-cockaded
woodpecker as the project area does not contain mature stands of the
previously listed pine species. It can be concluded that the subject project
will not impact this Endangered species.
Elliptto steinstansana (tar spinymussel) . E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed:
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash,
Pitt, Warren.
11
One of several freshwater bivalved mollusks, often called naiads, the
tar spinymussel contains two valves (or shells) joined together at the dorsal
surface by a hinge ligament with two strong internal muscles. Two sets of
hinge teeth on the inner dorsal surface keep the valves in juxtaposition.
Adults are characterized by a dark brown epidermis with prominent growth
rings and beaks typically eroded. Morphologically similar to marine
mussels and clams, reproduction in naiads is quite different, Naiad females
exude eggs through the oviducts then move them to the water tubes of the
gills, which become modified as gill pouches or marsupia. Sperm shed by
the males are drawn into the marsupia by ciliary action, and the fertilized
eggs develop into a unique larval form, called glochidia. The larvae is then
discharged into the water with a mucous secretion. The tar spinymussel is
a lotic species that occurs in runs with moderate current and sand, gravel,
and cobble substrates. The presence of the Asian clam (Corbicula sp) in
native mussel habitats is being studied as a possible factor in the reduction
of native mussels, including the tar spinymussel.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the tar spinymussel
as the stream in the project area contains a silty sand bottom with low to
moderate current and a competitor species, the Asian clam (Corbkwk sp ),
was observed in Hardee Creek. It can be concluded that the subject project
will not impact this Endangered species.
4A.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Table 3 includes 3 federal candidate species
listed for Pitt County and their state classifications. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are insufficient data to warrant a listing
of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened at this time. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Candidate (C) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
12
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES AND THEIR STATE STATUS
PITT COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Federal/State Present
Ammodmnw henslowii C2/SR No
(Henslow's sparrow)
Fusconaia nUMM' C2/T No
(atlantic pigtoe mussel)
Procambarus medialis C2/UNK No
(Albemarle crayfish)
NOTES:
* Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
* Species notated with "*" indicate no specimen from
Pitt County has been found in at least 20 years.
* T denotes Threatened species, which are afforded
protection by state laws.
* SR denotes Significantly Rare species, which are not
afforded protection by state laws.
* UNK denotes a species status is Undetermined.
4.43 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any candidate species
known to occur in Pitt County. Also, the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for rare species or
habitats in the project area.
13
5.0 REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals.
Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and
Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.. Houghton
Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds.
Agronomy Publications, River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North
America. Chanticleer Press, New York, New York.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (July 1994 update). Natural Heritage Program
List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and
Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North, Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, CS., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field
Identification of Birds of North America. Western Publishing,
Racine, Wisconsin.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural
Resources. 1993. Classification and Water Quality Standard.
NCAC:I5A NCAC2B.0306.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf
Publishing, New York, New York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1974.
General Soils Map of Pitt County, North Carolina. North Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.
14
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and
Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red
Book). Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (September 1994 update). Natural Heritage Program
List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Mammals. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New
York.
15
FIGURES
IRES0URCE
Q- INTERNATIONAL. LTD.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS
? ?s c? nxrvL? o P. o. soz ereo a vr, zaoee
t 904) 660-9200 0 £AZ /B04) 66?y?p
PROJECT LIMITS
Y'A
D
III
mow'
C
i Ub
•.p?•' d iI.N ..
"'' PROJECT UhiITS
N y ..s
41 .4 Ifs
.16 ML
u`
k = LAKE
:'Y? sTsa w uu GLENWOOD o
Iii .:??!! .I• J p) .7f
m o. = ??? ' d 1ruZ
o? uQ.3 \ r lm 1...
Mal ®R
I..s .i. a Ism
. I.w ^ !1
y_ . -- oa is ,o°i ,mod' a As
i
% o, v ,' •ea ai ••, of 4' = d 11.11.
W! oy b li>!L -
!>t r+:. o UKLN! sg III
i o .17
,
NCDOT HIGHWAY NAP
SCALE: 1' = 2640'
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF PITT COUNTY
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FIGURE 1 ' RmoOURCE
SITE LOCATION MAP TIP #R-2251 INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
NC 33 ROAD WIDENING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS
US 264 BYPASS TO SR 1755 pa WX MW o MU tears csas =V 0 ASM&M VA 23008
(804) 330-Q= 0 ?Ar (804) W-8238
PITT COUNTY, N.C.
r.N.Vg4JZ .UJ
H:\94028.05\9402805.PRO

D
-n I
v

0
x ?
H

D
m
m c?
Sn-u xmm m
U) -AMomxx Z
C7 7]O--qHH 0
D mvr- cncn
r Don-i-4
m 3SnzHH
mOzz
O LO G7 G7
M)
0 Z] 0
0 n mn
0 m 0
ih. r
O D H
O r z
H m
G7
z
m
m
z
r r

s
1

11L
rJ
MATCHLINE
VA 0-0-
\ SEE FIGURE 2B)
Z
-o C7
b H
-? w
M
mQ
H
71
O o m
0 0 C
T) D
0 C
:D

a e l y I lJ
0 H 1 V
M
z
tj r? z

t?

S? ? ?
`i33NS SI ? ?3
3NI?H? 1?lW

US 264A
Z
w
w
?r
?---=? asp
Ir)
w
co
m
H
z
m
O
C-
m
n
od e x?
S LIWI
OXFORD ROAO (SR 1807)

0
?o
00
nI-
C: m
r-
< Q7
mx
:v i.
-+ o
NA TCHIL INE
? (5Ec THIS SHEEr) v??1
m-\QdnaR_ns\9dn?Ro5_PRn
H
D
O
X
H
3
D
--I
m
U)
n
D
r
m
n
O
O

I
m
G)
?3mm m
a)>XX Z
0ZHH 0
u I cn(n
O m -+ --I
U)DHH
mOzz
0MG)G)
310--AS)
0"1]0
D -imD
o c)m0
= r-
D H
r z
m
G)
z
3
m
z
I
(BILL 8S)
0108 '33081"
AORTAArOly
(SH I)26J gpg0
9
?SFF?l ?cy?l
cG ti
F
9F ?qJ
z
n
w z
w
O
m
O
H
C7
-?.., d ? op0M0NLN8d ?
0
z
? n
b H
H 71
o 00
z zT3 0?
?R):Ern
Z r pi Hpi
0 0 O
CA m
Z
z MATCHLINE
f / VA VA
(SEE THIS SHEET)
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS
RESOURCE
INTERNATIONAL. LTD.
IMMONW NTAL CONSULTAM & DESIGNERS
M" m ?? . Aft = ? • 1dM B aeaoe
(wo gyros . mr (goy err

PLATE 2 - FACING SOUTHWEST; APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT
TERMINUS.
PLATE I - FACING WEST; APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT
BEGINNING.
PLATE 3 - FACING NORTH; BOX CULVERT CONVEYING HARDEE CREEK
UNDER NC33.
PLATE 4 - FACING SOUTH; OVERVIEW OF BOTTOM LAND HARDWOOD
FORESTED WETLANDS.